Pharyngula

Posted by: Jupiah | July 21, 2011 8:37 AM

Proudmoore, huh? I stopped playing last expansion, got sick of the grind, but I've been thinking about signing up again. Thanks for giving me a good server to use if I do start playing again.

Posted by: Dahan | July 21, 2011 8:39 AM

I had similar problems with EQ2. One of the reasons I eventually quit.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | July 21, 2011 8:43 AM

So, yes, skeptics/atheists are better than some cultures…

Frankly, I'm starting to doubt just how much better the community at large is, based on the responses of many self-identified skeptics/atheists in recent weeks.

I wonder whether we are only significantly better in that there is a more obvious movement to speak out about the problem. That doesn't necessarily say anything about the prevalence and effect of such attitudes amongst the less vocal, wider community.

Posted by: unbound | July 21, 2011 8:43 AM

PZ - The WoW community is definitely the worst of the MMOs. I've played a number of MMOs, and only the WoW players are so consistently jerks...I think Blizzard let their moderation slip too much. Most other MMOs (all the other ones I've played around with for significant amounts of time) are much better behaved.

Jupiah - if you didn't like the grind in Wrath, you'll probably like Cata even less. I quit shortly after the launch of Wrath because it had become way too easy, and resubbed in Cata because of the return of game mechanics, but the game has become even more of a grind. And the percentage of abusive players has gotten even worse than when I left in Wrath.

I'm currently playing around with Rift. Similar game, but a number of interesting changes to how things work. So far (playing off and on for a couple of months now) I have seen very few of the nasty remarks that have marred WoW.

Posted by: abyschan | July 21, 2011 8:45 AM

I regret to say that your two-paragraph description about random groups in World of Warcraft is accurate. And here, I'm planning on going to Blizzcon 2011 in October to spend a whole weekend with the most diehard of these people. Oi.

I'm going with a large group of friends, some of them female, and they swear that the men (or man-children) are generally well-behaved. But I have seen video clips from the years past where men run around and belting out roars of faction loyalty into the faces of unsuspecting conventioneers. On the other hand, I also recall seeing plenty of women in attendance.

I keep getting the feeling that I'm going to be sticking out like a sore thumb there, however.

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | July 21, 2011 8:45 AM

I moderate 2 separate Starcraft 2 channels - under the nym that looks and sounds female. Whenever I see someone type something sexist or misogynistic, I tell them to check their privilege. If they maintain, I silence for 10 minutes. If I have to tell them again, I silence another 10 minutes. Third time, they're banned.

If I'm in a bad mood - they don't even get the warning. The other mods in the chat have learned to accept my iron rule, and seem to understand my issues with the misogyny inherent in the gaming culture.

Posted by: Unkawillbur | July 21, 2011 8:51 AM

I do play a little World of Warcraft

There's yer problem,right there! ;)

Seriously though, as unbound said, WoW is populated primarily by immature 13 year-olds. If you're looking for a good community and, substantially the same game mechanics as WoW, I would suggest Lord of The Rings Online, or Rift. Both have good to excellent user-communities where you'll find respectful and helpful players. With LoTRO, in particular, I see no bias or harassment of women in groups, with many, MANY pick-up-groups led by them.

Posted by: Roquefort Raider | July 21, 2011 8:53 AM

Now I feel even more self-righteous about having never played anything more elaborate than Tetris!

Posted by: qtmartindale | July 21, 2011 8:58 AM

There are plenty of mmo gamers who are perfectly wonderful people, but denying that much of gaming culture is drenched is sexism is silly. Anyone who interacts with strangers in online games has seen tons of examples of racist and sexist language. In my experience, this tends to be worse in shooters and similar games than in MMOs but its still there.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | July 21, 2011 8:58 AM

... man-children who see all women as aliens who are fat, ugly, or slutty.

That's a big part of the reason why I don't play MMOs. Well, that and they're mind-numbingly boooooring.

Posted by: Introductory cookies | July 21, 2011 9:00 AM

Posted by: thumbnail | July 21, 2011 8:45 AM

To be fair, not all of us (gamers) are misogynistic, social inept nerfherders. Some of us actually do lead relatively normal lives.

While this is certainly true, the ones who are misogynistic, socially inept nefherders are so loud and persistent. It's like they will shrivel up and die if they are not spewing forth a constant stream of ignorance and hate.

WoW really seems to bring out the worst in people.

Posted by: triskelethecat | July 21, 2011 9:00 AM

@thomasmgilbert: are you who I think you are?

Posted by: fleck | July 21, 2011 9:03 AM

Like SamB says, Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory is in full effect in Warcraft, and there are a lot of war stories coming out of the random dungeon finder. It's a game populated by players who seem to be 13-30 year old males who are often desperate to shore up their manhood from behind a fantasy hero avatar with no supervision. Top that off with a community where playing while you're completely smashed is accepted as the norm. So yeah, it's a formula for behaving in ways they'd pause to in other situations.

Not to say those problems are limited to interactions with players you'll probably never meet again. I was in a guild which purported to not allow people to be harassed over race and sexual orientation. My (gay) class lead propositioned me because he wanted to give women another try. Which I brushed off and pretended never happened. Later the guild master decided cunt is the best word EVER and that all women LOVE to be called that. Which he did, over vent and mid-raid.

Posted by: Giliell, connaiseuse des choses bonnes | July 21, 2011 9:05 AM

Gamer here, though not interwebs (I never got the hang of video games), and also of the female persuasion.
I played trading Card Games and still do P&P.
And sadly, yes, a lot of the things are true.
The girl in the comic shop? Been there, been that girl and actually all the variations I've seen on this topic are actually accurate.
I have decided not to go to any online discussion-support forums anymore. They are full with overbearing guys who treat you as a little girl or something that sticks to a vagina.

Thing is, they are missing out on great gaming. Great gaming happens when your group has established a high level of trust and respect. In those groups you can actually play "the adult way" with characters having sex (not only described as "you go to your room") without anybody thinking that this would somehow give them any rights about a player.

Posted by: thomasmgilbert | July 21, 2011 9:06 AM

@thomasmgilbert: are you who I think you are?

Weirdest question of the day. I don't know who you think I am; I could guess but I would totally guess Morgan Freeman and that would be wrong.

Posted by: jbonomi | July 21, 2011 9:12 AM

I usually avoid online play entirely because of how awful the communities usually are. I'm usually pro-privacy and pro-anonymity, but I am certainly in favor of forcing the use of real names in these cases.

Posted by: Joe | July 21, 2011 9:17 AM

Back when I was new to the gaming industry, I went online to play levels I had worked on. Didn't matter, xbox live or internet, it was a cesspool.
I don't play online anymore. Too many assholes. The anonymous nature of it takes away the 'shaming' part that would shut them up in normal conversation.

Almost all the women I know that play, no matter the game, play male toons and never use voice chat outside the guild.

Posted by: thomasmgilbert | July 21, 2011 9:19 AM

@triskelethecat Nope, sorry, not me.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | July 21, 2011 9:20 AM

Gorogh:

Part of it may be attributable to the anonymity of an MMO. In other words, maybe so many more not-gaming people were jerks if they were not identifiable/to be held accountable for their words. The correct interpretation might put more blame on the games or their mode of interaction than on the people in front of the screen.

So, you're saying people who are jerks when anonymous should not be considered jerks? It's not their fault, it's just human nature?

Posted by: Shala | July 21, 2011 9:22 AM

I've been playing less & less myself -- the recent changes have greatly increased the disparity between casuals, like me, and hardcore gamers, which means almost all of the new content is inaccessible to me, unless I commit to 6 hours of raiding a couple of nights a week. No way, nuh- uh, not gonna happen.

WoW isn't hardcore anyway, it's just a huge timesink, like all MMO games.

A lot of people don't understand that communities themselves can keep people from playing games. Fighting game communities are absolutely atrocious about sexism and homophobia, and one of Starcraft 2's pro players (IdrA) is a racist/homophobe and isn't called on it because he's trying to be a "villain".

Gaming communities fucking disgust me in almost all cases, exceptions being ones like Planescape: Torment, Baldur's Gate etc. as there's no contest of waving your fucking dick around trying to show people who's got the biggest one.

Posted by: GunboatDiplomat | July 21, 2011 9:24 AM

Re: The Greater Interent Fuckwad theory.

What is it with this "De Interwebz made me do it!" bullshit?

A guy who acts like a sexist jerk online is not "otherwise" a nice normal person. Having to keep his stupid mouth shut now and again in real life due to possible real world consequences does not make him any less of a dickhead.

Posted by: Wren | July 21, 2011 9:27 AM

Horde or Alliance, PZ? (because that's clearly the most important thing)

I tend to just report the people who are being complete assholes in WoW. I also don't join guilds where they treat women poorly, or I'll leave one if they do. I have been told in video games to be a healer or a mage because "girls can't be any good at melee or tanking." I've been told I'm lying to people when I've said I'm a woman because I can play this class or that FPS fairly well. I've been called fat and ugly, told to return to the kitchen to make sammiches, commanded to strip and bend over, had guys make rape jokes about me, and been called a slut for telling people to quit being sexist assholes in chat.

I am sad that one of the things I really like to do is filled with people I have to ignore.

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | July 21, 2011 9:28 AM

@Disco Stu:

Stop beating the strawpeople :( They did nothing to deserve your ire!

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawn8Seqs5xIHiR3gr70_5UHnaIfzaSka1ro | July 21, 2011 9:30 AM

Time to link to this old one:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_17/109-OMG-Girlz-Dont-Exist-on-teh-Intarweb-1

Posted by: Graeme | July 21, 2011 9:31 AM

As a gamer (m) with a WoW playing girlfriend I have to admit I don't like the attitude the displayed in online games at all. Towards me the attitude is frequently aggressively offensive (largely because I suck at FPS type games), and though it's possible to mute/unplug the sound one wonders why one should have to.

Does anyone reckon it's due to the testosterone soaked nature of most FPS type games? I'm not a MMORPG gamer (though the new KOTOR one may change this) and I mostly game by Xbox, so I don't know how different the communities are.

My missus has never mentioned anything like this to me when we've chatted about gaming; I'll ask if it's happened to her.

Posted by: Thomathy | July 21, 2011 9:32 AM

Brianblackberry @ #25,

As a long time gamer, I have to admit the fact of raging sexism and to a lesser extent raging homophobia, is pervasive in the online gaming community.

Posted by: otrame | July 21, 2011 9:32 AM

It's funny, but I have rarely run into really gross sexism playing WoW and I've been doing it for 5 years. I'm not saying it isn't there. Maybe the fact that I started out in the guild my son and the woman he eventually married ran, and was thus somewhat protected. Also, I've only ever used VoIP systems within my own guild.

When I do run into sexist bullshit, I use /ignore and just keep playing. I refuse to let people with toxic views of sexuality spoil my fun. YMMV, of course, and not wanting to deal with it at all is certainly an option. I have to admit that my resonse to the lesbian remark mentioned upthread would be "No, why, are you?" I certainly wouldn't have dumped the character because someone was an asshole. But again, that is a matter of personal preference.

I've always thought WoW was a good learning environment for kids. You have to work for what you get and you find out pretty quickly that there are a lot of assholes out there. Both are valuable lessons.

Posted by: Shala | July 21, 2011 9:34 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcQedw7R1zk

A video where a streamer compares using Banelings in Starcraft 2 to raping someone. He's also publicly defended his own racial slurs.

Another reason not to get into Starcraft 2.

Posted by: simon.proctor | July 21, 2011 9:35 AM

Well I was going to come on (as a skeptical atheist who's been gaming on the tabletop and computers for almost 30 years) to say we're not all like that.

But Karen did a a great job already.

Posted by: Joe | July 21, 2011 9:37 AM

I'd disagree. Gamer's don't get the same vitriol and death threats that an out atheist does.
I'm an atheist gamer, but I keep that to myself, even in guild chat, because I've had to leave guilds for it in the past.

Mostly because 'gamers' are almost everyone, from anywhere.

Posted by: Ms. Daisy Cutter, Vile Creature Powered Entirely By Bitter | July 21, 2011 9:38 AM

Thomathy, #54: "Homophobia, a lesser extent by what measure? They're both massive problems."

And they're related problems, as anyone with a passing acquaintance with feminist thought can tell you.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/gb6IbRQWxeJfK85BM2bkdQXMqT9YJLFMYNH4AlW0xwbG#4789c | July 21, 2011 9:41 AM

There's a Planescape: Torment MMO!?! It's about time, I loved that game! I can't beleive this information flew under my radar, I clearly have been too involved in my work.

I already have two preorders lined up for MMOs, Guild Wars 2 and Star Wars: The Old Republic.

Posted by: Joe | July 21, 2011 9:41 AM

RE:63
WHAT?
You have got to be kidding me. That's freaking horrible. :/

Totally missed it... looking it up now.
Nothing like a good dose of rage with the morning coffee.

Posted by: Cerus | July 21, 2011 9:43 AM

I'm saddened when I recall my earlier gaming years, I was just as bad as most of the people I argue with now.

At the time I thought I was helping, but now I realize I was just belittling them as a condescending white knight; makes me a little sick honestly.

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | July 21, 2011 9:49 AM

@Joe:

It wasn't a bad game - just giving Samus a voice made me realize that they're not taking her BDH-ness seriously. I mean come on, she's been a Big Damn Heroine as long as I've been alive!! Why change that now?

Plus the whole Zero Suit nonsense - every time they make it, her boobs get bigger and her waist gets smaller.

And fucking Hell I hated the fact I couldn't use every weapon, she has to ask for permission to use her weapons and armor upgrades. I have bombs, I want to bomb that grate! WTF can't bomb it til the end of the game. (that drove me crazy)

Posted by: Joe | July 21, 2011 9:53 AM

Eh. Samus should kickass.
And the design of her was always... well, it's power armor. Her tits shouldn't be hanging out of it.
Sigh.
Of all the issues with dragon age 2... at least the Guard/Knight was fully clothed.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 21, 2011 9:55 AM

Oh and it was a horrible example of hand waving away the bag of spilling.

For a good way of hand waving a metagame element see Bioshock.

Posted by: DaveJ | July 21, 2011 9:57 AM

WoW is populated primarily by immature 13 year-olds

Do you have data to back that up, or are you more than willing to listen to your biases and have us accept your anecdotes as data?

Posted by: Drew | July 21, 2011 10:00 AM

don't know if it's been posted yet but this video at collegehumor is pretty funny.

xbox girls get revenge

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | July 21, 2011 10:01 AM

My GIFT theory is not actually about the internet turning you into an a-hole , but about allowing you to be the a-hole you always wanted to be. They are idiots, the anonymity is just what allows them to show you their real themselves.

I must be good, as my natural tendency seems to be towards jerkish but non-a-hole (on some definitions).

I'm the tool who always reflexively plays through the "Good" karma paths.

Posted by: Ms. Daisy Cutter, Vile Creature Powered Entirely By Bitter | July 21, 2011 10:05 AM

Thomathy, #79 - I figured you knew that. I was making a general point for the thread, one that seems like common sense to me but seems to elude a lot of people.

Posted by: Ms. Daisy Cutter, Vile Creature Powered Entirely By Bitter | July 21, 2011 10:07 AM

Googlemess, #83:

Claims of homophobia and misogyny don't ring as true to me...

Posted by: Kaderie | July 21, 2011 10:09 AM

*shudder* Ugh, WoW.

I am myself an avid female gamer, and have been put off by many sexist, homophobic and just all-around douche-y environments, prompting me to wander aimlessly from MMO to MMO.

The worst thing is that I really like playing support classes, which is somewhat of a stereotype for female gamers... that we get shunted into the corner of "healer chick". I like being a healer, but I hate willingly putting myself in that gendersegregated corner! Ugh.

*glances at comment thread* Well, since we seem to be giving recommendations for good games...

About half a year ago I started playing City of Heroes. An above-average female player population, a great RP community on Virtue server and I have yet to hear a gay slur. Hell, I've even seen instances of privileged behaviour called out in the chat channels (very memorably, a mod shut down a rape joke \o/)

It's also very casual-player-friendly, and a nice change from the fantasy WoW-clones. Who doesn't want to be a superhero? The only negative thing I'd have to single out is the crap and horribly broken PvP.

It's for those pockets of awesome that I love gaming, even with all the shit I get for being female.

Posted by: Mox | July 21, 2011 10:10 AM

I do agree with this - Im not much of a gamer myself but I can definately see how the culture is rampantly sexist considering women are in the minority. Its disgusting.

Posted by: dzhellek | July 21, 2011 10:11 AM

If you're looking for a cleaner place to play
I suggest you create a character on the earthen ring server and sign up with the Alea Iacta Est guild.
They're not perfect but they are very kid friendly and have managed to keep the nastiness down.
Just remember, never say the name Chuck Norris. Refer to him as he who shall not be named.

In any case, finding a good guild is key in solving alot of social problems in WOW.

Posted by: Thomathy | July 21, 2011 10:14 AM

Ms. Daisy Cutter, good point. And people are stupid. Googlemess @ #83 is a good example of someone that point eludes ...or who eludes that point, depending on the level of ignorance and stupidity possessed by Googlemess.

Posted by: george.worroll | July 21, 2011 10:16 AM

We have a gay friendly guild Hordeside on Ravenholdt. They catch a lot of hate. Rumors are out that the guildmaster is actually the guildmaster of Abhorrent Taboo, disbanded by Blizzard in the wake of pedophilia allegations.

Our guildmaster has been accused of getting loot for being female... by pugs we've recruited to fill out our own raids.

It gets pretty damned ridiculous.

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | July 21, 2011 10:17 AM

@tdcourtney:

Really? Really?!

Posted by: Steven Mading | July 21, 2011 10:18 AM

Stop painting the term "gamers" as if it was a word that describes specifically ONLINE gamers, or even worse, specifically World of Warcraft gamers.

Posted by: William R. Dickson | July 21, 2011 10:22 AM

Now I have the strange urge to invite PZ to a troll instance.

Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies! | July 21, 2011 10:24 AM

@Gorogh
#99
Better online moderation would help a lot.
If nothing else, remove the obnoxious player from the player base.

Posted by: Zinc Avenger | July 21, 2011 10:26 AM

Well, I have been through indignation ("I'm a gamer, I'm not a jerk! Don't call out gamers as jerks!"), realization ("Well, most gamers are jerks and I have complained about it myself"), resignation ("I can't really blame PZ for pointing out something I've complained about publicly"), and, finally, conclusion ("He has a point").

Gaming blog Rock Paper Shotgun had its own "elevator moment" - I thought it was a community with respect, but the second the subject came up there were plenty of gamers who flat out couldn't see their own privilege. Leigh Alexander had her say in a way that is identical to the recent back-and-forth in atheistland. I read, I learned. I wasn't an asshole to start with, but I also didn't see the undercurrent of privilege that is as inimical to equality as prejudice against women is.

Some gamers are assholes, but society is where the assholes come from and that's what we need to fix. It's a waste of time calling out a subset of society who can act in anonymity for acting as typical members of society are known to act when they are anonymous. This is not a gamer problem or an atheist problem any more than it is a blogging problem or a horse riding problem or an extreme couponing problem.

So I'm not going to disagree with the statement gamers are bad in general, but attaching the problem to a particular group or several groups and saying "See! They're bad!" belittles the problem.

Posted by: hearshot | July 21, 2011 10:29 AM

If only it were just online gaming (well, I'd rather it not be any gaming at all, obv., but...). There was a big blowout at an unfortunately-popular tabletop gaming forum a couple weeks ago. Some misogynist wrote up a concept for an order of knights who regularly kidnap women and force them to have sex; if the women don't want to, the knights magically brainwash them until they're willing. He also wrote about their sworn enemies, a different order of knights that doesn't do any brainwashing.

He explicitly calls the latter group "evil" and "villains." He defends the former group against accusations of rape by saying that they're not forced to have sex with men they don't want to have sex with, they're just not allowed to not have sex. And besides, after the brainwashing, they all want it anyway, so it's not rape!

After the thread went to hell about as quickly as you would expect, the moderators stepped in to restore order. They did this by banning the people who'd accused the original poster of sexism for trolling. In some cases, they deleted the entire post history of those people.

Things got even worse from there. If I recall correctly, the finale involved the offending threads being closed and deleted and the forum instituting a new "if we can't fantasize about rape, nobody's allowed to talk about rape" rule.

There are times I wonder what, culturally, keeps the gaming population so overwhelmingly male. Then I look at other gamers and think, "well, if I were female, would I want to associate with people like them?"

Posted by: debaser71 | July 21, 2011 10:32 AM

Now try going to a Mommy and Me gymboree program or something similar to that as a father. Clueless girl-women dolts and their condescending / insulting comments.

Yes it works both ways.

Posted by: Ms. Daisy Cutter, Vile Creature Powered Entirely By Bitter | July 21, 2011 10:34 AM

Awwww, poor widdle Debaser71. All those "clueless girl-women dolts" at the Mommy and Me, telling you to show your dick, threatening to rape and mutilate you, ordering you to get in the garage and fix their cars. Life must be a trial for you, cupcake.

Posted by: LouisP | July 21, 2011 10:35 AM

Who cares what gender, sexual orientation, race, hair color, planet of origin, quantity of toes you have, all that matters is one thing... Horde or Alliance?

I've been playing since TBC (which was good times imo) and I've found that the real key to enjoying this game is to play with people you know, whether its your friends, family, or simply fellow guildies who you've gotten to know really well (choose your guild well though). Basically it gives you a reflective bubble to protect you all from assholes. It doesn't matter if you are level 20 or just downed Heroic Ragnaros, its all about the friends you have to enjoy everything with.

Posted by: Haruhiist | July 21, 2011 10:38 AM

Yup online games are generally horrible places to chat... I'd like to say TF2 is somewhat better, but to be honest I'm not sure about that. In forums of nerdier (less popular) games, I don't see as much of this, but then again I don't see many signs of women commenting there either, which may be a sign of a problem. Doesn't have to be, but you can't tell basically

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | July 21, 2011 10:39 AM

Zinc Avenger, it points out the problem in a community. Anonymity or not, it's not a way that people should behave. Yeah, it's a societal problem. That makes it a problem in those sub-societal groups. It doesn't have to be addressed only at the top-most level. It needs to be illuminated everywhere and addressed everywhere. The societal change comes as part of that. It's not belittling the problem to point out that yet another group is also sexist, racist and homophobic. Unfortunately, it goes the other way; showing how pervasive the problem is.

He was also ignoring the fact that issues such as sexism can be easier to address in smaller groups. One cannot ban sexist arseholes from society, but on can ban them from online games, or from being sexist arseholes at atheist/sceptic events.

