Activision-Blizzard Sued By California

[The Oblivion]

You can just say you didn't look at the argument rather than pretend it isn't one. Lol.

its not an argument, its an opinion. one based almost entirely on a sjw's feelings with no basis in reality. one you can have, but a very, very incorrect one. like having the opinion dog poop tastes good.

[Traveler Voltin]

isnt this whole argument close to the whole "Violent video games make people more violent" bs that anti-video game people keep parroting?

[The Oblivion]

isnt this whole argument close to the whole "Violent video games make people more violent" bs that anti-video game people keep parroting?

its exactly that but worse. its saying if you make a violent game you want to murder your IRL co workers.

[muto]

They can think of women as objects and still not harass them? Self-control exists? Why do i even have to explain basics to a stranger online?

Yeah they can, but do you really want people with narrow minded, and sexist views developing characters for a game that people of all sexes and races play?

[Elegiac]

isnt this whole argument close to the whole "Violent video games make people more violent" bs that anti-video game people keep parroting?

No, it isn't.

Media doesn't inform action, but media -does- inform worldview which can then inform action.

Moreover, this is a discussion of media creators, not media consumers.

[The Oblivion]

Yeah they can, but do you really want people with narrow minded, and sexist views developing characters for a game that people of all sexes and races play?

i could care less who develops a game if its good and they didn't actually harass/hurt anyone.

[uuuhname]

if they didn't actually harass/hurt anyone.

which they did, which is why they are being sued by a state's government... which is why we are talking about them fostering a toxic work environment.. Jesus Christ.

[Traveler Voltin]

No, it isn't.

Media doesn't inform action, but media -does- inform worldview which can then inform action.

Moreover, this is a discussion of media creators, not media consumers.

ignoring blizzard for a moment. are you saying anyone who creates movies, shows, video games, etc that involve rape, murder, and all that stuff, are closest sexist psychopaths'?

[Elegiac]

ignoring blizzard for a moment. are you saying anyone who creates movies, shows, video games, etc that involve rape, murder, and all that stuff, are closest sexist psychopaths'?

No, please put the strawman away.

All it means is that trying to hide behind "it's just part of the story/aesthetic" isn't a valid defense and that people should be questioned as to their motives for making X piece of media.

- - - Updated - - -

i could care less who develops a game if its good and they didn't actually harass/hurt anyone.

They did, is the thing. Or else this thread wouldn't exist.

[The Oblivion]

which they did, which is why they are being sued by a state's government... which is why we are talking about them fostering a toxic work environment.. Jesus Christ.

you need to read the quoted posts to know what is being talked about before replying. to fill you in, the conversation was a hypothetical about someone who views women as objects, but never acts out. they practice self control of their negative thoughts and do no harm.

[Traveler Voltin]

No, please put the strawman away.

All it means is that trying to hide behind "it's just part of the story/aesthetic" isn't a valid defense and that people should be questioned as to their motives for making X piece of media.

quick to call a simple question a strawman.

[Elegiac]

you need to read the quoted posts to know what is being talked about before replying. to fill you in, the conversation was a hypothetical about someone who views women as objects, but never acts out. they practice self control of their negative thoughts and do no harm.

Still waiting for evidence this kind of person actually exists.

[The Oblivion]

No, please put the strawman away.

All it means is that trying to hide behind "it's just part of the story/aesthetic" isn't a valid defense and that people should be questioned as to their motives for making X piece of media.

- - - Updated - - -



They did, is the thing. Or else this thread wouldn't exist.

please follow along with the quotes before replying, as you are not following the context of a conversation. thank you.

- - - Updated - - -

Still waiting for evidence this kind of person actually exists.

you dont think people who hate another person /view them as lesser for whatever reason, but are able to control themselves exist? oof. lmfao

[uuuhname]

you need to read the quoted posts to know what is being talked about before replying. to fill you in, the conversation was a hypothetical about someone who views women as objects, but never acts out. they practice self control of their negative thoughts and do no harm.

who cares about a made up person in a made up scenario when we're talking about things that ACUTALLY happened in the real world?

[The Oblivion]

who cares about a made up person in a made up scenario when we're talking about things that ACUTALLY happened in the real world?

because thats not what you replied too. lmfao again, read before replying. otherwise what you are saying is irrelevant.

[Endus]

this is all total bull. lol it IS an argument. making a video game in an aesthetic you want in NO WAY indicates you will harass co workers. that correlation is bat shit crazy.

We're not just talking about "aesthetics I want". We're talking about "aesthetics that do not express problematic interpretations/outlooks by the author/creator".

