Twitch chat comparisons between male and female streamers

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Dragonbums:

-dismissive image removed-

You sure do assume a lot. Lots of outrage. Lots of either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I am saying in order to justify that outrage. Assume what you will I careth not. Just sharing my opinion on a subject.

(And yes getting hit by the mods is worth it. Set up was just too good.)

EDIT:
Removed dismissive image. And a formal apology to Dragonbums for being a dick. It was "TRIGGERED" image for those of you wanting to know.

proxyhostlawl:

Dragonbums:

image

You sure do assume a lot. Lots of outrage. Lots of either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I am saying in order to justify that outrage. Assume what you will I careth not. Just sharing my opinion on a subject.

(And yes getting hit by the mods is worth it. Set up was just too good.)

This is ironic coming from a user who didn't care enough about the issues so much that they proceeded to get mad at people assuming all men do this towards female streamers.

proxyhostlawl:
Snip

You have not necessarily made a point just because you made a snide remark. Also you accuse someone of misrepresenting and then just depict them as "triggered" as if that's somehow more accurate.

CritialGaming:

proxyhostlawl:
snip

Pictures that speak volumes. Thank you.

They have their tits out. This does not justify people acting like assholes. At all.

Dragonbums:

This is ironic coming from a user who didn't care enough about the issues so much that they proceeded to get mad at people assuming all men do this towards female streamers.

I'm not mad. Amused by the projection, yes. But mad, no. Well not in the emotional sense. Plenty crazy though.

erttheking:

proxyhostlawl:
Snip

You have not necessarily made a point just because you made a snide remark. Also you accuse someone of misrepresenting and then just depict them as "triggered" as if that's somehow more accurate.

It is pretty accurate. Did you read their post? Apparently my problem is women are speaking.

erttheking:

CritialGaming:

proxyhostlawl:
snip

Pictures that speak volumes. Thank you.

They have their tits out. This does not justify people acting like assholes. At all.

I don't anyone here has said that it does. It just attracts certain assholes.

proxyhostlawl:
Snip

It's ok when you do it. Gotcha.

And no one here has said that? Yeah, they didn't say it was justified, only that they were asking for it.

CritialGaming:
But regardless there does seem to be a sense of asking for it, especially when it comes to so called "boobie" streamers.

Which is apparently better.

erttheking:

proxyhostlawl:
Snip

It's ok when you do it. Gotcha.

pfft- okay. If that's the way you feel.

And no one here has said that? Yeah, they didn't say it was justified, only that they were asking for it.

CritialGaming:
But regardless there does seem to be a sense of asking for it, especially when it comes to so called "boobie" streamers.

Which is apparently better.

Kaceytron does come to mind. But then she is playing a character. So yeah there is someone in this thread who did say that. Congrats. I guess? He entire point was that its seems to be the community those streamers had created and thus not really victims of it. At least my read on it.

My guess is you when full, "VICTIM BLAMING IS BAD GUYZ!" moral kick and stopped paying attention.

EDIT: Changed BACK to BAD apologies to err.

proxyhostlawl:
Snip.

The guy who responded to a long and complicated post with "lol triggered" is trying to talk down to me about misrepresenting the person I'm talking to. Really?

So her playing a character is justification for all civility to be thrown out? It's that easy? Huh. And let's remember something. Critical Miss said that all women had to do to qualify for this was to do things like wear makeup. Put on make up and you "ask" for it. You "create a community" where it's ok for stuff like that to happen. Really? I mean...really?

Victim blaming is back? When the fuck did it ever leave? And yes, this is victim blaming. Criticalgaming is saying that women are asking to be harassed because they pretty themselves up for a camera. And you're getting offended that I have a problem with it.

erttheking:

proxyhostlawl:
Snip.

The guy who responded to a long and complicated post with "lol triggered" is trying to talk down to me about misrepresenting the person I'm talking to. Really?

So her playing a character is justification for all civility to be thrown out? It's that easy? Huh. And let's remember something. Critical Miss said that all women had to do to qualify for this was to do things like wear makeup. Put on make up and you "ask" for it. You "create a community" where it's ok for stuff like that to happen. Really? I mean...really?

