Dark Souls messages are sexist now

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Commanderfantasy:

Saelune:
snip

You still cannot seem to understand the difference between "sexual" and "sexist" despite people trying to explain it to you. Sexist means: "characterized by or showing prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, on the basis of sex". None of these messages show anything that could be classified under those three obligations to make the jokes "sexist". Talking about a set of breasts, or "thrusting try but hole" comments do not stereotype, show prejudice, nor are they discriminating. Therefore they cannot be sexist.

Nothing in these jokes are oppressing anyone or anything. And the fact that you cannot separate your offense from your seemingly non-existant sense of humor is baffling to me. I believe that you don't find the messages funny and that's fine. But to call them out (like the article itself) as some kind of deliberate section of the player-base specifically TRYING to keep other players(women) from playing is absurd.

erttheking:
snip

Citation needed? Seriously? Have you ever been around a group of women before? To suggest that sexualization of the opposite sex is something only men do, is seriously ignorant. Look around, watch some female youtubers, twitch streamers, or better yet, go to a party supply door and look at the Bachelorette party supplies! You'll find just as much ingrained desire to sexualize men as men do towards women.

And frankly MOST of it is completely harmless, merely part of the human desire to fuck.

Now yes, some of these things can cross the line, no one is denying that. But we are denying that the Dark Souls message of allllllll things, is not an issue in anyway and the entire reason this article was written was merely an exercise in trying to find ANYTHING to be offended by in the Souls games.

RobertEHouse:
snip

Yes pretty much exactly this.

CaitSeith:
snip

I'm not offended by the article. I'm disgusted that the desire to be offended by literally anything these days has resulted in people getting offended by 6th grade level jokes. When you are upset by shit that grade schoolers would come up with, then you clearly have deep underlying personality issues and therapy is probably a good idea.

To put it into comparison, there are ZP episodes on this very sight where Yahtzee uses the N-word freely. He makes far worse jokes against women (and men too, but jokes against them are free game). And yet, where is the outrage against him? I haven't seen anyone clamoring for his job. It's almost as if people are capable of understanding the concept of JOKES! Insane right?

This is why this is a problem, cause of all the people who will desperately claim this stuff isn't sexist.

Unfortunately, bigotry is so normalized that so many people think it is 'no big deal'.

Saelune:
snip

This is why this is a problem, cause of all the people who will desperately claim this stuff isn't sexist.

Unfortunately, bigotry is so normalized that so many people think it is 'no big deal'.[/quote]

Explain to me how dark souls messages are bigotry. Please.

Commanderfantasy:

Saelune:

This is why this is a problem, cause of all the people who will desperately claim this stuff isn't sexist.

Unfortunately, bigotry is so normalized that so many people think it is 'no big deal'.

Explain to me how dark souls messages are bigotry. Please.

We're already on page 4 of a topic explicitly about that.

Sexism is bigotry, and these comments degrading women are well, degrading to women and can make people, particularly women, uncomfortable and pushed away.

As an LGBT person, people making gay jokes or saying 'thats gay' and things like that only sends me the message I am not wanted, and that I am bad. And that is what these messages are doing for women.

Sure, men can say 'Its not sexist', but that doesnt make it not sexist cause MEN think it isnt degrading to women, but it is. Gethsemani said it pretty well.

Gethsemani:

Elijin:
Lot of dudes in here saying nah, this isnt a problem.

The messages may be pretty mild, and all that. It's not the point. It's the boys club mentality of users logging in to find themselves the butt of the joke. As individual acts, they may be pretty insignificant. Its a end effect issue though. Lots of small strokes, creating an environment where certain individuals might feel less than welcome.

It isnt a fault of Dark Souls though. Just elements of the communities that frequent it.

It serves as a good intro to micro-aggressions if nothing else. On its own they are pretty benign jokes, but they are also jokes that come within the greater context of sexual jokes aimed at women. So while the jokes in DS aren't terribly offensive on their own, they are part of a larger framework with much more offensive jokes and other terrible actions and ideas aimed at women. As a woman who has to suffer through those other jokes and actions on a daily basis, the "chest ahead therefore try thrusting"-joke serves as a reminder that you are still a woman and that others still get to make sexual jokes about your body whenever it pleases them.

It is also incredibly juvenile, which is no reason to defend these jokes at all.

