3 ms·

If the problem is my choice of the term 'battle', I was borrowing a phrase from game theory: http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Battle_of_the_sexes_(game_theory) http:/

by iamdave 12y ago

If the problem is my choice of the term 'battle', I was borrowing a phrase from game theory: http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Battle_of_the_sexes_(game_theory) http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Battle_of_the_sexes_(game_theory) which I genuinely believe the subject matter has many contextual parallels to. Obviously I do not intend to speak as if the social conversation about sexism in gaming, tech and other industries is an actually even battle where both sides have equal rhetorical or empirical firepower to "win" or "lose". And if indeed the problem is that I called it a 'battle', then I'll conditionally accept correction on that (even if I think it ignores the larger point I was attempting to make). I think now is a good time for me to step aside from this before we go off the rails.

ben0x539 12y ago
My problem with the particular phrase 'battle of the sexes' is that invites a reduction in this context that gamergate holds a reasonable male position and Sarkeesian merely holds an equally reasonable female position, and that men can't be blamed for holding the gamergate position and that only women should reasonably hold Sarkeesian's position. I admit I'm ignorant of the game theory allusion you're making. More generally I fear I don't understand the larger point you're trying to make if you weren't trying to do the "two sides, both have some good points and some bad points, let's ask the peope receiving death threats to sit down with their abusers and find a compromise" truth-is-in-the-middle thing.
- iamdave 12y ago
  let's ask the peope receiving death threats to sit down with their abusers and find a compromise" truth-is-in-the-middle thing. Except I never said that. I never insinuated that, if you think that's the case, then it appears you're trying to force your interpretations into my statements, and that's not cool. Instead, what I've asserted repeatedly is this: 1) Sexism in gaming, tech and other industries needs to be addressed. Absolutely and positively. 2) Many who carry the banner of "Feminist" and many who carry the banner "Gamer" have taken unfortunate and problematic stances, as well as have made unfortunate and problematic statements to get "their" side more validity to the point where taking a side either way carries many severe consequences in the interest of moving a conversation forward. 3) Instead of simply jumping to one side because of how the other side reacts, I personally have decided to abstain from participating further until I see an opportunity where I personally feel comfortable participating and not be accused of being sexist/misogynist/whateverist or otherwise chided for not expressing myself in absolute support. Is that a little less ambiguous?
  - ben0x539 12y ago
    I still think 2) is one hell of a false equivalency, ymmv.
    - iamdave 12y ago
      Please break it down for me? I'm clearly not seeing it (we often fail to see the failings in ourselves, it's just human), I for my part tried to clarify my stance; repeating "false equivalency" doesn't help me understand your response any better.
      - ben0x539 12y ago
        As far as I can tell, there's the gamergate people organizing the harassment of people, posting their victims' private addresses, sending them death threats and all kinds of abuse, bullying people into withdrawing from their online identities, all under a propaganda screen of fabricated pretenses and smear campaigns. Then there's the "feminist" crowd which wants that sort of thing to not happen, and also talk about videogames. Your way of putting it implies that these two are equivalent in being "unfortunate and problematic", which in my opinion is a severe misrepresentation of the situation.
        iamdave 12y ago
        Your way of putting it implies that these two are equivalent in being "unfortunate and problematic", which in my opinion is a severe misrepresentation of the situation. In your opinion then, what's a better way to present it? I'm trying to look at this as broadly as I possibly can without getting strung up in highlighting granular, "this instance" and "that instance" responses, effectively coming across as a 'single issue debater'.
        ben0x539 12y ago
        It's a 4chan-style raid/social media harassment op. There's not much to it. It's what they do.

by iamdave 12y ago

ben0x539 12y ago

My problem with the particular phrase 'battle of the sexes' is that invites a reduction in this context that gamergate holds a reasonable male position and Sarkeesian merely holds an equally reasonable female position, and that men can't be blamed for holding the gamergate position and that only women should reasonably hold Sarkeesian's position. I admit I'm ignorant of the game theory allusion you're making. More generally I fear I don't understand the larger point you're trying to make if you weren't trying to do the "two sides, both have some good points and some bad points, let's ask the peope receiving death threats to sit down with their abusers and find a compromise" truth-is-in-the-middle thing.

iamdave 12y ago
let's ask the peope receiving death threats to sit down with their abusers and find a compromise" truth-is-in-the-middle thing. Except I never said that. I never insinuated that, if you think that's the case, then it appears you're trying to force your interpretations into my statements, and that's not cool. Instead, what I've asserted repeatedly is this: 1) Sexism in gaming, tech and other industries needs to be addressed. Absolutely and positively. 2) Many who carry the banner of "Feminist" and many who carry the banner "Gamer" have taken unfortunate and problematic stances, as well as have made unfortunate and problematic statements to get "their" side more validity to the point where taking a side either way carries many severe consequences in the interest of moving a conversation forward. 3) Instead of simply jumping to one side because of how the other side reacts, I personally have decided to abstain from participating further until I see an opportunity where I personally feel comfortable participating and not be accused of being sexist/misogynist/whateverist or otherwise chided for not expressing myself in absolute support. Is that a little less ambiguous?
- ben0x539 12y ago
  I still think 2) is one hell of a false equivalency, ymmv.
  - iamdave 12y ago
    Please break it down for me? I'm clearly not seeing it (we often fail to see the failings in ourselves, it's just human), I for my part tried to clarify my stance; repeating "false equivalency" doesn't help me understand your response any better.
    - ben0x539 12y ago
      As far as I can tell, there's the gamergate people organizing the harassment of people, posting their victims' private addresses, sending them death threats and all kinds of abuse, bullying people into withdrawing from their online identities, all under a propaganda screen of fabricated pretenses and smear campaigns. Then there's the "feminist" crowd which wants that sort of thing to not happen, and also talk about videogames. Your way of putting it implies that these two are equivalent in being "unfortunate and problematic", which in my opinion is a severe misrepresentation of the situation.
      - iamdave 12y ago
        Your way of putting it implies that these two are equivalent in being "unfortunate and problematic", which in my opinion is a severe misrepresentation of the situation. In your opinion then, what's a better way to present it? I'm trying to look at this as broadly as I possibly can without getting strung up in highlighting granular, "this instance" and "that instance" responses, effectively coming across as a 'single issue debater'.
        ben0x539 12y ago
        It's a 4chan-style raid/social media harassment op. There's not much to it. It's what they do.