Twitch chat comparisons between male and female streamers

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Smithnikov:

I did answer it. We do not charge or prosecute the homeowner or the robbed. We charge and prosecute the thief. So no, they are not to blame.

I didn't ask "who is to blame".

This is my question: "We have no issue discussing these problems and how to protect ourselves from them. We don't cry "victim blaming" whenever somebody suggests a way to protect themselves from these things. We don't roll our eyes and wish people will stop saying that theft is normal. Why does it happen here?"

In other words, why is it that we can say this:

"If you leave your car unlocked, you give bad people opportunities to steal"
but not this:
"If you wear a low-cut top, you give bad people opportunities to catcall"

Feel free to substitute "catcall" with whatever internet-comment equivalent you think fits best.

Houseman:

"If you leave your car unlocked, you give bad people opportunities to steal"
but not this:
"If you wear a low-cut top, you give bad people opportunities to catcall"

If you leave the house you give drink drivers the ability to run you over.
If you purchase things, you give rogues the opportunity to rip you off.

Quick, stop engaging in normal activities.

Houseman:
I didn't ask "who is to blame".

This is my question: "We have no issue discussing these problems and how to protect ourselves from them. We don't cry "victim blaming" whenever somebody suggests a way to protect themselves from these things. We don't roll our eyes and wish people will stop saying that theft is normal. Why does it happen here?"

In other words, why is it that we can say this:

"If you leave your car unlocked, you give bad people opportunities to steal"
but not this:
"If you wear a low-cut top, you give bad people opportunities to catcall"

Feel free to substitute "catcall" with whatever internet-comment equivalent you think fits best.

Except we generally don't tell people who had break-ins or were robbed that they should have been more prepared or vigilant. If someone tells you that they were robbed and beaten on their way home from the pub your first response is not to go "Oh well, you shouldn't have gone out drinking if you didn't want someone to beat you down when you couldn't defend yourself" or telling the home owner that their skimping on alarm costs means that it is their fault the robbers targeted their home. Yet it is perfectly fine in these scenarios. It is perfectly alright to tell women that what they wear or how they act makes them legitimate targets for sexual harassment.

To tell women that their choice of clothes invites sexual harassment is also to normalize it. We already know robbery or assault is wrong, because those are illegal actions under the law. Talking about a woman's body is not necessarily illegal (the legal definition of sexual harassment requires quite an effort to be reached in the first place), but it is toxic behavior and the only way to prevent toxic behavior is to make it abundantly clear that it is never acceptable. If we accept that "it is alright to catcall her because she was dressing slutty", we are also saying that toxic behavior is alright if we make the subjective judgement that the other person "deserved it".

As I said to StatusNil, the only way we can make gaming a less toxic cesspool of shitty behavior being perpetrated by men against women (or other men, for that matter) is to constantly speak out against the toxic behaviors. Even if that Twitch streamer makes the (tasteless) decision to stream while in her underwear and with the cam pointed firmly at her cleavage. She has the right to do so without getting comments about her sexuality, what kind of sex acts guys would like to do with her or about her body in a sexualized fashion. You can try to obfuscate the shitty behavior in relative privation rhetoric, but ultimately it only means you are defending shitty people doing shitty things.

Houseman:

"If you leave your car unlocked, you give bad people opportunities to steal"
but not this:
"If you wear a low-cut top, you give bad people opportunities to catcall"

Except we don't. That's my point.

Just because you left your car unlocked, you are not charged with the theft of the vehicle if it's stolen. The one who stole it is. That's why it's perfectly consistent to blame the cat caller, not the girl.

Gethsemani:
As I said to StatusNil, the only way we can make gaming a less toxic cesspool of shitty behavior being perpetrated by men against women (or other men, for that matter) is to constantly speak out against the toxic behaviors.

I sincerely doubt constantly whining about something will ever be an effective solution to a problem, especially given that gaming does not exist in a vacuum, nor is it special in any kind of way in regards to this specific behaviour.

inmunitas:

Gethsemani:
As I said to StatusNil, the only way we can make gaming a less toxic cesspool of shitty behavior being perpetrated by men against women (or other men, for that matter) is to constantly speak out against the toxic behaviors.

I sincerely doubt constantly whining about something will ever be an effective solution to a problem, especially given that gaming does not exist in a vacuum, nor is it special in any kind of way in regards to this specific behaviour.

