Any galsout there? (The thread that won't die)

Hang out, sip some ice tea, and shoot the breeze with TR regulars.

Moderators: emkubed, Captain Ned

Postposted on Sat Mar 16, 2002 10:50 pm

Of course I'm a registered Democrat! You have to register to be able to vote. :wink:
You are false data.
Speed
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Chicago, IL USA

Postposted on Sat Mar 16, 2002 10:51 pm

If you are a female and read the first post in this thread, I think a simple "yes" would have answered the guy's question. There's no need for argument here.

Well, at least you didn't tell me to take my shoes off and get back in the kitchen. I suppose I'm expected to be grateful for small favors, hmmmm? (The sarcasm here is intentional, for those who are curious; I've effectively been told to shut up.)

Tesserae, the gist of your latest post (and please correct me if I'm reading this incorrectly) seems to be that people should never say (or do, presumably) anything that could potentially offend someone else, since they have no way of knowing what other people would consider offensive.

You're reading it a bit too strictly, I think; my statement was that intentionally derisive and deprecatory behavior is not just "no more and no less than boorish" - it is likely to actively hurt people, even if that's not expected (imagine: behaving intentionally in a knowingly hurtful way and not expecting to hurt someone!). If you don't mind hurting people, then be my guest; bash away like a bull in a china shop. Just don't be surprised when you receive the bill for damages.

But remember, it's difficult to argue that no harm is intended when you've already admitted that taunting is intended to be offensive and degrading, and is deliberately used to get under your opponent's skin (those are all words taken directly from posts by lenzenm, St. Babu and Princess Die; I'm not making this up!). So you want to be intentionally offensive and degrading, and to get under their skin - and yet not <i>actually</i> hurt them? My, what precision control! Were that <i>I</i> had such command of the English language and deep insight into peoples' inner responses!

So...now we've gone from LAN gamers saying "I oWN J00, Bitch!" after laying the smack down to Fathers having sex with their Daughters?!? And the linking-thread is Talking Smack?!?

Princess Die, I see you're still willing to deliberately misunderstand the argument in order to create straw men. It's a bit transparent, though - maybe if you were a bit more subtle? I in no way compared gamer "smack talk" to sexual abuse, and I'm sure you're fully aware of that; your reading comprehension is just fine when you want it to be. Hysterics do not enhance your argument, you know.

If your contention is that I shouldn't ever say "bitch" because (amongst other things) it brings back traumatic rape-memories, could you not also argue that I should never say "Gotcha!" because someone may have memories of being kidnapped by sex trafficers and when they did, they yelled "Gotcha" as they grabbed him / her?

This is even farther than Princess Die goes - you deliberately use racist, sexist and otherwise derogatory terms against your fellow gamers, for the admitted purpose of causing emotional reactions to further your game (apart from merely enhancing your victory dance on their bones), and you want to make this out to be the equivalent of saying "gotcha?"

One more time: it is difficult for me to understand how anyone can insist that this is harmless, acceptable behavior which hurts no one, particularly since you apply this behavior indiscriminately against your opponents with no way of knowing what their reaction will be.

technophile, I see you're still ignoring the usage of "chick" in the post in question; I could have ignored "gal" more easily if it weren't immediately followed by a term well-known to be offensive to many women. Context is indeed important!
Tesserae
Gerbil
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2002 7:00 pm

Postposted on Sat Mar 16, 2002 11:20 pm

Some questions for you, Tesserae:

1. Are you telling these gamers what to do? In other words, are you making demands, or are you only being informative?

2. Do you object to the words themselves, as in "I don't like swear words", or is it more about what the words connote? Or something else?

3. What, in your opinion, is the purpose of playing games?
You are false data.
Speed
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Chicago, IL USA

Postposted on Sun Mar 17, 2002 12:22 am

Thanks for asking, Speed.

1. No, I'm not telling them what to do. I'm acting as a mirror, to reflect their image back at them; and I'm also describing to them how they are perceived by others (not everyone - I wouldn't dream of speaking for everyone; but my impressions are common enough, and are based on descriptions from people I know).

2. I have no problem with swear words; George Carlin's ever-growing list of "Words you can't say on TV" cracks me up every time I hear it. But those words, applied as labels with the intention of damaging someone, are a slightly different matter. Further: some words are widely understood to be unacceptably racist, sexist or otherwise derogatory for use as epithets; their application has historically been excessively abusive (I'm speaking of ethnic slurs, for instance). I frown upon use of those words, and avoid them (as epithets) myself; I won't try to prevent someone from using them, but neither will I suggest by silence that they aren't offending me (if they then want to continue using them in front of me, they risk being considered boorish - at least - by any and all observers). On the other hand, I'm not one of those who would banish "Huck Finn" from the library because of the name "Nigger Jim" - even though I won't use the epithet against a person.