Victim blaming is back? When the fuck did it ever leave? And yes, this is victim blaming. Critical Miss is saying that women are asking to be harassed because they pretty themselves up for a camera. And you're getting offended that I have a problem with it.

I'm not getting offended. I am disagreeing with you. If anything you are the one getting offended by me disagreeing with you.
And I am not Critical Miss. I am neither defending or attacking their position. I am stating mine.

And I responded to an outraged post that by and large was an attack on my person with what I feel like it merits.

As for Kaceytron, she is trolling the trolls. Dear God its beautiful. Give her a watch.

FFS, you have Wrex going on about strippers and creepers (no offense Wrex but no blackjack? am disappoint), DragonBums saying my problem is women are speaking, and you getting hostile over disagreement.

Do I think its okay? No.
Is it my job to police other people? No.
Do I think people can limit their exposure to nastiness? Yes.
I don't do this shit so it not my problem. I'll leave that up to the streamer or the mods for the stream.

-sighs-
Here is a picture of a cat with chainsaw. Proxy OUT!

proxyhostlawl:
Snip

If you're not offended, you've got a funny way of showing it. Maybe it's just personal experience, but I find it to go beyond simple disagreeing when you type something like " "VICTIM BLAMING IS BACK GUYZ!" and accuse me of not paying attention, when I've been paying full attention and have to question if you have been. And if you're not defending CriticalGaming's position, for what reason did you reply to my reply of him? That kind of looks like defending his position to me. And if you don't want to, feel free not to, but if you reply to me defending it, I'm going to disagree with it.

Uh, yeah, I'm failing to see the attack on your person.

Less getting hostile over a disagreement and more frustrated over your dismissive attitude. I still haven't forgotten the triggered image despite the lack of a real personal attack on you.

Anyone here wanting to have a real discussion about the issues, please raise your hand...

erttheking:

proxyhostlawl:
Snip

If you're not offended, you've got a funny way of showing it. Maybe it's just personal experience, but I find it to go beyond simple disagreeing when you type something like " "VICTIM BLAMING IS BACK GUYZ!" and accuse me of not paying attention, when I've been paying full attention and have to question if you have been. And if you're not defending CriticalGaming's position, for what reason did you reply to my reply of him? That kind of looks like defending his position to me. And if you don't want to, feel free not to, but if you reply to me defending it, I'm going to disagree with it.

Uh, yeah, I'm failing to see the attack on your person.

Less getting hostile over a disagreement and more frustrated over your dismissive attitude. I still haven't forgotten the triggered image despite the lack of a real personal attack on you.

Oh sorry my bad, should be "BAD" not "BACK" will edit.

Your issue is that not only are they dealing with it but they had the nerve to open their mouths and voice ...

Sounds like a personal attack to me. Maybe I am just weird... and crazy... Proxyville will do that to ya.

EDIT: As for my dismissive attitude. I don't think this a real problem. I think people are taking this way too seriously. And I really must go now, I swear.

The chainsaw cat is giving me the death glare....

proxyhostlawl:
Snip

Glazing over the rest of my post but...fair enough.

Looking around the post she was replying too, and it seems like she took your initial post as an attack on women, and herself, saying that they should be able to deal with it just like men, when she apparently found the problem to be more complex than that. So...*Shrugs*.

erttheking:

proxyhostlawl:
Snip

Glazing over the rest of my post but...fair enough.

Looking around the post she was replying too, and it seems like she took your initial post as an attack on women, and herself, saying that they should be able to deal with it just like men, when she apparently found the problem to be more complex than that. So...*Shrugs*.

..... That was civil. Thank you.

In that spirit:

@Dragonbums

I apologize for the 'Tiggered" bit. If you like I will edit it out. I don't think you and I will ever see eye to eye on this. And I do agree it is bullshit when it happens. I just disagree about what has to be done about it. By-gones be by-gones?

proxyhostlawl:

erttheking:

proxyhostlawl:
Snip

Glazing over the rest of my post but...fair enough.

Looking around the post she was replying too, and it seems like she took your initial post as an attack on women, and herself, saying that they should be able to deal with it just like men, when she apparently found the problem to be more complex than that. So...*Shrugs*.

..... That was civil. Thank you.

