MrCuddowls wrote:
This is not true at all. If you want to truly understand somebody and the point they are making, then you need to look at everything they have done previously.
You guys are doing it right now.
"It's not exactly news that Cuddles is a bit of a moron..."
Searz said this based on my previous actions on this forum. I said she was a moron based on her previous actions in general. What she has done in her campaign for women's equality greatly reduces the value of what she is saying. Clear and simple.
Since you haven't watched/seen what she has previously said, you can go on about how she makes some good points even though she is biased but in the end, she is spewing ********.
I am talking and referring to this video and the two other videos in this series. I don't care if she's a ****** or moron in other situations; I can agree with most things said in this video. I think you're a ******, yet I watched the video you posted!
In addition to this; can you just stay the **** on topic? Thanks.
MrCuddowls wrote:
This is not true at all. If you want to truly understand somebody and the point they are making, then you need to look at everything they have done previously.
Are you getting ready to quote Sun Tzu?
I haven't watched the video, i don't care, i don't need someone's opinion on this matter. However, I'll tell you one thing: Learn to be restrain your words. There is a credibility problem when you bluntly call someone a moron out of the blue.
Btw, someone's take on matter X might be unrealistically different to matter Z due to emotional attachment. you can't simply mistrust an argument because you have a prejudice against that person already, due to previous statements and, therefore, try tor read something between line that maybe isn't there.
It's probably redundant for me to bring up one of her "bad examples", but oh well. Pandora's Tower! Which was the only game with the "euthanised woman" trope that I had played. She neglects the perspective of the female in the situation. The themes of selflessness, sacrifice or love that are reflected in some of the games where she "asks for it". Of course, not all games will portray that side and instead neglect it, the events serving purely to advance the male plot. Pandora's Tower was one of her bad examples because of how much the growing love between Aeron and Elena was central to the game.
Slight Pandora's Tower Spoilers Here
It's possible some might actually object to the theme of love as a motivation, namely because of how common it seems for a woman to "need her man", however there's a delicate balance. It's grey, not black and white. Love is an extremely common and powerful theme in media. I think the boundary between acceptable and deleterious is whether or not the attachment is founded on romance or a need for protection. While it is true that Elena was utterly dependent on Aeron, her emotional need for him was generated from their shared history, closeness and his dedication to her, not her reliance on him.
That said, I am a sucker for the "refrigerator woman" and "euthanised woman" tropes, namely because of how much I respond to themes of bereavement. However, the relationship has to be sufficiently developed on both sides for those themes to come across. Actually, I'd quite like to see a "refrigerator woman" who claws herself back from the afterlife to reclaim the life she was robbed of, go a bit revenge crazy and then be faced with the choice, would she rather take the joy of vengeance and alienate friends, family and partner, or return to herself. Because I'm a sucker for love, I'd prefer the latter conclusion.
Slight Pandora's Tower Spoilers HereIt's possible some might actually object to the theme of love as a motivation, namely because of how common it seems for a woman to "need her man", however there's a delicate balance. It's grey, not black and white. Love is an extremely common and powerful theme in media. I think the boundary between acceptable and deleterious is whether or not the attachment is founded on romance or a need for protection. While it is true that Elena was utterly dependent on Aeron, her emotional need for him was generated from their shared history, closeness and his dedication to her, not her reliance on him.
That said, I am a sucker for the "refrigerator woman" and "euthanised woman" tropes, namely because of how much I respond to themes of bereavement. However, the relationship has to be sufficiently developed on both sides for those themes to come across. Actually, I'd quite like to see a "refrigerator woman" who claws herself back from the afterlife to reclaim the life she was robbed of, go a bit revenge crazy and then be faced with the choice, would she rather take the joy of vengeance and alienate friends, family and partner, or return to herself. Because I'm a sucker for love, I'd prefer the latter conclusion.
jhoijhoi wrote:
tldr: when a female's anatomy looks ridiculous, I don't like it. When it's done well and tastefully/realistically, I'm all for it. When a main female character is given a "good" role, I'm happy. When all NPC females are "damsels waiting to be rescued", I'm not happy.
So it's completely okay when a male character is portrayed unrealistically and disproportionally?
Spoiler alert: men in that game aren't exactly realisticOr when males are pigeonholed into roles of strong, heroic defenders of justice or rescuers of damsels in distress?
Honestly, what is the most wrong is that people are now rallying against the stereotyping of females while almost completely disregarding the stereotyping of males.
"I walked up to her big butt and asked her *** butt what." - Lil Wayne, lyrical genius
"I can't decide where I stand on abortion, on one hand it is killing children, on the other it gives women a choice." - ???
"I can't decide where I stand on abortion, on one hand it is killing children, on the other it gives women a choice." - ???