"The creator cannot claim immunity by saying "it's a creative choice", or indeed, even "that's what the character thinks/would do""

yes, yes they can, like every horrible scene ever made. rape, murder, torture etc. none of that being present means the creator would do those things. total lunacy.

It's like you literally do not understand framing and its importance.

Showing a woman being objectified and going "woo woo, shake it baby!" in full celebration of that objectification, without irony, that's an expression of misogyny.

Showing a woman being objectified where the framing is that the objectifier is wrong to be doing so, that's a completely different thing because of the context of that framing.

and finally, your whole, entire, complete post, has NOTHING to do with that was being discussed.

Frankly, it has everything to do with what's being discussed, since we're talking about creators, and what makes it into their work is entirely relevant to their character.

thats not a supporting argument. thats just some random dude with an opinion. it holds no weight. lol its just another opinion.

If you bothered paying attention, he explains and justifies that opinion.

So yes; it's a supporting argument, and all you're doing here is admitting you can't make a counterpoint.

once again, every horrible scene ever made including rape, murder, torture etc. , the presence of those scenes does not mean or indicate in ANY WAY that the creator would do those things.

Again, framing.

Basic shit.

It's why a movie using stereotypes of black Americans and glorifying the plantation life of slaves would be roundly critized as blatantly racist (see Disney's Song of the South, which Disney won't release on home video because of how atrociously racist even they know it to be), whereas a movie calling out the horrors of that slavery would not be considered racist, like 2013's 12 Years a Slave. Same basic concepts, many similar factors, but the framing makes all the difference, and expresses authorial intent.

[The Oblivion]

We're not just talking about "aesthetics I want". We're talking about "aesthetics that do not express problematic interpretations/outlooks by the author/creator".



It's like you literally do not understand framing and its importance.

Showing a woman being objectified and going "woo woo, shake it baby!" in full celebration of that objectification, without irony, that's an expression of misogyny.

Showing a woman being objectified where the framing is that the objectifier is wrong to be doing so, that's a completely different thing because of the context of that framing.



Frankly, it has everything to do with what's being discussed, since we're talking about creators, and what makes it into their work is entirely relevant to their character.



If you bothered paying attention, he explains and justifies that opinion.

So yes; it's a supporting argument, and all you're doing here is admitting you can't make a counterpoint.



Again, framing.

Basic shit.

It's why a movie using stereotypes of black Americans and glorifying the plantation life of slaves would be roundly critized as blatantly racist (see Disney's Song of the South, which Disney won't release on home video because of how atrociously racist even they know it to be), whereas a movie calling out the horrors of that slavery would not be considered racist, like 2013's 12 Years a Slave. Same basic concepts, many similar factors, but the framing makes all the difference, and expresses authorial intent.

still has nothing to do with what is being discussed. stay on topic or dont quote me lol

[Endus]

isnt this whole argument close to the whole "Violent video games make people more violent" bs that anti-video game people keep parroting?

It's more like the argument that child pornography, even if it's drawn rather than of live subjects, should be criminal. You don't get to hide behind "it's just my aesthetic"; wanting that aesthetic says something about both the author and intended audience.

- - - Updated - - -

still has nothing to do with what is being discussed. stay on topic or dont quote me lol

The topic is the accusations against Blizzard. Those responsible for the aesthetic choices expressed through their games fall directly into the categories of creators I'm talking about. They're being accused of misogyny, and if their aesthetic choices demonstrate misogyny, that's absolutely relevant.

I'm not off-topic one bit. The entire point I'm making is "it's just an aesthetic choice" is a nonsense argument, since a creator of fiction (and particularly speculative fictions like fantasy or sci fi) is beholden to no reality, and any choices they make in the expression of their work is entirely the author's in origin; it may have been an "aesthetic choice", but it was still the creator's choice.

[uuuhname]

because thats not what you replied too. lmfao again, read before replying. otherwise what you are saying is irrelevant.

IDK, I think making up hypotheticals in this case is pretty off topic.. especially when it's in defense of; "well, this person might be a piece of shit but they sure do a good job tampering it down".

[The Oblivion]

It's more like the argument that child pornography, even if it's drawn rather than of live subjects, should be criminal. You don't get to hide behind "it's just my aesthetic"; wanting that aesthetic says something about both the author and intended audience.

then every shooter game developer wants to muder their co workers, anyone developing a game with hunting/gathering wants to destroy the environment, any game developer who makes a game where a woman dies wants to eliminate women. and obviously, if you make a game with thin, conventionally attractive women, you want to harass any you work with. lmfao your correlation as asinine.