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

Internalize - Oxford Dictionary - Psychology Make (attitudes or behaviour) part of one’s nature by learning or unconscious assimilation http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/internalize

That has no relevance, "in short" to video-games. It is not a term directly relating to video-games. It is a term to specifically denote a particular mode of learning and absorption, which is not explicitly related to video-games by definition.

As I stated prior - I'm sure some people do internalize things. But you're making a vast assumption that every gamer does. This is simply not true. Video-games are very popular. Many video-games [RPGS, FPS, MMO ect] have heavy violence-themes running through them. Ergo, if you're assertion that internalization is directly relating to video-games is true, one would expect a massive increase in real-world heavy violence as a result.

This has not happened, therefore we can assume most - if not all gamers - are not internalizing these violent messages and taking them into the real-world. By that same logic - as internalization is not selective but subconscious in this context - if gamers are not taking violent messages into the real world, they are not taking any perceived sexism messages either.

Internalize - by definition - makes no mention of video-games. You clearly believe they are linked, but that is not explicit in the definition of internalize. Video-game sexism has nothing to do with IRL sexism on the same basis that video-game violence has nothing to do with IRL violence despite being more overt and obvious than sexism.

The burden of proof is on you - to explain why violence is not being internalized yet abstract and subjective over-sexualisation would be, especially considering internalization itself is not selective and so the gamer would not distinguish between the two in their internalization process. You would also need evidence providing sufficient proof that all gamers are indeed internalizing these messages and taking them into the real world.

Edit: It should be obvious but i'll state it anyway - saying there's no or very little link between video-games and reality in terms of violence or sexism does not mean I don't think internalization doesn't exist - it means I don't think it's a significant contributing factor.

Your only valid point in your entire response was how the studies did not have a LOT of research. They still have research.

BTW, the whole "Final Claim" thing is still there in your replies. It's all still there, which you ignore.

Of course they don't have a lot of research. Video games are pretty recent. Or at least, violent, sexist, problematic video games are pretty recent, considering the years it takes to make a report.

So? The evidence still points to me. What research is there only supports me. And once again, all you have is your word that everything is wrong, while I provide proof and evidence.

Think of it like an incomplete jigsaw puzzles with missing pieces. People are still looking for the pieces - under the table, in the couch, inside the microwave, etc - but we can still see a picture forming. There are enough pieces of the puzzle, and we can see what it's saying, for the most part, even if it isn't complete.

And it says that Internalization exists. That video games do link to real life consequences.

Sigh. Zanestorm just repeats himself so much, I'm getting weary of it. "ideological leanings." Blah blah, I'm so smart, I can dismiss an entire journal as biased! Despite it standing up over the years, I'm so special, I know better than literally anyone else who's read it! Than anyone who's cited it! Etc!

"Make (attitudes or behaviour) part of one’s nature by learning or unconscious assimilation."

Unconscious assimilation. Video Games. Internalized Sexism. This is not hard.

See the Final Claim.

Like I said, Zanestorm doesn't have anything to support his point, because he knows that he's wrong, that he's ********ting, and the only thing holding up his argument is his hot air and his cobweb lies.

Your sources specifically stated they lack any empirical data to back up their claims, as did their sources by implication in the context of video-games. Ergo whilst the articles have value as perspective, it proves nothing as it lacks any hard evidence beyond rhetoric. It can then rightly be discarded as evidence, as it has no data to support your claims.

The articles are fundamentally flawed in that they lack hard data [except 4, which has its own problematic study,] so if it points to you - which your sources ironically don't in some ways as discussed - that is actually a bad sign for your argument.

There is absolutely a lack of hard data on the subject, which is why your assumptions are misplaced. There are currently - as far as your sources are concerned - zero pieces [data] of the puzzle, but many people speculating on what the puzzle will look like when completed. This speculation can be readily discarded, as it lacks the data to support it.

Before you even say it - I have provided no speculation as to what the puzzle looks like myself - I've merely been debunking your specific speculation.

Internalization exists - that was never in contention. Does it apply to gamers en masse? You've provided no evidence that it does. Moreover western world violence statistics would suggest no obvious correlation at all between video-games and real-world violence, sexism would be no different. If millions of gamers were internalizing messages from games, we'd have an epidemic of violence on our hands. That is not the case. In a similar respect, if gamers are not internalizing violence, they are not internalizing any sexism - regardless of gender.

The reason I'm repeating myself is because you aren't actually dealing with what I'm saying, I will continually point it out until you actually tackle it.

Your ad hominem and strawman is ridiculous and does nothing for your argument.

Unconscious assimilation > video games? Nope. Read what I put further up. If internalization was common then there'd be an epidemic of violence - there isn't. Therefore internalization can be assumed to be incredibly uncommon, as there is no obvious correlation between gamers playing video-games and an increase in real-world violence. The same applies to sexism.

Your "final claim" is ad-hominem followed by an assertion that I made 30 supposed claims. I went over 10 [actually 8, you skipped numbers] of these claims and proved how they weren't claims at all, or didn't require academic citations to justify. I haven't read claims 11 onwards because, as stated, I've no intention of reading enormous walls of flame-bait and ad hominem and I drew the line when you attacked me based on my sexuality for the umpteenth time.

I'm heavily editing your quote to try and cut out the ad-hominem from your quote and focus on specifics.



I specifically stated that I stopped replying to "the thing" because 1) it is ridiculously long, 2) you've literally quoted enormous chunks from discussions that we've already had 3) your ad hominem got so ridiculous that I literally gave up by part 3. Please provide a polite summary of your new points, I will happily discuss them further.

My stance is to prove that your stance is not based on hard evidence. The sources you have cited have specifically stated they lack empirical data to back up their claims. By extension, so do you. Debunking sources does not require a source - if the source itself is fundamentally flawed and does not fit academic convention. We've been over this.

The authors you're citing themselves specifically state they lack evidence for their claims and much more research is to be done on the topic. That undermines their assertions more than any ideological bias they have.

I actually specifically posted academic guidelines - to my knowledge you have not. I think you've got confused with something else - as to my knowledge you have provided no academic guidelines at all.

No idea where section 7 is, if its past your third spoiler then chances are I won't be reading it due to the ad hominem. If you edit your sections to remove the ridiculous personal attacks I will happily review it. Let me know if you do so.

I highlighted the first 10 "claims" [again, it was actually 8] and none of them required any academic citations to prove. I went over each of the 8 claims prior. Again, I stopped at your homophobia on claim 10 - so I can't comment on claims 11 - 30+ that I've supposedly made.

It's the same point over and over because you aren't tackling the point. The evidence is not valid > your new evidence is also not valid. Video-games rationally are not linked to real-world sexism via internalization otherwise they'd be linked to real-world violence too, which they demonstrably aren't [violence statistics in Western nations.]

Until you tackle the specific points leveled at you in a valid manner they will still be relevant. Either tackle the arguments presented [by presenting empirical data from reputable sources that proves all gamers are internalizing sexism, over-sexualisation is sexist objectively and gamers who do not internalize violence will internalize sexism ect.] Or concede those points. Those are your choices. There is no option 3 - skip/avoid or option 4 - beat your opponent into submission with ad hominem. You either tackle the arguments properly or concede the points.

I wasn't talking about the forums, but the game itself.

But yeah, sorry for how overdue this was. It seems that only a handful of people are actually discussing, and the majority are completely unmotivated to even comment. The quality of discussion has also decreased and is uninteresting. This thread is definitely worn out.