Posted by: Thomathy | July 21, 2011 10:41 AM

LouisP, that's a rhetorical question, right? (Mine is.) It's obvious that a lot of people care and hate, or no one would be complaining about homophobic, sexist, racist, etc. bigotry in online gaming, the atheist community or elsewhere. Did you come just to talk about how good your gaming experience is and ignore the point of this post? (Also rhetorical.) I'm sure you appreciate the fact that you experience none of that bigotry. Consider yourself lucky and try to empathise a little with those who have and who find it to be a problem.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlPQALe9tcEpNVU3rZHc3jscCqJTwMZiKs | July 21, 2011 10:45 AM

Well, now I have to know.

Horde or Alliance?

Posted by: debaser71 | July 21, 2011 10:46 AM

"Awwww, poor widdle Debaser71. All those "clueless girl-women dolts" at the Mommy and Me, telling you to show your dick, threatening to rape and mutilate you, ordering you to get in the garage and fix their cars. Life must be a trial for you, cupcake"

A prime example of the outrageous tone.

There really is no discussion being had here. It's all about towing the line and then insisting anyone who isn't towing that line is a [insert insult here].

Fuck off.

Posted by: Deepsix | July 21, 2011 10:47 AM

I think I have a solution to the WoW sexism/homophobia/racism/bigotry/ect/ect issues. Everyone posting here who plays WoW needs to join together and create our own guild. I suggest naming it "The Pharyngula Horde". Who's in? ;)

Posted by: Thomathy | July 21, 2011 10:49 AM

Ibis3, honestly? No, men are not mostly misogynist douchebags. Some are. You're brush is too wide. The internet is over-represented. It's a pervasive problem, it's a problem in this culture and it's a problem of which women are a part too, but douchebag level misogyny isn't the tact of men on the level you seem to think. It's unfortunate that your experience has led you to that kind of thinking.

Posted by: Kirk | July 21, 2011 10:51 AM

So, is this a Name That Logical Fallacy? I'm guessing ad hominem...

Seriously, though, it is true that the loudest people on a game like WoW are the jerks who like to rile things up. It's the same sort of trolling culture you see everywhere online.

But the interesting thing is that when you get the numbers (as best as you can), you see that a large percentage of the playerbase is women. WoW has attracted a much more diverse group than any other MMORPG. That still doesn't mean that women, in general, aren't afraid to speak up because they may get blasted by the loud, vocal asshat community.

I've played since the beta and joined a guild that was probably split 50-50 men and women and was eventually led by a woman. My current guild is one I'm in with my boyfriend, and there are a few other gay players in it. We strictly enforce bans on asshat behavior. Both guilds started as groups of real-life friends who then recruited other nice people.

We raid one or two nights a week and have so far seen all the endgame content there is to offer (obviously still working on the new stuff). I believe PZ's assessment of the game as unfriendly to casuals is incorrect and a bit of a knee-jerk reaction commonly seen on the WoW forums but not backed up by evidence. However -- that doesn't mean you don't have to put in some initial work to find the guild that's right for you and get into a good place in the game.

Find a good guild, leave trade chat, and the game is exactly what you want it to be. If you have no plans to do that (and the several other casual-friendly, individual playstyles built into the game don't appeal to you), then by all means, stop paying money for it.

Posted by: hearshot | July 21, 2011 10:52 AM

It seems like as soon as a group of post-pubescent males get together they have to rush to out-douche each other. And why is it considered acceptable behaviour among them? But more than that: why is it considered acceptable to even think like that? ... Is this an accurate perception of the situation? Are men really mostly misogynist douchebags?

This is essentially the same patriarchal mechanism, I believe. Some men (too many!) are misogynist douchebags. Many men aren't, or would not be. However, our culture explicitly rewards men who pretend to be misogynist douchebags. If a guy wants to be cool, funny and attractive (reasonable things to want), our culture says he has to be King Macho of Phallus Mountain.

You can, on odd occasions, actually find groups of 4-6 males out-douching each other and laughing at each other's douchebaggery, despite the fact that none of them believe what they're saying or are entertained by what the others are saying, because they've been conditioned to believe they won't be accepted among their peers unless they pretend they do.

Of course, for all intents and purposes, as Vonnegut pointed out, we are what we pretend to be.

Posted by: Thomathy | July 21, 2011 10:53 AM

dzhellek, you are very, very mistaken. We're not talking about vulgarity. Not in any sense like you seem to think. We're talking about rampant sexism and misogyny. Expletives are not the same. In fact, in the face of blatant asshatery, I would encourage the generous use of expletives. Wasting cogent arguments on inane stupidity would be a waste of time and an ineffective way to express that.

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | July 21, 2011 10:58 AM

@Kirk:

Go to RationalWiki for a moment.

Look up Ad Hominem.

Come back and try your comment again.

--

What is it with people and misunderstanding what an ad hominem is?

Posted by: Lurkeressa of the Less-Murky Non-Depths | July 21, 2011 11:01 AM

The video at #80 made me feel so much better.

I play WoW, and so do several of my female friends (I know more female players than male ones). I'm a very, very casual player though, most casual of us all I think, and like to focus on roleplay instead of raiding anyway. I don't think I've ever encountered any, or at least much sexism, but then again, we all occupy the (few) non-PvP roleplaying servers. There it's not at all unusual to run into females, and concealing my gender never even crossed my mind. Then again, roleplaying is considered "gay" anyway by the community at large, I think. Maybe that's why most of the biggest roaring idiots stay out. Well, not our loss.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | July 21, 2011 11:02 AM

dzhellek:

A tone troll is one who is concerned more about the way an argument is delivered, rather than the argument itself.

For instance, if I told one of these little homophobic gamer enema-bags, "Same-sex marriage is about equality, fuckwit, not about destroying marriage. Fuck yourself sideways with a rusty elf-blade," a tone troll would be someone who focused on the "fucks" and "rusty blade," rather than noticing that my argument was sound.

That's a tone troll -- one who does not recognize that some people just need to be told in the strongest of terms that they are fucking wrong.

Posted by: Steven Mading | July 21, 2011 11:05 AM

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, PKoD | July 21, 2011 10:24 AM @Steven Mading: It's not just WoW players. It's any online community. And it just doesn't extend to online communities. A female gamer can't be taken seriously if she walks into a gaming store. If she buys a game like GTA it's assumed she's getting it for her boyfriend. Not all gamers are racist / sexist / homophobic / transphobic, but a large percentage certainly seem to be.

Posted by: Joe | July 21, 2011 11:08 AM

@hearshot
That's... horrifying on many levels.

Posted by: Ms. Daisy Cutter, Vile Creature Powered Entirely By Bitter | July 21, 2011 11:09 AM

Shorter Silent Service: "What about the menz?!"

I find it really rich that such geeks complain bitterly about the abuse they endured in high school — as if they're the only ones who did — then blithely either dish it out to actual oppressed groups or ignore/justify it when they see their fellow geeks doing the same. Anyone remember the Slashdot thread "Welcome to the Hellmouth" in the wake of Columbine, filled with geeks remembering horrific experiences from their school days? Any other day on Slashdot, many of those same men can be seen dismissing any concerns of women or people of color as beneath their consideration.

Posted by: mldavico | July 21, 2011 11:12 AM

Hi PZ and commenters! This is my first time posting here, I read this and felt like sharing my experience.
I'm a latin american cis female, playing WoW in an US server. My guild, where misogyny and sexism are rare, is composed by other latin americans, mostly argentinians. Of course, I had one or two guys behaving a little too friendly, but always inside the limits, so I never felt uncomfortable with them.
However, every time I join groups from random servers or even a PUG (pick up group) from my own server, I'm very cautious about telling my gender, and I always avoid joining ventrilo meetings. I had a few ugly experiences when my guildies slipped it out (i.e. "call your hubby for the raid"), thankfully noone got too far.
And I repeat: this happened to me only with US/EU communities, when I PUG with latinos I know I can freely tell my gender (luckily, as spanish is a gender marking language).

Posted by: Thomathy | July 21, 2011 11:15 AM

Ms. Daisy Cutter, that's not fair to Silent Service (do not jump down my throat yet). He's not saying that, not yet, and that's not the short form of his post. Let's see what else he has to say first.

Posted by: steppenfisch | July 21, 2011 11:23 AM

in my opinion and from personal experience, wow is actually an indicator that the gaming scene is improving, at large, if maybe at a somewhat frustrating pace.

in a way i guess the community and the game grew up. there still are idiots online (name the community who hasn't got some of them), but nowadays you usually don't get hit on anymore for playing a female character.. and i would say about 30-40% of my guild and raid are women, and it's not just the casual 'guildmaster's girlfriend' anymore, but players of equal skill and contribution.

oh, and on a side-note: i do think it depends on the 'place' what kind of clothing is appropriate. and i like that female armor sets in world of warcraft (mostly) actually look like they can block the strike of a sword or the bite of a dragon just as much as their counterparts on males.

i mean.. there are other games.

Posted by: DanielR | July 21, 2011 11:26 AM

I was playing Black Ops zombies the other day with some randoms, one of whom was female. As soon as she started talking, another random started in with the sandwich comments. At the end of the game, the sexist guy went down about 30 times and the girl had over 40 revives and the most kills. Justice.

Posted by: Kirk | July 21, 2011 11:29 AM

And Katherine #136, if my attempt at cheekiness is really preventing you from going any further in that post, maybe I should have said spotlight fallacy or something.

You could then feel free to turn that around on me and say I'm trying to overgeneralize my experience to the rest of the game, only I'm not. I was merely giving an account of my own experience. With a lack of authoritative data comparing the number of asshats to the total population of the game, we can only make judgments based on our anecdotal experiences.

We have to do the same with the skeptical community, as well, since I don't believe an authoritative study on asshats vs. non-asshats has been completed there. Elevatorgate has shown, though, that maybe such a study should be done, if a proper methodology could be developed.

Posted by: JediBear | July 21, 2011 11:31 AM

@#39: Ms. Daisy Cutter:

You're out of line.

An injustice is not less unjust because another injustice also exists.

Our host just called all gamers clueless man-children and insinuated that we're the source of the problem with misogyny in the atheist community.

You're defending that action.

Posted by: Richard Eis | July 21, 2011 11:34 AM

"The Pharyngula Horde". Who's in? ;)

If it was full of pharyngulites the language would be appalling and there would be a rift after about half an hour :P

Posted by: Graeme | July 21, 2011 11:37 AM

@ Ms. Daisy Cutter (#146)

I didn't read Silent Service's post as a 'what about the menz' post. I'd suggest more rope is required before any hanging is attempted.

Your post @153 makes your position clearer. I can see what you mean by partial derail, but I thought he was making a general 'Stand up for who you are comment'

Anyway, as a general question, one issue we seem to have is that men seem to be designing a lot of the games today (that's entirely anecdotal, and I'd be more than happy to be corrected).

What do the Pharaguhordes think a games market with 50/50 gender design would be?

More interesting character design would be my first hope.(Anyone answering with 'more cooking games' deserves the flaming they will get...)

Posted by: Phere | July 21, 2011 11:38 AM

I've played WoW, Warhammer, Age of Conan, Eve (for about 3 days..all I could handle), LOTRO, EQ2. I made a baby last year so that really made it impossible to play anything for a good while. I am now just starting to dabble in Forsaken World..it's easy mode so I can get a little gaming in and feel like I'm accomplishing something.
I've never had any serious incidents with men in any of those games - any attempts were easily rebuked and I would be left alone. I had a good group of gaming buddies (all dudes)- we all had a blast together. Any of the women I played with were easily able to handle any off-color comments - I never met a timid, quivering woman in any of these games. I think that as more and more women join the gaming world, it will be less and less acceptable to harass us in any form. I must be in the tail end of this paradigm shift as I'm sure many of the first women gamers had some pretty tough times.

Posted by: vaeisenberg | July 21, 2011 11:41 AM

OMG! People are being assholes on the internet! I totally didn't expect that! Oh,wait, i did.

#39:
It is hillarious that some weeks ago, Mr. Dawkins made an argument comparing western feminists to *actually* oppressed women in some predominantly muslim countries, which used exactly your logic.

Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french | July 21, 2011 11:44 AM

MMORPGs? Ugh.

I will pray to almighty Atheismo, that you might find something that isn't trash to play.

Posted by: Thomathy | July 21, 2011 11:45 AM

JediBear, PZ did nothing of the sort. He pointed out that there is sexism in the gamer community and that it overlaps with the atheist community. He thinks the atheist community is better (by what degree, I'm unsure) than the gamer community in regards to sexism. There is no insinuation that gamers are responsible for the sexism in the atheist community. PZ labels himself as a gamer (albeit a casual gamer). It's reasonable to assume he wasn't painting himself with that brush. His main point, however, if you read the bloody post, was that just because atheists seem to be better, doesn't mean there shouldn't be improvement.

Posted by: Ms. Daisy Cutter, Vile Creature Powered Entirely By Bitter | July 21, 2011 11:47 AM

Vaeisenberg, see my comment at #165.

White geek men are pretty damned powerful in this world these days. Yes, they get abused by jocks in school. Guess what? So did all the girls, whether we're talking about the "hot" girls that offend the poor male geeks by not dating them, or the "not hot" girls whom the male geeks often abuse themselves — even if the girls are their fellow geeks.

Posted by: Etruscan | July 21, 2011 11:48 AM

@145, you can't honestly think that "the bulk of the video game market" falls into the crude characterization being presented here.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/0BgGNTpksuElPk7R_XJkZKU5aqKtaOKY9w--#3b2e0 | July 21, 2011 11:50 AM

PZ's usual brand of knee-jerk sexism is on display as usual. Both against men (openly) and women.

The sexism against men is clear. He characterizes an entire birth group negativity. Simple bigotry.

The sexism against women is to pretend to represent all women, and in doing so make them all out to be his sexist screwed up image.

PZ,
"Women players are very cautious about revealing their sex"

Has he ever played on line or is PZ simply a huge liar? Some women might do this. Many *many* others tend to stuff their sexuality in peoples faces.

"I'm not wearing any panties"

"Oh I'm a blond"

"I wear a skirt like that - but its even shorter"

"I'll raise your tool for you! (oh its so big)"

It's called flirting PZ. Women do a ton of it on line. And what the hell is wrong with it anyway you prude?

Posted by: lomifeh | July 21, 2011 11:53 AM

I think Karen@57 has hit some good points. The thing about a game like WoW is it is very much driven by a guild structure. Trade chat for example is known to be crap to ignore. And pugs tend to suck if you try and pug when all the kiddies are one.

But within various guilds the dynamic is much different. One thing about WoW as well is that it has a large percentage of population that is not a part of the gamer community. If anything it is more representative of a non-gamer commnity in the demographics.

Posted by: GunboatDiplomat | July 21, 2011 11:56 AM

@yahoomess 176

I don't want to give you a "crying game" moment but I've got a funny feeling some of the "women" you've been flirting with may in fact have dangly bits where they shouldn't have...

Posted by: MGolz | July 21, 2011 11:58 AM

I played WoW for a summer and quit due to financial constraints. During that time, I simply avoided revealing I was a girl. I never spoke over audio, had an ambiguous name, and had a male character. Even the members of a group I played with assumed I was a man until one made a statement one day that I happened to correct them on.

Then they promptly bought me a flying mount when I hit level 60. Obviously, they probably did it because I was a woman. Thankfully, they managed to repress their sexism and my quitting just stemmed from not wanting to fork out money for the expansion and another month of service.

However, in addressing the other side of the matter, I've had considerably less problems with the tabletop gaming community. Although I'm sure an amount of sexism exists, I've had most men treat me politely and respectfully. Since I can't conceal my gender in these situations, I appreciate it.

Personally, I would cop up most of the sexism in the gaming community to the fact people can hide behind their character names and divorce themselves from the idea that the person on the other side of the mic is a human being rather than the fact they are nerds.

Ugh, though... The "Fat, Ugly, Slutty" comments received while playing Call of Duty illustrate exactly why I hate the game. The sexism, rude behavior, and outright immaturity rampant among its community is to aggravating for me to bother with the game. I wouldn't necessarily cop that up to man-children. Lots of real children play those games, and children can be vulgar.

I hold both communities to the same standard. Sexism is wrong on both counts. In the skeptical movement, one needs to realize that the sexism, or any other form of discrimination, can be poisoning. For one, you alienate a huge population with potentially good ideas. For two, it gives a very, very bad impression. It doesn't look good for a community that prides itself in rationality to demonstrate sexism.

Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies! | July 21, 2011 11:59 AM

@Yahoomess
#176
Women tend to/are willing to flirt in environment they feel comfortable in. Said environment generally involve a good player base, and a mod willing to kick/ban a player's ass for being an ass (in some cases, the mod let us have some "fun" with said ass first).

Posted by: Kirk | July 21, 2011 12:01 PM

@GunboatDiplomat #180

I was thinking the same thing. Those players aren't women, buddy.

Posted by: Mr.Kosta | July 21, 2011 12:03 PM

The sexism against men is clear. He characterizes an entire birth group negativity. Simple bigotry.

"What about the Menz", right?

The sexism against women is to pretend to represent all women, and in doing so make them all out to be his sexist screwed up image.

Because sexism againt women is against ALL women, whether they notice it or not, you piece of maggot infested shit.

Well, you know what? I'm not gonna dissect your post any further. Just fuck off and die in a fire, you misogynist worm.

Posted by: Mr.Kosta | July 21, 2011 12:05 PM

Agh, blockquote fail. Crapfuck.

Posted by: Ms. Daisy Cutter, Vile Creature Powered Entirely By Bitter | July 21, 2011 12:08 PM

Thomathy:

it's 46 degrees (~115 Fahrenheit) here in Toronto

Jedi Bear, your patronizing concern about the poor, oppressed gamer community has been noted. I'm sure you'll let me know if I step "out of line" or need to "pay attention" again, and perhaps also if I'm using the wrong tone.

Posted by: Thomathy | July 21, 2011 12:12 PM

JediBear, honestly, what can I say? You see a gross over-generalization where I see a fair statement about a segment of the gamer community (namely, the sexist, misogynist man-child segment). You know what, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the overlap contributes to the current conflict. I wouldn't say significantly, if Dawkins's cluelessness is any indication of how clueless men (and for the sake of full disclosure, I do mean heterosexual men) can be in general.

Posted by: Etruscan | July 21, 2011 12:13 PM

@Thomathy Do you deny that there are sexist shits in [insert any category you want] community? The only difference is that the gaming community brings you into direct interaction with them, anonymously. You're not making a fair judgment.

Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies! | July 21, 2011 12:14 PM

@JediBear
#187

"I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a significant part of the current conflict in the skeptical movement comes from our large overlap with that segment of the tech-savvy, rather clueless collection of man-children who see all women as aliens who are fat, ugly, or slutty." - PZ

I would agree that PZ may have goofed. The wording do sound like PZ is blaming the problem of misogynists in the skeptical movement on the gaming population.

Posted by: badandfierce | July 21, 2011 12:16 PM

@Phere Ah, Dead Gentleman Productions, one of the finest of all nerdy productions. For their gaming movies I actually rather prefer the original. It has a certain charm that the sequel, despite better production values, kinda lacked. But it's affectionate self-satire. And their other stuff is also great.I have the Demon Hunters tabletop game right here.

Posted by: Etruscan | July 21, 2011 12:17 PM

@198, I think he goofed rather significantly. This whole post makes him seem like a pompous blowhard who wants to appear like a defender of the poor and the helpless, while in reality he's just stereotyping another group of people unfairly to do it.

Posted by: Joe | July 21, 2011 12:18 PM

On mods with power. Back on Dawkin's acting an ass, I was on a forum that quickly degenerated into some rather offensive comments about atheists, not the atheist community, or Dawkin's, but atheists, as a whole. The catholic moderator (She made a note to mention that) made it clear that atheists weren't a real marginalized group and therefor not protected under the forum rules.

Posted by: gregfromcanada | July 21, 2011 12:21 PM

The companies that run these MMOs are partly to blame here. They have their bottom line to consider and if they start banning a significant number of these boys their going to cut into profits. I'd like to get deeper statistics of this actually, in as far as who really is the group most responsible for the sexist/racist etc. remarks. I believe that it is young men (and I doubt it's women) but I don't have the data other than the general age categories of subscribers. Without the data it's hard to know if it's 13yr olds or 30yr olds and to make a compelling case to game companies better information would be useful.

In any case, these companies need to hear from paying customers, lost customers, and those potential but unwilling to enter because of this problem. If they perceive that there is a significant amount of profit to be made/lost they will begin to enforce their rules. Basically unless they can see that they will benefit or at least not loose if they do something substantial to eliminate this behavior they will continue to provide only token enforcement.

Enforcement of civility rules is the key. Right now a significant amount of kids are not being taught civility, and unfortunately if people don't feel the consequences for being an asshat when in these MMOs they will continue. Sexism/racism are mostly learned behavior, there are probably some triggers that are unavoidable ("She makes me feel funny in my middle" and "He looks/acts/talks different = Danger!"), but it's education and consequences that teach us that that "funny feeling" or different looks are not things to feel superior about or fear. I don't like the "Spare the rod, spoil the child" but in the case of teaching civility online it's likely to be effective.

Has anyone thought of an online petition with an open letter to MMO gaming companies? Something that says you are one their profits and potential profits and if they don't do something they will loose/not gain your money?

Posted by: Thomathy | July 21, 2011 12:22 PM

Etruscan, no. Do you have a point? I'm not a gamer. And the anonymity (such as it is) of gaming doesn't excuse the behaviour. You make it sound as though it's acceptable for someone to be a raging homophobe, for instance, as long as they do it in private, and anonymously to anonymous people, and otherwise act like decent people out in public. Yet, there's a problem with that and it's the acting part. It's a fair judgement. I don't think people should be sexist shits anywhere or to anyone, even anonymous personalities.

Posted by: Bruce Gorton | July 21, 2011 12:25 PM

@thomathy

About 72% of American households - are gamers. In a sample that big you are going to get every single thing under the sun.

Posted by: Etruscan | July 21, 2011 12:28 PM

#208, Thomathy, the point went sailing over your head. I'm not excusing the behavior of people because they are anonymous, I'm saying that you would see this behavior everywhere if the conditions were the same. Sexist, homophobic assholes are not a unique phenomenon to gaming communities, but your random, anonymous exposure to them is.

Seriously, you guys are a bunch of clueless bigots. This behavior is everywhere, you just don't notice it, because you don't usually run into 1000 anonymous and randomly selected people when you join an intramural sports team. If you've met 10 complete assholes while playing WoW, that might have only been 1% of the actual people you interacted with. The sampling biases that have accumulated here are enormous.

Posted by: Thomathy | July 21, 2011 12:30 PM

Silent Service, it's sad that you see it that way.

Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies! | July 21, 2011 12:33 PM

@Silent Service
#211
That would've been ideal, but that's assuming we've enough energy to focus on all the different problem at the same time.
So one thing at a time.

Posted by: Thomathy | July 21, 2011 12:33 PM

Silent Service, don't thank me. You and I, we don't see eye to eye and now I think you're quite wrong.

Posted by: Thomathy | July 21, 2011 12:39 PM

Etruscan @ #212

Sexist, homophobic assholes are not a unique phenomenon to gaming communities, but your random, anonymous exposure to them is.