Saelune:
micro-aggressions

Ah, right. The smallest possible denominator before the thing you are claiming it to be, the micro-something.

The jokes are sexual, not sexist. Your inability to realize this is as puzzling as it is absurd.

Nobody is promoting the harm of women, nobody is promoting the relegation of women to a subservient role - it's a crude joke posted by anonymous players in a game about facing impossible odds set in an incredibly oppressive and dark setting.

The ripples of community absurdist humour are flashes of joviality and fun in an atmosphere of depression.

And you want to take that away...

Abomination:

Saelune:
micro-aggressions

Ah, right. The smallest possible denominator before the thing you are claiming it to be, the micro-something.

The jokes are sexual, not sexist. Your inability to realize this is as puzzling as it is absurd.

Nobody is promoting the harm of women, nobody is promoting the relegation of women to a subservient role - it's a crude joke posted by anonymous players in a game about facing impossible odds set in an incredibly oppressive and dark setting.

The ripples of community absurdist humour are flashes of joviality and fun in an atmosphere of depression.

And you want to take that away...

I think micro-aggression stands for "something that isn't offensive, that I wish to be offended by".

Think about it, we don't do this with anything else. There's no "micro-rape", even if the guy's junk is microscopic, it's just rape. There's no "micro-assault", even if the guy attacking you has dwarfism and is using a miniature bat, it's just assault.

If something actually is what it purports to be, it doesn't get the micro, hence, I think not caring about people who decree things as "micro-x" is the prudent course of action.

Abomination:

Saelune:
micro-aggressions

Ah, right. The smallest possible denominator before the thing you are claiming it to be, the micro-something.

The jokes are sexual, not sexist. Your inability to realize this is as puzzling as it is absurd.

Nobody is promoting the harm of women, nobody is promoting the relegation of women to a subservient role - it's a crude joke posted by anonymous players in a game about facing impossible odds set in an incredibly oppressive and dark setting.

The ripples of community absurdist humour are flashes of joviality and fun in an atmosphere of depression.

And you want to take that away...

Dreiko:

Abomination:

Saelune:
micro-aggressions

Ah, right. The smallest possible denominator before the thing you are claiming it to be, the micro-something.

The jokes are sexual, not sexist. Your inability to realize this is as puzzling as it is absurd.

Nobody is promoting the harm of women, nobody is promoting the relegation of women to a subservient role - it's a crude joke posted by anonymous players in a game about facing impossible odds set in an incredibly oppressive and dark setting.

The ripples of community absurdist humour are flashes of joviality and fun in an atmosphere of depression.

And you want to take that away...

I think micro-aggression stands for "something that isn't offensive, that I wish to be offended by".

Think about it, we don't do this with anything else. There's no "micro-rape", even if the guy's junk is microscopic, it's just rape. There's no "micro-assault", even if the guy attacking you has dwarfism and is using a miniature bat, it's just assault.

If something actually is what it purports to be, it doesn't get the micro, hence, I think not caring about people who decree things as "micro-x" is the prudent course of action.

[A microaggression is a term used for brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioural, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward any marginalized group.]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression

Dreiko:
I think micro-aggression stands for "something that isn't offensive, that I wish to be offended by".

A few years ago I read an academic article about alientation of immigrants. It included some statements taken from immigrants about why they felt alienated. A representative anecdote supplied from one was his experience as a child buying sweets. He noticed the shopkeeper would smile and chat to the white kids, but never smiled or small-talked to him. So the shopkeeper agreed to serve him and never actively insulted him, yet obviously displayed a different (and less favourable attitude) to the immigrant child compared to white children. That sort of thing might be called a "microaggression".

People notice things like that, and it makes them feel unformfortable, disrespected, and looked-down upon.

It is certainly true that microaggressions may be ambiguous; it may be chance rather than intentional bias. In some ways that's part of the problem, because the person on the receiving end is stuck in uncomfortable doubt about whether they should be offended or not, as it's often easier to deal with facing certain hostility.

Commanderfantasy:
snip

I have heard people pointing out pretty much that double standard: Yahtzee getting away with harshly pointing out games being sexist or racist (and openly mocking their audience), while lesser known people gets dogpiled for stuff nowhere near as harsh.

Agema:

Dreiko:
I think micro-aggression stands for "something that isn't offensive, that I wish to be offended by".

