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

In hopes that it'll get back on track. There was definitely good discussion, but this has gone to *****.

I'll just put out a final warning. I'm always reluctant to lock threads that have had a lot of good discussion but has gone sour because, well, it brought good discussion. If this continues to just be flaming, then I'll lock this thread.

Warn the users that are starting the arguments personally. I'm not sure how much power you have as compared to Mowen, but from checking up on the forums from time to time over the passed few months, I frequently see the same names popping up that cause the flaming.

Except the Planetside 2 forums have a ton of users, so this kind of **** is usually at least drowned out by proper discussions and debates, at least that's how it was when I roamed those forums. Our site here has a handful of active users, probably half of which contribute to this kind of **** that ends up being at the top of the forum section for a long time.

Is it really any wonder why we're seeing less and less of many previous active members of this community or we see a very low influx of new active members? Not really.

And to think we still tend to trash talk about the Smite sub-Reddit. What a joke.

Well, that's all fun and games, but it makes it very repulsive for players who actually play the game.

How many members are active on this site? Angrytoast tried to start a SMFG competitive team, and we couldn't find five ****ing people to do it. It's downright pathetic at some point.

^That is not completely true. There were a few people who were interested in playing just for fun in an organized environment, but your point still stands. There were 4 people from NA that signed up and actually stuck with it, 2 from EU, and 1 from Asia.

Yo people, if you want to help moderators:

1) Report the posts in which someone insults someone or uses personal info as an argument
- This will help the mods to go through these posts and they don't have to read every single line of every single post. It will also make it easier for them to make sure there are some consequences (e.g. warnings)

2) If things are getting heated up, report the thread as a whole.
- Tell in the note (or whatever it is called) that the discussion is getting pretty ugly and that someone should have a close look at it or that a mod should probably supervise the discussion before things get out of hands.



EDIT: And btw kiddos, calling names. Real superior people subtly insult the inferiorfire members ;)

To clear up a misunderstanding:

http://www.springer.com/psychology/personality+%26+social+psychology/journal/11199

That is Zanestorm's link to Sex Roles.

http://link.springer.com/journal/11199

This is MY link to Sex Roles.

If you notice, They Are The Exact Same Journal.

The only difference is, Zanestorm's link was cherrypicked to show dated examples as "recent." Because MY link was found by googling "Sex Roles Journal."

The point is, I was showing how Zanestorm lied about the supposed recent articles, and how his whole "Barbie" stuff was cherrypicked to make the whole thing look biased, when it wasn't.

"Bias-motivated aggression" and such was from MY link, and are the TRUE recent articles.





The entire point of this section was to prove that Zanestorm lied yet again. The "Bias-Motvated" blah blah was not something I pretended was from Zanestorm's link, it was from MY link.

Why did he present another link that wasn't recent, and say it was? Because he was trying to mislead and lie yet again. If he were honest, he'd have, you know, actually give the normal link like a normal person.

Edit: Saw the "Recently Published Top Mention" bit. So yeah, I admit it, I misread his quote. Still doesn't change what's below.

ALSO.

Everything I just wrote doesn't really matter. You know why?

Because as you can see in the part below the thing, Zanestorm is STILL judging an entire scientifc journal as biased and Feminist and whatever because of the titles of a few articles he can't even read.

So it doesn't really matter on what's the most recent or what's this or that. Zanestorm's logic is still flawed, and he's still trying to mislead people.

Internalization: To incorporate (the cultural values, mores, motives, etc., of another or of a group), as through learning, socialization, or identification.

Or, in short, a link between video games and reality, like all forms of media. Unless Zanestorm is claiming that Internalization applies to everything BUT video games, which is ridiculous.

"You cannot prove that video games cause real-world sexism."

"Video games are their own culture, in which it is most often explicitly made clear that X video game does not represent reality in any way, even when parallels are drawn."

"There has not been a single statistically valid study that has linked video games to any real-world changes in worldview or perceptions. Just as video games do not make us violent, they do not make us sexist. They do not affect our reality at all, beyond our own time. Unless you have Academic evidence to the contrary, which I can bluntly tell you does not exist, then you cannot implicitly conclude that if X game is sexist, it will perpetuate or lead to sexism in reality. You have no basis for this implicit conclusion."

"Misogyny has **** all to do with this, because real women are not involved or impacted in any way by the female representation of DEITIES IN A VIDEO GAME."

"I knew this was coming. As all the way up in my intro, provide me an ACADEMIC study linking representations of people in video games to real-world thoughts. It doesn't exist. You're speaking out of your ***."

"This is about you making problems where they don't ****ing exist based on your own bigoted ideological viewpoints."

"Prove it. Literally, prove it. You'd be the first person ever to prove a correlation between video-games and real-world problems. As I've already pointed out, you have no studies to prove this because they don't exist."