Then you ban and shun the people who act that way in the circles you game in. Simple.

inmunitas:
I sincerely doubt constantly whining about something will ever be an effective solution to a problem, especially given that gaming does not exist in a vacuum, nor is it special in any kind of way in regards to this specific behaviour.

Jesus, Gamergate has been a massive waste of time then, hasn't it.

Baffle2:

inmunitas:
I sincerely doubt constantly whining about something will ever be an effective solution to a problem, especially given that gaming does not exist in a vacuum, nor is it special in any kind of way in regards to this specific behaviour.

Jesus, Gamergate has been a massive waste of time then, hasn't it.

I don't know about that, people seem to quiet enjoy obsessing over a fictitious movement and the deeds it's supposedly committed.

inmunitas:

I don't know about that, people seem to quiet enjoy obsessing over a fictitious movement and the deeds it's supposedly committed.

Sooo... a massive waste of time.

Gethsemani:

Except we generally don't tell people who had break-ins or were robbed that they should have been more prepared or vigilant.

This isn't an answer to my question.

If someone tells you that they were robbed and beaten on their way home from the pub your first response is not to go "Oh well, you shouldn't have gone out drinking if you didn't want someone to beat you down when you couldn't defend yourself" or telling the home owner that their skimping on alarm costs means that it is their fault the robbers targeted their home. Yet it is perfectly fine in these scenarios.

I might if they clearly knew that they were going to get beaten and robbed, but still failed to take the necessary precautions, or worse, made it easier.

Just like these streamers clearly know what sorts of comments they're likely to receive, but not only do they fail to take the necessary precautions, they make it easier.

It is perfectly alright to tell women that what they wear or how they act makes them legitimate targets for sexual harassment.

Just like it's perfectly alright to tell people that how they secure their car or home makes them legitimate targets for theft. I'm glad you see the point.

To tell women that their choice of clothes invites sexual harassment is also to normalize it.

It "normalizes" it in the sense that theft is normal? Theft happens every day. That doesn't mean theft is "okay".

I think you might be equivocating "normal" with "okay".

If we accept that "it is alright to catcall her because she was dressing slutty"

Yeah, you're totally getting the words "normal" and "okay" mixed up.

So, "normal", in this context, is something that is expected to happen. Millions of thefts are expected each year. If you leave your car running and unattended, on a busy city street, you should expect for it to be stolen.

None of these things are okay. For something to be okay, in this context, it must be something morally approved, in a general sense.

Now, you can argue about whether or not online catcalling is "morally approved in a general sense", but please don't confuse "normal" and "alright".

Smithnikov:

Houseman:

"If you leave your car unlocked, you give bad people opportunities to steal"
but not this:
"If you wear a low-cut top, you give bad people opportunities to catcall"

Except we don't. That's my point.

We don't tell people "If you leave your car unlocked, you give bad people opportunities to steal?"

Are you sure?

And if you don't care for sign companies, here's a more official source.

I'm sure I can find one of those for all 50 states if I wanted.

Revnak:

Wrex Brogan:

proxyhostlawl:

Dicks out for Tigger?

To better explain what I am getting at here. I haved watch a few streams hosted/run/done by females. The ones who focus on the game/content tend not have the focus on their tits/ass/underwear tend to have a chat more focus on the game/content. Where as the ones who focus on tits/ass have chats that do the same. Though there was one notable expectation. A female streamer did a let's play of LoL while having a vibe going to town on her. Nice two camera set-up. No nudity just moans. Most of the chat was focused on how badly she played support Annie. No idea why I brought that up.

Back to my point here. To steal a phrase commonly used by our moral guardians, "Freedom to do action does not protect from consequences of said action." At least I think its how it goes. Proxy-ville has no need of moral guardians so my memory is hazey of those times...

Ah, yes, but Freedom of action does not welcome sexual harassment. Just 'cause someone's showin' off their titties doesn't give you a free pass to be an asshole in chat and make 'em uncomfortable by being a creep. Hell, I know of many a porn streamer or camgirl who complains about sexual harassment or creepers despite the sexual nature of their streams - there's a limit to what is acceptable, and it's key to remember that these people streaming are still people, even if the camera is firmly wedged betwix their breasts. Have some manners, be polite and don't be a creepy asshole just 'cause you're jerkin' your gherkin, god dammit.