3. That depends very much on the game and the player, but I think "having fun" is usually a purpose, and for many people "winning" is a powerful reason. Note, however, that winning is often-enough abused that there are many rules which have evolved to keep fairness a part of the game, and by no means is "anything goes" allowed in most games; I'm not aware of anyone restricting the "fun" part, though. Sadly, I think for some people the dominance of others is the reason for playing: their self-image is enhanced through the derogation of others, rather than simply by their own skill or good play.
Tesserae
Gerbil
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2002 7:00 pm

Postposted on Sun Mar 17, 2002 1:31 am

<i>"1. No, I'm not telling them what to do. I'm acting as a mirror, to reflect their image back at them; and I'm also describing to them how they are perceived by others (not everyone - I wouldn't dream of speaking for everyone; but my impressions are common enough, and are based on descriptions from people I know). "</I>

I say that you should internalize this part of what you just said: "I wouldn't dream of speaking for everyone".
The "mirror" you presumptuously claim to hold up is in fact tinted glass colored by your own sensitivities; which quite poorly refects the differently tinted sensitivities of <I>others</I>.

I just lost a long post ( I know, you're heartbroken :wink: ) On this very point. I say that you're simply mistaken to take your measure and mete it out upon the rest of us.

"but my impressions are common enough"

So you claim. My experience, with those in circles I frequent is diametrically opposed to that of yours. Who are you to gainsay me in that? :smile:

Re: your previous reply to me about deliberately misunderstanding and straw-manning you.

No, I wasn't misapprehending you, I was just remarking at a high level about the play and escalation of terms, from smack-talk to incest. I was quite amused actually.

Despite the vaguely condescending references to "getting it", I do "get" your argument, I understand it and appreciate it completely.

I simply <B>reject</B> it completely. Do you understand that? Along with grasping that doing so does not make me a "bad person" :wink:

As far as straw-men go. IMHO, given that your argument is heavily based in subjectivism and emotionalism, whose fatal flaw is attempting to apply it as a universal, it doesn't need much of an outside push to collapse.

You seem to be incapable of apprehending that what you may consider vicious, others may consider good sport, and in doing so, does not confer upon you the right to look down your moral nose at them.

The difference is the audience of course. You for your part hit it on the head in that you said you wouldn't suffer such things in silence. I agree wholeheartedly with you on this, if you are offended it is your right, no your responsibility to make an offender aware that they have offended you. If you do not, then you are complicit.

If the offender does not oblige, then they are a callous bore, and you should act appropriately. If you are at a LAN party for instance, "appropriately" may mean you should immediately call the police, fire department, respective NAACP/NOW/GLAAD chapter and have the offender forced into "sensitivity" re-education :wink:

It may also mean you kindly tell them to STFU, offer to "discuss" what they said... outside, go home, or even ignore them.


<font size=-1<[Spelling, Punctuation, Grammar]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Princess Die on 2002-03-17 00:50 ]</font>
Princess Die
Gerbil XP
 
Posts: 389
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Postposted on Sun Mar 17, 2002 1:36 am

You're reading it a bit too strictly, I think; my statement was that intentionally derisive and deprecatory behavior is not just "no more and no less than boorish" - it is likely to actively hurt people, even if that's not expected (imagine: behaving intentionally in a knowingly hurtful way and not expecting to hurt someone!). If you don't mind hurting people, then be my guest; bash away like a bull in a china shop. Just don't be surprised when you receive the bill for damages.


I'll concede that I (purposefully) took your statements a bit further than you probably intended.

There's a reason for that: you're taking this too seriously. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that anyone who is hurt by such insults (to be specific: verbal abuse hurled by other players in a game) is taking his/her games (and the players in them) too seriously. While I can understand that there are people who may not be capable of making that game/real-life distinction, I suggest that this is not the fault of the people doing the taunting.

Do people act differently when they're playing a game than when they're out interacting with other people (face to face, as it were)? Of course they do. To a certain extent, in-game personas are a (sometimes crude) form of roleplaying (even beyond the actual premise of the game), and not necessarily a reflection of the actual manner and personality of the player away from the game.

Consider: you're saying that players shouldn't verbally abuse each other. Fine. Should they, then, avoid killing each other in a game of Quake 3? Acceptable behavior within a game is not the same as acceptable behavior outside of it. Just as I wouldn't go out and randomly kill people on the street, I also would not spout obscenities at everybody I met.

Again, I think you're taking how people act in a game entirely too seriously.

But remember, it's difficult to argue that no harm is intended when you've already admitted that taunting is intended to be offensive and degrading, and is deliberately used to get under your opponent's skin (those are all words taken directly from posts by lenzenm, St. Babu and Princess Die; I'm not making this up!). So you want to be intentionally offensive and degrading, and to get under their skin - and yet not <i>actually</i> hurt them? My, what precision control! Were that <i>I</i> had such command of the English language and deep insight into peoples' inner responses!


I imagine that the posters you've mentioned would generally not take such comments seriously--they may be annoyed with the person taunting them, but they probably aren't going to hold a grudge against someone for something they've said during the course of a game.

There are certainly people who are overly abusive; if someone spends all of their time in a game spewing insults at the other players, however, they're likely to be kicked/banned/etc., if only because they're annoying. This, I think, is different from the sort of 'smack talk' that some people are supporting, but I'm still not sure I could see their abuse as being anything other than annoying.

