I think we discovered the crux of the problem here when he admitted he was willfully unwilling to make an attempt at sympathy, that most basic of tools for not being awful to other people. Actively keeping oneself from imagining things from a point of view other than one's own represents a dead-end in this exercise, and it's honestly the reason why something like GG can exist at all.
#SkeletonGate
-
-
Also, Christopher COlumbus was a complete asshole and we really need to stop celebrating him.
I'll celebrate my Monday off from classes instead.
-
-
Is that why Daffy released rats on Columbus Day?
-
You know what it is? I'll tell you what it is. It's anti-Italian discrimination!
-
you know, to look at another angle of objectification; the Jews were objectified, in the Holocaust. As in to say, they were not treated as human. The Nazi's thought less of Jews, and locked them up and did horrible inhumane things to them. If they had any thoughts about anyone Jewish being a person, they would not have treated them that way and would have sympathized.
mm, but maybe this is too much for you to imagine, if you're not jewish. in that case, I guess it was ok, cause it didn't happen to you?
-
-
you know, to look at another angle of objectification; the Jews were objectified, in the Holocaust. As in to say, they were not treated as human. The Nazi's thought less of Jews, and locked them up and did horrible inhumane things to them. If they had any thoughts about anyone Jewish being a person, they would not have treated them that way and would have sympathized.
mm, but maybe this is too much for you to imagine, if you're not jewish. in that case, I guess it was ok, cause it didn't happen to you?
This made me think. I don't think that just because the nazis killed a lot of jews, any radical muslim would sympatize with german nazism, so also I don't think anyone would be pro-GG because have something against how women are portrayed in Video Games.
-
This made me think. I don't think that just because the nazis killed a lot of jewishes, any radical muslim would sympatize with german nazism, so also I don't think anyone would be pro-GG because have something against how women are portrayed in Video Games.
Jews, please. Saying "Jewishes" makes you sound like Borat fyi.
-
You know what it is? I'll tell you what it is. It's anti-Italian discrimination!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/Silviodante.jpg
That was the dumbest thing.
Yes people, this used to be a thing.
"STOP BESMIRCHING OUR CLAIM TO FAME HERE"
Even protests were made at people talking about Leif Erickson.
This was back many decades ago when I guess Italian-Americans were still kind of a unconfident minority without full white status yet? But that doesn't excuse how fucking stupid it was.
See also: Protests against the Godfather when it came out. -
DINGDINGDING
What is a sexual social situation? You know, if that would have been an english paper, I'd give you 1point. Maybe 2 if I'm nice. Because I gave you a task and you didn't care to take it. This is what you do here with everyone. You want to obviously discuss with us? But you are not ready to actually read and answer our stuff thoroughly. Therefore you want to just talk with yourself? And for that there's wordpress, diaries, tumblr, microsoft word, you name it.
So if you don't care to contribute and explain us your views, please get out.
You seriously can't think of anything? Ok , publicaly kissing your husband. Did your mind blow up or something?
-
Ooh, mild consensual affection from someone that you are in a committed relationship with!
That's completely the same as being harrassed, dehumanized and treated like an object on a daily basis by strangers!
(and no, kissing is NOT a sexual act.)
-
You seriously can't think of anything? Ok , publicaly kissing your husband. Did your mind blow up or something?
Don't get petty with me, fucktard.
And right back at you.
Can sexual harassment exist without prior objectification? If yes, pls elobarate. Give me examples.
I'm still waiting.
And kissing someone is NOT a sexual act. And even less an act of sexual harassment. Pls look up definitions of the words you use before throwing them around like rocks. Seriously, aren't you ashamed of yourself, using words which meanings you don't grasp? It makes you look even dumber.
-
Ooh, mild consensual affection from someone that you are in a committed relationship with!
That's completely the same as being harrassed, dehumanized and treated like an object on a daily basis by strangers!
(and no, kissing is NOT a sexual act.)
So walking up and kissing a strange woman on the road is not sexual harashment? Are you sure?
-
So walking up and kissing a strange woman on the road is not sexual harashment? Are you sure?
Dude, there's a difference between a couple kissing each other and a person forcing a kiss on someone. The couple have gave each other consent, while in the other case, its breaking someone's boundary without permission. Oh, and you misspelled "harassment".