But how can I sustain my manliness if I do not tell every woman I masturbate to that I did so and that I want to know where her house is so I can see her poop? There's a clear cause and effect here, see titties, ask to see poop. This is just the way the world is.

Get help dude.

proxyhostlawl:

Revnak:

Wrex Brogan:

Ah, yes, but Freedom of action does not welcome sexual harassment. Just 'cause someone's showin' off their titties doesn't give you a free pass to be an asshole in chat and make 'em uncomfortable by being a creep. Hell, I know of many a porn streamer or camgirl who complains about sexual harassment or creepers despite the sexual nature of their streams - there's a limit to what is acceptable, and it's key to remember that these people streaming are still people, even if the camera is firmly wedged betwix their breasts. Have some manners, be polite and don't be a creepy asshole just 'cause you're jerkin' your gherkin, god dammit.

But how can I sustain my manliness if I do not tell every woman I masturbate to that I did so and that I want to know where her house is so I can see her poop? There's a clear cause and effect here, see titties, ask to see poop. This is just the way the world is.

Get help dude.

I tried, but my lawyer keeps telling me it's no use, the restraining order is pretty iron tight.

proxyhostlawl:

Revnak:

Wrex Brogan:

Ah, yes, but Freedom of action does not welcome sexual harassment. Just 'cause someone's showin' off their titties doesn't give you a free pass to be an asshole in chat and make 'em uncomfortable by being a creep. Hell, I know of many a porn streamer or camgirl who complains about sexual harassment or creepers despite the sexual nature of their streams - there's a limit to what is acceptable, and it's key to remember that these people streaming are still people, even if the camera is firmly wedged betwix their breasts. Have some manners, be polite and don't be a creepy asshole just 'cause you're jerkin' your gherkin, god dammit.

But how can I sustain my manliness if I do not tell every woman I masturbate to that I did so and that I want to know where her house is so I can see her poop? There's a clear cause and effect here, see titties, ask to see poop. This is just the way the world is.

Get help dude.

dont victim blame dude

would you blame someone who had their house robbed that it was their own fault?

its not his fault she has hot poop

Houseman:

Smithnikov:

Houseman:

"If you leave your car unlocked, you give bad people opportunities to steal"
but not this:
"If you wear a low-cut top, you give bad people opportunities to catcall"

Except we don't. That's my point.

We don't tell people "If you leave your car unlocked, you give bad people opportunities to steal?"

Are you sure?

And if you don't care for sign companies, here's a more official source.

I'm sure I can find one of those for all 50 states if I wanted.

See, it's generally agreed on the the idiots actually doing the stealing have done wrong.

Not quite the case everytime online stuff comes up. And you're leaving out the bit where even the women who aren't "looking for" these comments still get them.

Houseman:
None of these things are okay. For something to be okay, in this context, it must be something morally approved, in a general sense.

Oh, so that explains why so many guys like to "make jokes" about how female gamers should get back in the kitchen, should go make them a sandwich, should show tits or gtfo etc.. Or make sexual comments about Twitch streamers. It is considered okay, because a lot of people don't see a problem with it. Keep in mind that morals are subjective.

Look, I'd reply more, but you are just getting lost in an overwrought attempt to prove that I confuse okay and normal, which I haven't. You still haven't addressed the glaring issue that you are blaming the victim of toxic behavior for being subject to toxic behavior.

Let me contextualize your stance: Do you usually tell bullied kids that they shouldn't make themselves targets if they don't want to be bullied?

Gethsemani:

Oh, so that explains why so many guys like to "make jokes" about how female gamers should get back in the kitchen, should go make them a sandwich, should show tits or gtfo etc.. Or make sexual comments about Twitch streamers. It is considered okay, because a lot of people don't see a problem with it. Keep in mind that morals are subjective.

It depends on the audience of whom those "jokes" are told to. Would the joke be considered "okay" among a room full of people like you? Obviously not. Would it be considered "okay" in certain parts of the internet? Yes.

Just like making racist jokes would be considered "okay" at a KKK rally, it depends on the audience.

Look, I'd reply more, but you are just getting lost in an overwrought attempt to prove that I confuse okay and normal

You clearly are confusing "okay" and "normal". I even quoted you mixing up "normal" and "alright". I'm happy to discuss it, but if you're just going to say "no, wrong" without saying anything further on the subject, I'm going to remain convinced that you don't know the difference between "okay" and "normal".