This behavior is everywhere, you just don't notice it, because you don't usually run into 1000 anonymous and randomly selected people when you join an intramural sports team. If you've met 10 complete assholes while playing WoW, that might have only been 1% of the actual people you interacted with. The sampling biases that have accumulated here are enormous.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/0BgGNTpksuElPk7R_XJkZKU5aqKtaOKY9w--#3b2e0 | July 21, 2011 12:40 PM

I have no idea why my name is coming out with all that crap -- doesn't happen on any other board.

Obviously on the internet nobody knows you're a dog, but I notice nobody told PZ that all those "men" flirting could really be women yanking his chain.

This then is simply a self-reinforcing piece of prejudice : all polite/pudish people on-line are assumed to be women regardless of what gender they claim to be? And all people who are flirty are assumed to be men similarly regardless of their claims?

I've even see women who are part of a married couple behaving that way. With kids, with their husbands playing the same game. it's just something people do that's all. Welcome to the internet PZ, you sexist.

Posted by: Thomathy | July 21, 2011 12:41 PM

Brianblackberry, understood. Thanks for the clarification.

Posted by: You_Monster | July 21, 2011 12:49 PM

you can't honestly think that "the bulk of the video game market" falls into the crude characterization being presented here.

Go check out the comment threads on the popular gaming websites. Listen to the podcasts put out by game critics. You hear tons of condescension towards women gamers, and myriad sexist and homophobic slurs. It is near ubiquitous within the video game culture.

GameInformer has less of a tin ear to these issues. They will run articles showing an understanding of this issue. They point out that all types of people are gamers, and bring up issues that most don't think about, like the difficulties of being a disabled gamer.

Its a big problem, and it's not just in online MMOs. It permeates game design as seen by the general representation of female characters in games. It is in the blogging community (IGN, though a good source for updates on gaming news is especially guilty of being unaware of when their humor croses the line into sexism). It is certainly present amongst the blog commenters. And, as has been attested to repeatedly in this thread and in the articles PZ linked to, it is a big problem amongst online gamers themselves.

Either you are not a gamer and thus are speaking ignorantly about the reality of gaming culture or...well, I can't think of any other option other than that you are being dishonest.

Posted by: gregfromcanada | July 21, 2011 12:52 PM

OH, and BTW online petitions do sometimes work.

Up here in Canada we have three major phone/internet providers that own basically the whole market. It's a monopoly in all but name and we pay more for less than your American friends for no other reason that that competition is stifled because of these big three.
Recently these companies proposed something called Usage Based Billing, which sounds okay but in fact would have raised prices and lessened service for pretty much everyone. Plus it would make it more difficult for the few but hopefully growing number of competitive companies trying to break open the market.

Someone put up a petition and it got nearly 500k signatures in a matter of weeks. The bill was dropped (though they are at it again).

If it's true that 40-50% of online gamers are women thats potentially millions of signatures. I'm pretty sure game companies will wake up and listen.

Posted by: djfav | July 21, 2011 1:02 PM

I gave up on the CoD franchise because I didn't like being called the n-word by little children. Besides, MAG is more fun.

Posted by: Amphiox, OM | July 21, 2011 1:06 PM

Part of it may be attributable to the anonymity of an MMO. In other words, maybe so many more not-gaming people were jerks if they were not identifiable/to be held accountable for their words.

That reminds me of this, (appropriately for the thread topic, courtesy of Order of the Stick).

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0640.html

Posted by: Bruce Gorton | July 21, 2011 1:13 PM

@Ms. Daisy Cutter

About 42% of gamers are women according to the ESA. That is about 2% higher than last year. This is another year of steady gains in this direction. There is effort being taken with regards to the "boy's only" view of gaming.

I write game reviews as part of my job.

In the last year I have played puzzle games, sports simulators, RPGs, first person shooters, racing games, Facebook games, platformers, Real Time Strategy, Turn Based Strategy, one that I class as a point and click adventure and that isn't even scratching the surface.

You also have sub-genres within these - fantasy, comedy, romance, sci-fi, detective...

And each individual game has a different community. Some are highly sexist or racist, some are not. Gamer is not a homogenous group.

Consider just how fricking ridiculous it would be to judge all people who read novels based on Stephenie Meyer fans. It is the same thing here.

Posted by: skellington1 | July 21, 2011 1:20 PM

I play computer RPGs, tabletop, and the occasional boardgame (and I'm female). I don't play online games because I don't want to deal with assholes while I relax.

I'm involved in some really excellent web gamer communities that DO talk about these issues. They're out there, and they're workin' on it.

There's another factor here that isn't present in the skeptic group:

Frequently, the actual content of video games is sexist; when it's not, the game and the marketing still normally cater to the Bulky White Male image. A pulpit + anonymity = bad -- but having the media reinforce the idea that 'women are for looking at' doesn't help.

I'm a major bioware fan, partly because they're the best of a bad lot. Their marketing department still needs to catch up, though (three Mass Effect games and we're FINALLY getting a trailer with a female Shepard? Come on, guys).

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/0BgGNTpksuElPk7R_XJkZKU5aqKtaOKY9w--#3b2e0 | July 21, 2011 1:23 PM

"Go check out the comment threads on the popular gaming websites. Listen to the podcasts put out by game critics. You hear tons of condescension towards women gamers, and myriad sexist and homophobic slurs. It is near ubiquitous within the video game culture."

LOL, you don't have to go that far to hear sexist drivel attacking men. You can find some in the lead article here.

Sexist attacks on men are universal in our culture. You don't have to go hunting them or trying to dig them up on obscure web sites.

Posted by: greymav | July 21, 2011 1:24 PM

The People want to know: Horde or Alliance?
(faux German accent) Ve haff...vays...off makink you tokk.(/faux German accent)

Posted by: Toiletman | July 21, 2011 1:27 PM

Blaming a community that mostly consists of underage boys who think they are under themselves for being very immature is somewhat comical. They are. I would not expect a 15 years old boy to act mature anyways. Guilds wanting to correct the image of gays? I thought it was a MMORPG. Nightelves fighting for their (lack of?) masculinity? Legalisation of marrying undeads?

Posted by: You_Monster | July 21, 2011 1:30 PM

yahoomess, #238,

Waaah, It is so hard to be a man in the U.S.. So much opression, waaah

Fuck off.

Posted by: Amphiox, OM | July 21, 2011 1:31 PM

"I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a significant part of the current conflict in the skeptical movement comes from our large overlap with that segment of the tech-savvy, rather clueless collection of man-children who see all women as aliens who are fat, ugly, or slutty." - PZ

I would agree that PZ may have goofed. The wording do sound like PZ is blaming the problem of misogynists in the skeptical movement on the gaming population.

Interesting, as that's not how I interpreted PZ's statement at all. I interpreted the overlap to mean not gamers as a whole, but the subset of misogynist gamers.

After all, PZ self-identified as a gamer himself. If the overlap meant all gamers, the overlap would include him, too.

Posted by: You_Monster | July 21, 2011 1:33 PM

Blaming a community that mostly consists of underage boys...

Average gamer age is 30 something.

Posted by: Amphiox, OM | July 21, 2011 1:38 PM

Sexist attacks on men are universal in our culture.

Not at all. A "sexist" attack on a man is an attack made on a man because he is a man.

99% of the attacks you refer to are made on a man not because he is a man, but because he is an entitled, misogynist idiot. Or, in the milder cases where the pattern of behavior is not pervasive, because he is acting like one.

Posted by: Amphiox, OM | July 21, 2011 1:41 PM

And really, it's pathetic that you think that this somehow entitles you to ignore the point.

Well, that is what they always do. Ignore the point. Invent a ridiculous strawman and divert the attention to attacking that. Mischaracterize the position with caricatured lunacy. Drown out the original reasonable complaint in a howling maelstrom of idiocy.

That's what they did during Elevatorgate, and they're certainly not creative enough to think up a new strategy this soon.

Posted by: Bruce Gorton | July 21, 2011 1:46 PM

Posted by: Toiletman | July 21, 2011 1:27 PM

The average gamer is about 37.

Posted by: catofmanyfaces | July 21, 2011 1:53 PM

I'm not up to really read the whole thread on this one, but I'd just like to point out that in my experience it's PvP in games that bring out the worst.

Be it an mmo, fps or what have you. PvP is where the true scum of the earth are at.

Weirdly enough, team fortress 2 (the only pvp centric thing i play) has all my friends and I playing on the furry servers because they seem to be the best behaved. And my friends aren't even furries.

Very weird. that said it's still pretty bad at times.

Hell is other people I guess. (heh)

Posted by: Fuzzy Fuzzy | July 21, 2011 2:07 PM

I'm a very recent reader here. Just a few weeks before ElevatorGate and I've learned a lot reading through those discussions. However, I see the word "douche" being thrown around as an insult. 10+ times in this thread alone. Shouldn't using "douche" or "douchebag" as an insult be considered wrong in this community?

Posted by: 964pinocchio | July 21, 2011 2:16 PM

Being an avid WoWhead with several toons on Proudmoore, I can vouch for the misogynistic and homophobic trade spam and dungeon chat. Fortunately, thanks to the presence on the server on both factions of the LGBT community, this seldom is permitted to persist. I am also a minority (read: hetero) member of the largest(?) LGBT Alliance guild on the realm, La Familia de Stonewall, a relatively close community of people who rapidly educate above-mentioned offenders. BTW, if folks want to look me up there, search for any toon in one of the Stonewall guilds whose name begins with Orph-, and that'll be me (I also have a personal alt guild, In Need Of A Wipe, but if you pst me mentioning this blog, you will be welcome with open arms, or tentacles, as the case may be...this means you, too, PZ).

Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies! | July 21, 2011 2:17 PM

@Amphiox #246

Interesting, as that's not how I interpreted PZ's statement at all. I interpreted the overlap to mean not gamers as a whole, but the subset of misogynist gamers.


After all, PZ self-identified as a gamer himself. If the overlap meant all gamers, the overlap would include him, too.

That not what I had issue with, I'm aware PZ wasn't referring to the whole gaming population.

The wording just sound like PZ is claiming that MOST of the misogynist problem in the skeptics movement stem from the fact that there are gamers in the skeptics movement.

Posted by: You_Monster | July 21, 2011 2:24 PM

There is no stereotyping going on here. PZ brought up the issue of sexism within the skeptic and atheist communities. He was not generalizing about all skeptics and atheists. PZ now brings up the rampant sexism in gaming culture. He is not talking about all gamers.

From the Wikipedia page on stereotype,

Stereotypes are standardized and simplified conceptions of groups based on some prior assumptions.

PZ, addressing the fact that certain groups (gamers in this instance) have a large number of individuals who act offensively is not castigating the entire community. He is not blaming the entire community by criticizing some members of that community. I doubt that he is implying that he himself is sexist simply because he is a gamer.

The "broad-brush" critique is getting old.

Oh noes, don't talk about Rebecca being objectified because that means you are calling all atheists misogynists. Oh noes, don't bring up the sexist fucks in the gaming community because that means you are labeling all gamers sexist and homophobes.

The critique is valid and doesn't imply stereotyping or over-generalization.

You are derailing.

The issue of the stereotyping of the gaming community is an issue worth discussing, but it doesn’t relate to this thread. The topic is on sexism within gaming, PZ didn’t stereotype all gamers (he only berated “that segment of the tech-savvy, rather clueless collection of man-children who see all women as aliens who are fat, ugly, or slutty”), so bringing up stereotyping is irrelevant in this discussion.

Posted by: Eric Saveau | July 21, 2011 2:38 PM

No terribly deep thoughts here, just musing out loud…

I'm a middle-aged white male gamer who worked four paper routes back Ye Olde Dayes to earn enough money to buy the original Atari VCS when that was the shiznit, and am active in a pen-and-paper role-play campaign that an old college friend has been running since we were all in college. I got beat up in junior high and early high school over the books I read and the TV shows I liked right up until weight-training afforded me a couple of spectacular opportunities to encourage certain assholes to not behave in that way (which eventually led to me being sometimes viewed as dumb jock, but that's another story). My natural sympathies should be expected to fall solidly in with other gamers...

...and they do, but with some massive caveats. With regard to video games I do both single-player and on-line gaming, in the first case because I love a good story or otherwise immersive experience, in the second because I enjoy the cooperation and competition of friends and family.

In Mass Effect I played the female version of Commander Shepard for two reasons - Jennifer Hale is a phenomenal voice actor, and I was able to customize the character to look very much like my wife. Online I play only a few games these days and it's mostly Left 4 Dead, and that's primarily family time with my son and daughter-in-law who live halfway across the country.

I do still play Counterstrike or Team Fortress 2, but even there I prefer to play with at least a few people I know and I seldom run into the douchebaggery which used to be fairly common there (especially on CS) and is so rightly derided here. However, I don't make the mistake of thinking that it's largely gone if I don't see it; my kids also play the Modern Warfare series and they report that there are legions of racist, sexist, whathaveyouist asshats to be found around every corner. And I know WoW players who report the same.

I've also spent some time perusing the forums for other games I enjoy, and though BioWare seems to have far fewer maladjusted fourteen year-olds in grown men's bodies haunting their pages than anywhere else, there's still plenty of “Dude, WTF?” to be found.

I guess the important thing for me in terms of gaming culture is to be part of a gaming group or groups made up of people that I know and like rather than to be immersed in an online gaming community. The people I know and like are not assholes, and that’s why I like them. The larger gaming communities on-line not only have plenty of room for othering assholes, they seem to get overrun by them.

I totally get why some of the commenters here have expressed dismay over being lumped in with the very kinds of people who tormented them in years past... but they’re filling out the wrong complaint form. They really need to learn not to take it personally, but to understand why it happens. Dudes, let me break it down for you - the female gamers who are complaining about the on-line conduct of male gamers towards them are complaining about being harassed, being stalked, being derided and dismissed, being treated cruelly, being treated as something less than autonomous beings who deserve a modicum of dignity. This should cause you to be able to relate to them, to feel empathy, to see them as natural allies because they’re talking about the same kind of shit that used to be done to you. That it’s happening on your virtual ground courtesy of your own claimed peers ought to bring you up short and make you at least say, “aw, hell.”* With some of you it, uh, hasn’t had that effect, and folks can’t help but notice that. It’s a problem. But it is a fixable one. Want some allies? Or do you want to suspiciously eye someone else’s persecution with the fear that it might be bigger than yours? Figure it out.

* Which means “Fire continuously!” in Mimbari.

Posted by: Bruce Gorton | July 21, 2011 2:44 PM

Posted by: You_Monster | July 21, 2011 2:24 PM

It could be worse, part II: We could be gamers. Oh, wait … some of us are! If you want to see the very worst of raging, testosterone-poisoned sexism, look to nerd-dominated gaming culture

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | July 21, 2011 2:53 PM

That's a big part of the reason why I don't play MMOs. Well, that and they're mind-numbingly boooooring.

This comment sums up my position on the subject so well that I stopped reading the thread.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/SaqGVG0xvJEQVwURVamS3DTCdvov0BLhXK1jOsYPPJQ-#b4893 | July 21, 2011 2:54 PM

If someone could come up with a way, short of becoming the Evil Totalitarian Father from the Planet Zergon, to get my 14 year old son to stop playing damned Runescape, I'd be so grateful.

Especially in the summer.

He has a bike. He has a skateboard. He has access to a pool. Heck, he has 2 skateboards. He has a dog. He even has a TV.

The only thing I can think is, Secure all the computers, including the one he bought with his own money.

It's. Driving. Me. Nuts.

MikeM

Posted by: You_Monster | July 21, 2011 2:58 PM

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a significant part of the current conflict in the skeptical movement comes from our large overlap with that segment of the tech-savvy, rather clueless collection of man-children who see all women as aliens who are fat, ugly, or slutty.

There you go, finished off that quote for you. You accidentally left off the part where he specifies that the clueless sexists are just a segment of the community.

And come on, don't be dense. Gaming culture IS male-dominated and nerd-dominated. The most vocal people in the gaming community determine what the culture of gaming is. Yes, people of all sorts game. They are not all nerds, and they are not all male. But the ones dominating the discourse and culture the most, are. That is not a stereotype of gamers, that is a fact about what factions within the community are most dominant.

Posted by: Karen | July 21, 2011 3:01 PM

@You_Monster: "In the gaming community you do see some of the worst examples of disgusting misogynism. You don’t think that is true? Create a gamer-tag with a feminine name and find out for yourself."

No, I don't think that's true. And that's coming from a female gamer who plays online games as female characters with what are, if not recognizably female names, at least non-masculine ones (you can argue the point on fantasy-styled names, I suppose, but mine mostly do end in -a). I make no illusion of my gender in my gaming interactions.

Have I seen misogyny in online gaming? Of fucking course I have. Anyone who argues otherwise hasn't ever actually logged in. Is it a majority condition, or even a plurality condition? I don't spend my entertainment time counting asshats, but I'm going to say, no, not generally. I interact with an awful lot of people. I'm given cause for offense by few.

Now, don't get me wrong, those few are loud and visible. And if they seem like they're going out of their way to be offensive that's because, often, they're going out of their way to be offensive. Because some people, regardless of age, get their jollies from peeing in the sandbox. That makes them appear more prevalent than they are.

But is that "the very worst of raging, testosterone-poisoned sexism"? Um, no. Frankly, even when they manage to say something really personally offensive, there's no way that I'm going to be convinced that some anonymous person spewing gender-insensitive drivel in an online environment could possibly be the very worst of sexism (or homophobia or whatever other bias), no matter how execrable their comments are. We'd be a lot further along the path to equality if that was the worst bias anyone had to endure.

Posted by: milady.serpent | July 21, 2011 3:05 PM

I'm just going to put this right here. The topic of sexism in the WoW community came up a couple weeks back on WoW Insider's Breakfast Topic and, well. Let's just say that the community did not do a good job of refuting the thesis.

Posted by: Illuminata, féministes fin de jeu | July 21, 2011 3:05 PM

No, I don't think that's true. And that's coming from a female gamer who plays online games as female characters with what are, if not recognizably female names

I know its true. And that's coming from the roomate of a female gamer who plays online games as exclusively female characters with obviously female names.

So, what's that then, a tie?

Posted by: mouthyb, ouvrier sur les connaissances | July 21, 2011 3:12 PM

Karen @ 276: Recognizing the prevalence of an action and its context requires focused attention to those events (for both things which set off someone's personal bar for bad behavior and for things which don't quite rise to that level but are still phenomena in that vein) and the willingness to ask if it is a problem and if that problem has implications for the larger society you or I or anyone else lives in.

For questions involving sexism, that's a really damn hard thing to do, since it's everywhere and if you 'notice' it (call attention to it, mention it, etc) you get jumped on by most everyone around you.

As for whether or not it's 'the worst', what's your bar for that criteria?

Posted by: Amphiox, OM | July 21, 2011 3:15 PM

Now, don't get me wrong, those few are loud and visible.

The same could be said of those a**holes in the skeptic/atheist community who polluted the elevatorgate threads, to which this thread is comparing them.

But why are they loud? Why are they visible?

Because there is no consequence for being loud and visible.

Because there is a slightly larger minority tacitly egging them on, slapping them on the back, quietly agreeing with them, defending them when someone else tries to call them out, constantly excusing them for being not "that bad", compared to whatever other example.

And there is an even larger minority that doesn't want to get involved, that ignores the problem, that says that it just isn't a big enough deal to get involved, or to speak up.

And you know what, you add up all these ever enlarging minorities, and you have a majority. Because if it wasn't a majority, this kind of behavior would not happen.

And in the end the smallest minority of all are those who try to speak up and change this behavior.

And THAT is the problem.

Posted by: Bruce Gorton | July 21, 2011 3:17 PM

Okay to tackle PZ post properly.

Sexism is a problem in various gaming communities, heck it is a problem in a lot of games, but I think it is worse in the atheist community.

Just on sheer numbers - games are attracting more women over time, the gender balance is shifting more towards neutrality.

The atheist community? We have just had a whole bust up because a woman dared say that hitting on her just after she gave a speech about how she doesn't like getting hit on at conferences at 4am in the morning, while the two of you are alone in an elevator, is kinda creepy.

I go on YouTube every now and then. What do I see? People claiming popular female atheists are only popular because they are attractive. I see people forming atheist factions that sell T-Shirts with "Got Rape?" on them.

I see atheists ranting about how much they despise feminism.

We have a long way to go before we can point to the gaming world as being worse on this issue.

Posted by: Bruce Gorton | July 21, 2011 3:19 PM

Posted by: You_Monster | July 21, 2011 2:58 PM

Right after claiming its the dominant one!

Posted by: Thomathy | July 21, 2011 3:26 PM

amphiox @ #284, incredibly well put. That's my problem with so-called Big Tent Atheism and Scepticism. We let everyone in, absolutely everyone, and some of those people are bigoted shits and most people seem to think that it's best to keep quiet in order to grow the movement, rather than address any other the problems that all the marginalised groups express. The problem is exactly that the majority doesn't seem to think there are any problems.

Posted by: Drekoguk | July 21, 2011 3:27 PM

It's funny getting hit-on randomly in WoW when I'm using my female avatar with a female name.

They are usually pretty benign like requests that I chat with them in private and they usually end with a =P.

I'd definitely find it more annoying if I actually were a woman though.

I'm not even a hot blonde Blood Elf either (too obvious?), just an ugly undead priest.

Posted by: Eric Saveau | July 21, 2011 3:30 PM

@mouthyb 271

"jock geeking" Yikes. I can picture it, and the term works.

@Enkidum 277 -

Well, it's worth giving some thought as to whether you want to own a console in the first place. For some people consoles make a lot of sense and fit their lifestyles, for others a PC is a better fit. I'm in the latter camp, partly because of mods and partly because I'm an enthusiastic hobbyist (I build all my own computers as well as those of family and friends). Though I also know people who find both of value. As far as buying things for it, I've had the opportunity to play games built for the Kinect, and it's a remarkable experience if you have suffcient floor space to accomodate it.

And thanks to you both.

Posted by: dzhellek | July 21, 2011 3:37 PM

It's not just the gamers. Some of the game seems a little on the sexist side
I'm by no means a master of what's sexist and what isn't but does anyone find the new goblin starter zone just a little bit questionable a points?

Posted by: mouthyb, ouvrier sur les connaissances | July 21, 2011 3:47 PM

Bruce Gorton @ 293: If you can't see the disagreement on these threads, I have to conclude that you don't read for subtlety. Just because your opinion isn't popular on a site, it does not indicate that yours is the only voice of disagreement (or reason, as you appear to be assuming. Sometimes ideas aren't popular because people know the idea is wrong, from previous experience.)

It does indicate the willingness to read yourself as a martyr to certain kinds of reasoning, which makes you hard to reason with in those areas.

Posted by: Jolo5309 | July 21, 2011 3:51 PM

@Avicenna

Hm... the problem with a bunch of atheists on WOW.

Who would play Druids and Clerics?

My main in EQ was a paladin that wouldn't group with evil characters.

Posted by: Bruce Gorton | July 21, 2011 3:55 PM

Posted by: mouthyb, future experimenter on undergrads | July 21, 2011 3:47 PM

Sorry I wasn't clear.

I was responding 289's comment about how the commenters here are an undisciplined mob.

I find the implied lack of cohesion to be a good thing - that we argue passionately and with vigour is one of the bits of this blog that makes it worth reading through.

Posted by: Etruscan | July 21, 2011 4:00 PM

It seems that PZ is, indeed, criticizing the gaming community at large. His first sentence says it pretty concisely: "we could be gamers." He then follows it up by referring to "nerd-dominated gaming culture" which he calls "that segment of the tech-savvy, rather clueless collection of man-children."

I really don't get how this isn't an obvious "broad brush" insult. He might has well have been said: "It could be worse, we could be black people," and then follow it up with a bunch of demeaning stereotypes.

Sorry you can't see past your own biases. It was pretty stinking obvious to me.

Posted by: Joe | July 21, 2011 4:03 PM

@sydneycarton

It's a rough industry for women. A lot of women don't want to be the only one in the room at a male dominated studio.

Part of it might be the working conditions in the games industry, which suck, and women who are programmers might very be smarter. ;)
IE Going for an industry that pays better, offers better benefits and such.
Another is the belief that 'girl's can't program' rooted in the 'girls suck at math' bullshit.

Something they did at a studio I worked at a while back, art side.
The only person who knew what sex the applicants were was the HR person. The person reviewing the portfolio (IE their merit) had no idea of the applicants sex.
Funny thing, the number of women working at the studio's art department tripled when they started that.

Posted by: mouthyb, ouvrier sur les connaissances | July 21, 2011 4:08 PM

Karen @ 303: An argument about people cannot be separated from its context. US society, even with legislators using violence in video games as a political point, is nowhere near a point where an analogous argument is being made from racism.

Logic, as applied to humans, gets its emphasis and internal 'sense' from the society it is embedded in. And, since we still have staggeringly epic problems with racism, the use of that as an analogy is fallacious. It belittles the ongoing problems with racism and elevates the situation involving gamers to a status it in no way resembles.

Posted by: Enkidum | July 21, 2011 4:22 PM

@Karen 299

Every community has bigots and idiots. Gamers do. Atheists do. Sports fans do. Amateur birdwatchers do.

I call bullshit. The kind of behavior that is standard in online gaming is simply not possible in most other communities. Denying that gaming has a special problem with this is insane. The gaming community IS unusual in this regard.

Is it unique? No - hell, look at monster truck fans if you want a different demographic with an equal problem. But in terms of Western society gaming is at one extreme (negative) end of the spectrum of tolerated behaviors towards women. Pointing that out is not a crappy argument. The stuff that is standard on Counterstrike is simply not accepted in most of society, including atheist message boards. Trying to pretend everyone is the same and gamers don't have a special problem is being disingenuous.

Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac) | July 21, 2011 4:28 PM

Wake me up when gamers are discriminated against in the job or housing market, at higher risk of rape and other forms of violence than other people, and railed against in American pulpits.

In the '80s, tabletop RPGs did have a certain amount of discrimination on-the-job/in the jobs market, and boy howdy did we have the frothing at the mouth from the pulpit! Mothers Against Dungeons and Dragons (later changed to Bothered About Dungeons and Dragons, so as not to be confused with the Mothers Against Drunk Driving) got a lot of heavy air-time. (Relevant article here.) The religious objectors portrayed us somewhat successfully as demon-worshipping psychos; I've had the "concerned employer" talk myself, when my "disreputable habit" came out.

Note that I am not saying that this approached the level of the usual race/religion/gender-based prejudices.

The D&D community was plagued with the same sexist bullshit back then too(though I also agree with what Karen said); I think it's changed for the better (at least in my personal experience it has), as complaints were made publicly and fingers were pointed.
-

Posted by: You_Monster | July 21, 2011 4:34 PM

Etruscan,

It seems that PZ is, indeed, criticizing the gaming community at large.

Yes, he is. Because there is a problem in the gaming community.

His first sentence says it pretty concisely: "we could be gamers."

PZ is talking about the cultures of two communities here, that of the skeptics/atheists and that of gamers. I still don’t see a stereotyping of all gamers, and I agree with what he is expressing. We (members of the atheist community) could have it worse (in terms of having to deal with sexism within our ranks), by being a part of the gaming community. The sexism in gaming IS more rampant, more overt, more offensive, … (I don’t see many member of both communities objecting to this claim). So our community could have it worse, the gaming community does.

He then follows it up by referring to "nerd-dominated gaming culture" which he calls "that segment of the tech-savvy, rather clueless collection of man-children."

Mining some quotes are we? You know I can just scroll up and read what he wrote himself, right? PZ did not call all who are a part of the nerd-dominated gaming culture clueless man-children. He said that he wouldn’t be surprised if a good portion of the sexist man-children in the atheist community are also part of the sexist portion of the gaming community.

And if you are offended just by his use of the term “nerd-dominated gaming culture”, I’ll repeat what I said in #247,

And come on, don't be dense. Gaming culture IS male-dominated and nerd-dominated. The most vocal people in the gaming community determine what the culture of gaming is. Yes, people of all sorts game. They are not all nerds, and they are not all male. But the ones dominating the discourse and culture the most, are. That is not a stereotype of gamers, that is a fact about what factions within the community are most dominant.

Do you actually think PZ is making a blanket statement criticizing all gamers after calling himself one?

Posted by: mouthyb, ouvrier sur les connaissances | July 21, 2011 4:52 PM

QNSNY @ 313: The definition I'm using:

Fallacy-- a mistake in reasoning, either intentional or unintentional, which is deductively invalid or (in this case) inductively weak

The inference in the argument that the arguments which allow for racism are the same as the arguments which allow for disliking gamers are fallacious on the following fronts (many of which have already been pointed out by others here, without the systematic explanation):

a. the results of racism (as a system of thought) are not the same as the results of an aversion to or dislike of gamers.

1a. In the case of the current discussion, the people talking here are gamers talking about other gamers, so the aversion expressed here is, as many have pointed out, dependent on the behavior of members of that group. The ingroup, for this discussion, shares membership with the outgroup, which is another difference between racism (which tends to be enacted as systematic ingroup-outgroup interactions which deprive outgroup members of jobs, homes, livelihoods, etc.)

2b. Identification as a part of the problem group, instead of being based on sex, race, gender, etc, is based on actual behavior and contingent on person to person interactions (sexist or racist speech), which happen, for this discussion, to be shared widely. Because the criteria is expressed action which relies on previously existing societal problems (again, the isms), this is not a discriminatory discussion toward gamers. It's an empirical one.

2b,1: Moreover, and it bears repeating, pointing out a problem with the behavior of a group which does not experience widespread problems with the ability to be perceived (like people of color) is not discriminatory.

Unless you wish to willfully ignore examples to the contrary in popular society (eg gaming and gamers are currently popular), that conflation is either the result of willful ignorance or of epic lack of attention to the news or world at large, usually the product of privilege (the ability, in this case, to avoid exposure and discrimination based on position in social hierarchy.)

b. the current and historical prevalence of racism is not the same as the current aversion to gamers in some situations

c. racism, as a system of thought, is considerably more prevalent in US society than aversion to gamers, and as PZ and others have pointed out, gamers engage in racist speech, which is a form of acting out racism and racist attitudes

Seriously, the only way to make that argument is fallacious (in ignorance or deliberate willingness to refuse the presence of evidence.)

Posted by: tomforsyth1000 | July 21, 2011 5:05 PM

With LoTRO, in particular, I see no bias or harassment of women in groups, with many, MANY pick-up-groups led by them.

If I had to guess, I'd say about 60% of characters are male. It's hard to tell because unless you look closely, the elven race all look similar - the men are slim & the women are flat-chested, and the female armour is not of the absurd chainmail-bikini type. So unless they explicitly wear a dress, it's hard to tell (males can wear dresses as well). And for dwarves there is literally no difference - you cannot choose a gender because canonically both genders look, sound and dress alike, including the beards. The scripted dialogue of quests is often deliberately ambiguous about dwarf gender, which is a nice touch.

For real people, you only know someone's gender if you group with them and you're using voice (yes, assumptions based on voice sound, I know...), and that mostly only happens at the high character levels, and people who are actively questing in groups. But of that sampling, server-wide there's probably about 10% women. Our guild has a much higher proportion - roughly 25% are women, of whom about half are part of husband and wife teams. Obviously a guild with a high proportion of couples tends to attract more couples and women. Other guilds are indeed the stereotypical bunch of sex-obsessed 14 year old boys. Interestingly we also have several openly gay guilds, such as the fabulously-named "Gandalf's Gaze" which had me ROFLing.

Having said all that positive stuff, a disturbing number of the women only seem to play the "nurture" classes - minstrels, lore-masters, rune-keepers, maybe the odd burglar. Come on ladies - enough of the stereotype - roll up a champion or a guardian and get out there and kill people in the face!

Posted by: QNSNY | July 21, 2011 5:18 PM

mouthyb:

I feel no need to address your post directly, because you're hung up on racism when what we're really talking about is prejudice, but I'll make a broader point, one that might shed some insight into why some of the blow up as of late has happened and why some of the "anti-feminists" feel the way they do. I understand because I have a twinge of the same sentiments occassionally.

There is a fine line between what I'll refer to as "awareness" and what I'll refer to as "stereotype reinforcement." Very often awareness veers off into sterorype reinforcement. Let me elaborate with an example.

If I was assaulted in pleasantville USA, and, feeling the need to protect others who visited pleasantville, started a publicity campaign that was extremely visible and harped on the slogan "BE CAREFUL IN PLEASANTVILLE, SOME THERE ASSAULT PEOPLE." every day all day for a long time, the reaction would eventually be that anyone that saw that advertisement and went to Pleasantville would start to look suspiciously at every person. All the citizens in Pleasantville would be annoyed and defensive, and would say, "hey, I didn't do anything to anyone, why are you looking at me suspiciously?" My act of creating awareness, while it would likely save some from being assaulted, at the same time would foster prejudice against those who did nothing wrong. And if someone confronted me on it, I would say, "well, I didn't mean you, I meant those 'some.'" My defense would be legitimate, but the outcome wouldn't change.

This happened similarly throughout the 18th/19th century where AAs where made out to be hypersexual through "awareness" campaigns. When confronted with a reasonable AA though, the white people would say that they didn't mean them and that they are "one of the good ones."

The reason some men have issues with feminism is because they don't like to be prejudged as a mysogynist, or at worst, a rapist, which is what happens in some cases. The awareness campaigns that are out there reinforce the stereotype in some people, and some women look at all men as creepy and potential rapists. It's hard to convey what it feels like when you're walking behind a woman at night and she looks back constantly at you because she thinks you're going to attack her. I'm not comparing it to anything else, I'll just say that it makes you feel like shit.

I'll add another anecdote. Over the last two decades there has been a lot of awareness campaigns about child abduction and pedophilia. This has made a lot of mothers (right or wrong) be very protective of their children and suspicious of single men. My father, who is 70 and a widower tells me that he can't even say hello to a child or wave at them without getting weird glances, glances that can only be described as accusations of "creepiness". It saddens him because he likes children and hates to be thought of that way.

So, are the stereotypes worth the safety? Perhaps, but that's a value judgement I'm not willing to make. All I have to say is that "awareness" is a good thing, as long as it doesn't coalesce into outright prejudice, as it often does.

Posted by: howaboutanemail | July 21, 2011 5:34 PM

I see lots of people claiming gamers are either man-children, or 13. Here are links to a couple of sites that show the average game is in his mid-thirties. Also,

ESA
Game Politics

There are several other studies done internationally, with ages ranging from early thirties to fourty-one!

Now, I don't deny that there is sexism among gamers as a whole, but chalking it up to everyone being thirteen is disingenuous. Either sexism is spread among all gamers, regardless of age, or there is a small but loud demographic of sexist gamers. Whether the average age of the sexist gamer is thirteen would require a study which doesn't exist yet.

For what its worth, both my wife and I game (she four times more than me, according our Steam logs), and there are a few good communities. The trick to avoid sexist people is to game with people you know. I know that's not always possible.

Furthermore, I don't that there is that more overlap between the skeptic communities and the gaming communities. Gaming is mainsteam, and has been so for a long time now, whether is a middle-aged housewife playing Farmville or Bejewled (the former secretary to my former employer was a 65 year old Bejewled addict) on facebook, or teenagers shooting people on Call of Duty.

Whether we have a problem in the skeptic community with sexism is entirely independent of whether we have a problem with sexism in the general population. Gamers at this point, represent the entire population, decade old stereotypes be damned. In fact, something like 43% of the gamer population are females Source

I'm not saying we as skeptics don't have a problem, but that gamers do says absolutely nothing about it.

Posted by: doug.black | July 21, 2011 5:37 PM

I'm not heavily into gaming, but I do play a little World of Warcraft,

Posted by: QNSNY | July 21, 2011 5:40 PM

mouthyb:

Going to the dictionary is a conspicuous final gasp. You should avoid it.

It's obvious that you're interested in winning an argument not discussing an issue openly. This is a problem that many seem to have here, and I experience it frequently with academics. Let go of your ego, it'll only cloud your thinking.

Posted by: Bruce Gorton | July 21, 2011 5:44 PM

mouthyb

My question applies to you as well. Given how games aren't really moderated for comments of course.

Posted by: Inky | July 21, 2011 5:49 PM

*delighted gasp*
You play WoW??!

Mebbe I'll move a toon to your server.

As for the less than desirable people on WoW: a massive population of people play this game, and with increased numbers of people, you're simply bound to get increased numbers of jerks and idiots. That the majority of players are male just makes it easier for groups of these idiots to publicly congeal into nasty clots of sliminess.

When I started playing, the idiot-infused atmosphere was enough that I made my first toons males.

As a general rule I ignore Trade Chat, and I stay off my guild's Vent unless I'm raiding. I like my guild, but even so it's just too easy to hear something stupid.

My enjoyment of the game is much enhanced by ignoring everyone but those I choose to play with.

And, very rarely, firing a verbal missile at a particularly obnoxious player. Sometimes, a statement that showcases their fundamental idiocy to invoke chat community scorn is sufficient enough to change the trajectory of the conversation.

Oh. And I love PvP. Nothing gives me greater satisfaction than outwitting and annihilating other players, especially if they're jerks.

Posted by: mouthyb, ouvrier sur les connaissances | July 21, 2011 6:08 PM

Bruce Gorton @ 323:

"Now would you say that it is fair to claim that news reader culture is dominated by genocidal rape supporting wannabe kiddy killers?"

I have several problems with the unstated premises of this question:

1. the observation that there is a large problem is contingent on observation of behavior, but it is not only contingent on individual observation

a. the criteria of prevalence, action resulting of that system of thought, and effect of those actions applies

1a. in this case, we're talking causation of actions which occur in prevalence, versus (in your example) representation of actions which may not occur, in a situation in which there is an understood effect which exaggerates

In other words, in this case of people bragging about genocide and baby killing, which I would argue is in the order of rationale which causes other problems we've been discussing, the speech can be understood to be bragging/exaggeration because the actions are strongly discouraged by law. Sexual harassment, on the other hand, is a poorly enforced section of the law and could be understood (case in point the anecdotes throughout the comments) as something tacitly or explicitly approved of.

Inferences of that kind are common-- people tend to infer that grandiose claims (like the ability to perform genocide) are unlikely to occur, and are therefore lies.

Sadly, discrimination is likely to occur, as measured by both literature on the subject and by self-report.

2. systems of thought underlie actions, though dependent on other conditions in the actor

a. one of the fundamental criteria for an action occurring is the rationale of the actor

1a. it is relatively safe to say that the rationale of an actor is fundamental to the perception of an action being acceptable.

We're talking about actions which can be understood to be tacitly acceptable by prevalence, therefore the analogy to that situation is not valid.

Posted by: greg.bourke0 | July 21, 2011 6:39 PM

I want to second what has already been said about Lord of The Rings online, I played WOW for a little bit and quickly became fed up, LOTRO is a very different environment where, regardless of your character's sex, treatment is much more mature and on the whole much friendlier. Now if only I had the time to play the bloody thing.

Posted by: EM | July 21, 2011 6:46 PM

This thread seems to be an exercise in anecdotal generalization and selective stereotype reinforcement.

Before making any comments about "the gaming community" I suggest you familiarize yourself with this.

http://www.theesa.com/facts/gameplayer.asp

* The average age of a gamer is 37 years old
* 37 percent of gamers are adult women
* Only 13 percent are adolescent boys (age 17 or less)

What is happening (I believe) is a kind of 'silent majority' problem. We simply ignore, mute, or leave matches with offensive players.

I work with avid gamers every day, and have seen my fair share of industry and gamer conventions. The population at large is not in fact full of the fabled 'manchildren'. The 'manchildren' do exist, and are quite memorable, but form a small percentage of even those who show up to conventions.

I would be interested to see if there was a more in depth analysis of multiplayer play sessions to see how many players in a server spout offensive language and how many are simply silent. My experience is that only a few players in a multiplayer shooter match account for almost all of all the talking done. If one or more of those people happen to be an offensive chatterbox the voice channel quickly becomes unusable. The rest of the players, like myself, are silent or have simply turned off microphone capability altogether.

There is however a common thread of trollish behavior in any semi anonymous forum, but I don't think racing/sexism/misogyny is inherent in the community, it is just the means by which a subset of the community tries to troll. For these people the idea is to be offensive and annoying as possible so they tone up that language. I'm sure there are racist/misogynists in the mix, but the primary motivation for these people is to annoy others.

I will completely agree that there is a problem. Whether it's a small percentage of the population ruining it for the rest of us or not, it's still driving away lots of players, and giving everyone else a bad reputation.

I'm not sure of a good solution to the problem, since it's suffers from the same problems confronting trolls everywhere does.

Posted by: Tombcannon | July 21, 2011 7:01 PM

Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!, #161: Ah yes, the infamous Thong of Shielding

On the other hand, I think Warrior Within presents a nice example of what's wrong in the video game industry mindset: take successful game, add massive amounts of T&A (the TVTropes page image for Thong of Shielding is from a cut scene, and that's your introduction to that character), voice actresses that delivere S&M lines during combat (e.g.: There's so much pleasure in pain!), rewrite the Prince's character and recast his voice actor to sound grittier to go with the new darker and edgier theme, and swap out the Arabian-themed music for brand name hard rock (Godsmack's I Stand Alone). The only saving grace is that much of the community called them on it.

azumahazuki, #231: Does it still count as being a girl gamer if it's just Mednafen and ZSNES emulators? I grew up on Megaman and Mario and Zelda and FF and Lufia etc and the state of gaming since 2000 or so just made me cry.

Protoplasmoid, #309: I just had to link to this. The blatant shitiness of The other M didn't go unnoticed by professional reviewers.

I thought that the whole "you're under someone else's command and have to respect the chain" bit was handled well in Fusion. She respects it as long as it makes sense. (Since Fusion is canonically the last game is the series, maybe she learned a lesson about blindly following orders during that whole not wearing the Varia suit thing in MOM.)

Posted by: Inky | July 21, 2011 7:20 PM

EM, #336

I absolutely agree.

I've been playing for 5 years, and overall, I'd say that the "silent majority" is really quite decent. The new system of getting random people together for groups introduces me to a ton of strangers that, save the occasional bad apple, are generally nice to play with.

The guild I'm in has a good policy of a trial period for new members and quickly booting out anyone that is obnoxious or possesses personality traits detrimental to group playing.

Having been on the same server all this time, it's easy to see the same names come up over and over in instigating fuckwittery. Still, it seems that most of these people have limited lifespans on the server.

Yes, when I first started playing, I imagined all my fellow players to be male, white or asian, with horrible acne, horrible flabby Dorito-fattened bodies, and lacking in charm and social finesse.

Not true. Well, at least gender, race, and implementation of social etiquette. This being the U.S., there is still the fairly high probability of heft around the waist.

Posted by: serinxooiid | July 21, 2011 7:41 PM

As a gamer, I have to say that it's one of the things that we as a culture need to work on, especially as the medium grows and becomes more commonplace.

But then again, labeling the entire community in that way is somewhat harsh, mainly because the gaming world is so large and there are quite a few well-meaning people in it. I understand that there are asshats who think that 'trolling the fags' is funny, but for the most part those are the people that the guild sends into an area to aggro monsters while the rest of the group picks them off.

To put it simply, the gamer culture is a lot like the internet culture. Once you hide behind a mask you can absolve your responsibility to be civil. Some take it as a sign to act like children, others continue being charitable and nice to others. It's the responsibility of the culture to move past that, though, and become civil.

Of course, idiots on Halo calling you a 'Rocket whore' and teabagging you will never stop, so just laugh when your teammate puts him out of his misery until next spawn.

Just for recommended viewing, do a search for 'Extra Credits'. It's a video series on gamer culture and the future of the medium. Good stuff.

Posted by: Therrin (Ben S) | July 21, 2011 8:12 PM

#343 mattheone11,

Grats on being part of the problem.

Posted by: Aquaria | July 21, 2011 8:27 PM

Stop painting the term "gamers" as if it was a word that describes specifically ONLINE gamers, or even worse, specifically World of Warcraft gamers.

You're getting obsessed with what you perceive to be generalizations in multiple threads. It's become tedious.

We are allowed to refer to multiple people who game and are sexist piles of shit "gamers," you know it's quick and easy.

Now sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up you one-note douchebag.

Is it so hard for you to stop being smug and condescending about other men for just one week, PZ?Hello, I'm a stupid, privileged douchebag who needs to go fuck himself.

Posted by: Amphiox, OM | July 21, 2011 8:47 PM

Reading between the lines, it seems to me that essentially you're expressing a stance which is anti-nerd (and therefore anti-intellectual).

Why don't you stop reading between the lines, and actually read the lines. Because if you do so with even a rudimentary level of reading comprehension, you'll be able to learn that your statement above is total lunacy?

Here's a prescription for valium (5mg po BID), with a refill. Try not to choke on it.

Posted by: Etruscan | July 21, 2011 9:08 PM

#349 Therrin, I'm not doubting his right to post whatever he wants, I'm just saying, as someone who considers themselves a "gamer" I feel profoundly alienated by his post. Maybe he wants that, I dunno. Maybe he doesn't give a shit, I dunno. Either way, I'm merely stating a fact.

Posted by: Etruscan | July 21, 2011 9:19 PM

#351 You_Monster, respectfully, go fuck yourself.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | July 21, 2011 9:25 PM

Etruscan:

#349 Therrin, I'm not doubting his right to post whatever he wants, I'm just saying, as someone who considers themselves a "gamer" I feel profoundly alienated by his post. Maybe he wants that, I dunno. Maybe he doesn't give a shit, I dunno. Either way, I'm merely stating a fact.

I ask this as a long-time gamer myself. I actually found it spot-on, so I'm curious what I'm missing.

Posted by: lasthussar | July 21, 2011 9:28 PM

Perhaps the problem is being American

http://images.ichc.s3.amazonaws.com/originals/completestore/2011/7/20/8dc232bf-7930-4c52-a617-b2e57f1f1441.jpg

Posted by: otrame | July 21, 2011 9:45 PM

The strangest thing about this game is the ridiculousness of some of it's prejudices. I've played female characters and didn't really have any problem(at least none that I noticed) but I faced serious rudeness when I roled a gnome. Anyone care to analyze that?

Because the only good gnome is a chicken fried gnome?

Now goblins are a whole different story. 8-)

(does my Hordeness show?)

Posted by: Noctivagant | July 21, 2011 10:21 PM

@Etruscan - He's talking about sexist, racist, etc. gamers. I am a long-time gamer and I know exactly what he's talking about. I am not offended because I am not that type of person.

If you aren't sexist, racist, etc., then don't make it about you, because it isn't about you.
Easy peasy^^

Posted by: Kagehi | July 21, 2011 10:42 PM

The People want to know: Horde or Alliance?

Uh.. Wasn't it an election or two back where they ran an online vote thing through WoW and concluded that the Horde was like almost all liberals, while the Alliance pretty much voted like 90% republican? Would think that might present a possible hint. lol

Posted by: sirjeffere | July 21, 2011 10:53 PM

As a gamer myself, I actually find a large majority of players across almost all games to be reasonably well mannered. Most of them are there to just have a good time without attracting too much attention. But it's like walking into a room with ten people and having nine of them sit nice and peacefully, where the tenth one is prone to scream and throw something across the room every thirty seconds. If you walk into ten different rooms like that and somebody asks you who you noticed in each room, it's going to be the raging moron every single time.

Basically, it's easier to notice somebody loud and obnoxious than to notice the guys minding their own business and playing a game.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | July 21, 2011 10:59 PM

sirjeffere:

Basically, it's easier to notice somebody loud and obnoxious than to notice the guys minding their own business and playing a game.

Absolutely. In the anecdote I related concerning my SIL, it was essentially three kids who seemed to know each other who kept making inappropriate comments.

That doesn't change the fact that women have to put up with this shit. All. The. Time. Doesn't matter if it's a vocal minority, or everyone. As long as the majority keeps their cake-hole shut when assholes make themselves known as assholes, we are all complicit.

I have to admit, I don't often tell kids to shut the hell up when they are being assholes. So I too am part of the problem.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 21, 2011 11:12 PM

I can't play most online games. It isn't fun, my combative nature means I end up spending all my time educating and no time playing. Games are down time for me, sorry.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | July 21, 2011 11:23 PM

FuzzyFuzzy @ 258:

I'm a very recent reader here. Just a few weeks before ElevatorGate and I've learned a lot reading through those discussions. However, I see the word "douche" being thrown around as an insult. 10+ times in this thread alone. Shouldn't using "douche" or "douchebag" as an insult be considered wrong in this community?

No. Douching was a terribly anti-woman practice designed to make women feel ashamed about their natural body odor. Repeated douching can wash away the lining of the uterus, making it not just pointless but dangerous. Douching can lead to infections and increases the risk of ectopic pregnancies and pelvic inflammatory disease.

Douche and douchebag make very fitting insults in certain situations. Think about it.

Posted by: Nunbeliever | July 22, 2011 12:08 AM

Well I think the demographics of the gaming culture is about the same as for this blog. A bunch of geeky nerds who have read a lot of books but generally know nothing of how to interact with human beings in real life. This blog is a sad example of how people turn into monsters when they are protected by the comfortable anonymity of the internet. People just think they can act and say whatever they want.... all in the name of skepticism. The only answer you get when you point this out is: "Yeah we use strong language over here. If you can't take it, then fuck off".

I would love to meet some of them in real life. I guess they wouldn't be all that cocky and arrogant when they actually have to stare another person in the face. Pathetic really...

Posted by: Nunbeliever | July 22, 2011 12:26 AM

Women players are very cautious about revealing their sex; some won't speak on audio because they know as soon as their female voices are heard, the annoying comments will start to come in.

You are such a hypocrite. This blog is well-known for being a very nasty place on the internet although you probably take that as a compliment. That is really sad since you have good interesting things to say once in a while. Unfortunately the discussions that take place are just ridiculous. I much prefer RD.net as a place for civil discussions. With civil I mean people who don't find some strange pleasure in trying to put in as many derogatory words in one comment. A place where idiot, fuckwit, moron and stupid are just with caution and not as part of a person's daily repertoire. A place where you can be wrong or sometimes even ignorant without being labelled a retard. A place where people can disagree without calling eacg other names. But, that would probably be a strange place for you I guess. Maybe you should clean up your own blog before you start accusing other communities of being nasty places. This recent project of yours posting articles about the alleged gigantic problem with misogyny in the atheist community seems particulary ridiculous in this regard.

Posted by: slayersaves89 | July 22, 2011 12:30 AM

To the gamers complaining that PZ is stereotyping us. I definitely think that most gamers, even most gamers online, do not engage in the behavior found on "Fat, Ugly, or Slutty". However, if you have not encountered that type of behavior you were not paying attention, or are quite lucky. In any case the problem here is hugely and unnecessarily exacerbated because just about every gamer I have ever met does something almost as bad. When people like that pop up in a game they just ignore them.

These idiots need to know that they are not giving the other men in the room a good laugh. Or if they are (unfortunately you get a whole group of these people more often than I would like) that there are at least people in the room who despise their bullshit. Not to mention anyone in the room who might be a target of this behavior needs to know that there are people who will speak up.

"Don't feed the trolls" does not apply to online gaming (for the most part). If we really want to promote our hobby we need to stop trying to pretend that these problems do not exist. We need to make the non douchebag segments of the gamer population just as loud and visible as the douchebags. And again, I could be wrong, but I don't think it would be that hard. I happen to believe there are more of us, but we need to speak up. We need to stop denying half the population (more than that in fact, as racism is a huge problem as well) a comfortable environment in which to enjoy the hobby we claim to have a desire to promote.

Also, if you are on x-box live or some other service that allows you to report those people, do so. It works, people do get banned if they get enough reports.

Posted by: Nunbeliever | July 22, 2011 12:42 AM

Has it occurred to you to, like, go there instead of here? Because it would save us the trouble of killfiling you or scrolling past your many and useless words.

Ooooh! Are you going to add me to your kill file! I am so scared. Put me in the bozo bin or on the twit list. Seriously, who talks like that.... Oh I forgot, geeky nerds who have read to many books but who don't know the first thing about how to interact with a human being in real life. Yes, don't worry. I am not going to be a particulary active member. You can have it all for yourself. It's just amusing to take a look every now and then. Just a reminder of exactly how bad things can get if you spend too much time in communities like this one.

Posted by: mouthyb, ouvrier sur les connaissances | July 22, 2011 12:47 AM

Nunbeliever: You're so annoyed you have to get the last word?

Flounce as you like, but it is a little ridiculous to keep coming back.

Posted by: Nunbeliever | July 22, 2011 12:53 AM

Flounce as you like, but it is a little ridiculous to keep coming back.

Can't you people talk like... well normal people. What's up with all this geek jargon. Do you have like a crash course in how to sound like the ultimate geek before you get accepted as a true member of this blog? Frankly I don't care what you think of me. No, my purpose is not to make any contributions to the topic being discussed. That would be something of an oxymoron regarding the fact that most topics are quite meaningless ramblings by a old teacher with a creepy squid fetisch. No, I am just trying to annoy you guys and gals. And as I realized that really is the easiest thing in the world. You are so predictable. You just can't ignore my comments can you. Is that some form of geek honour code or something? Yes, I was trying to be serious in another post but that was mission impossible so I thought what the heck. I can have some fun before I get banned. It's not like it matters to me. I can always create a new nick and continue my rampage.

Posted by: Nunbeliever | July 22, 2011 12:58 AM

Look. I have already managed to get some people off the topic and focusing all their attention to me! Buhahaha! This is going just fine! Keep on posting! Keep draining this shithole with off-topic comments. I love it!

Posted by: Chaos Cryptic | July 22, 2011 1:08 AM

No, I am just trying to annoy you guys and gals. And as I realized that really is the easiest thing in the world. You are so predictable.
Trolling is a banning offense, Nunbeliever.

Posted by: Nunbeliever | July 22, 2011 1:13 AM

Trolling is a banning offense, Nunbeliever.

No way, you say! Although if that was a consistent policy P.Z would be the first to be banned. Why on earth do you think I would care if I was banned? Yes, I get it! For some of you it would probably be a life-altering experience. What would you have left to live for if you weren't allowed to hail the great P.Z. 24/7.

Posted by: You_Monster | July 22, 2011 1:20 AM

You are right Nunbeliever, the discussions here are completely meaningless and unsophisticated. Where did you say I could go again for erudite arguments like those eloquently expressed by yourself?

Posted by: Porco Dio | July 22, 2011 1:27 AM

It's a shame that PZ resorts to such stereotyping, insults and name calling.

Just because some people disagree with him doesn't mean that there is something wrong with a "significant part" of the skeptical community (whatever that is supposed to mean).

He seems to often forget that most skeptics live outside of the hamlet of Morris and, indeed, outside the united states.

If PZ thinks that spoiled, bigoted, American kids are representative of any group other than spoiled, bigoted American kids then I'd tell him he needs to get out a bit more.

There is little logic in lumping the gaming community together with the skeptical community and it is now evident that he is clutching at straws to try justify his silly stance on the elevatorgate affair.

Posted by: Grimm3r | July 22, 2011 1:33 AM

@Porco Dio

His stance of the elavator affair wasn't silly. It's correct. All people should be treated equally, and treated with consideration.

But what he's done now is taken the worst examples of a community, and made it the definition of the community.

By that logic, creepy elevator stalkers make up the atheist community.

Posted by: Grimm3r | July 22, 2011 1:48 AM

For starters his entire post is sprinkled with negative stereotypes about gamers.

"nerd-dominated gaming culture"
Really? Nerd is a derogatory term,and secondly I have a hard time buying this. When I was in high school, you'd be the odd one out if you didn't own a console. Everyone played one FPS or another. So it's debatable whether the gaming community is really "nerd-dominated" or "youth dominated". Unless of course he means that the best players are nerds, in which case that is circular logic, because one of the definitions of a nerd is being single-minded.

Hell, even the title "It could be worse... We could be gamers" implies that being gamers is somehow bad. Gaming doesn't imply I follow some dogma that makes me sexist, racist, or anything of that sort. There is nothing wrong with being a gamer, there is something wrong with being an arrogant sexist asshole gamer. But in that case, you don't even need to say gamer.

Posted by: Grimm3r | July 22, 2011 2:02 AM

Actually, speaking of sexism and girl gamers, I played Vanilla WoW (quit in BC), and for the 1-2 years I was running instances, my guild leader was a woman. Kinda ironic that I didn't think about it until reading esnyder2's post.

Anyways, the guild got along very well, everyone respected all the girl gamers in our clan, and we had a ton of fun.

Posted by: devnull73.myopenid.com | July 22, 2011 2:10 AM

MMOs?

Nah - IK+ on the c64 winz all!

Posted by: devnull73.myopenid.com | July 22, 2011 2:25 AM

Grimm3r: sssssh, stop looking at the man behind the curtain! ;)

Posted by: devnull73.myopenid.com | July 22, 2011 3:14 AM

Bruce: I would also venture that many of these bozos are pre-pubescent keyboard-warriors, who would behave very very differently IRL (especially in front of their mothers)

Posted by: eigenperson | July 22, 2011 3:24 AM

Grimm3r et al.:

I don't know about you, but as a self-identified "nerd" I am pretty sure that the word has been thoroughly reclaimed.

Posted by: Kristoff | July 22, 2011 5:16 AM

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_01.html

Murder Victims by Race and Sex, 2009

Male: 10,496
Female: 3,122

More than three times as many men than women were excused from ever having to hear someone baw about Male Privilege™ again in 2009.

If this isn't rock-solid evidence for Male Privilege™, I don't know what is.

Posted by: Kristoff | July 22, 2011 6:20 AM

Of those 10 496 men - how many were killed by their partners and how many were killed by women?

Of those 3 122 women - how many were killed by their partners and how many were killed by men?

I don't know. How is that relevant? And why should I feel compelled to provide evidence for your (implicit) claims?

Then - sort those 10 496 men by a: Socioeconomic status and b: Ethnic subgroup

Why?

Did somebody ever tell you that male privilege was the only privilege around?

No. There's also White Privilege™, for example. Conspicuously absent in the Canon List of Privileges™ is Sane Privilege™.

You sane lot are much more employable than I am but pointing this out might make some of you feel guilty, so I'll try to mention it less.

Posted by: Steven Mading | July 22, 2011 6:30 AM

Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | July 21, 2011 3:15 PM I would say Dragon Age: Origins, in my eyes the best RPG since Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, but seeing the changes made in Dragon Age II, I appear to be a minority in that regard.

Posted by: Steven Mading | July 22, 2011 6:38 AM

Posted by: PZ Myers | July 21, 2011 10:52 PM Horde, obviously. And Forsaken.

It's fascinating too that so many assume that I claimed all gamers were nasty boy-men, even when I said I was a casual gamer and mentioned that there are women gamers. Think it through, people.

Posted by: Kristoff | July 22, 2011 6:46 AM

You can't seriously pretend you don't realize how the title "it could be worse, we could be gamers", followed by a tirade against a stereotype of gamers (conveniently conflating "gamers" with "WoW players" while you're at it) reads to people who don't have ESP.

Since when has PZ Myers ever understood nuance? That was awfully silly of you, Steven.

Posted by: Richard Eis | July 22, 2011 6:54 AM

So nunbeliever describes us as know-nothing uber intellectuals for an insult then tells us he/she are the same. Ugh, talk about fucking dumb.

What happened to all the fun trolls? I may have to flounce off myself if we don't get any more quality bait. I blame the poor economy.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | July 22, 2011 7:11 AM

how fascinating, that people who end up having their positions refuted on here so often end up completely losing their shit

Posted by: David Marjanović | July 22, 2011 7:44 AM

As someone who thinks PZ is dead wrong to single out communities for the sexists in their midsts without first checking to see if the rate of sexists is different than in the general public

WTF. PZ hasn't singled anybody out. He's trying to keep his own house in order before complaining about others' houses.

Why isn't this obvious?

Posted by: Illuminata, féministes fin de jeu | July 22, 2011 9:07 AM

Where can I find references to Sane Privilege™?

Shakesville
Feministe

and: http://disabledfeminists.com/blogroll/

from the new defunct Feminists with Disabilities blog.

it's not actually called sane privilege, however, so you unilaterally dismissing them.

Posted by: Hodor | July 22, 2011 9:13 AM

@412:

"I stopped playing Dragon Age because I got tired of its portrayal of unbelievers as being equivalent to compassionless uncaring bastards."

Never really noticed that, unless you're solely basing that impression on the crazy randroid witch Morrigan.
If anything, it's mostly the Chantry that comes across as hypocritical, intolerant and power-hungry in the backstory (e.g. ordering a crusade against the Elves, who had not long before fought alongside the church's Jeanne d'Arc-like founder)

Dragon Age 2 actually has an atheist character named Aveline, a female soldier/city guard who's both ethically incorruptible and able to combine her sense of duty with compassion.

Posted by: Kippers | July 22, 2011 9:25 AM

@Illuminata
I would be grateful if you would not translate my non-racist, non-sexist non-homophobic post into a racist, sexist homophobic post.

I actually find real instances of these things offensive just as I find non-instances of such behavour being branded as such to be offensive.

In one post you have managed to display both types of this offensive behaviour.

Posted by: Jeff Dee | July 22, 2011 9:28 AM

Some of us are trying to fight the stereotype that gaming is the exclusive domain of geeks and nerds:

http://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=187627881294614

Posted by: Karen | July 22, 2011 9:48 AM

It's fascinating too that so many assume that I claimed all gamers were nasty boy-men, even when I said I was a casual gamer and mentioned that there are women gamers. Think it through, people.

Your argument is bad for at least two reasons. First, because the form of your argument is indistinguishable from things said by bigots against far more seriously persecuted groups. "I'm a casual gamer" isn't far removed from "I've got black friends" or "I've got gay friends." And, for that matter, you can still attack a group while claiming membership in it: "All the rest of you need to...." All of those forms of argument are bad. Are there sexist people who game? Hell yes there are, and no one is denying that. They're almost certainly sexist people while they're doing other things, too. Attack them for being representatives of sexism, not representatives of gaming.

But the second problem is, as I said, that "gamers" are a granfalloon. That it is a unified community at all is an illusion; it's not the insular community of roleplayers in the early 1980s. Look at the figures in this thread: 70+% of American households? Your post's point, I guess, is that gaming should "clean house" so that it can become a more proper, civilized place (presumably like the "skeptical community," although I guess I'll have to not judge that by Pharyngulite comment threads, eh?). But all I have in common with the sexist homophobic trolls in Trade Chat is that we have the same hobby (and even then, we really don't; my hobby is playing the game, theirs, by and large, is trolling it). We're no more part of a shared community than if we both, say, lived in Indiana.

Posted by: Kippers | July 22, 2011 9:49 AM

@Nerd
Sorry I have no idea who you are or why you think you are obliged to care about something I said to someone else.

Posted by: Illuminata, féministes fin de jeu | July 22, 2011 9:54 AM

Kippers - I would be greatful if you stopped pretending that you are totally not a bigot of any kind RIGHT AFTER you completely dismissed the very real concerns of those who do face it. You implied bigotry was imaginary because you, a self-identifed privileged person, get insulted to.

If you're going to be a liar, could you at least put a little effort into it?

Posted by: Kippers | July 22, 2011 10:08 AM

@ Illuminata
It seems you are unable to comprehend anything I write.
When did I dismiss real concerns of those who face such bigotry?
My post was a response to PZ who is as guilty as I am of being a white straight male. You seem to be imagining something to be happening which is not, in fact, happening.

Posted by: Kippers | July 22, 2011 10:26 AM

No I meant what I said but this is not dismissing anyone’s real concerns becuause of the context of who I was responding to.

Its not a reply to the story of a black south African undergoing persecution for the colour of his skin. It’s a response to PZ claiming gamers are more sexist that atheists. I think you need to grasp the context in which comments are made. I clearly don’t deny that such discrimination exists, in fact I pointed out that your initial post you wrote in response to mine was racist, sexist AND homophobic.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | July 22, 2011 10:37 AM

in fact I pointed out that your initial post you wrote in response to mine was racist, sexist AND homophobic.

Fractally wrong.

I'm taking this to mean that you have no meaningful working definition of the word "racist," "sexist" or "homophobic," except that you think that these are Bad Things (and of course you are a Good Person who does not do Bad Things). Feel free to contradict my impression by pointing to the specific parts of Illuminata's post that you regard as sexist, racist and homophobic, and explaining precisely why the words she wrote are congruent with your definition of those words.

What this reveals is that, as I said, you lack data. To put it bluntly, You're out of your element, and should probably STFU.

Posted by: Kippers | July 22, 2011 10:44 AM

@SallyStrange

Most of us agree that sexism, racism and homophobia are bad but were we may differ is that I think labelling people and behaviour as sexist, racist. homophobic or Islamaphobic when it is not is also bad. It’s not necessarily as bad but its still bad and is actually a barrier to equality.

In fact the only way we can have true equality is if, for example, a white man can feel just as free to criticize a woman, a Muslim or black man as he can to criticize other white men without being labelled as such.

This site has become a fine example of exactly what the problem now is. People are nervous about disagreeing with the line PZ takes here as if they do they will be branded a sexist bigot. I have tried to be civilized and put forward rational reasons why I think this branding of certain groups as sexist is counterproductive yet the response I get a merely emotional insulting tirades and charges of sexism.

Posted by: Ms. Daisy Cutter, Vile Creature Powered Entirely By Bitter | July 22, 2011 10:47 AM

Kristoff: What Thebear said. How many victims were killed by men is relevant, because it's disingenuous to claim that men are the most victimized class when the ones who are victimized are the victims of other men.

Also, no, mental illness doesn't negate your male privilege. There's this thing called "intersectionality," which means you can be in both oppressed groups and privileged groups. You're privileged with respect to race, gender, and probably education. You're oppressed with regard to disability.

Where can I find references to Sane Privilege™?

Silent Service: Thanks for proving that my first instincts about you were correct, cupcake.

Kippers: You are a tiresome, condescending tone troll who thinks you get to tell people who actually deal with oppression how they should handle it; i.e., in a way that does not cause you the least bit of discomfort whatsoever. That isn't the attitude of someone who cares about such issues. If you don't like hearing about them, nobody's keeping you here at gunpoint.

BTW, "poor reading comprehension" seems to be a common tactic of clueless gits who don't like it when multiple people call them out on attitudes expressed in the gits' own words. If you're getting that repeatedly, you're not being misread. You're being read correctly. Suck it up and introspect.

Posted by: Kippers | July 22, 2011 10:50 AM

@Illuminata
You truly are a lost cause if you think PZ post was not about gamers being even more sexist that atheists/sceptics. I can only think you have forgotten what the original post was as you have got yourself so worked up desperately trying to re-interpret what I have written into a sexist, racist, homophobic rant which it clearly is not. God only knows what you will think I have just said here.

Posted by: Illuminata, féministes fin de jeu | July 22, 2011 10:55 AM

LOL I'd tell you to stop digging, but it's too much fun to watch you prove me right every time you post. Thanks for that, btw. I like being right.

Protip cupcake: if you're going to pretend you're totally not a bigot, you might want to stop using sexist dogwhistles in every single post.

Posted by: Kippers | July 22, 2011 11:09 AM

Sigh now think I am being sexist becuase I accuse someone of getting worked up.

Can any of you people, such as sally and illuminate give me your defintion of what sexism is. Its clear we have totally different understandings of the word.

Posted by: Kippers | July 22, 2011 11:12 AM

Why am I not surprised that Illuminata is one of those people who assert they are right without making any kind of arguments.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 22, 2011 11:15 AM

Sorry I have no idea who you are or why you think you are obliged to care about something I said to someone else.

Posted by: Illuminata, féministes fin de jeu | July 22, 2011 11:19 AM

Can't wait 'til Kippers brings out the word "hysterical." Or maybe "shrill."

Kinda telling, isn't it, that he is so desperately trying to assert that my blatant mocking is evidence of my being so "worked up."

Apparently, in Kipper's tiny brain, if a woman is laughing that means she's about to collape into hysterical crying or homocidial rage.

LOL

Posted by: Kippers | July 22, 2011 11:28 AM

Oh well I think that those of you I have spoken to are quick to attack me and sadly unable or unprepared to try and understand a slightly opposing view. If you think its helpful to the cause of sexism to label such loose groups as gamers and atheists as sexist then I will leave you to it. I was trying to put forward an opposing view but listening and understanding alternative positions does not appear to be part the plan.

Good luck with your cause, I am getting back to other issues I consider more important and interesting.

Posted by: Kippers | July 22, 2011 11:37 AM

Wow ok I cant let some of these other crazy comments go before I leave

@lluminata, I had no idea you were a woman so your attempts to imply I am sexist because of the way I spoke to you actually highlight your own paranoia and explain a lot about why you seem so ready to assume people are treating you in a sexist manner.

@Nerd
You win the stupidest comment of the thread award which really takes some doing on this. Someone responded to my post angrily asking why they should care what I said. I pointed out that they shouldn’t as my post was not directed to them. Of course they are free to comment but why comment to only say “I don’t care what you say”. Surely even you can see the irony of that?

I really must go now, you have been entertaining but also pretty insane.

Posted by: You_Monster | July 22, 2011 11:39 AM

Fuck off Kippersnack

Posted by: Thomathy | July 22, 2011 11:44 AM

Kippers, seriously, stick the flounce. You're obtuse for no reason. There aresexist gamers and atheists. Is that so hard to understand? What do you mean it's not helpful to state that? These people exist and they need to be called out on their behaviour. Their behaviour needs fixing. Do you deny any of that?

Posted by: Thomathy | July 22, 2011 11:46 AM

And don't answer my questions here. Answer them for yourself. And stick the bloody flounce.

Posted by: Ms. Daisy Cutter, Vile Creature Powered Entirely By Bitter | July 22, 2011 12:00 PM

Kippers, with links!

Oh well I think that those of you I have spoken to are quick to attack me and sadly unable or unprepared to try and understand a slightly opposing view. If you think its helpful to the cause of sexism to label such loose groups as gamers and atheists as sexist then I will leave you to it. I was trying to put forward an opposing view but listening and understanding alternative positions does not appear to be part the plan.

Good luck with your cause, I am getting back to other issues I consider more important and interesting.

Posted by: Ms. Daisy Cutter, Vile Creature Powered Entirely By Bitter | July 22, 2011 12:04 PM

Crap. I forgot about the filter nabbing comments with multiple links. Kippers' flounce post, in my mind, reflects about eight different Derailing for Dummies categories.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | July 22, 2011 12:22 PM

*giggle*

I just caught this:

If you think its helpful to the cause of sexism

Kipper inadvertently reveals his true agenda.

Posted by: rystefn | July 22, 2011 1:09 PM

Wow... what a stunning example of abject failure to understand the mentality of the asshat. Yes, people use sexist and racist and any other kind of slurs they can come up with. They are doing so for a carefully calculated reason. To get a rise out of people. To hurt your fragile little feelings and make you angry so they can laugh and point to their friends all the "nerdrage" they've inspired. Oh look, it works. They're not sexists or racists or homophobes. They're trolls. Stop feeding the fucking trolls. Just block them and go about your damned business.

What you are doing here is rewarding the behavior and encouraging it to continue. That's totally the way to make it stop... Fucking dumbasses.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | July 22, 2011 1:31 PM

Who cares what the troll thinks in his heart? By using bigoted epithets in order to "get a rise" out of people, he's revealing that whether or not he actively hates women/people of color/LGBT folks, he views their problems and struggles as so entirely insignificant that it's okay for him to abuse their identities and insult their very existence, just to rile up a few strangers on the internet.

What's worse, hatred or indifference? From the receiving end, it's hard to tell the difference, and the final outcome is the same: sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and racism, are sustained and reinforced.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 22, 2011 1:36 PM

ryestfn,
Ignoring objectionable behaviour does not make it stop. It empowers those who use sexist/homophobic/racist comments for trolls in the same way as fighting, they will continue to use such tactics because they work. Not only doesn't it work, but you lose the opportunity to reach others. Fighting objectionable behaviour is not done in a vacuum. Other people hear as well, some of them will be less comfortable flippantly saying stoopid shit and that is a good thing.

Posted by: mouthyb, ouvrier sur les connaissances | July 22, 2011 1:50 PM

Bernard Bumner @ 480:

Ooo! Oooo! And because the intent of those kinds of insults is to establish the insulter/person being insulted's place in social hierarchy using clearly understood terminology which is commonly used to describe that person. There's no using that terminology without invoking the system because the terms are so endemic.

/excited pedant

Posted by: rystefn | July 22, 2011 1:57 PM

Really? Really? You can't tell the difference? Here, let me spell it out for you, then: A person who kicks people in the teeth is a violent person. If the motivation is hurt you or if the motivation is to make you angry, the person is still being violent. If the person did it because of the color of your skin, then that person is a racist. If the person makes racial slurs about you afterwards but actually has no problem with people of your particular color and is merely using the words to add psychological hurt to the physical, then that person is not a racist, just a bully.

Sally, by the way, you are so far wide of the mark, I don't even know where to begin. Slurs do not sustain and reinforce the prejudices they are associated with. Your reaction to them does. "Buggery" has long since been decoupled from Bulgarians and "gyp" was well on its way to being decouple from gypsies until recent decades when well-meaning, but stupid, people starting pointing out its origins as a slur all the time. You can't take the power away from words by telling people not to use them. That's the opposite of help. You take the power from words by normalizing them until they are stripped of offense.

YOU are sustaining and reinforcing the power of certain words to hurt by insisting that they are racist, sexist, homophobic, et al. when they are not. They can not be. They are words. They have no meaning beyond what they are given by the speaker and the listener. It is impossible for a word to be intrinsically hurtful, harmful, wrong, bad, sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or any other of the bullshit baggage people try to hang on them.

Posted by: rystefn | July 22, 2011 2:08 PM

Dhorvath, ignoring the loudmouths in MMOs is not allowing them to win. Arguing with them is. That's what they want. That is their goal. By engaging at all, you are giving them the victory. They are like small children screaming because they want candy. You cannot reason with them, and you will not win converts by trying. You cannot out argue them, and you will not win converts by trying. Any reaction is the goal, and by engaging with them in any way, you are handing them the victory. Like arguing with said child, the children who see you do it will not be less likely to do the same themselves, but more likely, because they see it works.

You are reaching others, but it's not having the effect you think it will.

This was all said years ago, and better than I ever could: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/8/17/

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | July 22, 2011 2:18 PM

They have no meaning beyond what they are given by the speaker and the listener. It is impossible for a word to be intrinsically hurtful, harmful, wrong, bad, sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or any other of the bullshit baggage people try to hang on them.

Consensus on the meaning of those various structured sounds emanating from your cakehole, and in the contrasting shapes and forms that emerge when you bash away at your keyboard, that is called language.

Language has meaning. Meaning which cannot be divorced from culture, from that consensus. Society and language, history and language, culture and language are intimately bound.

Don't pretend that we can simply agree to redefine language as we go along.

Posted by: hotshoe | July 22, 2011 2:23 PM

Just so everyone knows, rystefn is BFF with Justicar over in ERV's swamp.
Yes, this is ad hominem sensu stricto. Whatever rystefn says is going to be tainted, inescapably, by his slimy nature as one of them.

Posted by: rystefn | July 22, 2011 2:26 PM

If someone uses racial slurs, then they certainly have a problem with people of... particular color.

This is 100% untrue, and easily demonstrated so... unless the vast numbers of black people who use the word "nigger" on a daily basis certainly have a problem with black people. Having known many such individuals in my life, I can tell you plainly, as they would, that your assertion is bullshit. Further, I find it so staggeringly improbable that you either believe that they are self-hating or were unaware of their existence, that will plainly and openly call you a bald-faced liar for making such an assertion. You are a bald-faced liar of the first order.

Don't pretend that we can simply agree to redefine language as we go along.

...and yet, we plainly and obviously do, as language is a constantly changing thing. Like we agreed to redefine "gay" and "queer" to mean homosexual instead of "happy" and "strange," respectively, we can just as easily agree to redefine them to mean "bad at video games" or "funny-looking" or "a shopping cart with a dozen apples, thee six-packs of beer, and an indeterminate number of grapes in it." I freely admit that the last is unlikely, but the first two are happening right now, and YOU are the ones resisting it, insisting that the words retain their intermediate meaning, and therefore must be hurtful.

Posted by: You_Monster | July 22, 2011 2:32 PM

If the person makes racial slurs about you afterwards but actually has no problem with people of your particular color and is merely using the words to add psychological hurt to the physical, then that person is not a racist, just a bully.

Even someone who thinks that all people are equal, and has no problem with a particular group can still act in a racist manner. I don't think it's a great leap to call someone acting in a racist manner a racist. It does not reduce completely to your intentions, your actions matter as well. Its not that hard. If someone says that they consider men and women equals in all respects (and they are telling the truth), and they go on to berate women all day all call them inferior, hysterical and not-equal to men, then they ARE BEING FUCKING SEXIST. They might not be thinking sexist thoughts as they do this, but they are still being sexist.

Slurs do not sustain and reinforce the prejudices they are associated with. Your reaction to them does.

Yeah, if black people just didn't take so much offense at being called the N-word then there wouldn't have been any prejudice. huh? explain this idea more (or not, its a stupid idea).

Posted by: mouthyb, ouvrier sur les connaissances | July 22, 2011 2:36 PM

rystefn: Dear tentacled overlord, where to start with the comment at 491.

This is 100% untrue, and easily demonstrated so... unless the vast numbers of black people who use the word "nigger" on a daily basis certainly have a problem with black people. Having known many such individuals in my life, I can tell you plainly, as they would, that your assertion is bullshit.

Well, that's one case of ignorance of reclamation strategies, one case of invisible black friends.

and yet, we plainly and obviously do, as language is a constantly changing thing. Like we agreed to redefine "gay" and "queer" to mean homosexual instead of "happy" and "strange," respectively, we can just as easily agree to redefine them to mean "bad at video games" or "funny-looking" or "a shopping cart with a dozen apples, thee six-packs of beer, and an indeterminate number of grapes in it."

Taking this on for yourself, are you? I can't figure out if you think you're personally capable, or if you think there's a 'movement' happening around your desire for this to be true.

I freely admit that the last is unlikely, but the first two are happening right now, and YOU are the ones resisting it, insisting that the words retain their intermediate meaning, and therefore must be hurtful.

So I take you don't know the etymology of the term "fag" and are refusing the idea that lots of people still use it as an insult who are not on this site. Hint: things to be burned. I'm queer as hell in more than one way, so the threat implicit in that applies to my weird ass, as well.

I also assume that you are either blythely ignorant of the mechanics of diction change or are strategically ignorant. Either way, I find it fascinating when someone airs their privilege to ignore plainly known history and etymology and claim that there's this magic movement which would totally change the way words work if people would stop talking about them.

Meaning, how does that work?

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 22, 2011 2:49 PM

Like we agreed to redefine "gay" and "queer" to mean homosexual instead of "happy" and "strange," respectively, we can just as easily agree to redefine them to mean "bad at video games" or "funny-looking" or "a shopping cart with a dozen apples, thee six-packs of beer, and an indeterminate number of grapes in it." I freely admit that the last is unlikely, but the first two are happening right now, and YOU are the ones resisting it, insisting that the words retain their intermediate meaning, and therefore must be hurtful.

Posted by: mouthyb, ouvrier sur les connaissances | July 22, 2011 2:58 PM

rystefn: The fault, you are centering it on the people who are being oppressed, not the people oppressing them. That is just creepy.

It's not the fault of the person being harassed that they're being harassed. It's the fault of the person who chose to harass them, who chooses to use words and phrases which both parties understand to be insulting (because they are broadly considered so.) The problem here lies in both the harasser and the society.

And, as I said earlier, it's magical thinking to demand that the mention of how damaging a term is makes it damaging.

Posted by: Ms. Daisy Cutter, Vile Creature Powered Entirely By Bitter | July 22, 2011 3:02 PM

Rystefn, condensed: "Ignore the bully and that'll solve everything," with a big side helping of, "By calling out -ism, you're CAUSING -ism!"

Also, "THEY get to use that word, so why can't we?!" For the same reason that I can talk smack about my mama but you can't, you herping dingleberry. I'm sure you enjoyed being able to type out the N-word, though.

You have no fucking idea how language works or how human behavior works, the latter being typical of those who spout libertarian-type "solutions" to social problems such as "ignore the trolls/bullies/whatever." But your ignorance is typical of what I've seen from you, and long before ElevatorGate at that.

Posted by: rystefn | July 22, 2011 3:05 PM

If someone says that they consider men and women equals in all respects (and they are telling the truth), and they go on to berate women all day all call them inferior, hysterical and not-equal to men, then they ARE BEING FUCKING SEXIST.

However, if someone says that they consider men and women equals in all respects (and they are telling the truth), and go on to berate everyone who disagrees with them, and calls them all inferior, hysterical, and not equal to people who agree, then they ARE NOT BEING SEXIST, even if they use the word hysterical.

Yeah, if black people just didn't take so much offense at being called the N-word then there wouldn't have been any prejudice. huh? explain this idea more (or not, its a stupid idea).

I never said anything like this. I said that if people don't take offense then the word isn't offensive. A fact easily observed by witnessing what happens when people who don't take offense at the word "nigger" call each other by it. No offense taken, not offensive. I'm sure that relating the tale of how I was instructed by a group of fellow soldiers that the correct form address for me to use when approaching their group was "What's up, my niggas?" wouldn't help. Despite the fact that a group of black people indicated preference for being called your oh-so-offensive "N-word" by a (visually) white person, in your head, it's always a vile and racist word, and it's intrinsically racist to have used it as requested, right?

Setar, you are mistaking trolls for bullies. There's a difference. Although, in the case of trolls, leaving works just as well. Let them have their own little chamber where they troll at each other (like 4chan) and everyone else goes about their merry way. Everyone is happy. Win-win.

Well, that's one case of ignorance of reclamation strategies, one case of invisible black friends.

Actually, it's neither. It's one case of pointing out that reclamation strategies clearly refute the claim being made and one case of admitting that I know more than five people, don't live in an echo chamber, and have been known to go outside once in a while.

So I take you don't know the etymology of the term "fag" and are refusing the idea that lots of people still use it as an insult who are not on this site. Hint: things to be burned. I'm queer as hell in more than one way, so the threat implicit in that applies to my weird ass, as well.

You take it wrong. The fucking etymology of a word changes literally nothing about what I said. Words have meaning. That meaning changes. Insisting a words means now what it meant a hundred years ago is stupid. Again, I point out "buggery."

Posted by: Ms. Daisy Cutter, Vile Creature Powered Entirely By Bitter | July 22, 2011 3:13 PM

Mouthyb: "Again, with the insistence that refusing history and context somehow magically dispels history and context."

The more right-wing someone's politics, the shittier they are, overall, at grasping context. Absolutes are comforting to idiots. Including idiots who happen to be atheists.

Posted by: You_Monster | July 22, 2011 3:18 PM

I said that if people don't take offense then the word isn't offensive.

What a fucking idiot.

rystefn, I'm glad that I can call you whatever I want without causing any offense. So long as you aren't offended, you fuckwit, then I am not being insulting, right? So, please don't take offense, shit-stain. You are giving these insulting words POWER if you take offense at them.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | July 22, 2011 3:26 PM

@rystefn,
Your apathy towards confronting casual bigotry, your detatched and patronizing pontification on the language of bigotry, your need to argue with those who want to confront rather than ignore, none of these things will help to change the world.

Inaction ia nothing more than tacit support for the status quo.

The only supposed solution you proposed is anything but: if you aren't offended by offensive words then they won't be offensive any more. This is the worst sort of circular reasoning and also simultaneously proposes a work of cultural magic whilst insultingly placing the onus on the victim to affect change.

Perhaps we should propose that victims of theft abandon the concept of ownership? It would do wonders for the crime rate.

Posted by: rystefn | July 22, 2011 3:28 PM

What the hell? Real people identify with those terms, it's how they relate to the world, and you would steal that from them just to make insults? In a language with a million words? You are filth.

Yes, yes... using a word is stealing. Fuck you. Real people have actual real things stolen from them. And you would trivialize that to pretend that a word is the the self? You are filth.

To win we need to create an atmosphere where more people will object, where more people will engage, where less people feel comfortable using shitty terms that hurt real people

Wow... you think more people engaging is going to make them stop? You truly have no idea with whom you are dealing do you? You real, truly, cannot fathom what you are up against. You want to give them the power to piss off a hundred people with one sentence? You think that will stop them? "No, please... don't throw me in that there briar patch..."

Yawn, tone trolls like kippers and restfyn are so boring.

Ummm... I know it's a little hypocritical of me to point this out, but I don't think tone troll means what you think it means. In fact, I cannot even fathom a context in which what you said makes a like of sense. What, exactly, do you think a tone troll is?

Rystefn, condensed: "Ignore the bully and that'll solve everything,"

Fucking reading fail. Try this version: Rystefn, condensed: "Ignore the children screaming obscenitites and sooner or later, they'll give up."

Also, "THEY get to use that word, so why can't we?!" For the same reason that I can talk smack about my mama but you can't, you herping dingleberry. I'm sure you enjoyed being able to type out the N-word, though.

Only, I can talk about your mama, and there's nothing you can do about it. Bitch and scream and complain, and I will only do it more. I'll do it if I like your mama. I'll do it if I'm friends with your mama. Why? Because it's got nothing to do with your mama. I know it. She knows it. The audience knows it. Only you seem to think it means anything, and people will only think less of you for taking it seriously.

Also, again, it's not anything like "they get to use it, so why can't we?" I have, personally, been directly instructed that I am to use it. That it is the exact correct word to use upon greeting a specific group of people that I knew well and worked closely with on a daily basis. You do not get to be offended on behalf of other people. No, I would not call a random stranger a nigger, but that's because I feel very strongly that people should be addressed as they wish to be addressed and if you ever address a person otherwise, then you should be doing so as a deliberate, personalized disrespect. A such, I make a deliberate effort to spell and pronounce names and titles correctly, and even avoid using gendered pronouns until a person has self-identified. Real people, that is. I don't give a shit if imaginary, hypothetical people get offended. Fuck them.

So no, I do not derive joy or pleasure or satisfaction from typing the word "nigger." No more or less do I from any other word. To me, it's nothing but a word. Calling it "the N-word" changes nothing. It's fucking baby-talk for idiots who can't handle the fact that there are words out there with meanings they don't like, and who think that eliminating the word will eliminate the meaning. Fuck you. Adults are talking.

rystefyn just wants to continue using sexist and homophobic language while he games without feeling bad about perpetuating sexism and homophobia.

Assertions of fact not in evidence. If you can find even one example of me using sexist or homophobic language (pretending for the moment that such a thing exists), I will craft you a Faberge egg from my own skull and present it to you on a cushion of clouds. The worst accusation ever leveled against me in gaming was being a shill for Coca-Cola Corporation.

Posted by: Stringer | July 22, 2011 3:45 PM

All rystefn has said this whole time is that the only way to stop someone from seeking attention in a derogatory manner is to stop paying them attention when they do so.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | July 22, 2011 3:48 PM

Stringer,
Yeah, all the rest of the text just means nothing because that's what rystefn thinks those words and sentences should mean.

Posted by: Stringer | July 22, 2011 3:49 PM

Forgive me, but I do not understand your point. I've been wading through this thread all day, so it is entirely possible that I've missed something crucial. Could you please elucidate?

Posted by: hotshoe | July 22, 2011 3:54 PM

Again, these people are not saying or doing anything bigoted. Yelling at them that it's bigoted will not change their behavior. It does not convey the message that bigotry will not be tolerated because they fucking well know they aren't being bigots. They are being assholes trying to piss you off. You got pissed off. They got what they wanted. What action got what they wanted? The use of slurs. So, what are they going to do next time they want to piss someone off? Use slurs. What you are doing will have the complete opposite effect of what you say you are trying to accomplish.

Tell me, rystefn, when was the last time you used a racist/sexist slur just to get a reaction ?

Posted by: pteryxx | July 22, 2011 3:56 PM

nah Stringer, he's said a lot more than that simple argument. But to address it directly: ignoring can be either tacit support (failing to call out bad behavior) or tacit disapproval (withdrawal of social support and attention). That's why the responses to "chilling climate" minor offenses are to call the behavior out, and why atheism and gay rights have raising awareness of their existence as a focus; because the frontline of oppression is silencing.

Posted by: Stringer | July 22, 2011 4:01 PM

pteryxx: I would argue that if one's goal is to further gay rights, or to decrease prejudice of any kind you would be correct. Denounce these people publicly and harshly.

If one's goal is to stop attention seekers from seeking attention through the use of derogatory and insulting language the only solution I can see (short of physical restraint) would be to deny them the attention they seek.

The distinction is to be made in the intention of your target.

Posted by: mouthyb, ouvrier sur les connaissances | July 22, 2011 4:05 PM

rystefn @ 518: No, what people have done is point out that you're using a lot of ideas and words but refusing to acknowledge that those words have an effect on multiple people, have a meaning independent of the user's intent, that individuals are not positioned to change the whole language single-handedly, and that one person saying you can say a word does not mean it's okay with everyone, and that sometimes there's a historical reason for that.

You have, in order to advance your point, ignored these as commonly agreed on standards for pointing out problems and insisted, until the person gave in, that they were insults, instead.

Those are classic attempts to avoid debate.

Posted by: hotshoe | July 22, 2011 4:11 PM

What the hell? Real people identify with those terms, it's how they relate to the world, and you would steal that from them just to make insults? In a language with a million words? You are filth.

Yes, yes... using a word is stealing. Fuck you. Real people have actual real things stolen from them. And you would trivialize that to pretend that a word is the the self? You are filth.

Aaand ... rystefn's true colors suddenly come out.

Get the hell back to ERVs swamp, you trolling douchebag. Your kind is not welcome here.

Posted by: Stringer | July 22, 2011 4:14 PM

I may have tripped over myself by attempting to clarify things with my interpretation of his argument, but this is what I take away from that quote:

1) Words change over time.

2) Harping on one particular meaning of a word causes that meaning to be retained for a longer period of time. This harping could be done by people on either side of the proverbial fence. Those using it in a prejudicial manner and those who wish to remove its use in that way from common language.

I certainly don't want to speak for the man, that is just my interpretation of his post.

An important point was hit upon by mouthyb in post #525. Individuals are not in a position to change the whole language (or the meaning of a word) single handedly. If we take that as a given, then it follows trying to artificially obliterate a word (such as nigger, or faggot, or any other prejudicial pejorative) by telling people not to use it is folly.

As with the religious mind-set the only way to undermine a prejudicial mind-set is, in my opinion, with the propagation of knowledge, science, and critical thinking skills.

If one were to enact a law that made the use of racial slurs punishable by death, most people would probably stop using them. They wouldn't stop being prejudiced though.

Posted by: rystefn | July 22, 2011 4:19 PM

that individuals are not positioned to change the whole language single-handedly, and that one person saying you can say a word does not mean it's okay with everyone, and that sometimes there's a historical reason for that.

Why would I bother arguing against this shit? This is babbling that has nothing to do with any of my stated positions. In what way is pointing out that the meaning of a word is changing right now, as we are talking about it, claiming that individuals can single-handedly change the whole language? When did I ever claim that one person saying you can say a word mean it's ok with everyone? When did I ever even concede that it's ever not ok to say say any word? I said there are times when it's not ok to call someone something. That's very different than saying it's not ok to use the word at all. Reading for comprehension fail.

Aaand ... rystefn's true colors suddenly come out.

Get the hell back to ERVs swamp, you trolling douchebag. Your kind is not welcome here.

Oh yes, my "true colors." As if I was ever trying to hide that I will immediately and without hesitation make fun of stupid people for making stupid arguments.That wasn't sudden in any way. That's always been on display... but then, a person who thinks it's trolling to use ridicule to point out a stupid argument is likely stupid enough to miss all the signs, so I forgive you. It's not your fault you're an idiot.

Posted by: pteryxx | July 22, 2011 4:31 PM

Stringer: Obliterating a word isn't the problem, or the aim. The problem is the use of the words as insults.

Tennessee "Don't Say Gay" bill: silences gay support groups and erases gay students, using the excuse of banning "gay" as an insult. Why? Because "gay" is an identity.

Another example: Florida GOP condemning the word "uterus" being spoken on the House floor.

I'd say most actual slurs have little or no meaning except as expressions of hatred against group identity, so don't need to be used in discussion, but that depends on whether banning their use as insults leaves any legitimate uses at all. But I'm more concerned about protecting people than words.

Posted by: You_Monster | July 22, 2011 4:33 PM

Only, I can talk about your mama, and there's nothing you can do about it. Bitch and scream and complain, and I will only do it more.

And rystefyn admits he is a troll. If you express to him that he is offending you, he doubles down. The more you complain that he is being a jerk, the bigger an asshole he becomes.

If you can find even one example of me using sexist or homophobic language (pretending for the moment that such a thing exists), I will craft you a Faberge egg from my own skull and present it to you on a cushion of clouds.

OK. In the following blockquote, you talk about shifting the meaning of terms. You say that the redefining of "gay" is going on right now. You say that we are resisting this redefinition. You seem to be implying that it is wrong of us to resist it. From that I assumed that you thought it was good to redefine the word "gay" in the way you suggest. If you do think it is good, it doesn't seem a large stretch to assume that you yourself, in fact, use the word "gay" in your redefined sense. Now, lets look at how you say it is being redefined,

Like we agreed to redefine "gay" and "queer" to mean homosexual instead of "happy" and "strange," respectively, we can just as easily agree to redefine them to mean "bad at video games" or "funny-looking" or "a shopping cart with a dozen apples, thee six-packs of beer, and an indeterminate number of grapes in it." I freely admit that the last is unlikely, but the first two are happening right now, and YOU are the ones resisting it, insisting that the words retain their intermediate meaning, and therefore must be hurtful

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to imply that it is positive that the word "gay" is being redefined as meaning "bad at video games". This strikes me as homophobic. Why use the term "gay" to describe something in a derogatory manner?

But, even if you admit to using "gay" as a denigrating remark, you will still deny that homophobic language even exists, because you are not bright.

So, have you used the word "gay" in the manner that you are defending? In the challenge you issued me to win your skull, you agreed to "pretend that such a thing [as homophobic language] exists". So do so, pretend it exists (it fucking does, so that shouldn't be too hard) and accept that using "gay" as a put down qualifies as it.

Posted by: hotshoe | July 22, 2011 4:38 PM

Aaand ... rystefn's true colors suddenly come out. Get the hell back to ERVs swamp, you trolling douchebag. Your kind is not welcome here.

Oh yes, my "true colors." As if I was ever trying to hide that I will immediately and without hesitation make fun of stupid people for making stupid arguments.That wasn't sudden in any way. That's always been on display...

You should be proud of yourself for your courage in putting your true worthlessness always on display. Yep, takes true courage to do that.

Posted by: Thomathy | July 22, 2011 4:38 PM

Rystefn, you must be being intentionally obtuse regarding the subject here. You're obviously not interested in changing society, or even a small part of it. Ignoring the words doesn't stop people from using them and it doesn't take the power out of those words.

Posted by: rystefn | July 22, 2011 4:53 PM

You're making the fallacious claim that because a word or blow or come-on MIGHT be welcome, that all bystanders must assume that it IS welcome, instead of assuming it ISN'T welcome

No, I'm making the accurate claim that you shouldn't fucking assume shit. You don't know. Period. Until you have some evidence, then you don't fucking know. Also, the phrase "Yeesh, don't use that word." is always stupid. Because, again, there is nothing, and can be nothing, inherently wrong with a word. That is an idea, and one that I find inexcusably offensive. But you know what? That's not your problem, is it? I don't have the right to not be offended.

What's important is what shows on the outside

Seriously? Do you even read the shit you write?

And rystefyn admits he is a troll. If you express to him that he is offending you, he doubles down. The more you complain that he is being a jerk, the bigger an asshole he becomes

No, Rystefn admits that if you are actually still offended by "yo mama" jokes that there's no point in even trying to engage with you on any other level because you are a fucking idiot. Also, yo mama's so fat, her shadow exceeds the weight limit for freight elevators.

So do so, pretend it exists (it fucking does, so that shouldn't be too hard) and accept that using "gay" as a put down qualifies as it.

Pretending that it exists, for a moment, which I deny, and accepting, for the sake of argument, that using "gay" as a put-down qualifies, you still lose. Unless you can find a case of me using "gay" as a put-down, which you can't. Not because I am morally opposed to it, mind you, but because, when I am trying to insult someone, I do not find that "gay" carries the message I am trying to send. I also am not in the habit of insulting people by deriding their skill at video games, if that matters. I doubt it does. Doesn't seem like it should, but I gave up a long time ago trying to predict what other people find relevant.

Posted by: pteryxx | July 22, 2011 4:58 PM

Stringer: look up "stereotype threat" along with "chilling climate". The act of calling out even minor, unthinking acts of prejudice does in fact shift the climate and make BLATANT acts of prejudice less likely, less supported, and probably less damaging to the victims (i.e. they're more likely to feel validated instead of condemned). Calling out may not stop the hardcore haters (right away) but it immediately and directly supports the victims, and also helps raise awareness among bystanders.

Also, the cultural-climate goal is served by speaking up at all, while the attention-whoring goal is open-ended. Once the prospective jackass shows 's more interested in trolling than discussing, there's diminishing cultural return for continuing to engage.

Posted by: hotshoe | July 22, 2011 5:08 PM

You know, trolls in Halo calling being people "fag" is ever so wrong, but telling someone to shove a rotting porcupine up their ass sideways, that's perfectly kosher.

FOADIAF, troll.

Posted by: rystefn | July 22, 2011 5:18 PM

Thomathy

You're obviously not interested in changing society, or even a small part of it.

Hmmm... maybe your definition of "obvious" is different than mine... or "change," maybe "society." Something is off here, because I don't see where you can possibly reach that conclusion from the discussion here. Wait... maybe you saw that I'm not trying to change one particular small part of society because I've already written it off as a lost cause, beyond any substantial change beyond not having to personally deal with it. Is that it? Because, in my defense, the other side here isn't trying to make any substantial change either. They just want to change the specific words that trolls use in their quest to get a rise from idiots.

Let's be clear here: all the talk you are putting forward of privilege and othering and suchlike is completely valid... and doesn't apply here. We are not discussing privileged majority trying to separate and alienate oppressed people. We are talking about screaming children trying to get any kind of reaction they can. There's a pretty profound difference. If you want to combat oppression, that's a fine and noble goal, but note that just because something can be a powerful tool of oppression, that does not mean that it has no other uses. In this case, it is being used as a powerful tool to piss people off. You want to try to take the tool away from oppressors, go for it. I don't think it will help, but it might. That's not what's happening here, though. This is trying to take the tool from people who just want to piss people off. The problem is that by doing so, you're only going to make it more effective.

See, the screaming children know they aren't oppressors. Telling them they are oppressing people doesn't work. It makes them laugh. Because you just told them which tool will work. You can't take it away from them, that's not possible. All you can do is convince them to switch tools. You do that by showing them that this tool will not work. Why do you think they mostly abandoned the "yo mama" angle so long ago, and when they do try to use it now, they quickly change back to something else? Because no one cares about "yo mama" jokes anymore. That tool doesn't work, so they use the ones that do.

How can anyone smart enough to type words on a computer be so stupid as to not understand that simple equivalence ?

Wow... you really can't tell the difference between words and ideas? Here's another example - if someone says: "All homosexuals are inferior, and furthermore, are in fact immoral. They have chosen to perpetuate their choice of lifestyle and thrust it into our lives. Next, they want to force our children to accept that it is not just not a bad thing, but a good thing. That they are people, just like us. Well, they are not like us. They something different and must be stopped." The ideas contained in that are offensive. I can find a great deal in it to be upset about, and would fault no one for being offended by it... but what word in it is offensive? Pull one out. Lifestyle? Fact? Children? doesn't work. They're just words. I could take the same exact words and construct a different paragraph with the opposite ideas if I were so inclined. It would, in fact, be trivial to so. Words do not have the power to offend. Only the ideas behind them.

Posted by: You_Monster | July 22, 2011 5:23 PM

And what is the idea behind using "gay" to mean a poor gamer?

Posted by: pteryxx | July 22, 2011 5:30 PM

But the casual use of slurs has multiple effects - it pisses some people off and contributes to a hostile climate for others. (And contributes to a supportive climate for yet others - other slur-wielding jerks, some of whom will be actual bigots.) Why define a single "correct" course of action (silence) which exacerbates those problems?

Posted by: rystefn | July 22, 2011 5:51 PM

And what is the idea behind using "gay" to mean a poor gamer?

I don't pretend to get it, but that seems to be the overwhelming usage in the online gaming community whenever I've encountered it. So much so that people directly specify when they intend it to refer to a homosexual person.

But the casual use of slurs has multiple effects - it pisses some people off and contributes to a hostile climate for others. (And contributes to a supportive climate for yet others - other slur-wielding jerks, some of whom will be actual bigots.) Why define a single "correct" course of action (silence) which exacerbates those problems?

If it was the casual use of slurs, I would agree with you. As I said before, I don't necessarily think it will help much, but it's a valid tack in support of a good goal. What people are failing to realize is that, generally, the gaming community does not have a widespread casual slurring issue (drunkenness aside). This is specific use of slurs to further a specific end.

If the end was to oppress and alienate targeted groups, such as homosexuals and people of color, I would also support your attempts to stop it.

Unfortunately, the end is to stir up shit and piss people off. The end is to get attention, especially negative attention. A campaign to make them stop is doomed to failure, because it is, in fact, exactly the response they want only on a larger scale.

Posted by: hotshoe | July 22, 2011 5:53 PM

If the word is not intrinsically hurtful, how do we distinguish when it being used in a hurtful way and when it is not?

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | July 22, 2011 5:56 PM

rystefn:

Where a word comes from may influence, but it does not define its current usage.

Let's try a little game, shall we?

Try this. Give different people these little stories, and see how they answer the question at the end.

1. The case of the missing car

John rushed out the door to the sound of squealing tires. "Bitch took my ride," he said in disbelief.

Q: What was the gender of the driver?

2. The curious incident of the night out

"Hey, Jack," Francesco said. "Wanna go down to Oleo's after work for a beer?"

Jack shook his head. "Only fags hang out there."

Q. What is the general sexual orientation of Oleo's patrons?

3. Mopping up the floor

Frank walked down the hall of the gym, whistling something he'd heard on his Light Jazz FM station on the way to work that morning. A familiar voice called out from behind him, "Hey, Frank! What're you up to?"

Frank turned to answer, "Heading to a squash match. I'm gonna make Pat my bitch."

Q: What gender is Pat?

----------------------

Give each person one of those three scenarios. Ask them to answer the questions. Then we'll see if language has evolved just because you say it has.

Posted by: rystefn | July 22, 2011 6:01 PM

In general, consent.

No, no. Sorry, but you will not be opening that door without me saying something against it. Your consent to hearing is the barrier for what I may and may not say? That will not stand. For one person, it's nigger. For another, it's faggot. For someone else, it's twat. Oh look, here's someone who has a problem with fuck, better strip that from my vocabulary. Over here are the contingent against goddamnit. That group over there gets squicked out by moist. No. That's going to fly with me at all.

There's also consideration, empathy, and respect involved, but for you I'll keep it simple.

Yeah, people who don't want to be called things, they and I can discuss consideration, empathy, and respect. By and large, I extend those things as a matter of course as much as I am able, handing out the benefit of the doubt willy and nilly, very nearly never calling anyone by anything they haven't openly called themselves or otherwise indicated they like to be called. As soon as someone indicates that they think they can control what I say to others or just in general, that person has all three revoked because they deserve none of them.

Posted by: You_Monster | July 22, 2011 6:04 PM

Thinking about how you might affect other people is difficult for self proclaimed self-centered assholes like rystefn.

Posted by: You_Monster | July 22, 2011 6:15 PM

Your consent to hearing is the barrier for what I may and may not say? That will not stand. For one person, it's nigger. For another, it's faggot. For someone else, it's twat. Oh look, here's someone who has a problem with fuck, better strip that from my vocabulary. Over here are the contingent against goddamnit. That group over there gets squicked out by moist. No. That's going to fly with me at all.

Shorter version: fuck no I don't have to avoid using bigoted language unless I have clear consent. If I give up my right to be a racist fuck to anyone (regardless of if they have consented first), then who knows what people will demand of me next!

That is the worst use of the slippery slope argument I have ever seen. Are you for gay marriage? But if you allow teh gays to marry what is to stop someone from marrying a goat?!?!?!

You go rystefn! Don't let anyone oppress you by telling you to not use bigoted language! Keep fighting your good fight.

Fuck off.

Posted by: rystefn | July 22, 2011 6:18 PM

And we are telling you that though it may not be the end it is the effect.

And I am telling you that it need not be.

You should be against it if you are a decent human being.

I have never made claim to being either.

Give each person one of those three scenarios. Ask them to answer the questions. Then we'll see if language has evolved just because you say it has.

You haven't asked those questions of many gamers, have you? Put them a gaming context and ask gamers:

1. The case of the missing flag

John rushed out the base to the sound of squealing tires. "Bitch took our flag," he said in disbelief.

Q: What was the gender of the driver?

2. The curious incident of the night gaming

"Hey, Jack," Francesco said. "Wanna log on to Oleo's server after work for a deathmatch?"

Jack shook his head. "Only fags hang out there."

Q. What is the general sexual orientation of Oleo's patrons?

3. Mopping up the floor

Frank walked down the hall at the tourney, whistling something he'd heard on his Light Jazz FM station on the way to the convention that morning. A familiar voice called out from behind him, "Hey, Frank! What're you up to?"

Frank turned to answer, "Heading to a Street Fighter match. I'm gonna make Pat my bitch."

Q: What gender is Pat?

In this context, you will find that you haven't given nearly enough information to get an answer. People will guess, but you won't get consistent answers, except on the second one, where they will know what you are asking and tell you that you're stupid.

The world of gaming and gamers is distinct subculture, one that crosses the boundaries of the larger cultures around, in fact. U.S. gamers have more in common with Korean gamers than they do with PZ up there, and when you walk in with all your baggage from the outside, you look like an idiot. You just don't get it. You don't speak the lingo. You are an outsider, and shit like this doesn't just fail to make the screaming children change, it makes the calm, rational adults dismiss you, too.

What you see in World of WarCraft is the surface mixing of the transitional types of mainstream and gamers. Even if you could get the trolls on WoW to stop, which you can't, it would not be by changing gamer culture, it would by removing WoW from gamer culture and making wholly mainstream.

Posted by: mouthyb, ouvrier sur les connaissances | July 22, 2011 6:35 PM

rystefn: Also, let me direct your attention to harassment law, in this case sexual. Apparently, you don't know that the law in the US enshrines consent.

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.

Please note the words 'unwelcome' 'intimidating,' 'hostile,' or 'offensive.'

Do you know who gets to determine that contact is unwanted, intimidating, hostile or offensive enough to rise to the level of complaint? The victim or anyone who has observed the contact.

The same article says later:

When investigating allegations of sexual harassment, EEOC looks at the whole record: the circumstances, such as the nature of the sexual advances, and the context in which the alleged incidents occurred.

Please notice the words 'context' and 'circumstances.' Those words denote that the situation is looked at not independent of any factors but the intent of the speaker, but of the situation in a way which looks at multiple vectors.

Just previous to that, the EEOC notes that it is best if the victim complains directly to the person and to the associated organization, which is yet another opportunity for honoring consent. If those requests are not honored, the EEOC reserves the right to investigate.

Hey, maybe you think you're above consent, but you're making that argument in ignorance of the law.

Posted by: mouthyb, ouvrier sur les connaissances | July 22, 2011 6:37 PM

*grumble* Html coding fail. Here's the link: http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-sex.html

Posted by: pteryxx | July 22, 2011 6:43 PM

...So NOW you admit context matters? ROFL! Context matters WHETHER IT WORKS IN YOUR FAVOR OR NOT. Culture exists WHETHER IT SUPPORTS YOU OR NOT. There's nothing about gamer culture that presumes the use of bigoted slurs, much less controls whether or how they are reappropriated - I hear more instances of "fag" "bitch" and "slut" on my gay teams in an hour than I see on Pharyngula in a day (or a week, barring Elevatorgate.) And we do call each other out when lines are crossed. But I have a clue about respecting my peers, and respecting them is MORE important to me than using whatever slurs come to mind. People > words. Deal.

Posted by: mouthyb, ouvrier sur les connaissances | July 22, 2011 6:53 PM

rystefn: Saying you disagree is not sufficient discussion to prove your point, not that I'm optimistic about that happening. I am mildly annoyed that you didn't look at the corollaries, which explain the genesis of that line of argument, but I'm going to guess you can't afford to discuss them.

You have claimed to be able to interpret words for the people around you and establish what is and is not offensive repeatedly and in universal language. And told everyone who disagreed with you that their interpretation was false. I am frankly surprised you don't notice. It defies belief.

Posted by: Kristoff | July 22, 2011 7:00 PM

Shakesville Feministe

Give me specific examples. I'm not going to scroll through all these posts.

and: http://disabledfeminists.com/blogroll/

Do any of these address male schizotypals?

This is hardly a clarion call.

Kristoff: What Thebear said. How many victims were killed by men is relevant, because it's disingenuous to claim that men are the most victimized class when the ones who are victimized are the victims of other men.

So?

Also, no, mental illness doesn't negate your male privilege. There's this thing called "intersectionality," which means you can be in both oppressed groups and privileged groups. You're privileged with respect to race, gender, and probably education. You're oppressed with regard to disability.

How do you operationalize the term "privilege" and where are your numbers?

What dimensions of interaction with the rest of society define "privilege" and how should they be weighted?

Is there any reason I shouldn't believe terms like "intersectionality" and such, like many other sociological concepts, aren't fancy polemical instruments that kind of look like rigorous science to a casual observer?

You disappoint me.

Posted by: rystefn | July 22, 2011 7:12 PM

Hey, maybe you think you're above consent, but you're making that argument in ignorance of the law.

Last I checked, sexual harassment law doesn't extend to calling someone names in a video game. Furthermore, if you are arguing that the law is the final arbiter of morality and righteousness, you've got fucking problems. The law determines threat of consequences, not right and wrong. In this case, the law demands that a person psychically know whether anyone in the vicinity might have a problem with what is said before it is said, and therefore, the law is insane.

I've found you get about what you'd expect.

Well, since I would expect that they'd say what I said they would say, what are we arguing about?

I don't think the world of gamers is either as homogeneous nor as idealistic as you seem to think.

What? Idealistic? Where are you getting that? I can't say how homogenous you think I think the world of gamers is, so I can't speak to that except to say that, based the general track record around here, you're wrong. However, I never said anything that might imply that gamers are idealistic in general. Merely that there is no more endemic racism, sexism, or whatever than in the world at large, and that you assholes are tilting at windmills.

know exactly what they mean.

Really? That's your take away? You think I was saying that they don't speak general American English, but only Gamer lingo? I never said anything like that. I said that, in the context of gamer lingo, these words mean different things. That's why I changed the questions, see? To make them gamer questions. "Bitch stole our flag" is gender neutral, as is "I'm going to make Pat my bitch" when you're gaming. You say them both whether the person is a man or a woman or a child or your grandmother or a computer program without sex or gender. Yeah, they know that in the larger world "bitch" is generally feminine, but when you go into their world, pretending it is the same there makes you an idiot. If you don't get this... sorry, then you aren't a part of the world, you just think you are.

they're not the sweet innocent young teens you paint them as.

Can you even read? When did I paint them as any of the above? I called them screaming children, sure, but I was pretty sure it was clear that was because I was comparing them to a toddler screaming for candy... In fact, I think I directly made that comparison at some point, didn't I? How is that action even from a toddler sweet or innocent? How is making the comparison claiming that they are young teens? I don't know what painting you're looking at, but my brush never went near that fucker.

People > words.

Then why are you guys trying to ban words? I mean, this is what I've been saying the whole time. I've been the one saying context matters while everyone else screams that certain words are verboten. I've never said anything different. I'm the one that's been saying context matters the whole time. I've never said anything different. Don't fucking pretend you caught me out saying something when that's the thing that's been my point the whole fucking conversation. By the ivory thighs of Ishtar don't you fucking pretend you've won by claiming that what I've been arguing the whole time is your side and it's suddenly right when you say it. That will not stand.

Posted by: hotshoe | July 22, 2011 7:20 PM

I'm fairly certain now that you're a troll. You can fuck off.

They deserve each other.

Posted by: mouthyb, ouvrier sur les connaissances | July 22, 2011 7:24 PM

On that note, rystefn, it's been good for practicing my logic and research skills, but I can tell that you'd rather pretend there's no such thing as anyone else, history, the law or the conventions of argumentation than admit that you're wrong. I might be back around later, but now it's time to take my aggro to Army of Two.

Good evening.

Posted by: hotshoe | July 22, 2011 7:37 PM

Then why are you guys trying to ban words? I mean, this is what I've been saying the whole time. I've been the one saying context matters while everyone else screams that certain words are verboten.

Stupid liar.
Very stupid of you to lie about who's been saying what on this thread when it's all stored in public view and we can see for ourselves.

Go away. You're too stupid to be funny and it's time for your nap, anyways.

Posted by: rystefn | July 22, 2011 7:43 PM

Saying you disagree is not sufficient discussion to prove your point

I'm not trying to prove my point. I'm saying I reject your premise. If any of your argument relies on this point, then it must be established that this point is true, otherwise the argument will fail. If none of your argument rests on this point, why mention it except as a red herring? Either way, why the Hell should I bother to address the rest of your points until this one has been settled? Once this one is addressed, I will be willing to continue on down the list if you like.

I never called you racist

Yeah, that wasn't quote mining. Shall we look at the whole thing? "Shorter version: fuck no I don't have to avoid using bigoted language unless I have clear consent. If I give up my right to be a racist fuck to anyone (regardless of if they have consented first), then who knows what people will demand of me next!" If there's a way to read that that isn't calling me a racist fuck, I don't see it. The fact that you go on to specify that you think it is a fair assessment of my argument means you were, in fact, calling me a racist fuck, and still are, in the same post where you insist that you didn't. Really? That's what passes for a cogent argument in your head?

You were the one to bring up that your black friends told you to call them "niggas". Why bring that up? I thought consent by the affected party isn't required to use bigoted language.

I brought it up as a counterexample to the idea that anyone who uses the word must hate black people and as a counterargument to the idea the word itself is intrinsically bad. If none of that applies to you, feel free to ignore it. In case you hadn't noticed, I'm a bit surrounded and come at from all sides right now, so I've been mixing some general points in with specific ones. I'm not interested in trying to sort out ten different arguments that vary only in minor details.

But your dislike of the law is noted. And creepy, in this case.

Wait... it's creepy that I think laws requiring people to be mind-readers are insane? You got problems, yo.

You're not being silenced, because there's other perfectly good words out there - use one of THEM, if you're so committed to the idea and not the words that comprise it

One of the ideas I'm committed to is that calling a word intrinsically bad or harmful is morally repugnant. Hence, I find you morally repugnant, and I'm not in the habit of tiptoeing around the sensibilities of assholes that I find morally repugnant.

In this space intellectually dishonest jerks are welcome

Well, that's obvious, as that's an accurate description of the blog owner and most of the commenters.

because we cut them and their arguments to pieces

No you don't. You barely address the actual arguments presented. You pretend that people have said they haven't and then attack those ideas, even then without applying logic of reason in many cases. I wonder if you even know what an argument being cut to pieces would look like. You seem to have no idea how to distinguish that from a horde of jackasses braying until someone leaves and then congratulating each other on victory.

Feel free to post on your own blog if you don't want called out on your crap.

You obviously don't know much about my blog. The only rule I've ever imposed on my commenters is that you don't get to call other people out on my crap.

You're lying, and you know it.

God, you're an asshole.

Yeah, that's true, but there's no need to be formal. You can call me the Rystefn.

Posted by: Kristoff | July 22, 2011 7:55 PM

Kristoff: You were offered a source to read.

Your latter source was awfully disappointing. The former two were just links to blogs in general. Like it's my responsibility to do your research and find specific articles.

Your unwillingness to read that source does not constitute a failure on the part of the person who offered it to you. And for reference, there's this search bar on most blogs and sites which you can use to find specific posts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

Let's try this again.

Posted by: rystefn | July 22, 2011 8:01 PM

You reject "context matters" when it condemns the use of slurs

No I don't. I reject the use of "context matters" to pretend that context doesn't matter. Your idea that the only context in which it is acceptable to use certain words if there is no one who could possible hear it, whether you are aware of their presence or not, who might have the tiniest issue with it. That's not saying "context matters."

The words hurt the people

Sticks and stones, bitch. Suck it up and drive on.

So, a quick survey just turned up an interesting result...

How about there's a football game and someone says "bitch just intentionally grounded it!"

How about hockey? "Bitch was highsticking!"

Bet nearly everyone says the bitch in question is a man.

How about I don't tell you the sport: "Bitch is crowding the plate!"

People guess male because sports, like video games, are more likely to have men playing than women. Sure, it varies depending on what sport and what game, and sometimes swings the other way ("Bitch just fell off the uneven bars!")

Damn, it's a fucking epidemic of gender-neutral bitches unless some further context strongly implies gender separate from the word "bitch." But hey, I'm a lying liar making all this up. No need to actually ask anyone, because you just know I'm wrong in your heart.

Posted by: pteryxx | July 22, 2011 8:10 PM

Well, I'm committed to the idea that people's rights to feel safer in a place outweigh their right to use a particular word. The word itself won't suffer, won't care about its reputation, and won't feel left out if it isn't used anymore. And no actual IDEAS will have been harmed, because there are plenty of other words that DON'T espouse bigotry that we can and do use instead.

However, your idea, namely "words can't be intrinsically harmful" is trivial and absolutist. More to the point, it serves as your excuse to argue that offended people are at fault for their own oppression, that unintentional bigotry either doesn't exist or is harmless, that calling out word use changes nothing, and that context only matters as an excuse for bigotry and not as a reason to condemn it. And all of THOSE arguments are wrong.

I think it's morally repugnant to value a word over actual people. The word can go fuck itself.

Posted by: John Morales | July 22, 2011 8:12 PM

rystefn:

But hey, I'm a lying liar making all this up.

Female epithets are gender-neutral if they're applied to both sexes?

(Your rationale is as stupid as your lies)

Posted by: You_Monster | July 22, 2011 8:27 PM

Your consent to hearing is the barrier for what I may and may not say? That will not stand. For one person, it's nigger. For another, it's faggot. For someone else, it's twat. Oh look, here's someone who has a problem with fuck, better strip that from my vocabulary. Over here are the contingent against goddamnit. That group over there gets squicked out by moist. No. That's going to fly with me at all.

This statement defends the notion that you do not have to take into account whether the recipient of your slur consents to you referring to him/her by that slur. I would characterize someone who throws racial slurs at someone, without first finding out that they are cool with it, as a racist fuck.

If you are willing to use bigoted slurs without consent, you are a racist fuck.

So, you say that you "will not stand" for the idea that using bigoted language requires first finding out if people in your presence consent. Yet, so far I haven't called you a racist. I have mocked what your argument defends (i.e. the right to use bigoted language sans consent).

Yes, you never said that you DO use bigoted language sans consent, but you were saying that you will not stand for being told not to.

I stand by my earlier post, you were arguing for a right, that if exercised, makes you a racist fuck. And that is all I said- that you were fighting for the right to be a racist fuck

Posted by: pteryxx | July 22, 2011 8:30 PM

LOL - interesting result indeed. Lemme turn it around for you:

How about there's a football game and someone says "bitch just intentionally grounded it!"

How about hockey? "Bitch was highsticking!"

How about I don't tell you the sport: "Bitch is crowding the plate!"

Note what you didn't say?

"Bitch just gained twenty yards!"

"Bitch scored on a breakaway!"

"Bitch hit a double!"

Why not? Because the word "bitch" couples gender with insult; and that is the problem. Conversely, if you used "asshole" as the insult in your experiment, there'd be even less gender-association. And if you used a MORE gendered insult than "bitch" (say "slut" or "bimbo") then you'd see a greater degree of hesitation before the survey-takers assigned a gender. This sort of thing HAS been tested, you realize - see implicit-association.

Your survey's invalid because you're using an EXPLICIT gender criterion "What's the player's gender?" to argue against an implicit gendering effect - the coupling of femaleness with insult.

Posted by: John Morales | July 22, 2011 8:34 PM

Kristoff:

If "bitch" and "cunt" are insults to all women (regardless of context, and let's not even get started on how the word "cunt" is used in Australia), then "asshole" is an insult to most all animals I can think of.

Wow you are dense.

The epithets are not "insults to all women"; they are insults to those to whom they are applied because they compare people to women (or their bits), as if that were a bad thing.

Posted by: Kristoff | July 22, 2011 8:43 PM

Also: are "cock", "prick", "bellend", "dillhole" etc. (I don't know off hand but there seem to be far more epithets in English based on the male member) misandric insults?

I ask because I feel like using at least one of them for some reason.

Posted by: rystefn | July 22, 2011 8:53 PM

Also, don't act like women's parts are insulting so it's sexist. If there's a body part anyone habitually calls anyone else that isn't an insult, I've never come across it.

Posted by: John Morales | July 22, 2011 9:05 PM

rystefn:

If there's a body part anyone habitually calls anyone else that isn't an insult, I've never come across it.

You've never heard anyone called 'ballsy' or 'gutsy', eh? Never heard anyone told to 'grow a pair', either, I suppose.

Posted by: pteryxx | July 22, 2011 9:23 PM

by the way, Kristoff, I tend to agree about assholes... they get a bad rap that's mostly undeserved, honestly. Still, it's hard to use the term as a compliment (except among the aforementioned gay teams, natch.)

Posted by: pteryxx | July 22, 2011 9:41 PM

*shrug* You decided that changing the test questions from a situational context, to a gaming context, to a sporting context, were all valid to support your point re: participants' actual genders. I say changing the questions from a negative to a positive context were valid to support mine re: presuming negativity. You're arguing that the actual gender of the players changes the inference, and I say it doesn't. Calling a player "bitch" doesn't mean they're really female any more than it means they're really a dog.

Gendered insults, however, DO contribute to implicit sexism, DO contribute to a chilling environment, and incidentally CAN constitute sexual harassment, as have been linked and discussed upthread (and indeed in PZ's original post.) So this is not a new point in the discussion, though it might be new-ish to YOU.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | July 22, 2011 9:54 PM

There's a basic breakdown between people who take it for granted that it's desirable to be a decent human being and be respectful towards all people, and people who don't.

Restyfyn and Kristoff clearly don't make this assumption.

Posted by: Kristoff | July 22, 2011 10:08 PM

There's a basic breakdown between people who take it for granted that it's desirable to be a decent human being and be respectful towards all people, and people who don't.

Restyfyn and Kristoff clearly don't make this assumption.

Please. I'm Mr. Rogers compared to the average Pharyngula jackal.

Is asking questions that hideously offensive to you?

The New Atheist™ movement in a nutshell:

http://i.imgur.com/NIfxN.jpg

Posted by: Kristoff | July 22, 2011 10:36 PM

First, it was no argument that I made, but a proposition.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicature/

Second, I was referring to the concept of epithet-use and the relationship between the subject and the referent, not to the concept of misogyny.

Why take offense to someone saying "cunt" then?

ps the complement of "referent" is "reference" rather than "subject"; just thought you might want to know this in case you try to sound informed about linguistics in the future.

And remember, if you try hard enough, you'll be sure to sail through your third semester of college.

Third, your attempted tu quoque evinces your implicit acknowledgement of the misogynistic nature of such gendered insults.

Sorry, I apologize. You misread me. I don't think that saying "dickwad" or anything of that nature is necessarily misandric. I don't think "cunt" is necessarily misogynistic either. I like to be consistent.

Fourth, your putative equivalence between the social consequences (and relative prevalence) of misogyny and misandry is a tired MRA trope that has been extensively discussed here; i.e. it's a PRATT.

I don't believe in such things as rights. They don't exist.

What, can't you apply the Wittgensteinian approach to meaning to infer to what I might be referring? ;)

Well the issue I have with your writing is that you're gussying everything up to project an air of expertise in my domain.

I would be somewhat surprised if your understanding of linguistics is any better than PZ Myers' understanding of philosophy or religion.

And this shows because Wittgensteinian meaning is based on agreement among two or more parties about use, not just John Morales' stilted, idiosyncratic use of terms he isn't familiar with.

Have you considered that its perceived opacity to you might be a result of your own lack of cognitive capacity and knowledge-base?

Confirming what I just said about the New Atheism™ a few minutes ago:

http://i.imgur.com/NIfxN.jpg

Posted by: rystefn | July 22, 2011 10:53 PM

I don't care what you think the assertion made against you was, I responded to what you wrote. Duh.

Translation: I walked into a conversation without knowing what the fuck was going on, didn't bother trying to figure it out, saw a name I recognized as someone I don't particularly like, and jumped in with gusto... then got shit all backwards. You didn't respond to what I wrote. You responded to what someone else wrote after I changed a one of the parameters to make it pertinent to the conversation at hand. You know, that thing you're completely unaware of.

I get that you're struggling to refer to the concept of polysemy, in your half-assed way.

No, I'm spelling out a simple concept in plain English. No struggling, no half-assing. Just one short clause that explains the whole of what I was trying to say with it.

4. Your confusion between grammatical and natural gender is noted.

Not remotely... Bitch is gender neutral is usage, and is insulting, not because it likens a person to a woman, but because it likens a person to a dog. Just like the word pussy is comparing a person to a cat. In both cases, not sexist. So, as I said, bullshit.

My question was rhetorical; functionally, it was a statement

Your rhetorical question was wrong. Functionally, it was a wrong statement.

You've never heard anyone called 'ballsy' or 'gutsy', eh? Never heard anyone told to 'grow a pair', either, I suppose.

Of course I have. I have never, as I said, heard anyone called a ball, or a gut, or a pair. I've heard someone called a ballsack, and a testicle, though. Both were insults. I stand by my previous statement.

I'm a linguist. What he's referring to is the Wittgensteinian approach to meaning and it has some things to recommend it:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/#Mea

Thank you. Language is not my field except that I use a few, so some of the basic concepts sink in. I recommend it to everyone that they should learn at least one at some point in their lifetime.

You decided that changing the test questions from a situational context, to a gaming context, to a sporting context, were all valid to support your point re: participants' actual genders. I say changing the questions from a negative to a positive context were valid to support mine re: presuming negativity.

The negative presumption was from the original, not from me, so whatever beef you have is not with me, but with the originator. Me changing it to a gaming context supported my stance that the meaning of words is context-dependent, as I have been saying from the beginning in opposition to the stance taken that they meant the same thing in a gaming context as in any other. If you're looking for someone to argue that the word "bitch" is often used in a positive manner, you won't find it in me.

Rystefn: fuck off. You've got a little sewer of machismo to muck about in at ERV, please stay there.

Ah, the PZ comes down from on high. Please, do not think that because I was off having dinner, I was actually fucking off at your say-so. If you've an argument to present, present it, otherwise, toddle off, the adults are speaking.

Also, I still don't grasp in what sense you people are using "machismo." Presented without context, as it is, it is virtually impossible to fathom your meaning, since it simply does fit any of the standard usages of it to which I have been exposed.

Posted by: You_Monster | July 22, 2011 11:19 PM

Bitch is gender neutral is usage, and is insulting, not because it likens a person to a woman, but because it likens a person to a dog. Just like the word pussy is comparing a person to a cat. In both cases, not sexist

Rystefn, denying realty some more I see.

Did you ever manage to figure out what I want you to do with your porcupine?

Posted by: John Morales | July 22, 2011 11:27 PM

[meta]

rystefn, it is pleasing to me that you've returned after PZ has warned you.

--

Kristoff, your resort to linkages to SEP implies something, alright: that you don't know how to make a case except by allusion to a perceived authority.

Second, I was referring to the concept of epithet-use and the relationship between the subject and the referent, not to the concept of misogyny.

Why take offense to someone saying "cunt" then?
ps the complement of "referent" is "reference" rather than "subject"; just thought you might want to know this in case you try to sound informed about linguistics in the future.

Whatever have I written that indicates I've taken offence to someone saying "cunt"?

BTW, that was no post scriptum; but leaving that aside, you've apparently looked at my terminology without trying to parse the meaning.

In that which you quoted, the 'subject' is the person to whom the epithet is applied, and the 'referent' (notice it's employed as a noun?) indicates the object of a reference (that to which the epithet refers, in this particular case). The 'relationship' indicates the state of connectedness between the subject and the referent.

And remember, if you try hard enough, you'll be sure to sail through your third semester of college.

You think I'm a student?

I don't believe in such things as rights. They don't exist.

Apparently, you are also ignorant of the difference between concreta and abstracta.

Well the issue I have with your writing is that you're gussying everything up to project an air of expertise in my domain.

Your perception is noted, as is the fact that, rather than address my contentions, you resort to projection to attempt to poison the well against me. (That is an exercise in futility)

I would be somewhat surprised if your understanding of linguistics is any better than PZ Myers' understanding of philosophy or religion.

Your surprise or otherwise at my understanding of linguistics or PZ's understanding of philosophy is irrelevant to the topic; that being that the reason people use such gendered insults is because they're perceived to be offensive, and what the reason for such perception is.

(As an aside, I note Myers is not a plural)

And this shows because Wittgensteinian meaning is based on agreement among two or more parties about use, not just John Morales' stilted, idiosyncratic use of terms he isn't familiar with.

To which such terms do you refer? :)

Confirming what I just said about the New Atheism™ a few minutes ago:

Where did New Atheism™ enter this discussion, and in what sense is it relevant?

Posted by: Kristoff | July 23, 2011 12:02 AM

Kristoff, your resort to linkages

Isn't linkage a mechanical term?

You're straining, guy.

to SEP implies something, alright: that you don't know how to make a case except by allusion to a perceived authority.

No. I'm not appealing to SEP's authority. I link to SEP because their articles are well-written and it's just a quick and somewhat humorous way to rebut points.

Whatever have I written that indicates I've taken offence to someone saying "cunt"?

My mistake. Maybe we don't disagree after all.

BTW, that was no post scriptum;

Maybe not. It was a joke though. Jesus you're anal.

ps throw in an ipso facto. Maybe an in statu nascendi while you're at it. You're on a roll, man.

but leaving that aside, you've apparently looked at my terminology without trying to parse the meaning.

Uh, "parse" refers to syntax, bro.

In that which you quoted, the 'subject' is the person to whom the epithet is applied and the 'referent' (notice it's employed as a noun?) indicates the object of a reference (that to which the epithet refers, in this particular case).

Is it my fault that you're using standard linguistic terms in a bizarre, idiosyncratic manner?

Throw me a bone, dude.

The 'relationship' indicates the state of connectedness between the subject and the referent.

You're starting to read like Heidegger.

You think I'm a student?

The alternatives that you might be either senile or in preschool are certainly appealing.

Apparently, you are also ignorant of the difference between concreta and abstracta.

No, I don't think rights exist in an abstract sense, either.

protip: you'd score more points if you threw in some gratuitous German words as well. Words prefixed with "Ur-" are the best. "Umwelt" isn't bad for entry-level snobbery either, because barring its technical meanings in ethology and philosophy, it's so completely unnecessary in English.

Your perception is noted, as is the fact that, rather than address my contentions, you resort to projection to attempt to poison the well against me. (That is an exercise in futility)

Are you royalty or something?

Your surprise or otherwise at my understanding of linguistics or PZ's understanding of philosophy is irrelevant to the topic; that being that the reason people use such gendered insults is because they're perceived to be offensive,

Yes. But for what reason?

(As an aside, I note Myers is not a plural)

Oh Jesus...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe#Singular_nouns_ending_with_an_.22s.22_or_.22z.22_sound

There isn't one rule set in stone for how you use apostrophes in this case.

To which such terms do you refer? :)

"Referent", for example.

Where did New Atheism™ enter this discussion

It entered the discussion when you and a bunch of other people indulged in sickening certitude and braggadocio, which appears to be the central defining trait of New Atheism™.

Posted by: rystefn | July 23, 2011 12:08 AM

And don't get too enthused at the return of Rystefn, he's very close to being banned. I am really fed up with these obtuse MRA assholes.

Wait... I'm about to get banned because you're fed up with a group to which I don't belong and you couldn't even pretend to present a cogent argument that I do?

PZ, I know that I'm prone to hyperbole, so I'm stating outright and up-front that I mean this literally. I will hock everything I won except for one full set clothing, clothing to include shoes, a coat, and glasses, and that which is required for the completion of the classes in which I am currently enrolled and render the proceeds, along with the full contents of all of my bank accounts, unto the charitable organization of your choice, if you can present direct evidence of anything I have said or done that could convince a reasonable person that I am a men's rights activist, short of my support for general sorts of rights which happen to include men because they include the whole of humanity. If you like, we could even set up a panel of reasonable people subject to veto from either side.

I'm sure you won't, of course. It's a lot of work for maybe a few hundred bucks, a grand tops, probably. Also, something something obviously wouldn't follow through, blah, blah, beneath your dignity, mumble-mumble just ban and be done with it.

Posted by: Kristoff | July 23, 2011 12:24 AM

Is there a time you would use "utilize" when "use" wouldn't be good enough? Well, poetry and such, of course, but in normal, day-to-day conversation, nothing springs to mind.

Come to think of it, I don't mind language that's showy, in the way that progressive rock is showy.

What I do take issue with is language that is showy and po-faced. What I take issue with even more is language that tries to be showy, falls flat in the process, and is all po-faced and self-serious on top of that.

You know who I'm talking about of course.

Posted by: John Morales | July 23, 2011 12:31 AM

rystefn:

Wait... I'm about to get banned because you're fed up with a group to which I don't belong and you couldn't even pretend to present a cogent argument that I do?

No, O disingenuous one.

You are close to being banned because you're persevering at commenting here after the host has told you to fuck off.

Posted by: rystefn | July 23, 2011 12:49 AM

Monster, in another of a long-running series here, I am confused by your usage of "martyrdom." Once again, the context here doesn't suggest any kind of meaning that makes sense when compared to any other usage to which the word is commonly put.

It has been pointed out that using bigoted language alienates people

It has been pointed out that there is no such thing as bigoted language.

Suggesting that you have a little more consideration for how your words affect people is attempting to silence you though, I guess.

No, but banning me is locally silencing me, at least.

Porcupine, your urethra, make it happen.

Just out of curiosity - does it actually make you feel better to say things like this? Does it enhance your statement in any way? Or is it just trying to scrounge up points with the local tribe?

Posted by: John Morales | July 23, 2011 12:58 AM

rystefn:

It has been pointed out that there is no such thing as bigoted language.

It has been claimed, and this sophistic claim relies on language not being an agency; it evades the issue that language used to express bigotry can quite appropriately (in all but that trivial sense) be referred to as bigoted language, other than in this degenerate case.

(You might as well claim there's no such thing as insulting language)

Posted by: hotshoe | July 23, 2011 1:06 AM

PZ, I know that I'm prone to hyperbole, so I'm stating outright and up-front that I mean this literally. I will hock everything I won except for one full set clothing, clothing to include shoes, a coat, and glasses, and that which is required for the completion of the classes in which I am currently enrolled and render the proceeds, along with the full contents of all of my bank accounts, unto the charitable organization of your choice, if you can present direct evidence of anything I have said or done that could convince a reasonable person that I am a men's rights activist, short of my support for general sorts of rights which happen to include men because they include the whole of humanity.

OK, pony up, rystefn. You already lost when you used bitch as an insult here:

Don't fucking put the weaknesses of someone else's test on me, bitch.

Oh, don't start whining. No one wants your money, not even for charity. No one wants you except your BFF Justicar. Be gone.

Posted by: hotshoe | July 23, 2011 1:13 AM

Damn blockquotes, how do they work.

Of course post should have been

PZ, I know that I'm prone to hyperbole, so I'm stating outright and up-front that I mean this literally. I will hock everything I won except for one full set clothing, clothing to include shoes, a coat, and glasses, and that which is required for the completion of the classes in which I am currently enrolled and render the proceeds, along with the full contents of all of my bank accounts, unto the charitable organization of your choice, if you can present direct evidence of anything I have said or done that could convince a reasonable person that I am a men's rights activist, short of my support for general sorts of rights which happen to include men because they include the whole of humanity.

Don't fucking put the weaknesses of someone else's test on me, bitch.