-
So walking up and kissing a strange woman on the road is not sexual harashment? Are you sure?
Anything can be sexualized, that doesn't make everything sexual.
Are you like perpetually 12 years old or something? It would explain a lot. -
Dude, there's a difference between a couple kissing each other and a person forcing a kiss on someone. The couple have gave each other consent, while in the other case, its breaking someone's boundary without permission. Oh, and you misspelled "harassment".
But I already mentioned this , this was the whole point. The argument was that sexual harashment can't be done wthout prior objectification. Clearly that's not the case as we see now. Think for example crazy fans of pop/movie starts. It's not that they objectify their idol that they do all the crazy shit. It's a one-sided love that sometimes result in sexual harassment.
In conclution : sexual harassment is not a subtotal of objectification.
-
And you continue to have no clue what objectification means. When you kiss a stranger without consent, you are not treating them as a human with feelings who deserves respect. It is objectification XD. "Me see hot woman flesh. Me want put mouth on. Me all that matters. Me Papakis."
-
A lot of posts I don't have time to quote all of
Ok, a lot of stuff happened in here so I quoted you so it'll alert you and will have a blanket response, trying to hit all points.
First, the Big One:
1: I think a large chunk of this argument is stemming from your misuse or misunderstanding of the term "Objectification".
Objectification doesn't actually mean "Thinking a person is sexy" which seems to be how you prefer to use the term. It means "Thinking a person exists for NO OTHER REASON than to be sexy, to the point that they are basically no more than an object I deserve to own".
You either think that it's ok to feel that way about a human being, or you're woefully misinformed about the terminology you're using. I hope sincerely that it's the Latter, because if it's the former…. you're honestly proving our points better than we ever could.2: You are arguing entirely in extremes.
Apparently, to you, there's only two options:
A: Every Woman has at least DDcup breasts and wears ridiculously skimpy, often times impractical outfits all the time.
or
B: Every woman is in a Burqa.
There's no middle ground. Apparently, we either have EVERYTHING BE SUPER SEXUALIZED GUYS, or.... everybody is a prude.
It's especially upsetting that you are making this dumb habit of trying to make US look sexist by professing that our side is "Slut-shaming" female characters for being oversexualized.
Look, there's a difference between a woman deciding to wear a sexy revealing dress because she wants to look sexy that day, and a group of Space Marines who all have armor that fully covers the body and is clearly meant for protection.... except the female ones who randomly have bikini armor, which will offer literally NO PROTECTION WHATSOEVER and is only there to look sexy.
It'd be like a female soldier for going into an active war zone in little more than a Camo Bikini. You never, ever, EVER See that. Why? Because a Camo Bikini, despite being Camo and therefore the "Right" army color and all that, is WOEFULLY inappropriate for the situation. Her male counterparts will be fine when the bullets start flying, because their Kevlar vests will offer them a fair level of protection.
Bikini woman is dead.
Yet, in GAME AFTER GAME you have characters dressed wildly inappropriately for the action at hand for no reason other than "It looks sexy" while the male characters all get full armor.
Like, you used an MMO as an example at one point, saying your wife wished she had sexier options.
First, that's a game where you make your character avatar, not a game where the characters are set, so more options do indeed make sense….But less skimpy outfits should be an option too. Like, let someone make the super sexy woman if they want, but give me the option of making a more practical looking female character too.... Also, don't make the better armor skimpy. Like, I hate when these games include a less skimpy clothing option.... BUT, the stats of the less skimpy options all suck. If you want GOOD protective armor, you inexplicably have to wear the armor that has more skin showing which would LOGICALLY be WORSE at protection.....
I think the best argument for this is: Film.
Film isn't perfect either, but it's getting much better, and it has this problem far less.
There are a lot of us, myself included, who feel Video games CAN be art. the medium has the capacity in it to become great art, and to be recognized as such. There's a lot of people out there waiting for video games to get their own "Citizen Kane" or "Watchmen" as Film and comic books respectively have gotten. That game that makes people take notice and realize that games CAN be artistic.
We'll NEVER get there if the vast majority the females in games are sex objects.
NOBODY thinks the sexy stuff should go away, and the fact that you repeatedly try to say we do, and claim we're "Slut shaming" proves how much you are just flat out ignoring half of what we're saying and are choosing to see the rest very wrong.