A few years ago I read an academic article about alientation of immigrants. It included some statements taken from immigrants about why they felt alienated. A representative anecdote supplied from one was his experience as a child buying sweets. He noticed the shopkeeper would smile and chat to the white kids, but never smiled or small-talked to him. So the shopkeeper agreed to serve him and never actively insulted him, yet obviously displayed a different (and less favourable attitude) to the immigrant child compared to white children. That sort of thing might be called a "microaggression".

People notice things like that, and it makes them feel unformfortable, disrespected, and looked-down upon.

It is certainly true that microaggressions may be ambiguous; it may be chance rather than intentional bias. In some ways that's part of the problem, because the person on the receiving end is stuck in uncomfortable doubt about whether they should be offended or not, as it's often easier to deal with facing certain hostility.

You can't be positive that the reason that this particular shopkeep didn't like this particular kid was that the kid was an immigrant. It may have been a myriad different reasons. Maybe the kid had some behavioral issue and didn't remember it as a grownup but that had affected how that shopkeeper treated em. Maybe he knew the families of the other kids so he was comfortable being friendly with them cause he knew their parents would be fine with that. You can't just assume that it's because the kid was an immigrant.

I hear lots of things said about immigrants especially minding things or taking innocuous things as insults which I as a legal immigrant (who went on to get citizenship) myself, think are patently ridiculous. Stuff like asking someone to speak to you in their native tongue to see what it sounds like or complementing their English due to it not being their native tongue. I'm PROUD when someone says I speak excellent English, I studied for years to get it to that stage. I can't understand someone being offended by the nonexistent but inferred implication that people choose to read into such a compliment, one about how the speaker is presuming that people of such and such nationality are not supposed to be good English speakers by being surprised.

You don't hear such logic everywhere else. If you go to Japan and look as European as I do, people will be stunned when you speak Japanese to them, and they will not mean one bad thing about it either, they will just be pleasantly surprised if not impressed. For some reason, we rush to perceive malice here in the US.

My philosophy is that if it's ever ambiguous, always assume good in people. That makes it very easy and even if someone was actually trying to be a jerk to you, you won't be affected by it cause you won't perceive it as such. Remember, people do not GAIN anything by being aware that they are "mildly disliked" in 99% of situations, since those situations are ones where if you just don't escalate it and go on with your life, that will be the best way to resolve them.

Never rush to assume malice, because you would not want others to assume malice in your innocuous words either, unless you're a sociopath.

Dreiko:

You can't be positive that the reason that this particular shopkeep didn't like this particular kid was that the kid was an immigrant. It may have been a myriad different reasons. Maybe the kid had some behavioral issue and didn't remember it as a grownup but that had affected how that shopkeeper treated em. Maybe he knew the families of the other kids so he was comfortable being friendly with them cause he knew their parents would be fine with that. You can't just assume that it's because the kid was an immigrant.

That's very optimistic of you.

I am a white "native" of a heavily majority white country. I have plenty of non-white friends, and I cannot help but notice that many of their stories of their treatment differ from my own, and it isn't just the big stuff like getting punched in the street. Overall, I feel I'd just have to be an idiot not to realise something's going on.

I hear lots of things said about immigrants especially minding things or taking innocuous things as insults which I as a legal immigrant (who went on to get citizenship) myself, think are patently ridiculous. Stuff like asking someone to speak to you in their native tongue to see what it sounds like or complementing their English due to it not being their native tongue. I'm PROUD when someone says I speak excellent English, I studied for years to get it to that stage. I can't understand someone being offended by the nonexistent but inferred implication that people choose to read into such a compliment, one about how the speaker is presuming that people of such and such nationality are not supposed to be good English speakers by being surprised.

Funny you should mention language. No-one in my country compliments me on my ability to speak English. But I have a friend of (half) middle eastern background who is sometimes complimented on her ability to speak English - although there are other 'signal' questions. Of course she speaks good English - she was born and raised in London. Why is she being asked that and not me, if not just for physical appearance? There is obviously an implication of "You're not really one of us" when she's being asked things like that, and it's the same when it is asked of you. It might not be a big thing, and it might be something you turn to a source of pride instead of discomfort, but it is there nonetheless.

My philosophy is that if it's ever ambiguous, always assume good in people.