It could be that I'm too thick-skinned to judge this sort of thing, however.


Derek Andersen



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Derek Andersen on 2002-03-17 00:48 ]</font>
Derek Andersen
Gerbil
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2002 7:00 pm

Postposted on Sun Mar 17, 2002 2:18 am

Tesserae, thanks for your reply. Your first answer should put to rest the insinuations that you're some kind of political correctness nazi. Based on the number of <i>ad hominem</i> attacks that you've gotten in return, I suspect that your audience doesn't want to look into that mirror. You can lead a horse to water etc. If they're not willing to accomodate you, what's left to do?

I'm not a gamer, but I do have experience with people who like to have their fun by denying others theirs. The word "bully" comes to mind. I don't care for bullies.

I don't know what to say that I haven't already said before. Pick your friends wisely, and don't feel obligated to play by bullies' rules. :smile:
You are false data.
Speed
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Chicago, IL USA

Postposted on Sun Mar 17, 2002 2:23 am

Is it my imagination, or are the same people who are complaining that Tesserae is being too thin-skinned actually being awfully thin-skinned themselves? Hmmm...

Turn-about is fair play, fellas!
You are false data.
Speed
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Chicago, IL USA

Postposted on Sun Mar 17, 2002 2:28 am

In the midst of all this emotional furor, I'd like to make a small point, then ask a question.

The point: Damage doesn't allow extreme personal attacks or foul language in the comments on his website. This hasn't, as far as I know anyway, caused any sort of an uproar; people have just accepted the fact that such verbal displays are offensive to him, and accepted the limitations on their behavior without comment.

The question: why is it acceptable for Damage to hold such an opinion, but not Tesserae?
TwoFer
Gerbil First Class
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm

Postposted on Sun Mar 17, 2002 2:34 am

Right on TwoFer. My thoughts exactly!
There is no Spune!
Spune
Gerbil XP
 
Posts: 399
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Middle of nowhere AB Canada

Postposted on Sun Mar 17, 2002 2:43 am

Cuz Damage 0wNz j00!
You are false data.
Speed
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Chicago, IL USA

Postposted on Sun Mar 17, 2002 3:16 am

Speed:

When is the last time you checked a dictionary to see what "ad hominem" really means?

When you do, tell me how attempting to make one's case for disagreement constitutes one?

Unless maybe you consider dissention itself is unfair and an attack...I get it...we are simply not allowed to legitimately disagree are we??? Oh jeeze, and I thought this was a debate, I'm sorry! :smile:

I for one, haven't said Tesserae is thin-skinned. The essense of my point is that she is wrong to take something context-depended like this and seek to apply is universally.

What is getting under my skin, is the tedious self-righteousness of the self-appointed arbiters of propriety who feel self-empowered to ascribe diminished mental/moral capacity to those whose opinion differs from theirs... Theme here?

"You can lead a horse to water etc."

Oh, I see...you are obviously in-possession of some higher-truth(TM) here that the rest of us cannot/willnot partake of...Nice how you arrogate yourself the 'correct' position while a priori excluding the possibility of genuine dissent.

"If they're not willing to accomodate you, what's left to do?"

This is bull. How have we <B>not</B> "accomodated" Tesserae??? Please, tell me, benighted minds want to know, keeper of the sacred horse-water :grin:

I for one, have read everything she has written, have considered her points and arguments, and have found that I just don't agree with them. Maybe it is you, Speed, who is the proverbial Horse-who-won't-drink! :smile:

How many ways can it be said: "I understand you, but I profoundly disagree" ?!?

Speaking of Horses...this one has quickly become the quite-dead-one-to-beat. :sad:

TwoFer:

<B>Now</B> who's trolling? :smile:

You certainly understand that you are floating a paradox of false contradiction.

There certainly is a difference in context between LAN party prattle, and posting on a private message board.

For one, the moderator has a priori defined the standards of behavior. Damage simply saying what is acceptable in THIS context. That's no different than the host of a LAN party setting the ground rules for behavior at his or her party. Both are perfectly acceptable.

Two: By her her own admission, Tesserae isn't really making an argument ( vis a vis her several "Mirror" analogies ), she is attempting to show others how she views their behaviors in certain special contexts quite poorly, and trying extend her view to a blanket view. Add in a liberal dose of condescension and I think the brew is near done: a convoluted path to taunting others who don't agree with you. Yes, I did say "taunting" didn't I? :wink: Hmmm, this isn't a spirited game of Unreal Tournament among close friends, and it sure doesn't feel good-natured...which leads me to my third point...

Three: So...I say that I have no problem with certain behaviors like profanity in certain contexts. So now I lose any right to be offended by certain behaviors like profanity in <B>all contexts</B>???