In that spirit:

@Dragonbums

I apologize for the 'Tiggered" bit. If you like I will edit it out. I don't think you and I will ever see eye to eye on this. And I do agree it is bullshit when it happens. I just disagree about what has to be done about it. By-gones be by-gones?

Ok, fair enough. Sorry if I let my temper get the better of me.

erttheking:

proxyhostlawl:

erttheking:

Glazing over the rest of my post but...fair enough.

Looking around the post she was replying too, and it seems like she took your initial post as an attack on women, and herself, saying that they should be able to deal with it just like men, when she apparently found the problem to be more complex than that. So...*Shrugs*.

..... That was civil. Thank you.

In that spirit:

@Dragonbums

I apologize for the 'Tiggered" bit. If you like I will edit it out. I don't think you and I will ever see eye to eye on this. And I do agree it is bullshit when it happens. I just disagree about what has to be done about it. By-gones be by-gones?

Ok, fair enough. Sorry if I let my temper get the better of me.

Lol its fine dude. Its one of those subjects that everyone gets pissed about and starts seeing the worst in people. And I am sorry for being a dismissive dick.

erttheking:

CritialGaming:

proxyhostlawl:
snip

Pictures that speak volumes. Thank you.

They have their tits out. This does not justify people acting like assholes. At all.

But it does justify comments about them.

Again all I am trying to point out is that we should be pointing the blame not SOLELY upon chat for comments but also upon the streamer. I mean look that those pictures. Having your entire screen your facecam on a GAMING streaming service, means a couple of things.

1. They obviously want the audience's attention on them, not the game.

2. The game it literally a tiny picture on the screen and most of the time the streamer isn't even playing the game or talking about the game. The merely have the game there to not outright violate Twitch's TOS, which they basically do anyway by not keeping their streams video game related.

3. There is a different between having a facecam so that you can better interact with the audience during gameplay, and what these streamers do.

Now again, I'm not trying to fight between what's really right and what's really wrong here. What I am saying is that these "streamers" need to have some responsibility for their actions. Clearly the talk in their chat doesn't bother them, because A) they are actively interacting with their chats, B) since they are so actively interacting with their chats and they take no moderative actions to weed out the "seedy" types, they are obviously okay with it. Otherwise why the fuck would they not just ban a shit talker? It's one button, boom gone, which then teaches the rest of the chat that it isn't okay.

There is a reason why serious game streamers don't have this issue. They control their chatrooms. They act like responsible people.

Let me ask you something. If you heard your child say racial slurs around the house and you not only not punish them but you join in with them, who is then at fault when that child gets suspended from school for using slurs? The child, or you?

And don't you dare take the argument that these are grown ass man doing this because the principal is the same. If a cop doesn't stop a drug dealer when you catch them red handed, then that cop is also guilty of assisting crime through proxy.

Then again those are also extreme examples because let's face facts here. Being an asshole in chat is not a crime, it isn't even against active ToS uses in most chatrooms. Individual chatrooms are allowed to have their own rules, and as such has all the power and right to enforce whatever chat behaviors that they want. This "catcalling" behavior is being allowed in FULL, THEREFORE the streamer bare the RESPONSIBILITY here.

If you don't want something to happen in your house, stop it from happening. Otherwise don't encourage it to happen, and don't complain that it is happening.

CritialGaming:
There is a reason why serious game streamers don't have this issue.

Nice totally arbitrary distinction you have there. I'd go more in depth, but your entire post is just a gigantic No True Scotsman fallacy (No True Gamer?) and there's really no point in arguing with logical fallacies.

CritialGaming:

There is a reason why serious game streamers don't have this issue. They control their chatrooms. They act like responsible people.

See, you don't know that. You can't know that.You assume that.

If you don't want something to happen in your house, stop it from happening. Otherwise don't encourage it to happen, and don't complain that it is happening.

You're damn right I don't want this happening in my house. That's why I'm here, arguing against flimsy justifications for why this isn't a problem.

Now, if I were to take what you say your argument is about, (Twitch's revenue model encourages shock/lewd tactics some people are merely exploiting that for all it's worth), then on some level I agree with you.