My philosophy is assume as little as possible. As above when I start to consider the whole of my and my non-white friends' experiences, overall I cannot help but conclude that at least some of this stuff is not innocuous. As the saying goes, the plural of anecdote is data: by favouring the ambiguity in all anecdotes individually, one stands the risk of not seeing the wood for the trees.

I genuinely think in ways it's very nice you take such a positive spin on these things, and that you seek to turn implications about your other-ness into an affirmation of or opportunity to show your same-ness. If that works for you, go for it. I certainly think it's not usually worth assuming malice and picking a fight over it at any one instance.

That said, I do however have caveats.

At core there is an indignity that you should be required to prove your same-ness in a simple social interaction. You also need to consider that for many people, these things are perhaps a lot more frequent and a lot less innocuous than you experience, and perhaps your optimism blinds you to that. I might even suggest that it's possible your optimism and pride is a psychological reaction to cover your own discomfort at being treated differently. And I'd also point out that when you say "assume the good in people", in the example above of the anecdote from an immigrant, one of theories you put out was blaming the victim (for potential behavioural issues), which is not assuming the good in him. What you therefore risk is denying genuine reasons people have had to feel aggrieved and, worse, in fact putting them into the negative (e.g. as oversensitive "snowflakes").

Agema:

Dreiko:

You can't be positive that the reason that this particular shopkeep didn't like this particular kid was that the kid was an immigrant. It may have been a myriad different reasons. Maybe the kid had some behavioral issue and didn't remember it as a grownup but that had affected how that shopkeeper treated em. Maybe he knew the families of the other kids so he was comfortable being friendly with them cause he knew their parents would be fine with that. You can't just assume that it's because the kid was an immigrant.

That's very optimistic of you.

I am a white "native" of a heavily majority white country. I have plenty of non-white friends, and I cannot help but notice that many of their stories of their treatment differ from my own, and it isn't just the big stuff like getting punched in the street. Overall, I feel I'd just have to be an idiot not to realise something's going on.

I hear lots of things said about immigrants especially minding things or taking innocuous things as insults which I as a legal immigrant (who went on to get citizenship) myself, think are patently ridiculous. Stuff like asking someone to speak to you in their native tongue to see what it sounds like or complementing their English due to it not being their native tongue. I'm PROUD when someone says I speak excellent English, I studied for years to get it to that stage. I can't understand someone being offended by the nonexistent but inferred implication that people choose to read into such a compliment, one about how the speaker is presuming that people of such and such nationality are not supposed to be good English speakers by being surprised.

Funny you should mention language. No-one in my country compliments me on my ability to speak English. But I have a friend of (half) middle eastern background who is sometimes complimented on her ability to speak English - although there are other 'signal' questions. Of course she speaks good English - she was born and raised in London. Why is she being asked that and not me, if not just for physical appearance? There is obviously an implication of "You're not really one of us" when she's being asked things like that, and it's the same when it is asked of you. It might not be a big thing, and it might be something you turn to a source of pride instead of discomfort, but it is there nonetheless.

My philosophy is that if it's ever ambiguous, always assume good in people.

My philosophy is assume as little as possible. As above when I start to consider the whole of my and my non-white friends' experiences, overall I cannot help but conclude that at least some of this stuff is not innocuous. As the saying goes, the plural of anecdote is data: by favouring the ambiguity in all anecdotes individually, one stands the risk of not seeing the wood for the trees.

I genuinely think in ways it's very nice you take such a positive spin on these things, and that you seek to turn implications about your other-ness into an affirmation of or opportunity to show your same-ness. If that works for you, go for it. I certainly think it's not usually worth assuming malice and picking a fight over it at any one instance.

That said, I do however have caveats.

At core there is an indignity that you should be required to prove your same-ness in a simple social interaction. You also need to consider that for many people, these things are perhaps a lot more frequent and a lot less innocuous than you experience, and perhaps your optimism blinds you to that. I might even suggest that it's possible your optimism and pride is a psychological reaction to cover your own discomfort at being treated differently. And I'd also point out that when you say "assume the good in people", in the example above of the anecdote from an immigrant, one of theories you put out was blaming the victim (for potential behavioural issues), which is not assuming the good in him. What you therefore risk is denying genuine reasons people have had to feel aggrieved and, worse, in fact putting them into the negative (e.g. as oversensitive "snowflakes").