Not that I consider being on the "business-end" of someone else's self-righteousness as much more than a minor annoyance...however that is why I choose to express my disagreement with it thusly:

No way, man! :smile:


<

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Princess Die on 2002-03-17 02:28 ]</font>
Princess Die
Gerbil XP
 
Posts: 389
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Postposted on Sun Mar 17, 2002 3:30 am

Speed-

I don't know--I'm trying to avoid too much of an emotional attachment (or righteous indignation, take your pick) to this particular thread. Hopefully I haven't come off as too much of a jerk. :smile: I'd like to think I'm playing Devil's advocate, but I'm probably deluding myself.

Certainly a lot of the responses to Tesserae's comments haven't handled criticism well, but I think it's been pretty well established that neither side is going to suddenly come around and thank the other for showing them the One True Way. The personal attacks may be just a symptom of this, but they still aren't really called for.


TwoFer-

Well, it is his site. It's not like we have rights to Free Speech here. :smile:

Really, I would have trouble taking a technical site seriously if the comments were full of personal attacks and all-caps swearing; the readers who stick around do reflect on the site itself, and people who are interested and/or actually have something to say are likely to stay even if they have to curtail their language.

There is, however, a difference between someone defining the environment on their own site and someone trying to describe universal rules for behavior (or at least implying that there should be such rules); I don't mind that Damage prefers 'clean' language on his site, but I would object to, say, something like the Communications Decency Act.


I think there are some interesting issues here, but I doubt that most of them will be really well addressed (I'm not so naive as to think that anything could be resolved in a forum), which is unfortunate.


Derek Andersen


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Derek Andersen on 2002-03-17 02:32 ]</font>
Derek Andersen
Gerbil
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2002 7:00 pm

Postposted on Sun Mar 17, 2002 3:37 am

You mean like this:

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:

Ad hominem Ad hom"i*nem [L., to the man.]
A phrase applied to an appeal or argument addressed to the principles, interests, or passions of a man.

Believe me, the gender reference is coincidental, LOL.

Princess Die, methinks thou protesteth in excess.

You claim to know what's going on inside our minds ("...the tedious self-righteousness of the self-appointed arbiters of propriety who feel self-empowered..."), but in reality you only speak for yourself. Don't quit your day job, for I don't see a future for you as a mind reader.

Perhaps if you cleaned up your own yard before complaining about your neighbor's...
You are false data.
Speed
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Chicago, IL USA

Postposted on Sun Mar 17, 2002 3:43 am

Princess Die: while you deny that my perceptions are widely held, I must comment that gaming <i>in toto</i> (and particularly first-person shooters) is at increasing risk every year of being thoroughly controlled/censored and even banned in some precincts; I have no desire to ban the game (nor, despite your obvious conviction, to control your actions while playing it), and I think the impetus for control comes from those with even stronger views (and more muscle) than I. No doubt your crowd feels the way you do, but that speaks much more to your choice of companions than to the citizenry at large.

No, I wasn't misapprehending you, I was just remarking at a high level about the play and escalation of terms, from smack-talk to incest. I was quite amused actually.

Do I discern that your position is that you have no responsibility for, nor indeed any regard for, your fellow man? Do you address the handicapped "Hey, crip!", the woman on the street "Yo, bitch!" and the black "Say, nigga!"? I don't think so - yet you seem to feel that as long as you don't have any trivially easy way of perceiving someone's sensitivity, you're free to abuse them (when you feel like it) until they cry for help.

I simply reject it completely. Do you understand that? Along with grasping that doing so does not make me a "bad person"

I've understood that all along; that's why I'd label you not as a bad person, but unfortunately imperceptive and callous, not evil <i>per se</i> but tragically flawed on a human level. But that's based not on truly being acquainted with you, but instead being limited to the frothing defenses you put forth here - so I may be wrong, and I'll try not to hold it against you. <--(I'd put a winkey-face here, but I detest them; you may apply one in your imagination, however.)

You seem to be incapable of apprehending that what you may consider vicious, others may consider good sport

Why does this remind me strongly of some alien characters in Iain M. Banks' novel <i>The Excession</i>, those known as "The Affront?" They liked the taste of adrenaline in their meat, so they bred their quarry to be terrified of them; they bred their females to experience severe pain with sex because it was "character-forming;" they also played a game like raquetball with live "birdies." But hey, there's nothing wrong with that - it's just good sport, right?

No, I'm not incapable of apprehending that you consider it good sport; that's actually part of what makes it so sad, in fact - and why I used the term "callous" earlier.

If you are at a LAN party for instance, "appropriately" may mean you should immediately call the police, fire department, respective NAACP/NOW/GLAAD chapter and have the offender forced into "sensitivity" re-education

My, my - all this from my simple statement that women might be scarce here because of the juvenile posturing associated with some gamers. I might have been wrong - it might be the extreme lack of humor and appreciation of scale that puts them off, however. Or both. <--(You know what would go here, etc.)

It may also mean you kindly tell them to STFU, offer to "discuss" what they said

An interesting proposal, considering that's basically what I did here (without the "STFU," of course) - and look where that has led: a new target for your verbal railgun.

Does anyone wonder, any more, why there aren't more women around here?