But, for example, just as Film has movies like Phirana 3D (and it's sequel, Phirana 3DD) and that's fine.... it ALSO has movies like Schindler's List.
Just imagine the movie Schindler's List in fact. Now, imagine, would that movie have been taken seriously if EVERY SINGLE Female character in the movie were played by a supermodel with DD cup breasts and were wearing bikinis the entire movie?
Sexy stuff doesn't need to be eliminated from gaming, but we do need more, not all, but just MORE women that look and dress like normal women.
-
So walking up and kissing a strange woman on the road is not sexual harashment? Are you sure?
That is a completely different example from the one you gave of consensual kissing your wife. That's downright assault. The assault is the harassment, not the kiss act itself. That could be substitued for a grope or a catcall or even just a leering look and have the same negative connotations.
The kiss itself isn't sexual, or else parents kissing their children's foreheads, or kissing your granny's cheek would be awful. It's intimate, but that's not the same thing.
You clearly understand there's a difference between the two things. so why do you refuse to acknowledge that there's a difference between the two things.
Treating people as things and as only things is the problem. Treat em like people.
Game or book or movie characters can be sexy. But there should be a fair amount of practical too. There's room for both.
-
Game or book or movie characters can be sexy. But there should be a fair amount of practical too. There's room for both.
Whoa…... it's like Robby just explained this in terms so simple a 12 year old can get this in only THREE sentences....
You're blowin' my mind Robby.
-
As I said awhile ago, this isn't a problem of sex.
It's a problem of PROPORTION and CONTEXT.And fuck man, I dunno about you. But as a straight male who is apparently old enough to be married how are you not rolling your eyes every time out of the blue some game designer is jangling tits in your face like a keys in front of a toddler.
Don't you feel stupidly pandered to in a really crass and brainless way? Insulted even on some level?Or I'm curious here, are you so socially programmed that you cannot even imagine answering that question with anything but some frat boy bullshit about NO MAN IM ALWAYS GOOD TO GO LOL, WHY WOULD I EVER SAY NO TO TITS.
-
@Monkey:
As I said awhile ago, this isn't a problem of sex.
It's a problem of PROPORTION and CONTEXT.Nah, see, that's a well reasoned statement that actually acknowledges that there can be a middle ground in this discussion.
CLEARLY what's really going on is that we're all slut shaming prudes who want EVERY SINGLE Female character in a goddamn burqa.
Nice try tho Zeph. Bringing reason to the topic that is.
Another point Zeph brings up that I think hasn't been said but needs to.
I'm tired of having it be that every time some minority be it Race, Sex, or LGBT gets a bit of nice representation in a game…. the GG folks out there jump on it for being "Blatant Pandering to SJWs".... but we NEVER see them fight against the BLATANT pandering they're getting all the time like the aforementioned "Dangling tits in your face like keys to a toddler" thing....
Why is Pandering ONLY bad when it's to someone who isn't a White Cis Heterosexual male?
-
GG: Why should it matter what ethnicity the lead character is? Are people saying they can't identify with a white male?
Me: Good point, so for fun and fresh air let's make him Korean. I mean why not?
GG: NO THATS NOT WHAT I MEAN, HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO IDENTIFY WITH THAT, I MEAN UM
-
In other news, street fighter 5 unveiled a new character today.
-
I feel like crap now.
I bumped this thread with the GG line in Funimation's dub of Prison School and now it blew up again.
I'd participate in the debate, but explaining the most basic principles to someone who is unwilling to try and understand isn't worth the headache. Six goddamn pages later and the question is still ''But guys, why are you saying objectification is BAD?''
-
In other news, street fighter 5 unveiled a new character today.
sigh If it wasn't for the damn outfit she looks like a fun character.
-
I un-ironically want media of all forms to be analogous to the first ~10 seconds of this:
-
In other news, street fighter 5 unveiled a new character today.
@Monkey:
Hey pal, Tits Mcgee can be a character I guess. Sure whatever.
Why then of the five female characters is every single one Tits Mcgee.
The ninja lady? Tits McGee.
The lady with the gun who was a mercenary? Tits McGee.
The space marine? Tits McGee, now featuring space high heels.
The lawyer the company sends to advise you? Tits McGee. Her briefcase has a g-string on it also.