You still haven't addressed the glaring issue that you are blaming the victim of toxic behavior for being subject to toxic behavior.

When did I ever say "it's the victim's fault", or anything like that?

Find a quote from me saying something even remotely close to this, and then I'll address that "glaring issue".

inmunitas:
I sincerely doubt constantly whining about something will ever be an effective solution to a problem, especially given that gaming does not exist in a vacuum, nor is it special in any kind of way in regards to this specific behaviour.

I'd go one further and say the only appreciable result that kind of behavior ever seems to produce is even more hostility (e.g., Gamergate).

I mean, if people actually enjoy the flame wars we've all been engaged in for the last couple of years, then more power to them, I guess. Me, I can still remember when online talk about games would be focused on games; I miss those times.

Houseman:
It depends on the audience of whom those "jokes" are told to. Would the joke be considered "okay" among a room full of people like you? Obviously not. Would it be considered "okay" in certain parts of the internet? Yes.

Just like making racist jokes would be considered "okay" at a KKK rally, it depends on the audience.

Sure, and the holocaust was "okay" in Nazi Germany. However, we both live in the Western world, in countries that at least nominally adhere to the humanistic ideals. That means that in society, as a whole, it is not "okay" to propagate toxic attitudes and ideas. That you have to resort to "but if you make this toxic joke in a room full of bigots they'd laugh" to prove your point only means you've also proven mine.

Once again, it is our responsibility to make sure our hobby is free from toxic attitudes regarding any gender, ethnicity or whatever else you can think off. Nevermind that the discussion at hand is about making sexual comments about women to their face, which has absolutely nothing to do with cracking racist jokes in the KKK.

Houseman:
Find a quote from me saying something even remotely close to this, and then I'll address that "glaring issue".

In other words, why is it that we can say this:

"If you leave your car unlocked, you give bad people opportunities to steal"
but not this:
"If you wear a low-cut top, you give bad people opportunities to catcall"

You're welcome.

Smithnikov:

StatusNil:

And in that case, they're not exhibiting the arrogance of some special "privilege" granted them by teh Patriarchy or what have you, but rather taking advantage of the anonymity of the medium to enjoy a transgressive thrill of behaving in a manner that would likely result in a swift punishment in a "real world" setting.

There was a time I would agree with this, but given the cultural climate now, they would now be held up and praised as heroes of freeze peach.

Yes, exactly. Thanks for summing up a major part of what I've been saying all along. The cultural climate of issuing grandstanding "with us or against the wall!" ultimata in order to pressure people into supporting disastrously simplistic, fundamentally prejudiced doctrinal crusades has indeed been amply demonstrated to lead into alienation and backlash. People are forced into these antagonistic positions by the logic of whatever you want to call the ideological turf grab we're seeing.

See for example how I'm declared "a part of the problem" on this very thread by Gethsemani. Now, I've yet to go "yeeeeah gurl, tittiez out 4 muh boyz!1!" or words to that effect on a Twitch chat in my life (or even participated in one), and I certainly understand how it can make many people undeservedly uncomfortable, so it's not like I think it's really super to behave like that. But as it happens, I'd rather we try to calmly understand what is actually going on and see if we can use that understanding to impact this unpleasant nuisance and mitigate its ill effects to a realistic degree. Whereas she's still convinced that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, beating the innocent and uninvolved over the head with the old "Gamers Are Dead!" cudgel some more will result in some kind of Utopian outcome of pervasive enlightenment, if we just keep repeating the bloody ritual strenuously enough.

To me, that "solution" smacks of magical thinking (exorcism of a malevolent spirit that you can't pin down to actual persons, who you just castigate as a proxy), and I'm indeed happy not to be part of it. But I do question the totalizing view that casts everything not part of your Grand Solution as belonging to "The Problem" and to be done away with along the rest of Not-Solution. What, only The Solution will remain after the ashes have been cleared? Yeah, count me out.

Only there's no "out" through this false choice, is there? And that's why we get to have a Culture War.

StatusNil:
To me, that "solution" smacks of magical thinking (exorcism of a malevolent spirit that you can't pin down to actual persons, who you just castigate as a proxy)

Never mind that your summation of my stance is flawed, let's just focus on this.