...if I ignore almost all of the arguments you've actually made about it. (These people aren't being forced to stream, even the respectable ones have an air or asking for it, they could just not be on camera, etc.)
Hell, the Kotaku article you link to and seemingly set up as a counter example for manages to make the argument you say you're making without having a solid chunk of people "misunderstand" them.

Gethsemani:

CritialGaming:
There is a reason why serious game streamers don't have this issue.

Nice totally arbitrary distinction you have there. I'd go more in depth, but your entire post is just a gigantic No True Scotsman fallacy (No True Gamer?) and there's really no point in arguing with logical fallacies.

This isn't subjective opinion. If you are a serious video game streamer, the game you are streaming is not a tiny window. The focus is on the game. That's objective evidence seen in those screen caps. I'm not doubting whether or not they are true gamers, and it isn't relevant information. They aren't streaming for the games though, that much is clear.

altnameJag:
[quote="CritialGaming" post="663.944728.23847317"]

There is a reason why serious game streamers don't have this issue. They control their chatrooms. They act like responsible people.

See, you don't know that. You can't know that.You assume that.
[quote]

Can't know what? That they monitor their chat? Yes I absolutely can, and so can you! Just go to Totalbiscuit's stream, or Presshearttocontinue's stream. There are always mods, and bots controlling chat. The streamers themselves will ban people, or turn their chats into subscriber only mode to make sure the chat stays clean. It is 100% controlled and as a result the overall behavior in the chatrooms are far cleaner and better.

So yes I do KNOW that! It is no assumption. In fact these serious streamers do exactly what I've been saying the "boobie" streamers do as well, and that is that they take responsibility for their chats, their audience, and the entire nature of their stream. It is a CHOICE that these other streamers make to NOT regulate their chats, and control their overall image. A 100% choice falling fully upon the streamer not the chatroom.

Remember my biggest point on this. The streamer has full control of their chat. Even those that have built up a seedy reputation can always decide that enough is enough and change the entire format of their channel, both in terms of content and chatroom behavior. The streamer has full control over that. And the fact that certain streamers don't do that, doesn't mean that they can't. It means they don't WANT too.

Responsibility!

CritialGaming:
This isn't subjective opinion.

Of course it is. Don't pretend that your subjective ideals of what makes a "serious" streamer are in any way objective.

CritialGaming:
If you are a serious video game streamer, the game you are streaming is not a tiny window. The focus is on the game. That's objective evidence seen in those screen caps. I'm not doubting whether or not they are true gamers, and it isn't relevant information. They aren't streaming for the games though, that much is clear.

This is all your subjective opinion that you are trying to dress up in some fancy objective drapings. The truth is that you don't get to arbitrarily decide what constitutes a serious streamer anymore than me, altnameJag or proxyhostlawl does. You are free to think their stylistic choices in how to stream are unserious, but it reflects on no one but yourself.

Gethsemani:

CritialGaming:
There is a reason why serious game streamers don't have this issue.

Nice totally arbitrary distinction you have there. I'd go more in depth, but your entire post is just a gigantic No True Scotsman fallacy (No True Gamer?) and there's really no point in arguing with logical fallacies.

C'mon, you know what he meant. His argument is not "gurls r not reel gamers!"

His argument is "streamers who point the camera at the game, not at their exposed chest, (as well as using the security and modding tools available to them) don't have this issue".

There, now there's no mention of "serious gamers", only facts like where the camera points and what tools are being utilized.

Houseman:
C'mon, you know what he meant. His argument is not "gurls r not reel gamers!"

His argument is "streamers who point the camera at the game, not at their exposed chest, (as well as using the security and modding tools available to them) don't have this issue".

There, now there's no mention of "serious gamers", only facts like where the camera points and what tools are being utilized.

I know what he meant, that's why I am calling him on his logical fallacy. Don't pretend that the only way I could disagree with him is if I haven't understood his point.

Gethsemani:
[quote="Houseman" post="663.944728.23847449"]C'mon, you know what he meant. His argument is not "gurls r not reel gamers!"

His argument is "streamers who point the camera at the game, not at their exposed chest, (as well as using the security and modding tools available to them) don't have this issue".

There, now there's no mention of "serious gamers", only facts like where the camera points and what tools are being utilized.