A child misbehaving or being a little hard to control isn't really something bad. Some kids just are that way. I am assuming the best in people in assuming the shop-keep isn't just irrationally mean to some poor kid, and also I assume that the kid's hypothetical issue was so minor that they werenn't even aware of it themselves so it didn't cross their mind that maybe they did something to rub the shopkeep the wrong way.

I'll give you an example; when I was like 7 or so, I had a penchant for roaring like the t-rex from Jurassic Park cause I loved dinosaurs. If someone who didn't understand what I was doing saw me just yelling like crazy, they'd reasonably assume I was a weird kid in the very least. That's not on them, and I wasn't somehow being "bad" for playing dinosaur, either.

There's no malice at all in this situation. Just people rubbing each-other the wrong way as a matter of bad luck. These are the situations we ought to not turn into instances of ill-intent being perpetrated on you. They're instances where there's no victim, and where nobody benefits if there were to be one.

Commanderfantasy:

Citation needed? Seriously? Have you ever been around a group of women before? To suggest that sexualization of the opposite sex is something only men do, is seriously ignorant. Look around, watch some female youtubers, twitch streamers, or better yet, go to a party supply door and look at the Bachelorette party supplies! You'll find just as much ingrained desire to sexualize men as men do towards women.

And frankly MOST of it is completely harmless, merely part of the human desire to fuck.

Now yes, some of these things can cross the line, no one is denying that. But we are denying that the Dark Souls message of allllllll things, is not an issue in anyway and the entire reason this article was written was merely an exercise in trying to find ANYTHING to be offended by in the Souls games.

I have as a matter of fact, including a couple who were quite sexually active. I noticed that they didn't obsessively talk about butts. Haven't exactly seen this stuff on Youtube or Twitch either.

And I think these messages are a pretty good indicator of how much of a boy's club gaming can be.

erttheking:

Commanderfantasy:

Citation needed? Seriously? Have you ever been around a group of women before? To suggest that sexualization of the opposite sex is something only men do, is seriously ignorant. Look around, watch some female youtubers, twitch streamers, or better yet, go to a party supply door and look at the Bachelorette party supplies! You'll find just as much ingrained desire to sexualize men as men do towards women.

And frankly MOST of it is completely harmless, merely part of the human desire to fuck.

Now yes, some of these things can cross the line, no one is denying that. But we are denying that the Dark Souls message of allllllll things, is not an issue in anyway and the entire reason this article was written was merely an exercise in trying to find ANYTHING to be offended by in the Souls games.

I have as a matter of fact, including a couple who were quite sexually active. I noticed that they didn't obsessively talk about butts. Haven't exactly seen this stuff on Youtube or Twitch either.

And I think these messages are a pretty good indicator of how much of a boy's club gaming can be.

Oh you poor, sweet child of Summer. Either you don't know what your SO talks about with her friends when you aren't there or she hides the truth from your sensitive little heart.

The conversations the women in Sex In The City have aren't the exception, they're the norm. Or do you think shows aimed at women like SitC, Outlander, True Blood etc all feature so much riding to keep husbands interested? Because it's not.

Men do not have the monopoly on lewd commentary.

They might, on average, have less inclination to censor themselves, but both sexes enjoy discussing their sexual desires in reference to the object of their arousal.

And that is perfectly fine.

Here Comes Tomorrow:

erttheking:

Commanderfantasy:

Citation needed? Seriously? Have you ever been around a group of women before? To suggest that sexualization of the opposite sex is something only men do, is seriously ignorant. Look around, watch some female youtubers, twitch streamers, or better yet, go to a party supply door and look at the Bachelorette party supplies! You'll find just as much ingrained desire to sexualize men as men do towards women.

And frankly MOST of it is completely harmless, merely part of the human desire to fuck.

Now yes, some of these things can cross the line, no one is denying that. But we are denying that the Dark Souls message of allllllll things, is not an issue in anyway and the entire reason this article was written was merely an exercise in trying to find ANYTHING to be offended by in the Souls games.

I have as a matter of fact, including a couple who were quite sexually active. I noticed that they didn't obsessively talk about butts. Haven't exactly seen this stuff on Youtube or Twitch either.

And I think these messages are a pretty good indicator of how much of a boy's club gaming can be.

Oh you poor, sweet child of Summer. Either you don't know what your SO talks about with her friends when you aren't there or she hides the truth from your sensitive little heart.

The conversations the women in Sex In The City have aren't the exception, they're the norm. Or do you think shows aimed at women like SitC, Outlander, True Blood etc all feature so much riding to keep husbands interested? Because it's not.

....wat? I have a SO? This is news to me. I just have a friend who is sexually active. Granted we sometimes talk about that kind of stuff...but to spare you the details that I'm not comfortable with sharing, it's nothing like what you're talking about.

Meh, those shows are the female version of Transformers. Harmless junk food for when you want to turn your brain off, but not the dominating force people act like they are.

Dreiko:
A child misbehaving or being a little hard to control isn't really something bad. Some kids just are that way. I am assuming the best in people...

No, you're not. You are taking sides: giving the shopkeeper all the benefit of the doubt, and the child none. You have speculated an excuse for the shopkeeper with no direct supporting evidence that the immigrant was misbehaving as a child, furthermore that the immigrant is unaware (even with reflection now as an adult) that he was misbehaving. Trying to argue the misbehaviour was minor doesn't negate this: you are actively inventing excuses for the shopkeeper at the expense of criticising the immigrant.

Secondly, the point is also that these anecdotes don't just exist in isolation, otherwise they really would be nothing. They are representative examples of repeated patterns of experience. Like black drivers in the USA being pulled over repeatedly by the police far more than their white counterparts. You can "assume the best", individual anecdote by individual anecdote, that the police had genuine suspicion that there was something wrong to stop those drivers... but how does this address the big picture that the police keep pulling over black people and not white?

These are the situations we ought to not turn into instances of ill-intent being perpetrated on you. They're instances where there's no victim, and where nobody benefits if there were to be one.

Okay... but how do you know what the situation is, and what "ought" to be done?

Let me put it to you this way. You want to criticise people who always "assume the worst" and become offended, that's okay. But always assuming the best or worst is like always assuming it's tails when someone tosses a coin. It means inevitably being wrong some of the time. And that means wrong responses. If you want to live your own personal life "assuming the best", then that's fine - your life, your choice. But I most strongly disagree with you when you expect that of others, because their lives and their experiences are not yours to decide. Some of those people will have had experiences, perhaps minor or ambiguous, where they genuinely should feel they are being maligned.

Abomination:
Men do not have the monopoly on lewd commentary.

They might, on average, have less inclination to censor themselves, but both sexes enjoy discussing their sexual desires in reference to the object of their arousal.

And that is perfectly fine.

I'd love more lewd commentaries being made by women for women in games though. I'd like to expand my lewd vocabulary and penetrate unfamiliar territories (specially because my jokes are getting stale and overused)

CaitSeith:

Abomination:
Men do not have the monopoly on lewd commentary.

They might, on average, have less inclination to censor themselves, but both sexes enjoy discussing their sexual desires in reference to the object of their arousal.

And that is perfectly fine.

I'd love more lewd commentaries being made by women for women in games though. I'd like to expand my lewd vocabulary and penetrate unfamiliar territories (specially because my jokes are getting stale and overused)

It's unfortunate that the only ones you do hear are from the mouths of Cockney fishwives "Oouuh would you look at the rump on THAT stallion." and it gets a bit trite.

...this is some kind of satire, right? Presumably written by an alien with no knowledge of human culture? It's just dumb, juvenile humour with zero malice intended. A regular human (of any time period), given a writing instrument and a flat surface, will inevitably scratch out some joke about genitalia. Look up the graffiti found preserved in Pompeii, here's a few choice samples:


    * "I screwed the barmaid"
    * "Phileros is a eunuch!"
    * "I have buggered men"

Sex jokes are a universal constant, the only difference is people have nothing better to complain about and have to seek out ever-more-ridiculous things to be outraged over.

Ravinoff:
...this is some kind of satire, right? Presumably written by an alien with no knowledge of human culture? It's just dumb, juvenile humour with zero malice intended. A regular human (of any time period), given a writing instrument and a flat surface, will inevitably scratch out some joke about genitalia. Look up the graffiti found preserved in Pompeii, here's a few choice samples:


    * "I screwed the barmaid"
    * "Phileros is a eunuch!"
    * "I have buggered men"

Sex jokes are a universal constant, the only difference is people have nothing better to complain about and have to seek out ever-more-ridiculous things to be outraged over.