Searz wrote:
So it's completely okay when a male character is portrayed unrealistically and disproportionally?
Spoiler alert: men in that game aren't exactly realisticOr when males are pigeonholed into roles of strong, heroic defenders of justice or rescuers of damsels in distress?
Honestly, what is the most wrong is that people are now rallying against the stereotyping of females while almost completely disregarding the stereotyping of males.
^this. That's the only thing I dislike about the video, it doesn't address the male stereotype enough. Some male stereotypes are dumb as well. Hence I really liked the PC from the game Alan Wake.
MrCuddowls wrote:
This women is ****ing crazy and if you watch more of her garbage you will understand why i'm calling her moronic.
Cudd. Shut. Your. Face. You disagree with her. We get that. Really. We do. A lot of us disagree with her as well (myself perhaps less than others, but whatever). But it is not okay to insult what is, in the end, actually a well constructed argument just because you disagree with it. And it is not ****ing okay to insult the woman behind the argument just because you disagree with her argument. Stop. Now.
EDIT:
Okay. Now that I've said that. I'd also like to point out that you're actually doing a whole lot less work than Anita is in trying to prove your point. She, like, actually constructed an argument. You're just telling us that you've got an argument, then telling us to go do all the work in figuring out what your argument is for ourselves. The former is how arguing works; the latter, which you've been doing, is not. And, in general, you'll get a whole freakin' lot more traction on this forum, Cudd, if you actually explain your ****ing points.
OTGBionicArm wrote: Armored wimminz = badass.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
GrandmasterD wrote:
^this. That's the only thing I dislike about the video, it doesn't address the male stereotype enough. Some male stereotypes are dumb as well. Hence I really liked the PC from the game Alan Wake.
I'd also like to point out a FACTUAL error in her first video. Allow me to quote:
"The belief that women are somehow a naturally weaker gender is a deeply ingrained, socially constructed myth, which of course is completely false."
There is pretty much undeniable scientific evidence of males being physically stronger than females. To even claim the opposite with ZERO evidence supporting the claim is just very, very silly.
I was also gonna post an opposing example to something she said, but I forgot what it was. I'm certain it was real clever and totally awesome :(
I really should go to bed now, it's like 3AM here and I'm really tired.
lifebaka wrote:
And, in general, you'll get a whole freakin' lot more traction on this forum, Cudd, if you actually explain your ****ing points.
No, oh god no.
This does not simply end well...
"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." - Henry Ford
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts
I'd like to say somethings about the videos posted, since I guess it somehow has became the topic.
Small disclaimer:
I tend to go a little over the top when I give opinions so if I sound accusing in any way then please consider that I probably don't mean it that way. I have a rather black sense of humor. I am in no way responsible for any damage this might cause to your rage meter. I respect all authors of the videos above and the people who agree or disagree with their points. My opinion might very well be subjective(ofc), stupid, moronic, sadistic, satirical, biased, toxic(I hope not) and/or utter ********. Bear with me please. Note that I'm not a sexist, the focus of my review here is not saying feminism is bad and sexism is good, I totally leave that out of scope.
I watched "Tropes vs Women in Video Games" and from what I've heard the things she describes are rather biased indeed, in my opinion. After that I managed to survive 5 minutes of the in my opinion even more biased video "Feminism versus FACTS" and finally I watched "More than a Damsel in a Dress".
I'll start with the first one. I think she made a wrong assumption there. She says Peach becomes an object, which is true. There's only one subject in a story and the rest of the characters are all objects. That's no shocking fact, that's grammar. But then she goes about saying that Peach becomes a ball in the game between Mario and Bowser. But that obviously can't be, like she pointed out herself. Bowser is, just like Peach, an object. She shouldn't compare game characters to real life persons. I'll let you in on a little secret, the characters in games are hard-coded. Their existence is purely to entertain the player. No, that doesn't hurt them, they have no feelings. Her distress about the fact that side characters are pushed to the side is rather painful in my opinion. It's also very weird that side characters that have to be rescued can't escape on their own, while the player can. 'By putting a "damsel" into a game they remove her ability to be the architect of her own escape.' Yet again, no **** sherlock.
Another argument I'd like to discard is that every time a sequel of the main franchise of Mario or Zelda comes out and they turn out to have the same formula, it's totally unexpected and terrible. Seriously, a sequel is a sequel and these games really aren't known for their deep storyline. They're known for their action and puzzles, and that's where the development money goes.
I'd like to end with her end sentence. "Okay so we've established that the 'damsel in distress' trope is one of the most widely used gender cliches in the history of video games, and has been core to the development and popularization of gaming and the media." Wait, what? None of this is established out of your provided assumptions, and they're assumptions already. This video has in my eyes been nothing more than providing an unsupported(by facts) opinion as a fact or as a research. And that's my main problem with it, the presentation.