The solution is a psychological concept called Effacement, originally a behavioral concept it has since been incorporated into other psychological models and treatments, like Dialectical Behavior Therapy. Somewhat simplified the idea is that when someone exhibits an unwanted behavior, you do not reward it but instead enact a consequence (in DBT, which focuses on self harm, this means not allowing the client to speak with their therapist for 24 hours after self harming). In a setting like an online chat room or game chat, it translates into telling people off and making it clear that they are behaving inappropriately. Eventually they will come to understand that their behavior does not reward them and they will find other ways to interact in chat.

I am not advocating being an asshole to those people, because that just shows that you can be toxic too. I advocate speaking up and making these people feel that there are unwanted consequences from perpetuating toxic behavior.

But hey, feel free to keep up the charade of knowing what I actually think or mean, without first consulting me. I am sure that's how we will end this "culture war" of yours.

Gethsemani:

I am not advocating being an asshole to those people, because that just shows that you can be toxic too. I advocate speaking up and making these people feel that there are unwanted consequences from perpetuating toxic behavior.

But hey, feel free to keep up the charade of knowing what I actually think or mean, without first consulting me. I am sure that's how we will end this "culture war" of yours.

To be a bit more precise, you were advocating the blaming of "gaming and gaming culture" for this crass behavior, which I can only surmise implies support for all those articles condemning the activity and the abstraction for how a minority of likely immature individuals conduct themselves in a condition of anonymity, something which is by no means exclusive to the context of "gaming and gaming culture". And that, I would suggest, is just flailing at an immaterial scapegoat for the sake of of being an "opinion leader", rather than a "solution" to the inherent structural issues with a universally distributed network as a medium. And as I've said before, when you flail at a ghost, you're going to hit a lot of real people who have done nothing to deserve the hostility, provoking a confrontation.

I'm not really sure what the finer points of distinction between "being an asshole to these people" and "speaking up and making [them] feel there are unwanted consequences" are, but I suspect they may both present much the same in practice to someone who already has problems respecting the feelings of others at a digital remove. Which is to say, not only ineffective, but offering the consolation prize of a magnified reaction of a negative kind to attention-seeking behavior. You can't exactly raise unruly kids into responsible adults by having Internet strangers pick online fights with them, that process requires time for development and the kind of benevolent attention you can't focus via the screen. What we could do is simply demonstrate the kind of decency and consideration that we would have others observe, perhaps even by not furiously patrolling the virtual space for transgressors we can feel good about tearing apart, on account of their "toxicity".

Anyway, thanks for the charade license. But please don't lay the "culture war" stuff at my feet, I tried to warn them to stay off that shit. But they were so very drunk on their hubris.

StatusNil:

To be a bit more precise, you were advocating the blaming of "gaming and gaming culture" for this crass behavior, which I can only surmise implies support for all those articles condemning the activity

StatusNil:

Yes, exactly. Thanks for summing up a major part of what I've been saying all along. The cultural climate of issuing grandstanding "with us or against the wall!" ultimata in order to pressure people into supporting disastrously simplistic, fundamentally prejudiced doctrinal crusades has indeed been amply demonstrated to lead into alienation and backlash. People are forced into these antagonistic positions by the logic of whatever you want to call the ideological turf grab we're seeing.

This feels contradictory to me.

Gethsemani:

Sure, and the holocaust was "okay" in Nazi Germany. However, we both live in the Western world, in countries that at least nominally adhere to the humanistic ideals. That means that in society, as a whole, it is not "okay" to propagate toxic attitudes and ideas.

Great! So your goal is accomplished, isn't it? Society, as a whole, is already in agreement that "catcalling" is bad. So where's the issue?

In other words, why is it that we can say this:

"If you leave your car unlocked, you give bad people opportunities to steal"
but not this:
"If you wear a low-cut top, you give bad people opportunities to catcall"

You're welcome.

I was asking a question about why we can say the first sentence, but not the second. I'm not blaming anybody for anything by asking this question, I'm asking why we can't propose solutions, so I don't think that this is what you're looking for. Feel free to show me how I am, if you really feel that you found the right quote.

Houseman:

Gethsemani:

Sure, and the holocaust was "okay" in Nazi Germany. However, we both live in the Western world, in countries that at least nominally adhere to the humanistic ideals. That means that in society, as a whole, it is not "okay" to propagate toxic attitudes and ideas.