Lots of things that have been around since ancient times that should not be. Slavery used to be common, far less common now, and that's a good thing. I wouldn't consider 'Well, they used to have slavery' as a valid defense.

Saelune:
Lots of things that have been around since ancient times that should not be. Slavery used to be common, far less common now, and that's a good thing. I wouldn't consider 'Well, they used to have slavery' as a valid defense.

Except Slavery was and is a complete evil against humanity, and these jokes are not.

These jokes are harmless regardless of what you personally think. Adults joke about sex, period. It does NOT matter what walk of life you come from, every single adult on this planet with very few exceptions make and giggle about sex. Raunchy comedy is just part of humanities own sexual desires, because 99.9% of people have sexual desires in some form or fashion, part of that comes with making a joke about it.

You're "problem" with these jokes comes from your desire to have beef with anything you possibly can. It's outrage culture nothing more.

Joe Rogan said something I thought was really great and it regards this topic and all topics like this. He said, "It's not your job nor your right to dislike something on behave of everyone else. If you don't like something, a game, a comedian, movie, whatever, there are people who do and they have every right to enjoy that thing and you have of not liking it. If you don't like it that's fine, the problem comes along when you to try brainwash or bully people into also not liking it for reasons you are just making up in your own mind."

If the messages in the game bother you, turn them off, or just don't read them. You can still fully experience Dark Souls without them and it's fine. If you think EA is shilling out to people by putting a crippled woman on the cover of BFV and treating her like a badass that's fine. Don't buy the game. But let people enjoy the game for themselves, let other people decide for themselves if something is good or bad to them.

Commanderfantasy:

Saelune:
Lots of things that have been around since ancient times that should not be. Slavery used to be common, far less common now, and that's a good thing. I wouldn't consider 'Well, they used to have slavery' as a valid defense.

Except Slavery was and is a complete evil against humanity, and these jokes are not.

So you agree that the defense of 'people used to do it, so its fine' is bad?

You're "problem" with these jokes comes from your desire to have beef with anything you possibly can. It's outrage culture nothing more.

Does that outrage you? It sounds like it outrages you.

Saelune:
]So you agree that the defense of 'people used to do it, so its fine' is bad?

Nope, because that's not the defense their using. That's simply the label you are putting on their defense as a completely unrelated example to justify yourself. It isn't the same thing and you labeling it as such is just a false example to dismiss their point completely, which is usually the go-to tactic for these types of discussions.

Does that outrage you? It sounds like it outrages you.

Also nope. Doesn't outrage me. It outraged you and the author of the article though. And it outrages you that your labeling of these jokes is wrong and you have no evidence or logical reasoning to justify why you hold your opinion so you make false equivalencies like 'slavery was bad but we don't do that anymore (much)' when one thing does not and CANNOT equal the other.

Commanderfantasy:

Saelune:
]So you agree that the defense of 'people used to do it, so its fine' is bad?

Nope, because that's not the defense their using. That's simply the label you are putting on their defense as a completely unrelated example to justify yourself. It isn't the same thing and you labeling it as such is just a false example to dismiss their point completely, which is usually the go-to tactic for these types of discussions.

Does that outrage you? It sounds like it outrages you.

Also nope. Doesn't outrage me. It outraged you and the author of the article though. And it outrages you that your labeling of these jokes is wrong and you have no evidence or logical reasoning to justify why you hold your opinion so you make false equivalencies like 'slavery was bad but we don't do that anymore (much)' when one thing does not and CANNOT equal the other.

You sound outraged.

And it was the defense they were using. Just because people used to do something doesn't justify people continuing to do it.

Seek offense and you will, invariably, find it, no matter where you look.
The same goes for sexism, despite the lack of malicious intent, despite the lack of actual discrimination, despite the people it supposedly affects stating that it doesn't affect them, you will find it.

As long as you dogmatically insist that it?s there.

Combustion Kevin:
Seek offense and you will, invariably, find it, no matter where you look.
The same goes for sexism, despite the lack of malicious intent, despite the lack of actual discrimination, despite the people it supposedly affects stating that it doesn't affect them, you will find it.

As long as you dogmatically insist that it?s there.