Consider: you're saying that players shouldn't verbally abuse each other. Fine. Should they, then, avoid killing each other in a game of Quake 3?

The distinction you fail to make is that you're <i>not</i> killing the opponent in the game - you're killing an onscreen atavar. Whereas the person you are insulting and verbally abusing is in fact the human person of your opponent. The distinction is critical, is it not?

Again, I think you're taking how people act <i>in a game</i> entirely too seriously.

<i>Who</i> is taking this so seriously? I'm not - sometimes I have to stop typing until the laughter subsides. This whole thread arose because I had the audacity to suggest that some women might be put off by gamer chest-thumping behavior, and most everyone is piling on to convince me of my grevous error (but for those who actually <i>get it</i>, that is).

It could be that I'm too thick-skinned to judge this sort of thing, however.

Ah. That might be worth your time to ponder further. <--(more etc. here)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tesserae on 2002-03-17 02:44 ]</font>
Tesserae
Gerbil
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2002 7:00 pm

Postposted on Sun Mar 17, 2002 3:48 am

OMG, this is getting funnier and funnier! Tesserae, are you ever gonna let 'em off the hook? It's almost cruel... ;)
TwoFer
Gerbil First Class
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm

Postposted on Sun Mar 17, 2002 4:01 am

Princess Die and Derek Anderson: Oh, I get it now! Damage has influence over your behavior without complaint because he actually has power over you -- while a woman who raises an eyebrow at your behavior is powerless, and therefore can be safely ignored!

It's so clear now! :p
TwoFer
Gerbil First Class
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm

Postposted on Sun Mar 17, 2002 4:03 am

Derek, thanks for your reply. I see no slight, if that's what you were thinking. I'm not the least bit offended by any of this. I wouldn't worry about being seen as a jerk, so long as I did the right thing, to the best of my ability.

I like your observation about not taking criticism well! IMHO one of the best non-observational comments was lenzenm saying "I'm an arrogant, obnoxious prick. I really DONT care what you think of me, so it doesnt matter if I offend you or not. In fact, I might offend you just because I can." At least it had a ring of honesty to it.

Of course I'm saying that there's a good reason why the people who take much of this so personally do so, but I'm not naming names! :grin:
You are false data.
Speed
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Chicago, IL USA

Postposted on Sun Mar 17, 2002 4:06 am

TwoFer:
*purses mouth quizzically, puts finger to lips, adopts wide-eyed look of innocence* Cruel? But they argued so <i>convincingly</i> that it's okay to be cruel to your opponents in a game! It's just part of the fun! So I simply <i>had</i> to take them up on it! *smiles demurely and bats eyelashes, picks up pole and bait can, and strolls slowly away, whistling "Sittin' on the Dock of the Bay"*
Tesserae
Gerbil
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2002 7:00 pm

Postposted on Sun Mar 17, 2002 4:13 am

Another observation:

It dawns on me that the artificial visualization of computer games may serve to dehumanize unseen human players. Perhaps this could be tested by putting putting the face of each player's beloved mother on their opponents' heads, at random. It would be interesting to see if it made any difference.
You are false data.
Speed
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Chicago, IL USA

Postposted on Sun Mar 17, 2002 4:29 am

On 2002-03-17 02:43, Tesserae wrote:
Consider: you're saying that players shouldn't verbally abuse each other. Fine. Should they, then, avoid killing each other in a game of Quake 3?

The distinction you fail to make is that you're <i>not</i> killing the opponent in the game - you're killing an onscreen atavar. Whereas the person you are insulting and verbally abusing is in fact the human person of your opponent. The distinction is critical, is it not?


Ah. I see that you've managed to avoid addressing my earlier point--I do see a difference between a person's 'normal' persona and their persona in a game. I suppose that Quake 3 was probably a bad example, but I'm more of a MUD/RPG player anyway; I guess my in-character/out-of-character behavioral distinction doesn't apply to 'modern' games, eh?

Would it be different if the opponents were all computer-controlled bots (but still spouted abuse)?

(Alternately, I suppose you could eliminate inter-player communication entirely and have a little icon that flashed when your avatar was being insulted, with (perhaps) a key to insult the other avatars...)

Again, I think you're taking how people act <i>in a game</i> entirely too seriously.

<i>Who</i> is taking this so seriously? I'm not - sometimes I have to stop typing until the laughter subsides. This whole thread arose because I had the audacity to suggest that some women might be put off by gamer chest-thumping behavior, and most everyone is piling on to convince me of my grevous error (but for those who actually <i>get it</i>, that is).


I think that you're taking it too seriously because you're bothering to post huge responses to this thread (yes, by this definition I am also taking it too seriously, and I probably am). :smile: As I mentioned earlier, this is a forum on the internet--nothing is ever going to come of an argument (debate?) like this one.

I've never said that women (or men, really) might not be put off by this sort of behavior; I've even pointed out that it is not the sort of behavior that I engage in. I apparently don't "get it," though, because I haven't condemned it wholesale.

My apologies.

It could be that I'm too thick-skinned to judge this sort of thing, however.

Ah. That might be worth your time to ponder further. <--(more etc. here)


Oh, all right then. I'll just leave this thread alone and contemplate my inability to find in-game chatter seriously offensive. Sorry. :smile:


Derek Andersen


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Derek Andersen on 2002-03-17 03:55 ]</font>
Derek Andersen
Gerbil
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2002 7:00 pm

Postposted on Sun Mar 17, 2002 4:47 am

Okay, I lied. I can't stay away. :smile:

On 2002-03-17 03:01, TwoFer wrote:
Princess Die and Derek Anderson: Oh, I get it now! Damage has influence over your behavior without complaint because he actually has power over you -- while a woman who raises an eyebrow at your behavior is powerless, and therefore can be safely ignored!

It's so clear now! :razz:


Damage has power (of a sort) over what people post at his site. If someone really objected to that (and I've pointed out that it doesn't bother me because of the nature of the site, among other things), they could find a different place to post.

Besides, it's not my 'behavior.' I don't mind that she doesn't like that sort of behavior. I don't care for gratuitous verbal abuse. That doesn't mean that I think everyone should immediately stop because it makes them look boorish; if someone chooses to act that way, well, it's their choice. It makes the rest of us look better. :smile:

On the other hand, I'm not taking this terribly seriously, either, as my previous post probably shows. Sleep deprivation isn't helping.


Derek Andersen

-sen, not -son. :smile:
Derek Andersen
Gerbil
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2002 7:00 pm

Postposted on Sun Mar 17, 2002 2:13 pm

Just a question for you Tessarae:
Would you join a hockey game(or any other physical sport)and expect all the other players to treat you nicer. I think not. I can understand that you want to make things on a level playing field for personal reasons, but the nature of the beast when it comes to male dominant things(such as sports, or sites like TR, or ARS)is that of "eat or be eaten". Don't get me wrong I don't agree with the vulgar language that some people use(men and women alike), but if they choose to do so, so be it. I would not respond in these ways, but that doesn't mean I go into a corner & cry "NOT FAIR" I'll get my digs in with sarcasm. All this is just to say that if you know what these rooms are all about, why put yourself through all of this. Is it worth it?
Hoser
Lord High Gerbil
 
Posts: 8310
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: In a lab playing with blood

Postposted on Sun Mar 17, 2002 2:31 pm

Speed:

When you come up with something of substance other than throwing spaghetti against the wall just to see what sticks...let me know :smile:

I don't claim to be a mind reader. While I was gilding the lily for effect on my peeve, I won't shy away from what I said either. If the tone of what you and Tesserae has said <I>hasn't</I> been rife with self-righteousness and condescension then I've never seen it before. Your comments about leading a "horse to water..." nooooo, that's not condescending at at :smile:


Tesserae:

I don't agree with you, at all. I reject entirely your thesis. [big, toothy grin]

Frothing? Bah! Yes, I suppose that taking the time to come up with articulate objections equates to frothing. Or maybe just because I enjoy arguing about something of little consequence, that means I froth. Always the refuge of the bereft of argument.

What amuses me about this discussion is how you have backtracked and dodged once you came under fire. Deftly, but not so as to avoid notice. Now when you have received several rebuttals, you retreat back into the: "All this from me observing that women are put off by X...I'm just appalled that these folks just can run away with this". Cute.

The fact that you have quietly dripped condescension througout with the intent to kindle a response has nothing to do with it of course. <B>Then again, if I was forwarding a weak argument rooted in subjectivism and emotionalism, I would stay where it was secure...in cheap emotionalism....appeals to pity for hypothetical incest victims, crazed Vietnam flash-backs, and a raft of strawmen to use as emotional targets.</B>

Didn't want you to miss that...since you seem to have conveniently passed it by.

That you would like to take credit for trolling us for a lesson in cruelty, is just too convenient a refuge after the fact. Even if it was true, it just reinforces my point that you are quite self-righteous to the point of claiming to do what you rail against...for the better good of an object lesson of course.

Despite what you assume, I am enjoying this immensely...Yes, yes go hide behind emotional straw men...you are making at least one person snicker :grin:

As far as the laugable attempt at psychoanalysis...yes I'm sure you would like to see me launch into long winded denial that I am not a pitiably calloused person, who insults people with impunity...maybe style a "why I have lots of [insert minority du jour] friends" type argument.

The bottom line is that you know nothing of which you speak concerning me. Every imaginary scenario you attribute to me is just that, imaginary. Please feel free to continue! Just like the rest of your argument, you only think you know of which you speak.

Yes, I should crave approval from a moral authority such as yourself. As I've alluded to before, by what authority or data do you arrogate yourself to know what the "citizenry-at-large" thinks? I find curious that someone with such a, dare I say liberal, position exhibits such black and white thinking.