Great! So your goal is accomplished, isn't it? Society, as a whole, is already in agreement that "catcalling" is bad. So where's the issue?

Presumably, the part where it gets pointed out and people write 5000 word rebuttals about how it's completely normal behavior, part of human nature, not actually a problem, and women were asking for it anyway, so why bother trying to change it?

undeadsuitor:
Honestly this just reinforces how much women can. not. win. In these situations. If you're going to do any public presentations, you have to look your best. Looking your best for women is puttong on makeup. But if women were makeup they're sluts who deserve sexist comments.

There is a difference between professional environment make-up.

For example - https://www.jdate.com/jmag/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/JDate-Dating-Female-Lawyer-e1444781289510.jpg

Then there is Sexuallized make-up - https://www.instagram.com/p/BMmW2NZjddm/?taken-by=pokket_official

You can see the difference. While the first picture is perfectly fine for looking good for a camera, the streamer goes the second route.

I'm not using the "asking for it" argument because nobody is ever asking for said behavior. However in the case of streamers, they "foster" these communities. In their behavior, in their dress, in their personalities, they foster this kind of behavior. It is the reason why you see it so often in certain streamer's chatrooms.

If it isn't fostering, go watch LegendaryLeah stream for an hour. Then go watch Pokket stream for an hour. You will see the difference in the communities that they have created for themselves.

One thing to point out with a streamer, is they create their own audience. Everything from their own image, to their community, they create and cultivate all of it. I'm not saying that certain dirty behaviors are okay. What I am saying is that when such behavior is actively encouraged in its forum, then it should not be shamed or labeled in a negative light.

CritialGaming:

undeadsuitor:
Honestly this just reinforces how much women can. not. win. In these situations. If you're going to do any public presentations, you have to look your best. Looking your best for women is puttong on makeup. But if women were makeup they're sluts who deserve sexist comments.

There is a difference between professional environment make-up.

For example - https://www.jdate.com/jmag/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/JDate-Dating-Female-Lawyer-e1444781289510.jpg

Then there is Sexuallized make-up - https://www.instagram.com/p/BMmW2NZjddm/?taken-by=pokket_official

You can see the difference. While the first picture is perfectly fine for looking good for a camera, the streamer goes the second route.

That's a low bar for "sexualized makeup". My roommate wears that all the time. So unless the lesbian I room with is trying to sex her male roommates up by sitting on the couch watching Steven Universe, I'm what supposed to make that sexy.

I'm not using the "asking for it" argument because nobody is ever asking for said behavior. However in the case of streamers, they "foster" these communities. In their behavior, in their dress, in their personalities, they foster this kind of behavior. It is the reason why you see it so often in certain streamer's chatrooms.

So they aren't asking for it, they're just deliberately creating the environment it's found in. Bold strategy, Cotton, let's see if it pays off.

If it isn't fostering, go watch LegendaryLeah stream for an hour. Then go watch Pokket stream for an hour. You will see the difference in the communities that they have created for themselves.

And then watch the GDQ stream for an hour when they have a female runner, and notice how little of a difference the "fostered community" makes.

One thing to point out with a streamer, is they create their own audience. Everything from their own image, to their community, they create and cultivate all of it. I'm not saying that certain dirty behaviors are okay. What I am saying is that when such behavior is actively encouraged in its forum, then it should not be shamed or labeled in a negative light.

Neat. So now all you have to prove is that the main streamers getting this behavior encourage it. On a systematic level. Good luck with that.

I mean, you're gonna rebut with the same anecdotal evidence you've already used, but for it to be a convincing argument, you're going to have to find a variety of female "non-boobie" streamers that don't regularly get this shit.

I also find it hilarious you're using Pokket as your example for "sexy" makeup, then your example for not fostering the sexist comments.

altnameJag:
snip

Well for one it obviously does pay off, because they are making a living on the donations funded by this community they have created for themselves. Those people with the sexual remarks are also paying those streamers. So yes, they will fuel and foster that as much as they can because it makes them money. That's why they do what they do.

I haven't watched GDQ because I have no interest in it. But if the girls are getting catcalled in chat, that is clearly not a well modded chatroom, especially for a charity semi-professional stream. That should be much more modderated if it is the problem you say it is. But in contrast to your point here. Go look at Dexterybonus's stream (aka Dodger), who at the time of writing this post is streaming with NO makeup on (or very little I cant tell) and a bulky sweater. Her community chat is heavily controlled by mods, she doesn't foster nor encourage said behaviors and as a result there is little to none in her chat stream at all.

