I withdraw my support for RPS and eat a large slice of humble pie

[Con]

Honestly this is too convoluted and basically exhausting for me too care about.  I am glad that people have this passion about arguing for games but to me it sounds too much like the political intrigues/backstabbing/harassment and bullying found in any large corporate organization.  Just with a million monkeys typing about it on the internet.

Con

[Huw the Poo]

Honestly this is too convoluted and basically exhausting for me too care about.  I am glad that people have this passion about arguing for games but to me it sounds too much like the political intrigues/backstabbing/harassment and bullying found in any large corporate organization.  Just with a million monkeys typing about it on the internet.

Con

The harassment and bullying is precisely what I'm opposed to.  I get that feminists and SJW will always be annoyed with certain games and that's fine, if that's all it was.  But lately anyone who dares have any kind of opposing viewpoint is being hounded, and that's what's making me so angry.  I don't care that other people have different opinions to my own, I just want them to keep them to themselves and not try to coerce other people into parroting the same stuff.

You left out Wimminkind.  Sexist pig.

OK that genuinely made me LOL!  Thanks mate!

[Boggit]

Your post raises some interesting issues about censorship on forums that IanC was talking about - that any dissenting opinion can get you hounded, or even banned from a forum just for being honest in your view. :-X Scary thought if that really was all there was to it. :o

http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=11017.0

[Huw the Poo]

Wow, that's quite the story!  I'm amazed I wasn't banned, then, when EU3 was out and I questioned why I should buy the DLC just to make the game playable. :)

[panzerde]

One part of the fuel for the fire was a video by some feminist called Anita Sarkeesian "explaining" how women are objectified in games and how such games are normalising the objectification of women in real life.

In general I'll just point at Brant's posts and say "what he said" pretty much sums up what I think on the topic. 

I will say stacking Anita Sarkeesian versus the average gaming troll cretin in a discussion is liable to create such a potent singularity of stupid that, well, it's likely to tear the ass-end out of the universe. It's just a bad idea.

[Huw the Poo]

I will say stacking Anita Sarkeesian versus the average gaming troll cretin in a discussion is liable to create such a potent singularity of stupid that, well, it's likely to tear the ass-end out of the universe. It's just a bad idea.

Oh she formed a cogent argument, absolutely, and one would at least hope that she frowns on the actions of her legion of followers.  I just happen to think that she's entirely wrong.  I also have more to say about her later, but it's 01:00 here and I'm off to bed for now.

[bayonetbrant]

If anyone seriously thinks that the objectification of women in games can cause a corresponding increase in the objectification of women in real life, shouldn't we also be agreeing with the time-worn and demonstrably false notion that violence in games can cause an increase in violence in real life?

So if there's no ability to learn from video games then the Marines are wasting a shitload of time and money on Smuck to manage their DVTE suite?

The "learning from video games" crowd has to come to grips with the fact that if there are actual learning effects from games, that some of those effects can be negative.  It's the structure around the learning that reinforces the positive effects while maintaining a control on the negative effects.  But there's no way that you can argue that video games don't have an informal learning effect while trying to simultaneously arguing for the positive effects of video games in a formal learning context.

[Father Ted]

My view on this topic is that the difficulty I have with all these sort of discussions is that both "sides" expect to be allowed to promote their arguments, yet get annoyed at the other "side" being allowed to promote its argument.  My opinion of someone might be that they're a total f*cking c*nt - do I have an inalienable right to express that  opinion?  If I post that opinion and it's deleted, am I the victim of censorship?

Rest assured I'm posting this in the spirit of a Devil's Advocate, to promote discussion, not start a row.

[MetalDog]

it sounds a lot like the extremists on both sides or just shouting at each other, and no one is bothering to listen in the middle anywhere

That is as perfect a summation of politics as I have EVER seen!

[Toonces]

It's probably breast if both sides of the hill just stop juggling these issues and drop it.

[Boggit]

My view on this topic is that the difficulty I have with all these sort of discussions is that both "sides" expect to be allowed to promote their arguments, yet get annoyed at the other "side" being allowed to promote its argument.  My opinion of someone might be that they're a total f*cking c*nt - do I have an inalienable right to express that  opinion?  If I post that opinion and it's deleted, am I the victim of censorship?

Rest assured I'm posting this in the spirit of a Devil's Advocate, to promote discussion, not start a row.

Fair enough then - here's an alternate position to discuss -

I suppose it depends how it is done, and also the nature of the audience you address. It's one thing discussing the matter privately with a few mates over a few beers, it's another altogether with a general audience whom you are unlikely to know in entirety. Firstly the language used is inappropriate to factually describe your opinion of the the person. All it does is convey an insult, and reflect on your inability to clearly articulate why you feel that way about them - They are not literally as described.

I think it is a basic line of civility you will have crossed at that point - as much towards the wider audience, as to the subject in question. On that basis censorship is more to do with the nature of the language used for the offense it is likely to convey to the audience, rather than an injunction on your capacity to express an opinion on a person.

Conversely, you could cite evidence as to the behaviour of said person, and say on that basis you question their character res ipso loquitur - that the facts speak for themselves. It's then quite hard for your detractors to rationally argue your opinion other than on the facts. If at that point you are censored for making an argument on the facts then I think you have every right to be upset at censorship - it does depend to some extent on your target audience - but I don't think is a general unalienable right to express any opinion any way you like without drawing, perhaps warranted criticism at the way it's done rather than for the substance of the criticism.

My $0.02, again playing Devil's Advocate in the interest of promoting the discussion. :)

[GDS_Starfury]

its actually the kinda chick I see Mirth banging.   >:D  ^-^              O0

oh, those smileys aren't my commentary.  thats how the date goes.

[Boggit]

its actually the kinda chick I see Mirth banging.   >:D  ^-^              O0

Now you're being mean... ::) ;)

[GDS_Starfury]

I've walked more miles in those shoes then he has.

[bayonetbrant]

Back to one of Huw's key points - there's no reason to completely shut down the debate on this, if people can manage to keep it civil.  As long as you're not insulting each other or giving out personal info (aka "doxxing") or otherwise trolling with the sole point of fanning the flames, there's no reason not to just talk about both sides, or all the different sides in this case.

Aside from a few flare-ups in the Combat Mission threads, we've been able to keep things pretty civil around here, and that's one of the things I like most about this place.  I imagine that'll get tougher as we grow, but so far, I'm happy with the level of discussion we tend to have.