<font size=-2><I>Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are at a LAN party for instance, "appropriately" may mean you should immediately call the police, fire department, respective NAACP/NOW/GLAAD chapter and have the offender forced into "sensitivity" re-education

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


My, my - all this from my simple statement that women might be scarce here because of the juvenile posturing associated with some gamers. I might have been wrong - it might be the extreme lack of humor and appreciation of scale that puts them off, however. Or both. </I></font>

What?!? You don't see that as humor? I thought that was very amusing...it was good for a couple belly laughs when I let my wife read it. Who really suffers from extreme lack of humor and appreciation for scale here?

In any case, I suppose I should be more clear about what I consider sport, rather than let you run wild in your self-righteous condemnitive speculation...a proper definition of terms if you will.

That will have to wait though...I need to go beat up some physically handicapped, mentally ill member of a minority class while its still raining outside so my excrement will wash off off their face in the gutter :grin: All because I felt the need to joke with my friends at a LAN party :wink:

n.b.: that was a jest.

Twofer: Try harder man, I prefer the shiny lures! :razz:

EDIT: Whoops! Missed a tag / Changed a font


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Princess Die on 2002-03-17 13:38 ]</font>
Princess Die
Gerbil XP
 
Posts: 389
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Postposted on Sun Mar 17, 2002 2:45 pm

This still going??? give it a rest......
Nelliesboo
Gerbil Jedi
 
Posts: 1697
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Land of the free (San Francisco)

Postposted on Sun Mar 17, 2002 6:12 pm

This thread wasn't about the role of women in LAN parties or anything like that. I was just hoping to expand my knowledge of who browses this site!
0oALio0
Gerbil XP
 
Posts: 448
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Back east

Postposted on Sun Mar 17, 2002 10:33 pm

On 2002-03-17 13:13, hoser wrote:
Just a question for you Tessarae:
Would you join a hockey game(or any other physical sport)and expect all the other players to treat you nicer. I think not.


I guess you missed the part about organized sports, rules and unsportsmanlike conduct. I'll summarize it for you: Organized sports are played with rules that promote fair competition. Since most sports recognize that it's game-play, and not a real-life Mad Max movie, the rules prohibit unsportsmanlike conduct. In other words, organized sports are for recreation, and not for the personality flaws of jerks.
You are false data.
Speed
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Chicago, IL USA

Postposted on Sun Mar 17, 2002 11:48 pm

On 2002-03-17 21:33, Speed wrote:

I guess you missed the part about organized sports, rules and unsportsmanlike conduct. I'll summarize it for you: Organized sports are played with rules that promote fair competition. Since most sports recognize that it's game-play, and not a real-life Mad Max movie, the rules prohibit unsportsmanlike conduct. In other words, organized sports are for recreation, and not for the personality flaws of jerks.



Sorry, I guess I should have expounded on that point. What I basically meant is that there are somethings that are part of the game; i.e. body checking in hockey, tackling in football etc... Now knowing that would you expect others to play by different rules when you join, just because you don't think they're right? I am not speaking of "unsportsmanlike conduct" I don't agree with it, that is what I meant when I said I don't agree with the vulgar language used at LAN aprties, or online play. If you understand the risks in the game and don't like the "atmosphere" then don't go there.
Hoser
Lord High Gerbil
 
Posts: 8310
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: In a lab playing with blood

Postposted on Mon Mar 18, 2002 1:48 am

I see your point, hoser. I wasn't aware that there were formalized rules that required the verbal abuse. Certainly there are some games that don't have those rules!

I guess if your games are played only by the sadists and masochists, and are kept away from innocents who might not understand the rules, then it's your business. As long as game players who don't want to participate in the barbarism have a suitable option, then they have no reason to complain.

I was under the impression that it was more widespread. If Tesserae ignored the warnings and disclaimers, then she shouldn't be shocked at what she finds. But since we're in a public forum and not within the bounds of a game, she does have the right to object to the values expressed in these games, unconditionally.
You are false data.
Speed
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Chicago, IL USA

Postposted on Mon Mar 18, 2002 6:46 am

I've been away from this thread for long enough (two days!) that I can't reply to individual comments as much as I'd like here. Too much has been said. (But unlike some, I don't think this horse is dead - I think the debate is inherently valuable). So, here goes:

1.
If your contention is that I shouldn't ever say "bitch" because (amongst other things) it brings back traumatic rape-memories, could you not also argue that I should never say "Gotcha!" because someone may have memories of being kidnapped by sex trafficers and when they did, they yelled "Gotcha" as they grabbed him / her?

