Dissecting Smite #1: Oversexualization, Stereotyping, Double-Standards, and Other Misogyny in Smite :: Page 30

Forum » General Discussion » Dissecting Smite #1: Oversexualization, Stereotyping, Double-Standards, and Other Misogyny in Smite 305 posts - page 30 of 31

^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.

Memorable (14)
Posts: 204
View My Blog

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 ;)

Prominent (25)
Posts: 380

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.

wrote:

P. 923 is where the issues begin.

' In mass media, compared to female characters, male characters appear more frequently, talk significantly more, and engage in noted behaviors more, such as achieving and showing leadership (Thompson & Zerbinos, 1995")' The source: Thompson, T. L., & Zerbinos, E. (1995).

Gender roles in animated cartoons: Has the picture changed in 20 years? Sex Roles, 32, 651-673.

The Sex roles journal can be located here: http://www.springer.com/psychology/personality+%26+social+psychology/journal/11199

Look at the Recently published top mentioned articles for Sex Roles. they are filled with feminist rhetoric. This is NOT a neutral journal on sexual representation.
'Boys Can Be Anything”: Effect of Barbie Play on Girls’ Career Cognitions'
'A Linguistic Comparison of Letters of Recommendation for Male and Female Chemistry and Biochemistry Job Applicants'
'My Eyes Are Up Here: The Nature of the Objectifying Gaze Toward Women'

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.

Renowned (112)
Posts: 4262
View My Blog

wrote:

Um, yeah, you sort of did say something similar to that.

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.

Renowned (112)
Posts: 4262
View My Blog

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.

Renowned (112)
Posts: 4262
View My Blog

wrote:

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.

wrote:

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.

...seriously, click the links please...

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.

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.]

Remarkable (9)
Posts: 166

wrote:

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.

Remarkable (9)
Posts: 166

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.

Renowned (112)
Posts: 4262
View My Blog

wrote:

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.

Remarkable (9)
Posts: 166

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

wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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.

Remarkable (9)
Posts: 166

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

Thread Locked

SmiteFire & Smite

Smite 2 Gods

Smite 1 Gods