Guess what? Internalization, by definition, is a link between video games and reality. Zanestorm has REPEATEDLY said there is no link between video games and reality, and that video game sexism has NOTHING to do with real life sexism.

Internalization, by definition, is a link between video game sexism and IRL sexism.

So yea, he did say something like that. A lot.

I'll reply to Zanestorm freestyle.

Note that he doesn't say anything about his lies, which were incredibly obvious. That's because Zanestorm knows that I'm right, and that he's a filthy liar, and that part of the post proves it, so he's ignoring it.

"I literally don't have 4 days to dedicate to a reply going over the exact same things we've already gone over in the thread and across various PMs."

Funny part is, if you actually read the thing, and if you weren't lying, my extended reply does cover new ground. Stop lying, again.

"You have not provided a single quote of a supposed claim I've made that would require a citation."

Funny how you mention "citations." We're actually provided sources supporting our claims. You have none. We've provided citations THAT DIRECTLY CONTRADICT YOUR CLAIMS AND YOU HAVE NONE.

So instead of providing citations, you sit there and scream louder.

"You absolutely have the right to critique anything, from an ideological point of view or otherwise. However you do not have the right to make claims - like claiming sexualised Goddesses in a video game cause real-world sexism - unless you have convincing academic evidence that holds to scrutiny."

Sigh...here we go with the "idealogical" again. And again, you scream about how my evidence is invalid despite literally everything else saying the contrary.

"I have provided a decent guideline for how anyone should assess an academic source for its credibility and reliability and gone over how I have applied these principles to your single source. If anyone wants to verify what I've said, they need only look up common academic conventions with regards to citations and then read your source and my rebuke."

The funny part is, unlike you, I actually provided the guidelines, for them. Multiple, in fact. Through the first page of a google search, so they aren't cherrypicked, either. And they prove me right.

"I've made no claims!"

AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Repeating yourself again?

"I have not lied."

Suuure, you did. See section 7!

"Again, you say I've made 30 claims."

More than 30, actually. And I did point them out. Feel free to CTRL-F "Claim #" for all of them. You'll find a LOT of claims.


"Cannot cite youself"

Well, duh! I'm quoting myself, not citing myself, obviously.

"Everyting else"

Holy **** people, this is all literally repeated points. I mean, look at this!

"Reason one: these are video game characters. Reason two: they are not "women" they are Goddesses, they aren't even human by their nature. Are the Goddesses more sexualised than the Gods in Smite? Yes. Does that have any real world implications? Not until you can prove it does." "But over-sexualisation does not lead to sexism" "What you have not done is proven how video-games, as a culture, affect real-world culture in terms of societal values placed on gender"

It's literally the same point over and over. Evidence not valid! No proof! Video Games No Link Reality! Make no claim!

*eye roll* Seriously, just reread the thing for my replies to all of his replies.

The thing is, the reason why this whole thing has ground to a halt, is because I'm actually replying to Zanestorm's ********, but Zanestorm is just repeating himself as a response. I mean, I give sources, reason through logic, make logical points and inferences. Zanestorm literally repeats his points over and over.

Your link shows the general article - mine shows the relevant section from a source the author cited. If anything that would suggest that you yourself were cherry-picking as my link is in specific regards to a source, which was located in that section. Moreover, I stated the specific parameters that can indicate a level of bias - Recently published top mentioned articles - which would indicate what current authors in that field have focused on, and what specific works are regarded as important enough to mention and discuss.

You're wrong in that I didn't lie - my link actually shows the top cited and top downloaded articles too for a particular section - Personality & Social Psychology. Yours does not focus on that section - which is where the source was located.




Your link does not relate to the actual location of the study - which is Psychology > Personality and Social Psychology. It relates to the entire Journal. I specifically linked to the relevant section - the section the source was located in - and pointed out the obvious leanings of the recent articles as I saw it. That part of the Sex Roles Journal - Psychology > Personality and Social Psychology - has an obvious leaning, which is still a valid assessment and by no means a lie. I said it was recent because it literally says "Recently published top mentioned articles." Which is what I specifically stated in my post, if you'd read it again you can verify that yourself.

I'm judging the article you specifically pulled out based on its ideological leanings [via the sources it uses] - which is an assessment supported when one views the recently published top mentioned articles in that particular section, which are focusing on typical feminist topics. That is by no means the only way I judged your article - as you well know - and it still stands as a valid assessment of the section the cited article was found in. This assessment was further supported by a vast plethora of other issues [the date of the sources, not citing pages but entire studies without providing quotes which is poor academic practise ect.]

You jumped the gun in calling me a liar, but you may well have simply been confused between the psychology section and the general journal. That is in part my fault - I should have clarified that I was specifically discussing the Personality & Social Psychology section, I simply assumed you'd understand that if you clicked on my link - which states at the top which section it is from. [Home > Psychology > Personality & Social Psychology.]