The death phantom monster lady? Tits McGee with get this, THREE tits.Also they're all 20 years old somehow.
Or if it's Japanese they're all 14.Now introducing Brazilian Tits McGee!
-
Take off the ass-chaps and tighten up the shirt a little and its be fine. You can still show cleavage and be sexy without having something that's going to be impractical and nip-slip every two seconds.
-
This is why Chun-Li will always be the #1 Street Fighter girl.
-
This is why Chun-Li will always be the #1 Street Fighter girl.
Speaking of her, what about her alt outfit?
-
I feel like crap now.
I bumped this thread with the GG line in Funimation's dub of Prison School and now it blew up again.
I'd participate in the debate, but explaining the most basic principles to someone who is unwilling to try and understand isn't worth the headache. Six goddamn pages later and the question is still ''But guys, why are you saying objectification is BAD?''
-
In other news, street fighter 5 unveiled a new character today.
Lol, she looks fun to play. Also I don't really post here but what are people's thoughts on R Mika than? Is she oversexualized or does her outfit make sense given that she's a wrestler and she's supposed to be over the top?
And yeah Chun Li is the best designed female, she strikes a nice balance between being classy while still I guess being somewhat fanservicey. Well at least Ryu has the "Hot Ryu" alternate, although, I'm not sure why people equate that outfit to like R Mika's.
-
R. Mika also has a horrendous terrible design that makes no sense and can't possibly be any good for actual fighting.
Anyway, this really shoulod be over in the Street Fighter thread. I was just posting the one image to make a point about the topic at hand.
-
In other news today. Canadian Alex Jones strikes again? "Sigh"
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Also he's accent is screaming "Please let me kill you!" I just don't like it that much? But that's just me. :/
-
Prison School looks like a fitting dub job true to the source material would be an uninterrupted series of fart noises.
-
@Monkey:
Prison School looks like a fitting dub job true to the source material would be an uninterrupted series of fart noises.
16 chars of yuppification!
-
And you continue to have no clue what objectification means. When you kiss a stranger without consent, you are not treating them as a human with feelings who deserves respect. It is objectification XD. "Me see hot woman flesh. Me want put mouth on. Me all that matters. Me Papakis."
I just used an example where that's not the case. One-sided love can result in sexual harashment , can it not? Thus that sexual harashment is not comming from objectification.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
In other news, street fighter 5 unveiled a new character today.
Her gameplay seemed boring. Or , dunno , not unique enough.
-
I just used an example where that's not the case. One-sided love can result in sexual harashment , can it not? Thus that sexual harashment is not comming from objectification.
Alright shut up about whatever stupid semantics tangent this is because no one cares.
You were asked to define what you mean by objectification like twenty posts ago, so now do it. -
@Monkey:
Alright shut up about whatever stupid semantics tangent this is because no one cares.
You were asked to define what you mean by objectification like twenty posts ago, so now do it.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification
Instead of being a lazy ass pls READ what stands there, too and most of all UNDERSTAND it.
-
This post is deleted!
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification
Ice bear says illuminati confirmed!
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
I thoughts GG hated Wikipedia? :/
-
[hide]
In social philosophy, objectification is the act of treating a person as an object or thing.
[…]
See Also
Dehumanization[/hide]
[hide]
Sexual objectification is the act of treating a person as an instrument of sexual pleasure. Objectification more broadly means treating a person as a commodity or an object without regard to their personality or dignity.
[/hide]
-
Your point? Did I say it wasn't or did I deny it anywhere? Point me to it please.
-
Please display that you actually understand the material, rather than just reiterating what is written on the blackboard.
-
Please display that you actually understand the material, rather than just reiterating what is written on the blackboard.
No , if the need rises we will use it as common agreeing ground.
-
So, you are incapable of explaining or comprehending even the most basic part of this discussion without just copy-pasting someone else's words?
And that you can't even find the relevant passages within the other person's writing?
-
Your point? Did I say it wasn't or did I deny it anywhere? Point me to it please.
Your initial argument was that objectification is required for sexuality. By the definition you provided, you're casually advocating for dehumanization, which is to say, again by the definition you provided, disregarding the personality or dignity of anyone you interact with sexually.
These are your thoughts according to you.