Dissecting Smite #1: Oversexualization, Stereotyping, Double-Standards, and Other Misogyny in Smite

I already answered that: because some people just want to play the game. Y'know, like the average gamer does.

For my side - I haven't made any claims to be proven, I've merely been contending claims from Sub. As Sub made the claims without valid evidence, in some cases with no evidence at all, the burden is on them to provide neutral and academic evidence that fits their conclusions, both implicit and explicit ones. If and when they provide that, I would locate sources that contest them and analyse the source they provide - as I have done prior - to see if it truly is a fair and relevant source to use.

Agreed that this is going way, way off-topic. We're firmly in the realms of a discussion on Feminism, rather than a discussion on whether sexualised Goddesses in video-games cause real-world sexism.

Look past the ********, man, to see what he really means.

How would a sane person respond to our sources? "Oh, they have PHDs, that's as good as it can get." Or something along those lines.

Here is what Zanestorm is really saying: "PHDs aren't automatically correct, so I'm going to try to discredit your source as much as I can by emphasizing this fact."

Like it or not, PHDs are as good as most people can get. The only reason why he even mentions it is to try to weaken us.

Do you know why I keep saying to ignore him? Because he's trying to destroy this very discussion.

What he just said about PHDs applies to EVERYONE. Do you get the implications of this?

If Zanestorm brings a source, I can say that PHDs don't mean it's correct.

If someone else brings a source, I can say PHDs don't mean it's correct.

Zanestorm, inadvertently or not, is in the process of creating a thread where argument is impossible since you could just say the other guy's source is invalid. After all, if a PHD isn't good enough, what is?

He isn't destroying the discussion, he is furthering his argument by pointing out weaknesses in your sources, which is a PERFECTLY normal, healthy, and strong debating tactic.

Not that a source written by a PHD is a weak source, but he is simply trying to point out that doesn't make your source the word of god. He's not entirely invalidating it, he's just saying he can still critique your source, even though it was written by someone with a PHD.

As for the misquoting thing, you still did it. You can't quote what somebody implied.

The entire reason why internet discussions work is because we're all shielded under anonymity. We can all claim things, and for the sake of discussion, we either assume they're true, take it as an assertion, or question it.

How do we question assertions? We go deeper, find sources, present evidence, pictures, etc. In a discussion of social issues, assertions, and proper discussion of assertions, are everything.

The problem is when the metadiscussions are impossible. Without them, there can be no progress. The thread will stagnate into a constant back and forth of: I don't believe you! Your source is invalid! You're making it up! You're biased! You're wrong! No, you're wrong! Shut up! You're an idiot! You're a simpleton! My source is less biased than yours!

Zanestorm, instead of backing up his words with his own sources, is criticizing OUR sources. If people take his accusations at face value, the thread will end up in the dismal state presented above.

Here are the facts. We've presented our sources, and you can take them as you wish.

Zanestorm has yet to provide any sources for his own arguments, and his only real "source" is trying to establish that appeals to authority exist - to try to discredit our own sources. Oh, and we know that appeal to authority is a thing.

Sub, listen. When you're arguing about something that is PURELY AN OPINION, discussions can't really get more than that.

I have to leave soon for a bit, and I won't be back in a while, so I'll leave with this.

Zanestorm is repeatedly trying to discredit me, instead of crediting himself. This is his main form of argument, now that I demolished his original post.

The past five pages of the thread have been about Zanestorm and his stupid comment, and how he keeps criticizing our sources instead of finding his own. It's an established fact that he can't back up his claims - claims like how Internalization isn't a thing, how there isn't a link between culture and video games, etc. The mere fact that there are studies saying otherwise, is proof that they exist.

We, for the sake of the thread and healthy discussion, should just assume, like a reasonable person, that we've proved our arguments well enough. With ****ing PHD-credited sources.

And, for the sake of not being stuck in a hellish loop of stupidity, we should ignore Zanestorm's insults and insistence that whatever we do isn't good enough.

So, let's either analyze Nurisea's comment, my analysis and reply to it, or wait for Levask or someone else to butt in.


And for the love of God, let's move on from this.

If your sources are invalid then your argument is also invalid. By extension, nothing you've said would be anything other than pure rhetoric. You're absolutely correct - I'm not taking your claims as true - I'm questioning them by "going deeper." That is to say, by reading what you've cited, and reading the citations of the single academic author you cited, to gauge whether or not what THEY have said is valid. That is what academics do when arguing with each other. Someone makes an unfounded claim > Request a source > The source is provided > Analyse the source. If the source is valid, discuss it further. If it isn't, point out why [which is what I did pretty darn extensively.]

In any discussion in which you make claims with vast and severe implications, your sources are everything. Your sources thus far have been Wikipedia, Various feminist and news sites, and a single academic work that I read, took issue with on an academic level and debunked. Most of your sources weren't even related to proving video-games cause real-world sexism, either.

My accusation is that alot of what you've said has no factual basis. You lack sources proving what you've claimed, so that accusation is fair. Either provide academic sources that support your argument that sexualisation of pixels in Smite cause real-world sexism and meet general academic convention, or edit your post and conclusion accordingly and stipulate that the entire thing is an opinion piece with no necessity to take any action. Those are the rational choices you have - back up your claims or retract them entirely.

For the record, when assessing a source one does not focus on the academic qualifications of the author. It is not important. You can have no academic qualifications and make an astounding point, or you can be the most qualified person on Earth and make an awful article. You actually read the source - and most importantly - the authors citations - to assess whether the article is valid or invalid.

Then how do internet discussions work at all? How did this thread work at all, until Zanestorm came? Was my OP invalid, too? Was it "just opinion?"

Opinion can be rooted into facts, and that's how assertions become established: we back them up. That's the core of a healthy discussion: we turn opinions into not-opinions with support, and then we move on. That is progress.

If you want to give up, whatever. Your decision.

I'm not going to let this thread die.

Zane says that Internalization isn't a thing - I point out, not a Wikipedia article saying it exists, but the actual wikipedia article on Internalization.

I never said internalization isn't a thing - I SAID IT WAS! You're doing the thing where you lie again. I already said culture and video games have crossover - again you've lied.

Edit: Proof that you're lying: (Page 16 of the thread, second post down.)



The fact that studies exist mean nothing - it's whether or not the study is valid, meets academic standards and has a strong argument that holds to scrutiny that actually matters.

I'm not trying to credit myself. You've made an argument and asserted it as the truth, demanding action. I've undermined it, because you have no right to demand action on what boils down to an opinion. You have not proved that there is ANY link between sexualisation and sexism, let alone sexualisation in video-games causing real-world sexism.

Just because the sources were crafted by people with PHD'S that does not mean they are valid, as I aptly proved in my analysis of your source. You're STILL appealing to the authority of the author, rather than the content of the source.

I'm the one being offensive and insulting? And we should just ignore very valid critiques of what you've said, just because you cannot find anyway to contest my points validly?

I already analysized Nurisea's comment, but very little - if any of it - was about Smite or video-game sexualisation causing real-world sexism, which is what the OP suggests is true.

I'd love to move on. Provide valid sources for your claims, or retract your claims, and we can then have a discussion on either the sources you've provided or your opinion piece if that's what you decide to call it after retracting your un-sourced claims.