Of course it's a stereotype, but the stereotype isn't directly linked to the female gender in my opinion. There will always be people that have to be rescued in games, be it men or women. And they'll always be objects in games if they're not playable. And they might be a way of telling a (not English understanding) player who's the villain they should beat, the goal of the game. A character never can be a goal of a game, it's a character.
On to the next one. The facts weren't that related in my opinion, and I think the goal of the video was humiliating the first video. I base that on the amount of times a statement has to be repeated like they're boxing or bullying. That's just ******** in my humble opinion.
The last video I really enjoyed and I can relate to her opinion. I like how there's actually mentioned it is going about an opinion, and that there are no cheap brainwash techniques in sight. No "so we can conclude", no statements as if she's teaching, she leaves forming my opinion to me and I think that's just how it should be.
Small disclaimer:
I tend to go a little over the top when I give opinions so if I sound accusing in any way then please consider that I probably don't mean it that way. I have a rather black sense of humor. I am in no way responsible for any damage this might cause to your rage meter. I respect all authors of the videos above and the people who agree or disagree with their points. My opinion might very well be subjective(ofc), stupid, moronic, sadistic, satirical, biased, toxic(I hope not) and/or utter ********. Bear with me please. Note that I'm not a sexist, the focus of my review here is not saying feminism is bad and sexism is good, I totally leave that out of scope.
I watched "Tropes vs Women in Video Games" and from what I've heard the things she describes are rather biased indeed, in my opinion. After that I managed to survive 5 minutes of the in my opinion even more biased video "Feminism versus FACTS" and finally I watched "More than a Damsel in a Dress".
I'll start with the first one. I think she made a wrong assumption there. She says Peach becomes an object, which is true. There's only one subject in a story and the rest of the characters are all objects. That's no shocking fact, that's grammar. But then she goes about saying that Peach becomes a ball in the game between Mario and Bowser. But that obviously can't be, like she pointed out herself. Bowser is, just like Peach, an object. She shouldn't compare game characters to real life persons. I'll let you in on a little secret, the characters in games are hard-coded. Their existence is purely to entertain the player. No, that doesn't hurt them, they have no feelings. Her distress about the fact that side characters are pushed to the side is rather painful in my opinion. It's also very weird that side characters that have to be rescued can't escape on their own, while the player can. 'By putting a "damsel" into a game they remove her ability to be the architect of her own escape.' Yet again, no **** sherlock.
Another argument I'd like to discard is that every time a sequel of the main franchise of Mario or Zelda comes out and they turn out to have the same formula, it's totally unexpected and terrible. Seriously, a sequel is a sequel and these games really aren't known for their deep storyline. They're known for their action and puzzles, and that's where the development money goes.
I'd like to end with her end sentence. "Okay so we've established that the 'damsel in distress' trope is one of the most widely used gender cliches in the history of video games, and has been core to the development and popularization of gaming and the media." Wait, what? None of this is established out of your provided assumptions, and they're assumptions already. This video has in my eyes been nothing more than providing an unsupported(by facts) opinion as a fact or as a research. And that's my main problem with it, the presentation.
Of course it's a stereotype, but the stereotype isn't directly linked to the female gender in my opinion. There will always be people that have to be rescued in games, be it men or women. And they'll always be objects in games if they're not playable. And they might be a way of telling a (not English understanding) player who's the villain they should beat, the goal of the game. A character never can be a goal of a game, it's a character.
On to the next one. The facts weren't that related in my opinion, and I think the goal of the video was humiliating the first video. I base that on the amount of times a statement has to be repeated like they're boxing or bullying. That's just ******** in my humble opinion.
The last video I really enjoyed and I can relate to her opinion. I like how there's actually mentioned it is going about an opinion, and that there are no cheap brainwash techniques in sight. No "so we can conclude", no statements as if she's teaching, she leaves forming my opinion to me and I think that's just how it should be.
********'s a pretty good fertilizer
You need to log in before commenting.
1) It's about that particular video, other videos made by her are irrelevant to this topic. Even if she'd be a neonazi, that wouldn't mean that this particular video suddenly becomes ridiculous.
This is not true at all. If you want to truly understand somebody and the point they are making, then you need to look at everything they have done previously.
You guys are doing it right now.
"It's not exactly news that Cuddles is a bit of a moron..."
Searz said this based on my previous actions on this forum. I said she was a moron based on her previous actions in general. What she has done in her campaign for women's equality greatly reduces the value of what she is saying. Clear and simple.
Since you haven't watched/seen what she has previously said, you can go on about how she makes some good points even though she is biased but in the end, she is just spewing ********