This is even farther than Princess Die goes - you deliberately use racist, sexist and otherwise derogatory terms against your fellow gamers, for the admitted purpose of causing emotional reactions to further your game (apart from merely enhancing your victory dance on their bones), and you want to make this out to be the equivalent of saying "gotcha?"


a) the "gotcha" reference is from an earlier suggestion - by whom I've forgotten - that instead of saying "suck it down, bitch" / etc, one should just say "gotcha" or "haha." In essence though, the intent is the same behind either the "offensive" or "innocent" phrases: to insult / get under the skin of / put down the person fragged. Your claim is that gamers are trying to have it both ways by using language intended to be offensive and yet claiming it shouldn't hurt anyone. And you back that up by saying for some people, these phrases are not taken in jest, but instead they bring back or could bring back traumaatic memories. I found that ridiculous, and as such offered my "gotcha" story as analogous - and equally ridiculous. Your rape story has such a tenulous link to reality to begin with ("what if that particular word was the key to making this hypothetical gamer-version of your friend bring back repressed memories?") that I honestly do not find the "gotcha" story to be much more ludicrous. Your argument that the words are in and of themselves offensive to all / most women is stronger (but unconvincing, more on that below) than your argument that they may trigger bad memories / have particular meaning to some people.

b) I'm not a gamer, so saying I use the phrases is inaccurate. But I do something analogous: I use racist / sexist / homophobic language in jest with my friends, knowing full well that none of us mean it. It seems you find even language used in private LAN parties amongst friends - the gamer version of my un-PC joking - to be "boorish." I think this one more instance of where everyone can chant together "context matters."

c) (This point will inevitably overlap with the separate argument to be made next, but oh well...) If we look at the gaming community as a whole, what's really wrong with having people associate in groups according to their shared norms? You (with you = Tessarae, since Speed is acting mainly as Tess' cheerleader, Derek Anderson is teetering on the fence, and I agree with Princess Die) would never want to play Q3 with lenzenm, and vice versa. You consider his style boorish, he considers yours prudish. Why not let the open market for gaming sort it out? Why not have some servers with rules for language, and some without? Free association allows members of both sides of this argument game with people who they find most palatable.

2. I still see an underlying attitude of what I call listener-defined content control as the basis of much of the argument from the "you're boorish!" camp. I oppose the concept that neutral, unmarked communicative content is defined by what no one finds offensive. Tessarae, what you claim to be universally offensive or sexist words / phrases are not consensus picks. So where's the bright line on what is acceptable to say or write? Are there ANY taunts that can be made in good fun, in any context? I know plenty of women (should I say females? womyn? fepeople?) who do not find "bitch" to be an off-limts word. I don't know any guys (men? males? "members of the oppressive sex") who are generally offended by the word "jerk," despite it being almost exclusively used to describe [people with XY chromosomes, fill in your appropriate terminology]. So who decides what is offensive? Should I email you, Tessarae, every time I'm unsure of whether a word or phrase is acceptable?

--> Scenario: If I ever get around to playing Q3, can I say, "you c-u-n-t!" (Since I've read Inga Muscio, and therefore would use that phrase with grudging respect for empowerment) if a female player kills me?
[TR automatically edited that out first time I tried to post, irony... :smile:]

3. girl / gal / etc:
a) can I take it from your silence that you accept my point that the "little boy" analogy is invalid?
b) ditto on pairing "gal" with "guy"?
c) if you're looking to 0oALio0's use of the word "chick" to claim the context was latently sexist, why wouldn't you equally look at his claim that he wasn't trying to get dates as context as well? Doesn't that prove that the context was curiosity, and not derogatory? At best, you could argue that he doesn't meet your standards of PC, but you can't make the leap (as you attempt to) to his question being itself part of a derogatory attitude on TR towards womyn. In fact, I could go so far as to say that his phrasing the "chicks" sentence in the negative is in fact implictly criticizing the word "chick." His whole caveat was self-mocking, and could be read as "Don't worry, I'm not the type of sexist who would make women on a public forum uncomfortable intentionally." You could also say the tone warrented extra quotes within the subject line: "I'm not trying to 'pick up chicks.'"
- Sure, I'm going out of my way to interpret that phrase in an unoffensive manner. But it seems like you went out of your way to be offended. Just like when you took "If you are a female and read the first post in this thread, I think a simple 'yes' would have answered the guy's question." to mean "shut up" or jokingly, "get back in the kitchen." NeXus6's point was not that you should keep your mouth shut, but that you misinterpreted the initial q according to your easily-offended standards, rather than realize the question was neutral and curious.

Which leads to...
4. Where is this "chest-beating" and other supposedly testosterone-infused mysogeny that you claim keeps women from reading TR? I've been reading for a few months (I'm no Forge, but not 'in training' anymore either) and I see very little gendered speak at all. Are you calling this thread chest-beating? If so, that's the sort of condescending attitude that Princess Die was pointing out before. 'They disagree with me - it must be because they're males, feel threatened, and are responding in a testosterone rage.' Again, if you're referring to this thread (I don't honestly know what you were referring to, and I'm scared to death you'll say I'm putting up straw men too) I think you'll find most of your opposition find your arguments distasteful because we think political correctness and accusations of sexism run rampant in your posts without logical bright lines on what is and isn't sexist.

Finally,
5. Never saw a response to my point that "this is sociologically fascinating" = holier than thou-ism. I don't expect you to fall at my feat and say "you're right! I was arrogant!" but do you see where we're coming from?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: technophile on 2002-03-18 05:49 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: technophile on 2002-03-18 05:50 ]</font>
technophile
Gerbil First Class
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2002 7:00 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Back Porch

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: just brew it! and 8 guests