If you close your eyes you wont see the bigotry in front of you. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It is one thing to not care about the problems others face, it is another to go out of your way to deny it exists. That is intentional, and that is extremely problematic.

Saelune:
If you close your eyes you wont see the bigotry in front of you. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It is one thing to not care about the problems others face, it is another to go out of your way to deny it exists. That is intentional, and that is extremely problematic.

It certainly would be, but here we have a case where people question whether or not bigotry was actually present, you insist that there is, others disagree, so we look for signs to make sure:
-No malicious intent
-No actual discrimination
-No victims aside from the hypothetical.

To still insist that acts of sexism are present here, despite the lack of the above, strikes me as superstitious.

I don't see why lack of malicious intent proves lack of bigotry, even assuming it not to be present.

Thaluikhain:
I don't see why lack of malicious intent proves lack of bigotry, even assuming it not to be present.

It can still be bigotry without malicious intent if there are other factors present, if these are absent AS WELL as malicious intent is, I don't see how it could be bigotry.

Combustion Kevin:

Saelune:
If you close your eyes you wont see the bigotry in front of you. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It is one thing to not care about the problems others face, it is another to go out of your way to deny it exists. That is intentional, and that is extremely problematic.

It certainly would be, but here we have a case where people question whether or not bigotry was actually present, you insist that there is, others disagree, so we look for signs to make sure:
-No malicious intent
-No actual discrimination
-No victims aside from the hypothetical.

To still insist that acts of sexism are present here, despite the lack of the above, strikes me as superstitious.

They all exist, you just say that those don't count because you think a bad joke is more valuable than how it effects people.

Saelune:
They all exist, you just say that those don't count because you think a bad joke is more valuable than how it effects people.

I don't think that, I also think it poor form to presume one's intentions.
These jokes did not affect people beyond a roll of the eyes or a bemused chuckle, there is no sexism in these jokes.

Combustion Kevin:

I don't think that, I also think it poor form to presume one's intentions.

These jokes did not affect people beyond a roll of the eyes or a bemused chuckle, there is no sexism in these jokes.

These two statements conflict.

Saelune:

Combustion Kevin:

I don't think that, I also think it poor form to presume one's intentions.

These jokes did not affect people beyond a roll of the eyes or a bemused chuckle, there is no sexism in these jokes.

These two statements conflict.

No, they don't, one is etiquette, the other an assessment of general responses.

Combustion Kevin:

Saelune:

Combustion Kevin:

I don't think that, I also think it poor form to presume one's intentions.

These jokes did not affect people beyond a roll of the eyes or a bemused chuckle, there is no sexism in these jokes.

These two statements conflict.

No, they don't, one is etiquette, the other an assessment of general responses.

???

You said it poor form to presume one's intentions, then stated that a joke had no sexism in it. Did you not presume the intentions of the joke maker?

For context, here's one of the jokes in question from the article:

A message in front of some bowls in a kitchen area of Dark Souls 3 might say, "Woman required ahead."

I mean, where's the sexism is saying that a kitchen is ahead so a woman is requ.....Oh

Elijin:

???

You said it poor form to presume one's intentions, then stated that a joke had no sexism in it. Did you not presume the intentions of the joke maker?

For context, here's one of the jokes in question from the article:

A message in front of some bowls in a kitchen area of Dark Souls 3 might say, "Woman required ahead."

I mean, where's the sexism is saying that a kitchen is ahead so a woman is requ.....Oh

Jokes based on sex don't automatically equal sexism or sexist. They are merely jokes based on real life experiences and history. You still imply oppression, and exclusion, with this statement. Again the jokes might be crude or crass, but sexist they are not. Every joke in the history of jokes is at the expense of SOMETHING/SOMEONE, but jokes are jokes, even offensive jokes have value and offer humor to the right audience. These are not that, these are simple messages using pre-build words. In your example you'd have to put a few things together to not only get the meaning, but also to take offense to it.

By all means you have the right to be offended by the messages in the game. But your offense doesn't mean that they classify as sexist, nor does it mean they are offensive to everybody.

What right do you have to tell people what they can find funny? What right do you have to tell them how they can have fun in the game? It doesn't affect you, and you have every option and chance to avoid these things. Instead these players are choosing not only to read the messages but also choosing to have issue with them.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here