This isn't fostering that behavior? http://fraghero.com/twitch-streamer-banned-after-using-zelda-sword-as-vibrator-on-camera/

How about this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3qbJRMY5-U

They are doing this on purpose! This creates audience for them, and audience creates income! Some of these streamers will do anything for that audience, anything to generate income for whatever reasons you might want to consider. This is the community that THEY built though, the kinds of behavior and people they attract into their streams are all generated by their behavior on camera.

I'm not saying that said behavior is right or wrong. I'm saying that you can't call out said behavior when it is being encouraged.

It would be like a friend offering you a taco at a restaurant, then getting pissed at you because you ate the taco.

CritialGaming:

altnameJag:
snip

It would be like a friend offering you a taco at a restaurant, then getting pissed at you because you ate the taco.

And the literal objectification of women's bodies continues....

Avnger:

CritialGaming:

altnameJag:
snip

It would be like a friend offering you a taco at a restaurant, then getting pissed at you because you ate the taco.

And the literal objectification of women's bodies continues....

Uhhh..........that went an unexpected direction.

Okay so say a friend offers you a hotdog......

Avnger:

CritialGaming:

altnameJag:
snip

It would be like a friend offering you a taco at a restaurant, then getting pissed at you because you ate the taco.

And the literal objectification of women's bodies continues....

Are you saying that no analogy can ever made between a person and an object, or else it's objectification?

CritialGaming:

I haven't watched GDQ because I have no interest in it. But if the girls are getting catcalled in chat, that is clearly not a well modded chatroom, especially for a charity semi-professional stream. That should be much more modderated if it is the problem you say it is. But in contrast to your point here. Go look at Dexterybonus's stream (aka Dodger), who at the time of writing this post is streaming with NO makeup on (or very little I cant tell) and a bulky sweater. Her community chat is heavily controlled by mods, she doesn't foster nor encourage said behaviors and as a result there is little to none in her chat stream at all.

See, here's the thing. They need to mod for that. Guy streamers typically don't. That's what I'm objecting to.

They are doing this on purpose! This creates audience for them, and audience creates income! Some of these streamers will do anything for that audience, anything to generate income for whatever reasons you might want to consider. This is the community that THEY built though, the kinds of behavior and people they attract into their streams are all generated by their behavior on camera.

I'm not saying that said behavior is right or wrong. I'm saying that you can't call out said behavior when it is being encouraged.

And nobody is calling out said behavior when it's being encouraged.

I'm calling out said behavior when it isn't, and when people try weaksauce arguments appealing to "human nature". I'm not objecting to semi-porn streams getting semi-porn comments, I'm objecting to people like Dexteritybonus having to mod for that shit when her stream isn't remotely about that. I'm objecting to people saying "they're asking for it" based on tame "sexy makeup", because god forbid someone want to look good on camera.

And I'm objecting to the anecdotal rebuttals based on "I took a look around, and it seems to me" that show up everytime somebody points out a water-is-wet style observation like this. Women get more sexual comments on Twitch. Is some of it encouraged? Yes. Is all of it encouraged? Hell no, and that's the problem. We shouldn't pass this off as normal. Not if we want to improve how people see gamers anyway.

Houseman:

Avnger:

CritialGaming:

It would be like a friend offering you a taco at a restaurant, then getting pissed at you because you ate the taco.

And the literal objectification of women's bodies continues....

Are you saying that no analogy can ever made between a person and an object, or else it's objectification?

Comparing people to things is the literal definition of objectification.

(Whew, imunitas moment there)

altnameJag:
snip

Male streamers also have mods to control chat. The chat being moderated might have a different flavor, but it still needs to be controlled to be clean.

Also my whole argument was on the basis of the behavior being encouraged. Never once have I fought for unencouraged chat comments. The whole basis of this thread was a disscussion regarding the corilation behind streamer behavior and encouragement towards their audience and how that audience then reacts.

It was turned into a "no such thing as asking for it" thread.

The definition you posted says "to present as an object, especially of sight, touch, or other physical sense; make objective; externalize."

Not "to compare to an object", but "to present as an object".

So it sounds like you're wrong.

Looks like everyone who has argued against me is confused as to the definition of words crucial to this debate.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked