8 ms·

The headline comes off as pretty strong and generalizing, while the actual article only states "But it’s worth noting that chatbot abuse often has a gendered c

The headline comes off as pretty strong and generalizing, while the actual article only states "But it’s worth noting that chatbot abuse often has a gendered component. Although not exclusively, it seems that it’s often men creating a digital girlfriend, only to then punish her with words and simulated aggression." But isn't our culture filled with much worse fantasy violence? What about the millions of digital Assassin's Creed NPCs brutally murdered by players? I heard Assassin's Creed is quite popular with female gamers and has a female playable hero character. Should that be titled "Women spend hours murdering unarmed men in virtual reality"? I feel like this article has willingly sacrificed a big part of its discussion potential just through its headline. Or maybe, this was never intended to be actually discussed.

estaseuropano 5y ago
Not an exoert on the space or substance if the article, but I can see the difference here is intent/motive. A player killing a character (m/f/it) for in-game benefits is something else than doing so for the pleasure of abusing someone. The real question would be: do these same men also abuse male chatbots (and if not, why not)?
zahma 5y ago
Yes, you’ve identified quite the double-standard there with the video-game heroine mass-murdering all those men! As if men didn’t also enjoy playing a female character. Are we somehow to believe that women are as likely to commit murder based on this sampling of virtual report cards? Unfortunately in the real world, it’s still the case that women are underrepresented in positions of power, relatively underpaid, more likely to be harassed, sexually assaulted or raped, and dare I say abused and killed by their partners. I wonder why that is? Is it because we don’t take seriously the issues of misogyny and sexism, even when it’s made manifest and celebrated on forums as popular as Reddit? There is no equivalence here that somehow playing a female character who kills men is akin to elaborating an abusive relationship then gloating about it with other men. There’s room for discussion about fantasy and gender, but equating these two doesn’t argue that in good faith when the very activity you’re comparing to represents a socially endemic problem.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  I think you missed the meaning. The point was not to use the virtual behavior of women to support equivalence in real world gender violence, but point out the absurdity of drawing real world extrapolations from virtual behavior, and the absurdity of making blanket judgements about groups as broad as gender. As you rightly point out, there are plenty of real life examples of abuse, which I agree is an endemic problem. That said, we should be cautious about conflating a real problem with a fictional one.
  - fxtentacle 5y ago
    That is a great thought, and I'd like to add: Probably we can more easily solve the real problems if we stop mixing them up with fictional ones. So an article like this might actually hurt the overall cause of improving the gender violence problem.
hnburnsy 5y ago
>The headline comes off as pretty strong and generalizing, while the actual article only states... Pretty much summarizes the state of much of journalism today.

estaseuropano 5y ago

Not an exoert on the space or substance if the article, but I can see the difference here is intent/motive. A player killing a character (m/f/it) for in-game benefits is something else than doing so for the pleasure of abusing someone. The real question would be: do these same men also abuse male chatbots (and if not, why not)?

zahma 5y ago

Yes, you’ve identified quite the double-standard there with the video-game heroine mass-murdering all those men! As if men didn’t also enjoy playing a female character. Are we somehow to believe that women are as likely to commit murder based on this sampling of virtual report cards? Unfortunately in the real world, it’s still the case that women are underrepresented in positions of power, relatively underpaid, more likely to be harassed, sexually assaulted or raped, and dare I say abused and killed by their partners. I wonder why that is? Is it because we don’t take seriously the issues of misogyny and sexism, even when it’s made manifest and celebrated on forums as popular as Reddit? There is no equivalence here that somehow playing a female character who kills men is akin to elaborating an abusive relationship then gloating about it with other men. There’s room for discussion about fantasy and gender, but equating these two doesn’t argue that in good faith when the very activity you’re comparing to represents a socially endemic problem.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
I think you missed the meaning. The point was not to use the virtual behavior of women to support equivalence in real world gender violence, but point out the absurdity of drawing real world extrapolations from virtual behavior, and the absurdity of making blanket judgements about groups as broad as gender. As you rightly point out, there are plenty of real life examples of abuse, which I agree is an endemic problem. That said, we should be cautious about conflating a real problem with a fictional one.
- fxtentacle 5y ago
  That is a great thought, and I'd like to add: Probably we can more easily solve the real problems if we stop mixing them up with fictional ones. So an article like this might actually hurt the overall cause of improving the gender violence problem.

hnburnsy 5y ago

>The headline comes off as pretty strong and generalizing, while the actual article only states... Pretty much summarizes the state of much of journalism today.