The "logical fallacy" only exists when you misrepresent his point as a "no true scotsman" argument, which it isn't. For more information, see my summation of his argument that you just quoted.

Houseman:
The "logical fallacy" only exists when you misrepresent his point as a "no true scotsman" argument, which it isn't. For more information, see my summation of his argument that you just quoted.

His argument is that "serious streamers" (his words) don't do the things these streamers that have toxic chat rooms do. That' a logical fallacy no matter how much you convolute it, dress it up in fancy words or try to twist his intention to get around it.

Here, let me show you the relevant snippet again:

CritialGaming:
There is a reason why serious game streamers don't have this issue.

So do me a solid Houseman and just drop this argument, because you can't get around what CriticalGaming actually wrote.

Gethsemani:

His argument is that "serious streamers" (his words)

You're missing the point of his argument by focusing on the words "serious streamers".

Replace those two words with "streamers who point the camera at the game, not at their exposed chest, (as well as using the security and modding tools available to them)" and the "fallacy" disappears.

Or hey, how about you pretend that what I just said is a completely different argument, wholly separated from whatever Critial said and try to refute it?

"streamers who point the camera at the game, not at their exposed chest, (as well as using the security and modding tools available to them) don't have this issue, therefore, the people that do have this issue must be asking for it".

There. Debate that instead. I even used the words "asking for it" to make it extra juicy.

Houseman:

"streamers who point the camera at the game, not at their exposed chest, (as well as using the security and modding tools available to them) don't have this issue, therefore, the people that do have this issue must be asking for it".

Except that they do have this issue, just less of it.

As that study showed.

altnameJag:
Except that they do have this issue, just less of it.

Okay, substitute "don't have this issue" with "have a decreased amount of this issue".

Houseman:

altnameJag:
Except that they do have this issue, just less of it.

Okay, substitute "don't have this issue" with "have a decreased amount of this issue".

Okay. And that's a bad thing, right?

altnameJag:

Houseman:

altnameJag:
Except that they do have this issue, just less of it.

Okay, substitute "don't have this issue" with "have a decreased amount of this issue".

Okay. And that's a bad thing, right?

Having less of an undesirable thing is preferable to having more of it.

Houseman:

altnameJag:

Houseman:

Okay, substitute "don't have this issue" with "have a decreased amount of this issue".

Okay. And that's a bad thing, right?

Having less of an undesirable thing is preferable to having more of it.

So what are we arguing about?

altnameJag:
So what are we arguing about?

You're the one who replied to me. I was addressing Gethsemani. We aren't arguing about anything.

Houseman:
You're missing the point of his argument by focusing on the words "serious streamers".

Replace those two words with "streamers who point the camera at the game, not at their exposed chest, (as well as using the security and modding tools available to them)" and the "fallacy" disappears.

Or hey, how about you pretend that what I just said is a completely different argument, wholly separated from whatever Critial said and try to refute it?

"streamers who point the camera at the game, not at their exposed chest, (as well as using the security and modding tools available to them) don't have this issue, therefore, the people that do have this issue must be asking for it".

There. Debate that instead. I even used the words "asking for it" to make it extra juicy.

Nope. I am not going to argue about what you wish CriticalGaming said. His response made it amply clear that he fully meant serious streamers and not just streamers. The sentence you wished CriticalGaming wrote is full on victim blaming and we've already ridden that merry-go-round in this thread, so I am not going to bother with it again.

So, how about we get out of this semantic discussion that leads absolutely nowhere?

CritialGaming:

Gethsemani:

CritialGaming:
There is a reason why serious game streamers don't have this issue.

Nice totally arbitrary distinction you have there. I'd go more in depth, but your entire post is just a gigantic No True Scotsman fallacy (No True Gamer?) and there's really no point in arguing with logical fallacies.

This isn't subjective opinion. If you are a serious video game streamer, the game you are streaming is not a tiny window. The focus is on the game. That's objective evidence seen in those screen caps. I'm not doubting whether or not they are true gamers, and it isn't relevant information. They aren't streaming for the games though, that much is clear.

You do seem to be implying that there is only one acceptable way to stream on Twitch and that is the format seen in those screen caps, which is simply not true.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked