/lit/ - Literature

>>7069295
what is the video about

>>7069295
because autism / they absorb their obsessions into their personal identities to the extent that they are defined by their hobbies and have no lives outside of them

I'm anally devastated that anyone thinks that garbage is worth cultural and philosophical analysis

>>7069302
This. Mostly the identity thing.

>>7069299
decadence

If you had a hobby that weren't already infected by post-modern tripe, would you want it to become so?

I think we all know the only person who offers legitimate cultural and philosophical analysis of video games, anyway.

>>7069295
OP's pic related is so fucking funny.

Did he say something racist?

>>7069328

>>7069328
There's a thread about him on /lit/ right now: >>7067401

>>7069295
>keeping the artfags away from my videogames
Thanks Jimmy

I'm more curious why the "analysts" get so butthurt when their "analysis" is debunked

>>7069295
>to define oneself by media consumption is not just unhealthy, it’s vacuous. To do so is to go beyond the necessary distractions from the real world’s tedium and travails. It’s a demand for a Huxley-esque perpetual childhood.

>Gamers won’t die because there will always be, in capitalism, people who define themselves by what they buy. When their imaginary identity politics are challenged, they’ll lash out, angrily, with as much vitriol as they can muster.

>>7069295
This video should explain it all. Remember, you interact with these people every time you come on 4chan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ITftz_kbNs

>>7069363
Not sure where this is from but it is very accurate.

>>7069363
>>to define oneself by one's work is not just unhealthy, it’s vacuous. To do so is to go beyond the necessary distractions from the real world’s tedium and travails. It’s a demand for a Huxley-esque perpetual adulthood.

>Workers won’t die because there will always be, in capitalism, people who define themselves by what they do. When their imaginary identity politics are challenged, they’ll lash out, angrily, with as much vitriol as they can muster.

>>7069366
>implying any of these autists read

they're confined to /b/, /v/, and /tv/

can someone expalin me what the fuck is this thread about

>>7069376
People mad that nerds don't like their retarded pseudo-political analyses of shitty media

>>7069376
A T.V guy made fun of people who watch lets players. They then spewed autistic rage while /v/ and everyone else here laughed at them.

>>7069369
according to google, some shitty "gamers are misogynists" article

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/09/death-to-the-gamer/

>>7069393
Oh, well I suppose that's why it's important to read a quote in context.

>>7069387
Pretty sure Jimmy Kimmel doesn't qualify as a philosopher or cultural critic

>>7069405
>T.V guy
The OP is full of shit anyway.

I watch let's play videos

a lot of /v/ crossposters in here lmao

>>7069295
what are some /lit/ approved vidyas?

>>7069433
There aren't any, as video games are for children.

>>7069430
ayy topkek m8 lelelel

>>7069434
but /lit/ is full of children

>>7069295
Gamers, Weebs etc etc are autistic retards with superiority complexes and define themselves by consumption. When someone does analysis of a game or anime or a fantasy book and points out inherent problematic issues, they see it as a personal attack. If a game or anime is sexist, racist, classist or whatever and they enjoy it, they think they personally are being called a racist or sexist.

Its a childish mentality, I love Tin-Tin, but I can recognize its racist as fuck. For some reason the concept of recognizing problematic issues but still enjoying the work as a whole is lost on autists.

>>7069440
/lit/ is a mature image board for adults like myself.

>>7069442
>problematic

>>7069442
>implying tin-tins's racism is problematic
there is no problem whatsoever for normal human beings

>>7069442
Not really, the thing is that no one cares if something is racist, and specially if it's sexist. Not everyone cares about your post-modernist shit.

>>7069442
>things that deviate from my contemporary ideology are "problematic"

It's actually identity politics-oriented censorship that nerds are concerned about taking over the industry.

>>7069462
do you have a problem with that?

It's been scientifically proven that video games cause rape. Guess it's time to kill every gamor

>>7069471
like the part where there is a massive public nerd backlash against a guy who makes fun of people for playing childrens games

>>7069442
When judging a video game, it is tempting to critique imagery, music, and narrative, but it's main aesthetic quality is the player's input towards the game (gameplay). That is why Super Mario Bros. and Shadow of the Colossus are aesthetically superior to The Last of Us and Gone Home.

You see no need of using silly postmodernism deconstructions.

>>7069509
He made fun of them, what did you expect? I don't give a fuck about them and minecraft is shit, but it's a normal reaction.

>>7069509
I think the backlash is from actual children (under 18 people), actually

>>7069509
kimmel made fun of people who watched livestreamers which is a completely different thing

Jimmy Kimmel literally made of millions of little kids who like watching people play Minecraft on youtube lmao

Jimmy Kimmel thinks 12-year-olds who watch Call of Duty gameplay videos are deserving of mockery

He's just jealous that kids enjoy youtube personalities more than him

>>7069487
in a 100 years today's texts could easily be seen as "problematic" for not being sufficiently Thomist so I fail to see why works not fitting with today's politics should be any problem.

>>7069295
because most cultural and philosophical analysis is done on shaky grounds, most of it about trying to establish one's self as an authority or seeking status. Heck most of philosophy and sociology is not even trying to seek objective truth, so of course people are going to mad when you misinterpret what they like. Remember in the end empirical skepticism always wins out.

>>7069442
>>7069511
You have not replied to me because it is true.

>>7069541
The idea is that 'problematic' things are supposed to be socially harmful even though there's no scientific evidence for that

>>7069514
>>7069515
>>7069519
I just think it's funny that the people mad at Kimmel are the same people who cry "censorship" whenever anyone tries to tell them their Jew jokes aren't funny

>>7069554
>though there's no scientific evidence for that

If you ignore decades of psychology, media and sociology.

If media cannot influence people, why does advertising or propaganda exist?

>>7069554
my point basically. it's interesting to read old book reviews before the trade had became more standardized. Lots of books were rated purely on their moral/social value. Only instead of "racism" it was "corrupting the children"

>>7069295
>A man who makes a living off of discussing and forming humor around televisual related content made fun of people who watch those that make a living off of forming humor around and discussing video games
He is no better then they are to be honest. Hypocritical at least.
Who gives a shit though. People will do as they do.
Fuck 'em all I say.

>>7069295
so he bashed minecraft? everyone knows is shit and nobody enough mature cares about it, so what's new?

>>7069574
Heck, I don't even own a TV.

>>7069565
>psychology and sociology
>the softest sciences around
And besides, you can't judge something because you personally disagree with the perceived message. That is not a fair and unbiased review.

>>7069574
I don't even like Kimmel comparing his work to that of the youtube video gamers is laughable.

This shit is already bad when it's done to literature.

>>7069565
should artists listen to this "decades of psychology, media and sociology" on how to produce their works? Lest they communicate the wrong message to public.

>>7069581
>the softest sciences around
More important to note that it's extremely easy to manipulate results to support your agenda

>>7069509
>talk shit about someone
>they talk shit back
LOOOL LOOK AT THESE ASSMAD NERDS

>>7069565
they do influence people but not in the way academics go on about it, practitioners laugh at the academics and their theories. Most advertising and marketing revolves around three things: exposure, product differentiation, and strategic pricing. Also advertising does not work for shit if the person is not already primed to buy the product.

>>7069577
Smart man.
>>7069582
Not really. One is directed towards the masses of America with a huge budget and "voice" and/or reach. While the other is directed towards (typically younger) video gamers with a minimal budget and moderate reach.
In essence they are very similar. I'm not a big fan of kimmel either but there are easily lets players out there with humor of an equal level, albeit not intrinsically the most popular ones.
That being said I don't see why people bother to watch either.

>>7069295
Because they hate their own reality so much that they want whatever endeavor of escapism to be as sound as possible to not be regarded as a "waste of my time".

>>7069594
artists have a moral responsibility for the work they put out. pretending like art isn't political or moral is childish

>ITT: people who have never been in a single English or Philosophy university tute
>People butthurt over Anita "Media coms 101" Saarkesian

>>7069606
>pretending like art isn't political or moral is childish
I'm not. I'm asking whose morals. The sociolgist/psychologist's? Plato's? Donald Trump's?

>>7069606
so you are saying that artist should treat their patrons as children. Also lot of art is morally and politically ambiguous, it does not really fall into line with any ideology.

>>7069615
obviously that's a negotiation between the artist and the reader.

>>7069564
fucking this tbh.

It's even worse because the jokes he made weren't particularly offensive. A significant amount of comedy is just pointing out the ridiculousness of normal things in life. By getting so offended about this, these fucking idiots are just proving that watching video game streaming isn't a normal thing in life

>>7069529
>>7069530

it's comedy faggot, everything is deserving of mockery

>>7069363
DID YOU SAY GAMERS ARE DEAD?
I'LL SHOW YOU WHO'S DEAD STUPID WHORE REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>7069295
Litterally all these are ~12 year old kids

I'd love if video games actually had some level of cultural and philosophical analysis
but saying "there's not enough girls/brown people" shouldn't be considered the height of that

>>7069615
Take this simple example: a lot of white men on the internet get mad when they think feminists say all men are potential rapists. At any time on the internet, some man or boy will be discussing some poster that says 'teach men not to rape' or something like that.

Doesn't it matter, then, when the equivalent happens to other people who are not white, or not male, or not straight? It's the equivalent of saying all men are rapists when we perpetuate, in our media, such ideas as 'all women are too emotional' or 'all gays are feminine' or 'all blacks are criminals'. These stereotypes permeate the media, and stuff like marketing actually helps to perpetuate these memes because their entrenchment in the collective psyche makes them very relateable in advertising; a very good example of this is the portrayal of women in advertising. As the motto goes, 'sex sells', and it's perfectly true. We have normalized using titillating imagery of women in advertising and media in general to help sell products, and that makes it lucrative to put a big titted naked lady in a computer game, for instance, or a beer commercial.

But the point is that it's 'problematic' for the same reason saying all men are rapists is wrong. It's 'problematic' because it perpetuates harmful stereotypes that cause social alienation and contention among the population. The reason to critique the frequency of these tropes in the media isn't necessarily to censor them or erase the art of the past; rather, it is a way of reminding people that these things aren't true. We can all read old books that say 'nigger' but it becomes a problem when someone can't separate real life from art.

>>7069660
To be fair, the GG crowd will freak out if there's a girl/brown person character. Any deviation from the default (which INCIDENTALLY happens to be a white male character) is pandering. White men can't be pandered too, though, because "they're the target audience!"

>>7069606

That sounds like a dangerous line of thought. Wasn't that the main argument of the Soviet art censors?

>>7069704
quite the slippery slope

>>7069704
Except nothing is being censored.

>>7069714

I'm just saying, it's similar reasoning. Why did Shostakovitch's work have to have a rousing political message for the Soviet People? Why was Formalism banned?

>>7069719

I think some "progressive" minded people would if they could.

>>7069739
start drawing that analogy once anyone with guns is actually involved and enforcing their opinion, until then you're just playing oppression fantasy

this thread blows btw

>He isn't reading minecraft lit

>>7069696
I don't disagree with all of this, but
>But the point is that it's 'problematic' for the same reason saying all men are rapists is wrong. It's 'problematic' because it perpetuates harmful stereotypes that cause social alienation and contention among the population.

MUH ZERO SUM GAME

>>7069757
I was trying to be relateable and find common ground.

>>7069739
Isn't it fewer men?

>>7069739
shouldn't this be "fewer"?

>>7069696
Save your Marxist logic for college, junior. No reasonable person uses the modifier 'all' when generalizing. Maybe people would take your critiques seriously if they were not predicated with the assertion that the average person has no critical facilities. It is trivial to 99.9% of people that media is not equivalent to reality or truth and most people do not take in their media at face value.

Sex sells is because it is a biological desire and has inherent value, not because we have normalized it. You can only try to normalize the repression of that desire. The public is telling people like yourself that they do not want titillating media repressed. They are telling you that the causality between titillation and social ills is far too weak to justify the shaming of people who create or indulge in it. That your critiques are patronizing and that they contain massive critical overreach.

What is problematic is that you use an asinine model of human behavior to justify your idiotic critiques. It would be one thing if this was used just to create academic critiques, but it is another thing when this shit infects various enthusiast forums and media sites. People are pissed because this shit has been shoved down their throats with little to no editorial push back from the media. Your priggish efforts to show the plebs the light has and will continue to backfire by radicalizing many of them to the opposite pole of your position.

>>7069839
Virgin

>>7069866
Spotted the redditxr. Go back to your feminist playground

>>7069839
>Save your Marxist logic for college, junior.
Actually, 'junior', I'm not a Marxist, nor a liberal arts student. I'm a technologist. I am merely applying my own critical thinking by trying to understand what people may find wrong with the media. If anything, the noise from the reactionary peanut gallery has drawn the most attention to the 'culture war', if not defined it.

>Maybe people would take your critiques seriously if they were not predicated with the assertion that the average person has no critical facilities.
But that's just the thing, most people have critical faculties. People like you will merely dismiss criticism with normative arguments such as this one:

>Sex sells is because it is a biological desire and has inherent value, not because we have normalized it. You can only try to normalize the repression of that desire.
Sex is a biological function, true, and arousal at erotic imagery is also nature. However, its cynical use as a marketing tool changes the way we think and see things. For example, if a woman is dressed in revealing clothing, a lot of people will assume she is doing it for attention no matter how much she denies it. Why? Because we're so used to seeing this imagery in the context of drawing attention to itself that it becomes difficult to separate one from the other; revealing clothing becomes inseparable from attention seeking.

>critical overreach.
No such thing. That it makes some people so uncomfortable is probably proof that the criticism has merit.

>People are pissed because this shit has been shoved down their throats with little to no editorial push back from the media.
In other words, 'people' (a small, but vocal, contingent of them) are pissed that the critiques aren't being rejected or suppressed.

>>7069907
Virgin + Projecting

>>7069866
I know you are but what am I?

>>7069914
sweet, sweet irony

>>7069921
>>7069922
>responding to the troll

>>7069910
Why else is anyone going to be wearing revealing clothing?

>set up dubs post
>this fucking piece of shit steals my dubs
>>7069922

Please fucking die

I have 2 monitors and usually keep a dota streamer up on the right time to watch when i fall asleep after getting home, these people are lame as fuck even /v/irgins were attacking jimmy for this, it's no better then when mudslimes get mad over Muhammad depictions.

>>7069924
Consider this example:

Do you know those tribal women on the covers of national geographic that go topless? Are they doing it for attention too?

Yet if a woman nowadays brings up the idea that women should be able to go topless like some men do in the summer, they're scrutinized for it as though it's just an excuse to 'slut it up'.

Now, I don't know about naturalists, but I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and say they probably also aren't going naked just to perpetually turn each other on.

>>7069363
god damn learn to write

>>7069935
Tribal women are a totally different context.
Female and male sexualities are completely different. A women going topless is like me going around with my dong hanging out.
Naturalists are a minority.

>>7069780
>>7069815

If you google around a bit you can find feminazis getting mad about grammar, saying it's racist, patriarchal etc. She would probably accuse you of being a "prescriptivist" or something if you pointed out her mistake.

>>7069554
>socially harmful

you mean logically inconsistent

>>7069627
patrons?

>>7069939
>Tribal women are a totally different context.
A broken clock is right twice a day.

>Female and male sexualities are completely different. A women going topless is like me going around with my dong hanging out.
How old are you that you can't see boobs without becoming uncontrollably aroused?

>Naturalists are a minority.
That's not the point. The point is that what matters, just like with the topless tribal women, is how you view the world. If you're used to seeing nudity in only a pornographic capacity, nudity of any kind will be indistinguishable from smut.

>>7069944
I think he means audience, but he either wasn't listening in high school Western history class, or hasn't completed it yet so isn't aware what a patron is.

>>7069939
haha this guy

that's the point he's talking about -- the context. in the context of our society it seems like women expose flesh just for attention when that's not necessarily true or even that simple.

>A women going topless is like me going around with my dong hanging out.

since breasts aren't a reproductive organ, no it wouldn't

>>7069363
>people who define themselves by what they buy.
>buying games
ahaha

>>7069544
>film is also an aural medium
Is this what plebs actually believe?

Why can't both genders remain fully clothed in public? Only white trash and ghetto inhabitants walk around with no shirt on tbh. I don't have any problem with it at the beach, fair's fair. Aren't most beaches in Europe topless? When I was kid on vacation in Europe I saw a lot of tits. I know I'm probably committing a genetic fallacy but it seems as though the only people who care deeply about topless equality or whatever are sjws.

>>7069606
Weird, I thought politics was political and art was artistic.

And no, artists don't have any moral responsibility, it's childish nonsense to think they do.

>>7069971
>Why can't both genders remain fully clothed in public?
I don't think it's about being topless in public; I think it's about subverting the illusion, instilled in us by the media, that women's bodies exist solely for our entertainment/titillation.

>>7069976
>And no, artists don't have any moral responsibility, it's childish nonsense to think they do.

>>7069606
Don't they only have a moral responsibility to themselves though?
Why would you expect anyone to express anything but their own beliefs.
>gee I believe in this thing
>but because opposing opinions exist, I guess I'm responsible to express those instead

>>7069740
The guy said that the line of reasoning is the same, and that's true.

>The artist is allowed to create freely. But we must guide him according to plan.

And thus you got nothing but shit politics and even shittier art.

>>7069442
This is a good post. It's a shame you had to make it when /v/ is in here slinging their shit.

>>7069958
>>7069948
Another anon here. The natgeo example isn't valid. These people live under a different culture and view nudity in another way. In our scenario, the norm is to use clothes. When advertising depicts hot girls wearing short skirts as attention seeking behavior they aren't stigmatizing nudity since nudity is already subversive in a society that has a dressing standard. The quasi-pornographic tone that these scenes assume is our reaction to a structure that precedes and supersedes advertising: our fashion standards and tolerance to nudity. Yes, it varies from context to context, but within our context, the Western judeo-christian context, nudity is still taboo and arousing. This standard isn't universal and we should analyse every situation particularly, but to assume that women that deviate from this dressing code by exposing more than is usual are usually engaging in a attention-seeking behavior seems reasonable.

>>7069613
This.

>>7069606
lol

>>7069910
>If anything, the noise from the reactionary peanut gallery has drawn the most attention to the 'culture war', if not defined it.

are you shitting me? Look at the language that is used today: privilege, normativity, problematic, triggers, victim blaming, ect.

>Sex is a biological function, true, and arousal at erotic imagery is also nature. However, its cynical use as a marketing tool changes the way we think and see things. For example, if a woman is dressed in revealing clothing, a lot of people will assume she is doing it for attention no matter how much she denies it. Why? Because we're so used to seeing this imagery in the context of drawing attention to itself that it becomes difficult to separate one from the other; revealing clothing becomes inseparable from attention seeking.

First of all it is not cynical to sell something when the customer is aware of what they are buying. Also people see revealing clothing as sexual not because it is advertised sexually, but because the norm is to dress in non-revealing clothing. Until revealing clothing becomes far more common it is valid to associate it with attention seeking in most contexts.

>No such thing. That it makes some people so uncomfortable is probably proof that the criticism has merit.

That is some asinine logic that associates anger with guilt.

>In other words, 'people' are pissed that the critiques aren't being rejected or suppressed.

People are pissed because these critiques are below any sane editorial standard. Should people be happy to be trolled by some hack critique by an ideologue?

>(a small, but vocal, contingent of them)
There is a large contingent of people who do not have the time, energy, or inclination to engage in the culture wars but who also dislike the current climate of political correctness.

>>7069994
>When advertising depicts hot girls wearing short skirts as attention seeking behavior they aren't stigmatizing nudity since nudity is already subversive in a society that has a dressing standard.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

>>7069700
Exactly. While the statement that there needs to be more black / brown girls is just lazy, it's telling that gamers lose their shit when their protagonist isn't a white male.

>>7069999
>Until revealing clothing becomes far more common it is valid to associate it with attention seeking in most contexts.
That's never going to happen if no one makes an effort to change it. The media is a feedback mechanism of cultural norms. Nudity is always going to be raunchy if that's what we see depicted on TV, on billboards, at the cinema, at conventions, etc, etc.

Your argument is basically 'that's the way things are'; I'm trying to ask why they might be the way things are, and how they could be different.

>>7070001
Sure, because this four thousand-year old sculpture is a good representative of our zeitgeist.

>>7070008
Actually, it's not. Statues of deities representing fertility and love were often depicted with at least the chest bared (if not more).

Whether it was puritan/Victorian values, or the cynical exploitation of the female form by the media, or both that are responsible for shaping how we see women today, it's not how it always was. You probably weren't aware that women only began shaving in the 20th century, largely because it was heavily marketed.

>>7069393
Followed the links for a bit and found this.

http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/jc54.2012/SolesKunyoGeedom/

Seems interesting.

>>7069442
>problematic

Is this bait?

>>7069696
>such ideas as 'all women are too emotional' or 'all gays are feminine' or 'all blacks are criminals'.

This isn't perpetuated by media though, the media representations of it are perpetuated by reality. Seeing sexy women in advertising doesn't make -people only see women in a sexual light, the amount of women in real life who have nothing else to offer is the thing that determines this. Media reflects reality, not the other way around. If shows have tons of black criminals then thats because in the real world there are tons of black criminals- and this subtly influences the choices of casting. When Feminist say " all men are rapists" this has no basis in reality since rapists are extremely rare within the male population.

>>7069935

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201305/sexual-wiring-womens-breasts

Female breasts are inherently sexual, stimulating female nipples makes the same part of the brain light up as the clitoris, and breasts develop at puberty as a means to attract males for sex. Most tribal societies are highly promiscous so the unbarred breasts follows from this. It is "less sexualized" in the taboo sense because sex is less taboo to them and made into less of a big deal. It doesn't have as much of an excitement factor as it does for societies were sexuality has more restraints placed on sexuality in general.

>>7070005
your are assuming that the media is a significant driver of that association. Associating revealing clothing with attention seeking predates mass media by centuries. There are so many practical and biological for wearing clothing that ranting against media depictions makes little to no sense, that is assuming that we even want said behavior in public. I am not just saying that is the way things are, I am saying there are good reason as to why things are this way.

>>7070014
You really want to compare the influences of millenium old traditions to those of the very recent practice of advertising? Anyway, how many subversive ads have you seen in your lifetime? In my opinion advertising works more as a mirror to society than as an active agent. They sexualize barely dressed women because society as a group already does so.

>>7070022

>Believing the media's pure ideology
>My God

>>7069980
>I think it's about subverting the illusion, instilled in us by the media, that women's bodies exist solely for our entertainment/titillation.

How does one determine that this is actually happening ? Where is the necessary connection between media utilizing female sexuality and people en mass thinking that women's bodies are ONLY for entertainment and titillation ? How do we objectively determine that people really do hold these attitudes unless they utter " women's bodies are only for entertainment and titillation"- what activity, phrases, etc, have a logically necessary connection to holding such an attitude ?

>>7070029

>Believing the legbeard's pure ideology
>My God

>>7069696
>white men
Why'd you say white men?
Do you think black people don't know how to use the internet?

>>7070022
>media representations of it are perpetuated by reality
Come on man, don't be so obtuse. Are the dumb dad (Married With Children, Simpsons, Family Guy, etc) and the socially retarded nerd (too many movies to count) also true? If TV always reflected reality, you and I would probably both be hacker-rapists according to Fox just for having this talk here.

> Seeing sexy women in advertising doesn't make -people only see women in a sexual light, the amount of women in real life who have nothing else to offer is the thing that determines this.
Do you have some proof that the majority of women have nothing to offer?

>Female breasts are inherently sexual, stimulating female nipples makes the same part of the brain light up as the clitoris,

> and breasts develop at puberty as a means to attract males for sex.
I separated that second half for emphasis. By your logic, your asshole was meant to be pegged since men can cum from prostate stimulation.

>Most tribal societies are highly promiscous so the unbarred breasts follows from this. It is "less sexualized" in the taboo sense because sex is less taboo to them and made into less of a big deal. It doesn't have as much of an excitement factor as it does for societies were sexuality has more restraints placed on sexuality in general.
What does promiscuity have to do with it? Even if that were true (source?), they would have to be fucking all the time. If they are 'desensitized' to the sight of breasts to the point of it being banal, obviously it's no longer a sexual cue.

>>7070063

bbbbut the tv can't be wrong...it's where I learned all Arabs are terrorists and all blacks are criminals, and all Italians are in the mafia :(

>>7070030
>Where is the necessary connection between media utilizing female sexuality and people en mass thinking that women's bodies are ONLY for entertainment
Ever heard a gamer bitch about the threat of SJWs making video game titties smaller?

Tell me: what is the function of big tits in a video game? Is it an important character trait? a plot device? a gameplay mechanic?

>>7070074
To turn my dick on of course.
Is there anything wrong with sexuality?
SJWs are free to tell devs to tone down the breasts. But in turn I'm free to tell them to fuck off.

>>7070074

Aesthetic appeal to men. Is that so wrong?

>>7070084
I merely answered the question.

>>Where is the necessary connection between media utilizing female sexuality and people en mass thinking that women's bodies are ONLY for entertainment

>>7069433
dwarf fortress
anything long that you can pause at any moment and that doesn't have a reward system or quick gameplay

>>7070080
>>7070084
You guys just don't get it. By having these big breasted characters you're teaching little boys to like big tits. Can't you see how unfair to skinny girls that is?

>>7070087
That doesn't show that people think womens bodies are ONLY for entertainment.
Do you think people have no ability to separate reality from fantasy?
Remember the reaction to Other M? Gamers were angry BECAUSE it was misogynistic and ruined Samuses character.
You can consume fictional titties and 'strong' women at the same time.

>>7069433
Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup
Terraria

>>7069541
Progress isn't just a steady march to the left getting more and more liberal and adding to the list of "problems".

>>7070094
boring and pointless shit
literally idle games

>>7069433
I am the embodiment of /lit/. Some easy games for a faggot like you:

>Warhammer: Shadow of the Horned Rat
>Dwarf Fortress
>La Mulana
>Hearts of Iron III
>Dominions IV
>Aurora Pentarch

If you can't master these games you're a casual and should probably consider sterilizing yourself.

>>7070097
Both games have a clear purpose and a conclusion you little shit

>>7070105
they're still boring and pointless
not very nice to call me a little shit also

Sb link this thread on /v/

>>7070092

I'm as ugly as a rock, that's not fair!
STOP SHOWING PRETTY PEOPLE ON TV!!!!

Srsly nigga, no one is perfect just deal with it

>>7070112
You are the guy that suggested Dwarf Fortress, right? I literally listed two games "that you can pause at any moment and that doesn't have a reward system or quick gameplay". Have you even played these two? If you like DF you probably will enjoy both of them.

>>7069433
Call of Duty multiplayer, no other game puts the mind at ease after an intense day of thinking

>>7069433
dota is pretty good

>>7070093
>That doesn't show that people think womens bodies are ONLY for entertainment.
Then why do you assume that the movie for wearing form-fitting or revealing clothing is to seek attention, always, even in the face of denial?

>Do you think people have no ability to separate reality from fantasy?
It's not just 'fantasy'; it's cultural memes being repeated at you. Just look at the people in this thread who think TV is a reflection of reality.

>Remember the reaction to Other M? Gamers were angry BECAUSE it was misogynistic and ruined Samuses character.
I am not a fan of metroid so I don't really know.

>You can consume fictional titties and 'strong' women at the same time.
This is a misconception. I'm not saying that you can't, or shouldn't, consume media that contains sexual themes as long as you don't let it shape your perception of reality, which is the whole point of criticizing and talking about things in the first place.

>>7069994
I forgot to respond to this:

>This standard isn't universal and we should analyse every situation particularly, but to assume that women that deviate from this dressing code by exposing more than is usual are usually engaging in a attention-seeking behavior seems reasonable.
Counter-cultural behavior is not attention seeking. Do you think arab women who don't want to wear the veil are also just whoring for attention? Because attention is attention, positive or negative, but getting fucking stoned to death is something entirely different and probably not worth it.

Videogames substitute real experiences, especially in one's formative years. Those experiences are just as important to a lifelong videogamer as a eventful summer vacation. Discrediting those experiences is the same as attacking the axioms of a persons's identity. Escpecially kids who have no experience with early videogames, bare bones mechanincs with abstract imagery, games that connect to you in a solely physical locus, have a hard time to distance themselves and see the artificiality of the videogame experience.

New mediums are rewiring our brains and condition us to accept the unreal.

>>7070092
Your bait is very.. Baiting..

>>7070117
>>7070092
Why does it have to be about jealousy? Why do you always think the main motivation behind any feminist criticism is that 'feminists are just ugly' (ergo, they do not have the capital to attract attention--because there could be no other motive, right?).

No one should have to explain it to you, you disingenuous cunt. How would you like it if some pretentious fop decided to take a shit on your pastime?

Left-wing fuckwits are entitling themselves lately to the powers of creation which, in fact, belong solely to the creators.

Developers and gamers, a self-contained meritocratic universe of challenge and response, an ascending dance to divine levels of technical and playskill savored by insiders...

And here come these bores, these buzzkills, these left-wing dipshits to take their slice of the pie, to parasitize, to complain, to stifle the light.

Ayn Rand was right. This is The Fountainhead in action.

>>7070126
Thanks, I've been perfecting my craft during the last few weeks. How much would you rate it?

>>7070130
Decent pasta. Straight from /v/irgin?

>>7070130
>Developers and gamers, a self-contained meritocratic universe
Don't you have a new CoD to be playing, buddy? I heard it MERITS a 99% score, just like every identical instalment before it.

>>7070133
I usually just lurk, but it caused me to become flabbergasted, and almost reply angrily, and still good enough for me to go through the trouble of all this typing
8/10

>>7070063

That those kind of people exist reflects reality ( assuming it is meant to be realistic- Superman obviously won't count here due to the genre). Notice how not every single dad in those shoes are dumb, not every woman is a ditzy sex kitten, etc.People meet a fair amount of people like these tropes in real life and hence those tropes get utilized. And it is particularly entertaining people in reality who get cast into the lead roll- those countless other more normal people are there as side characters. We take what is most entertaining in reality and focus on it in our entertainment. Only idiots actually think that the lead male on 4 or 5 cartoons being a dumb dad means that all dad's are dumb.

>Do you have some proof that the majority of women have nothing to offer?

Who said anything about the majority ? Plenty of women in real life are not viewed solely as sex objects, same with media representation, this has simply been decreasing because women have gone after traditionally male pursuits and aren't offering anything to men that they can't find in other men and themselves in a greater degree other than their female sexuality. Never the less, women who are worth something more are recognized by society for it and are represented in media pretty much at the rate that they exist. I know it's hard to give hard proof for this- but for now I offer up that explanation. My own experience is that women who really have something more to offer have it easily recognized. It is fairly subjective( or at least epistemically murky) which people actually " have it" or not though. But that is all the more reason why seeing a particular women as only good for her sexuality is not any sort of fallacy- if these kind of evaluative properties are subjective anyways how can you fault someone for not seeing it there in someone?

My prostate is indeed something inherently sexual. I never claimed that because breasts are inherently sexual that someone should always be using them for sex. But it is irrational to consider them as something only sexual according to society- there is a biological basis there.

The promiscuity factors explains why it is ok for tribal people to have their sex organs exposed more- it's fine to them that people are engaging in sexual acts more frequently and in a more unrestrained manner. We heighten our sexual impulses by restraining and suppressing them so that we go nuts when we finally get to have sex. Type "tribal peoples and promiscuity" into Google and you should get allot of articles talking about how " promiscuity is the human norm" and all that- based on anthropological studies of tribal peoples. I'm working off of my own disparate research from classes in school and stuff I have stumbled upon throughout the years. I don't think they are as desensitized as much as they are less polarized than we are.

>>7070074

This shows no necessary connection between the gamers wanting big breasts and them only thinking women are worthwhile for their breasts though. You can compartmentalize, only caring about some women for sex and others for other things, or caring about certain women for only sex at one point and for more than that at another point.etc Enjoying big tits in a video game has no necessary connection with only seeing women for their tits. Seeing certain women only for their tits has no necessary connection with thinking that all women are only good for their tits, etc.

Feminists bitch about how men "deny their subjectivity" by "objectifying" them. But they interpret men's actions not by any sound logic, but by their own subjective pathologies, and deny us our own subjectivity without even taking what we say about these issues seriously.

>>7070123
>Then why do you assume that the movie for wearing form-fitting or revealing clothing is to seek attention, always, even in the face of denial?

There is no necessary connection between those two ideas though.

>Women do certain things to their body for attention

does not by any means entail

> I think that women's bodies are only valuable for entertainment

>>7069980
>women's bodies exist solely for our entertainment/titillation

men are not entitled to women and women have no obligation to pleasure men
but women are inherently passive creatures, they are the ones who are getting penetrated and the one's who bear the consequences of being penetrated
from a male, the female body exists solely to pleasure men - that is a female body without a personality attached and an obligation to be responsible for the seed he plants ( see: fictional women)

>>7069455
>Anything I don't like is "post-modernist"
There were plenty of people who were against racism and sexism before post-modernism even existed.

>>7070124
underrated post

>>7070150
Really? I thought it was so stupid I didn't even bother calling them a retard.

>>7069910
>a woman wearing revealing clothing is not seeking attention.
I would absolutely love to hear your reasoning behing this ideal.

>>7069433
Spec Ops: The Line, This War of Mine, Papers Please, Gone Home.

>>7069295
Thanks for drawing a line around the comment, I wouldnt have noticed it otherwise

>>7070154
Then read the thread

>>7070153
You could at least say why you think he's a retard.

>>7069599
>Also advertising does not work for shit if the person is not already primed to buy the product.
Advertisements and other media is what primes you to buy the product...

>>7070168
Nah man, research and reviews do
I've never watched an advertisement and decided to buy what was advertised

>>7069342

I want so badly for her to sit on my face and grind without any consideration for how she might be hurting me.

>>7069295
>this whole fucking thread

>>7070168
People need to have some sort of need or want in the first place. Advertising is more about differentiation and distinguishing yourself from the competition.

>>7070063
You know how I can tell you are a woman?
Because you take a statement and pull something out of it that's so far away from the original intent that its almost laughable.

>Go on /v/
>Make thread about the inherent Eurocentism of GSG's in the assumption that societies develop linear and the implication that European technical, social and political development is the only correct path and even in these games, ideologies like Socialism are often lower in tech trees than free market Capitalism even though ideologically Socialism is a post-Capital system. Could a GSG game be made that actually be more in line with the views of modern anthropological and sociological theories in societal development?

and in reply

>Duuuur SJW detected
> >>>/tumblr/
>I'm triggered by this cultural marxism
>Muh racism, take the redpill OP

That is when I learned that most people on /v/ are 14 year olds or edgelords.

>>7070172
She'd hurt you pretty badly these days. She just keeps getting fatter and fatter. McIntosh needs to get her under control.

>>7070154
well maybe she's wearing them because it's hot out

>>7070168
people have natural inclinations to products. Advertising main goal is to indicate that a product is up for offer. While advertisers do exacerbate status seeking behavior there are far more fundamental causes for status seeking.

>>7070123
I think the main argument here is that women seem to think games are perpetuating sexism and all other kinds of bullshit in the real world while sane rational people say this idea is full of shit if you want to tout for social justice go do it in someone else's Fucking medium where it might actually Fucking matter . Stop telling people they aren't allowed to create games the way they want.

>>7070180
unfortunately they are actually 24 year old edge lords.

although i would argue that many eurocentric values are "the only correct path" insofar that every society must have some version of them.

A great example of this is how much Chinese historians wrote about British schools and modern schooling. They acknowledged it as a new form of schooling that was faster and effective at producing individuals at some job.
and even they noted that they must change and adopt some similarly effective system.

it does not have to be the "same system" i think societies create their own versions of "necessary steps" in order to compete. systematized education, production, etc.

>>7070147
This is why women are slowly turning into screeching puritans.

Metaphysically, they exist solely to lure men with their bodies and then drain those same men of their resources, manipulating and punishing with their sexuality.

As male sexual liberation continues and males find ways to be happy and fulfilled without women, focusing their resources on themselves, women will become increasingly alienated, furious, and demanding, because they are incapable of technical competence and their "business" is being encroached upon by cyberwaifu.

I expect lots more landwhales to be agitating for censhorship in the coming decades, as the female parasite will not tolerate a self-sufficient male liberating himself with his own technology, because it means her doom.

> And it is particularly entertaining people in reality who get cast into the lead roll- those countless other more normal people are there as side characters.
That's a very obtuse way of thinking about it. The media can't be said to reflect reality if it selectively portrays the same tropes over and over.

>>7070139
>Plenty of women in real life are not viewed solely as sex objects, same with media representation, this has simply been decreasing because women have gone after traditionally male pursuits and aren't offering anything to men that they can't find in other men and themselves in a greater degree other than their female sexuality.
So you believe in the essentialist view that men and women excel at different things; equal, but different. By your own admission, if a woman ventures outside of whatever domain her gender is confined to (based on what criteria?), her value as a unique human being is reduced to her genitals. Hmm.

>My own experience is that women who really have something more to offer have it easily recognized.
And my subjective experience, is that whenever a woman's accomplishment becomes known, it's placed under close scrutiny by a rather numerous crowd of people who believe her credit may be due to either a 'white knight' male who did all the work behind the scenes, or some sort of sexual favors in exchange for undue recognition.

>But that is all the more reason why seeing a particular women as only good for her sexuality is not any sort of fallacy- if these kind of evaluative properties are subjective anyways how can you fault someone for not seeing it there in someone?
I don't really see how it follows, to be honest. By that logic, any man who isn't irreplaceable also has nothing to offer that can't be found in other men. Does that mean their only distinguishable quality is that they aren't female?

>The promiscuity factors explains why it is ok for tribal people to have their sex organs exposed more- it's fine to them that people are engaging in sexual acts more frequently and in a more unrestrained manner.
I still don't see the connection between promiscuity and nudity. The absence of arousal in the presence of nudity means that nudity isn't a sexual cue. Let's take the nudists as an example, if you think tribal people are not appropriate. How do they do it? Are they very promiscuous too?

>>7069434
>>7069445

>>7069339
No. He made fun of people who watch video game streams.

No, I'm not kidding. This really is why they're all butthurt.

>>7070196
>while sane rational people say
>Stop telling people they aren't allowed to create games the way they want.
Apparently sane rational people make the logical leap from criticism to censorship.

>>7070189

Oh no...

>>7069366
I can't even muster the courage to watch it again. The fuck's wrong with this world.

>>7069430
>crossposters
And I'm a crossposter from /a/. What are you gonna do about it? Call the internet police?

>>7070204
>So you believe in the essentialist view that men and women excel at different things; equal, but different. By your own admission, if a woman ventures outside of whatever domain her gender is confined to (based on what criteria?), her value as a unique human being is reduced to her genitals. Hmm.
I am pretty sure that he is saying that there is genetic component that has an effect on competency in doing certain tasks. In most domains people are not reduced to single criteria, but efficient use of resources demands that optimal choice be made. Often that results in division along lines of gender.

>>7070201
>As male sexual liberation continues and males find ways to be happy and fulfilled without women
If that were true, the internet wouldn't be littered with endless whining about evil wymyn and religious PUA propaganda. Nothing but hand-wringing about the dawning waifu age, sex robots, artificial wombs, and general sour grapes towards women. Kind of like the jabs at landwhales and resource draining succubi flanking the excerpt I quoted from your post.

>>7070180
>Go on /v/
>attempt to make a half-serious post
What the fuck did you expect?

>>7070201
>muh precious bodily fluids

>>7070211
I mean
I enjoy the occasional stream, mostly of games i can never be fucked to buy, and mostly just as background noise
And only by 3 different people
But it is so worthy of derision.

>>7070171
>research and reviews do
How much of that research and reviews are funded or influenced by Advertisers? Maybe not all of it but certainly a lot.
>I've never watched an advertisement and decided to buy what was advertised
Advertisers wouldn't exist if they didn't get people to buy different products.

>>7070176
>People need to have some sort of need or want in the first place
You only need food, water, shelter, clothing, and health care. Everything else is wants. Advertisers and other forms of media can manipulate social norms to create or push wants in a population.

>>7070193
While advertisers do exacerbate status seeking behavior there are far more fundamental causes for status seeking.
I do not disagree. Of course, social norms shape the way status is acquired in a society. and advertisers and other forms of media manipulate social norms to make owning certain products or consuming certain goods necessary for social status to be acquired.

>>7070225
> efficient use of resources demands that optimal choice be made.
Funny how that applies to forcing women to limited gender roles, but not to abolishing capitalism so that we don't waste any of those precious and scarce resources and energy to manufacture stupid shit like this.

Now we know where your priorities lie.

>>7069544
>>7069544
I love how buttmad the poster in the image is.

>>7069740
Soooo
wait until I am being oppressed to actually try to prevent oppression


comrade?
>is fine until KGB at your door
>then you can say problem

>>7070221
Most of them are nervous geeky kids or have mental illnesses. I feel sorry for them but it's not that big of a deal.

>>7070251
Anon, people are going to make fart toys whether they get paid for it or not.

>>7069544
"If you criticize mainstream films for being bad art".
No, I criticize them for NOT being art.

>>7069740
Nah, best to nip this in the bud. Fuck the SJW, let freedom ring, I hope they all get triggered into seizures and die.

>>7070241
I go on amazon and read what individuals have written
I read about how a product works
I don't think advertisers effect that
And well they must not exist because they don't get me to buy one thing over another
>>7070251
Don't be ignorant, he didn't say anything about what's produced, he's talking about efficiency of what's produced.

>>7070258
The point is: they formed a collective around minecraft where those qualities are seen as something you should feel proud of. It's the same with mlp and shit like that.

>>7070272
Today's autism is tomorrow's mainstream because normalshits have no culture except emulating the freaks after the freaks take the beating and become "cool."

>>7070251
I thought you said you were not a Marxist. Is joy not a valid reason for making a product? Lets be real though, trinkets and shit do not eat up a significant chunk of resources. Farming, electricity generation, transport, and infrastructure use the vast majority of resources. You also fail to consider diffuse innovation, the creation of trite things has spin off.

>>7070265
what would make them ART as opposed to just movies?

>>7070275
I want to believe you're wrong.

>>7070270
The fart joke is based on the same principle, friend. Like people who make fart toys, women have the freedom to pursue anything they want.

Furthermore, the essentialist argument is unsubstantiable. I won't get into genetics, but as far as I'm aware, most of our genes are on the X chromosome. There's absolutely no reason why women are magically stupider or less 'le STEM' than men.

If you want absolute efficiency, then you should also support men being forced to work in whatever they are assessed (by some criteria) to be the absolute best at. Something tells me you won't be so happy with that level of 'efficiency' though.

>>7070279
Lesbian interracial teenagers and a mentally disturbed man castrating himself because it his destiny.

>>7070279
Basically, not be made for the sole purpose of being sold to the highes number of people possible AND have some kind of message to convey being it aesthetical expression or idea (I mean, original, not regurgitated to make it less obvious it's just a product for consume).

>>7070180
>buncha dudes banging rocks together
>haha banging rocks together is fun
>some fop comes in and tells them that their rock banging is Eurocentric or whatever
>rock bangers tell them to fuck off because they don't care

Also, what's incorrect about having a socialist tech tree be lower? In traditional Marxist orthodoxy socialism would come after capitalism at a point where it is technologically feasible. However nations don't always follow this doctrine. China and Russia were both relatively technologically backwards when they adopted socialism. Remember when Lenins April thesis when he said fuck it let's just skip straight to communism?

If anything the complaint should be that the game doesn't distinguish between orthodox Marxism, Marxism Leninism, Maoist Marxism, etcetera.

Please correct me if I've made any factual errors in regards to Marxism.

>>7070284
You sound like you're from /pol/.

Most of the time movies that focalize too much on this kind of themes are made by hacks who just want to get famous amongst the artsy people. Yet they're closer to actual art than the next adaptation of Spiderman or Jurassic Park VIII.

>>7070277
>I thought you said you were not a Marxist.
I'm not. I just find it hypocritical how people always become altruists and appeal to 'the common good' if that common good happens to involve subjugating women to some arbitrary standard set by men.

>>7070290
The common good is just a pointless abstraction used only by charlatans and demagogues.

>>7070283
The fart exist because people want it
The only jobs I think of that women are inferior for is construction, mining, factory work, shit like that. Hopefully you won't try to argue the reasoning behind that.
If you really can't be a mathematician or engineer because your vagina, then sucks to be you, hope you can change that one day.
But I don't really believe that's the case, and I don't think anyone here has said that women are less intelligent than men or don't deserve equal opportunity where it's deserved

>>7070286
I can only see that first point being a knock against mainstream movies, the other point seems like it is saying that avant garde art is the only true art.

>>7070302
>I can only see that first point being a knock against mainstream movies
I'm trying to tell you what I don't consider to be art, which is a good start, since it's not that easy to say "art is x" without starting a semiotics war. About the second point, I just don't think you udnerstand what avan-grade means. Since according to you almost everything done in cinema that wasn't a product for the market is automatically avant-grade.

>>7070315
well you are saying that the message must be original or else it is just a product and not an expression

>>7070323
That's not how avant-grade cinema works.

>>7070329
yes, yes, they push new aesthetics. Though I have a feeling that a mainstream movie with standard aesthetics but with an original message would still be regarded as a product. Most art house cinema is not original with its messages. Most of it repackage critical theory or counter culture beliefs put into work by using transgresive aesthetics.

>>7069442
If you're a proud reader of great books, then the things you state about gamers are sadly also true about you: you define yourself by what you consume (books, in your case) and feel superior to the gamers, weebs etc.

>>7070180
but ironic considering you have the ideology of a 14 year old

>>7070418
/lit/ in a nutshell
>n-no I'm more patrician than you!

>>7070180
Its always amazed me that well being, happiness and ideology isn't something Grand Strategy hasn't explored and the only win states are military and economic dominance.

What if I want to make a small, self-reliant utopian state? People might not be rich, but they are happy and their needs are taken care of, why isn't that a legitimate win state?

I would love to see a GSG with the strategy of say Victoria Geo-politically, but the political and social systems of the Democracy video games.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-Z7TR4-wFU

>>7070450
>why isn't that a legitimate win state?
Well, what do you think will be more remembered in history, Rome or Luxembourg?

>>7070467
Throw in ideological expansion, if your development is high and your people very happy, your "ideology" starts to spread as political factions to other countries.

>>7070450
Because that's harder to quantify
Also because conquering and micromanaging my economy have more tangible and competitive benefits. Always remember that games are practically competitions against a computer.

>>7069462
That's exactly what problematic means

>>7069487
i find it problematic, yes

>>7070418
yep

>>7070518
>>7070520
>>7070562
Are you new or a troll or stupid

>>7069363
Not just gamers, people who obsess over any form of media consumption be it Dr. Who the Harry Potter movies, capeshit superheroes, anime.

Even literature.

This is what DFW warned us about.

>>7069442
These views are a part of the art

>>7070092
Less competition. Now I can get all that insecure DFC pussy.

what did simon pegg say? something about how nerd culture is the planned control of adults within late capitalism?

Sounds a bit conspiratorial, but i can see how nerd culture is def. working as part of the ideological state apparatus and is functionary and reproduces capitalism within a segment of the population which COULD have been progressive, but is now a total consumerist waste land. Ever wonder why Engineering students are so conservative and Mens Rights fags cross paths with nerd culture heavily

no he isn't the dark night, he is batman and you shouldnt watch movies where characters wear costumes if you are not 15. -.-

does anyone else feel like throwing up every time they hear the word 'cosplay' or hear a cultural studies professors describe larping with reverences and awe and explain how it subjugates identity and the capitalist order and is bricolage and 'radical play' UGH

>>7070694
MRA's are a bogeyman that barely even exists

>>7069295
Neotribalism.

See religious people, activists groups, football hooligans etc.

>>7070694
Nerd culture is just culture. Any good study could probably tell you the vast majority of people fit one nerd mold or another, when talking about "nerds" you're just making some kind of political positioning.

>>7070760
nerd culture is far more consumerist than other culture. it is underpinned with buying collections of things. the entirety of nerd culture is pay to play. this isn't some book club or bird watching free to enjoy stuff. it is like an end game culture of capitalism.

>>7070775
Most "modern" culture is extremely consumerist.

Besides, video games, music, ect. can be owned sans purchase.

>>7069372
This is perfectly true and not a counterargument. People whose only identity is their labor position in capitalism have their worlds turned upside down if they can no longer perform their "job".

We can of course acknowledge that there is sometimes a blurred line between work and pleasure for people who are pursuing research or are in the arts, etc, and that its not always clear whether one is actually defining themself by their job.

>>7070775
Do you not see how you're proving my point by defining it along a political (consumerism) line?

>>7070796
>video games can be owned sans purchase

Not without a computer or game system, which is actually the most expensive part gaming.

>>7070749
There's nothing "neo" about it

nerds don't exist OP. stop thinking of people in groups

>>7070817
>There are no sets of people with common properties

>>7069433
>nobody mentions Kentucky Route Zero
Kentucky Route Zero. It's pretty much a book with visuals.

>>7069299
He made fun of people watching video game streams. He's old, give him a break.

>>7070815
Yes there is, in the sense that they aren't actual traditional tribes but made up out of people who participate in our contemporary form of society.

>>7070824
there aren't. You always end up giving them some imaginary quality if you do.

>>7070817
People don't exist anon, stop thinking of mammals in groups.

>>7070813
>Not owning a computer
>2015

Nice nonissue.

>>7070854
Qualities are always imaginary. I've already read the meme book.

>>7070860
>Literally no exposure to poor people

>>7069295
Jewy Kimmel is an obnoxious spineless wanker. I don't care about the video game thing. I always thought he's an asshole.

>>7069342
her face looks so much like the typical xhamster milf face. easy to picture her deep throating some roided monster with tears and mascara running down her cheeks and WHOER written on her forehead.

>>7070867
While the homeless might not, that doesn't change that computer ownership is nearly ubiquitous amoung those able to participate in society.

>>7070867
i know a guy who lives with his single mum and 3 chav brothers in social housing. they're well below the poverty line and they basically often don't know what to eat at the end of the month. they still have a computer that they play COD on all day long while they get high.

>>7070257
lol what the fuck does this mean. are you suggesting a preemptive strike against SJWs before they get violent. jesus you people are dumb babies

>>7070811

So how to avoid allowing your identity to get too caught up with video games, books, work, etc.? Is it at all possible? What matters, then? Just curious about how philosophers have considered dealing with this dilemma.

>inb4 start with the greeks

>>7069606

To me, it seems obvious that the moral responsibility lies solely with the consumer/receiver of the art/work.

Evading personal responsibility by displacing it to the artist seems a lot more childish to me.

>>7069606
I don't totally disagree with this, but most people making self-consciously moral art make absolute shit art.

>>7070877
Tip

>>7069442

>define themselves by consumption.

doesn't everyone

>>7070272
>>7069375
Your reaction is pretty strange though. Its not like its some horrible, creul worldly thing that deserves a cry out to god to "why, why!". It's just some kids, hyped up because theyre going to a convention of something they really geek out over. I really dont think its that bad, because theyre either kids or mentally challenged kids, so its quite pardonable for SOME of them to act autistic, given that some definitely are clinically autistic. I think its much sadder when you watch grown men who arent as bad as the children obviously but still do this kind of shit. Weve had knowledge of these kinds of men for a long time, so its not a big deal. If your going to say such a powerful statement as "whats wrong with the world" why not use it on actual horrible things like dingy insane asylums in croatia littered with children or at least Fck H8 feminist like bullshit.

I dont mean to make some whiney post about all this shit, i just find it strange people find this so horrible.

>>7070989
>are you suggesting a preemptive strike against SJWs before they get violent.

I don't see any benefit to keeping them around.

>>7071279
the real fascists are the people I suggest murdering. wonderful

>>7071408
I'm not saying murder them.
Think of it as summer camp.
Only its not voluntary.
Their internment is for their own safety as well as the good of decent society.

>>7069295
"You're playing a dangerous game" is a pretty funny line coming from a video game addict, presumably.

>>7070846
>literally watching others play video games
it's time to begin termination

>>7071462
>literally watching others play sports

>>7071464
>literally anyone can play video games without falling over themselves or even leaving the house

>>7069442
P R O B L E MA T IC

>>7069295
I think "esports" are fine. I think you'd be stupid to disagree, just some pseudo-old man unable to accept changing times. I don't watch them. I've watched some parts of the League of Legends ones. I don't get it, but I hardly get football as well, so fair enough.

That being said, why would you get mad at Kimmel? Sure you can tell him that he might not be thinking it through, but he doesn't care. Hes some B tier late night host who in his past 10+ years has made one funny skit that doesn't even involve himself at all.

People are probably getting assblasted because he just doesn't know how to deliver a joke.

>>7069295
>That game you like is sexist/racist/making you a killing machine for x number of bullshit, poorly supported reasons
>People say that it's bullshit
>OH MY GOD, GROW UP
>HARASSMENT
>YOU'RE JUST AFRAID OF ARTISTIC CRITIQUE

Every. Fucking. Time.

>>7069700
>To be fair, the GG crowd will freak out if there's a girl/brown person character.

Do you have proof of that? I haven't seen anything of that sort, but I could have just missed it.

I've seen plenty of GG hashtaggers talk up stuff like Shantae instead.

>>7071700
It is harassment if people like Sarkeesian were targeted by a flood of threatening and abusive messages, and had libelous rumors spread.

There's literally nothing wrong with building your identity around your hobbies.

>inb4 ayy late capitalism blah blah

>>7071773
>A flood

But was it? I've seen lots of reasonable criticism dismissed offhandedly as hateful or abusive, and even mean-spirited comments ("ur a bitch" or something like that) don't necessarily rise to the level of harassment or threats. Male content producers all across the internet receive just as much hate and yet I've seen almost no one argue that mean messages constitute actual harassment.

I'm sure there was actual harassment, I can believe that, but any amount of disagreement is considered abusive and there's little hesitation to slander an entire community based on the behavior of a small handful of online tweeters. She's never made any honest attempt to engage with criticism of her videos.

Were there libelous rumors spread?

>>7069295
The butthurt is because deep down they're afraid the critiques are correct and they cannot refute them.

>>7071452
>concentration camps
I love how you guys claim to fight for freedom.

>there are "adults" who browse this board who play games meant for children
>there are "adults" who browse this board who watch korean children cartoons
>you can't filter them
>they comment as though they are real people with valid opinions

>>7071825
What are you, an Apple-fag or something?

>>7070828
it was weird how Gone Home got so much hype.
if that was a short story it would have completely failed and never been published.

also Her Story is a very weak mystery novel.


you literati fags with english degrees should get on this huge hole of literally every dialogue and written scene in video games sucking

>>7071825
>There's literally nothing wrong with building your identity around your hobbies.
I don't think there is anything morally wrong with it, but why would you build your entire identity around a form of entertainment? Especially one that is so dependent on marketers trying to squeeze money out of the lowest common denominator.

>>7071966
somebody ive known for most of my life recently tried to talk about my little pony, steven universe, megas, little witch academy, and some other ridiculous shit. im unsure what the titles even are because who cares. anyway i cut contact with them and i feel good.

disgust and aversion are good

>>7071966
Whatever escapism works is fair game, only naive people have the luxury to be picky.

>>7072050
1. some kinds of escapism are better than other kinds of escapism

2. Good literature and good philosophy are self realizing and do not constitute as escapism.

>>7072017
did you at least tell them why their tastes are shit

>>7072060
>Good literature and good philosophy are self realizing and do not constitute as escapism
What does self realizing mean? Is it just introspection?

>>7071931
>concentration camps

you make it sound so foreboding.
how about forced deportation to Sweden? Would that be more pleasant for all parties involved?

>>7072060
>1. some kinds of escapism are better than other kinds of escapism
How?

>2. Good literature and good philosophy are self realizing and do not constitute as escapism.
I agree, most of the really good stuff I've read has made me more miserable.

>>7072070
no. ive tried to talk about books and lend relatively easy books by hemingway or steinbeck or mccullers many times over the years. he inevitably returns the books unopened and cant answer even basic questions about the plot.

i wanted to save time and my soul so i decided to just not communicate at all anymore.

im more embarrassed and bemused by my willingness to put up with his shit for so long. this is a person who used to call when we were in secondary school to read sunday comics to me over the phone. i immediately put a stop to that; i should have done the same to the "friendship".

>>7072122
rude tbh

>>7069739
This is intellectually dishonest. To define censorship strictly in terms of direct government imposition is to ignore both the ideological foundation behind the principles of free speech, and, more importantly, to willfully elide the power of social pressures and non-governmental organizations.

If I'm an artist who creates controversial work (the definition of which changes more quickly and less predictably than ever in the age of social media), my publisher/studio/gallery/whatever may come under fire for supporting my work. Because they want to make money, they'll withdraw support of my work. Word will get around that I'm a toxic person who produces toxic works, which will cut off most mainstream avenues of publication, which will directly affect my livelihood. I'd even have trouble getting a day job in some cases, because many companies check prospective employee's online footprint. In order to prevent this, I hedge my work, limit what I explore and how I explore it, and, possibly even unconsciously out of fear, censor MYSELF to minimize the offense I give to the "activists" of the world. No force need be exerted, no direct governmental coercion took place, and yet I am effectively not free to make my work as I please for fear of potential material consequences. How is this at all different from the blacklists if the basic effect (make bad work, lose your livelihood) is the same?

tl;dr: anyone who makes the argument that it's not censorship is either lying or retarded.

>>7071966
>thinking that any use of your time is more or less worthy than any other use

>>7072084
>Sweden instead of the US
http://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/US/SE
Not to bad tbh

But the above stats basically assumes I was born Swedish and incorporated into their society from birth and since that didn't happen it would be better if I just helped fix American society.

>>7070204

> By your own admission, if a woman ventures outside of whatever domain her gender is confined to (based on what criteria?), her value as a unique human being is reduced to her genitals.

Not what I said. The majority of women fit into the general skill/property set of their sex more than they do a traditionally male skill/property set. Individuals are individuals- some women are and will far better at male pursuits than I am, the majority are not though. The woman who ventures outside of the domain of what women are generally good at and is bad at it in comparison to the males who make up the norm ( because she fits better into a female role by nature) will decrease her value to her female sexuality( which cannot be reduced down to genitals, sexuality is always psychological as well, we are'nt dogs) because everything else she does will just be a poor imitation of what men do. Women who try to "fuck like men" as well generally lose even those psychological aspects of sexuality and start to project themselves as just a body for penetrating because of it. Men- at least those of us who are optimists- are going to focus in on what she excels at and inheres in her in a way that isn't just a shitty version of what men have and hence her sexuality becomes what we focus on. Those women who stick to traditionally female roles and developing traditionally female qualities will be recognized and cherished for it by men. As do the women who actually can be equal footing or excel past men in traditionally male pursuits. The problem with feminism is that it has taught all women to think that the exception is the norm, as it was first propagated by rich intellectual women who were bored with life and alienated- and projected their own unique situation onto "woman" as a whole.

>By that logic, any man who isn't irreplaceable also has nothing to offer that can't be found in other men. Does that mean their only distinguishable quality is that they aren't female?

Well this all comes in degrees of value, it is a hard subject to talk about because language concretizes things that are a bit more fluid. We should probably just banish " nothing" and "all" from our vocabulary here. Men who aren't good at male pursuits are looked down on by people in society and are seen as totally disposable, they don't even get their inherent sexuality to fall back on when they suck like women do.

>The absence of arousal in the presence of nudity means that nudity isn't a sexual cue.

The arousal is'nt absent, rather walking around aroused just isn't a taboo state for them like it is for us. Nudist culture came with the sexual revolution of the 60s, it was always sexual, it was just sexuality made casual. It's the same thing with women going topless at the beach, the practice was started by French models who needed to one up other models and started to show their breasts in beach shots, it was never non sexual, sexuality has just become more casual and less ecstatic.

>>7072272

And to clarify on this post. Just about no woman is actually fully reduced to her sexuality. There are near no men out there who 100% see woman for their sexuality and nothing else- everything I've talk about here comes in degrees. So if I talk about a woman who is trying to pursue male qualities and pursuits and is completely worse at all of them than the male norm- this is an iealization. In reality any given woman who fits into this will probably still pursue some traditionally feminine things that men will find some value in, be better or average at some traditionally masculine things and etc, but the more she fits into the conditions of ideal type we are talking about the closer to the ideal consequence she will suffer. As I mentioned the language we have to use to make things intelligible leads us a bit astray here.

>>7072154
That's just the Free Market though.

I always found it funny when people who push for "less government interference and more freedom" complain about SJWs when things don't go their way even though their policies are responsible.

>>7070290
>subjugating women to some arbitrary standard set by men.
Why do people see it like this? I'd like an explanation. When I investigate history it seems to me like things simply came to an arrangement, not two arguing sides where one declared victory by force. Whenever there is a mass of people things will tend to 'balance' out as if it's a sort of ecosystem.

>>7072354
>Whenever there is a mass of people things will tend to 'balance' out as if it's a sort of ecosystem.
Then why have social norms and social arrangements been continuously changing for thousands of years? If they just "balanced out" you would think there would be more stability.

>>7069295
as text of what?

>>7069363
>It's ok when anime does it, though

>>7072370
It *is* stable because stability is not found in any singular end result (the change you cite). I am getting onto a meta level but stability is found in the nature of that which determines norms and social arrangements. The norms are more or less inevitable results (like an equation). They will be different of course based on circumstance. They are not consciously chosen by men (or women) as some assert, but out of necessity. When the Black Death struck Europe the social and economic game changed and the peasant was uplifted since he had more bargaining power. But the thing itself, humanity, was not changed.

>>7072154
Thats very slippery slope, in your view then criticism shouldn't be allowed to exist beyond bare base mechanics or writing skill.

>>7071851
>Were there libelous rumors spread?

"professional victim" (literally raised less than minimum wage for TvW), she didn't file police reports, basically the entire Saarkesian report, basically everything Milo, Sargon, MundaneMatt, Thunderfoot,AmazingAthiest has said about her.

And the sad thing, the vast majority abusing her didn't even watch the videos or even have a basic understanding of the concepts. Idiots like Sargon and co have been caught quotemining then editing parts together to make her say shit she didn't even say, meaning Sargon, Thunderf00t etc are being disingenuous and they know it.

I'm not even a fan of Feminist Frequency, first I cand stand Anita, she comes off as a smug, pretentious hipster cunt that writes shitty articles for VICE, second lots of her arguments are not well thought out and often engage in composition and slippery slope fallacies, Also she gives her interpretation as a fact, which annoys me.

Feminist Frequency isn't a good show imo but honestly what Anita identifies as problems 60-70% of the time are real problems and even if her arguments are shit, that doesn't justify the huge amount of harassment she and other cultural critics receive.

Also even if I don't like Anita, shes a million times better and more educated than fucking Sargon, Thunderfagg0t, MundaneMatt, Razorfist, Amazing Atheist etc etc

>>7072738
Please point out the problems that Anita has identified.

>>7070180
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBlEscMLjy0

Reminder that Campster literally had to close youtube comments on all future videos, got doxxed, got death threats, was spammed on twitter, had his reddit page brigaded and lost like half his subscriber base for this analysis of Eurocentrism in the Civ games.

Gamers get Triggered by any and all intellectual criticism.

>>7072370

If there is anything that was stable until the enlightenment and after it was woman being in a more subordinate role to men in civilization. We we moved away from tribal apeman type arrangements gender egalitarianism went out the window. That's because society realized that we could maximize our efficiency and flourishing with gender roles that worked best for most of the people involved. Perhaps these days technology has allowed a more egalitarian arrangement to be efficient- I think reliable birth control has more to do with it than anything.

>>7070760
Nerd culture is insanely consumerist.
I'm part of a "pop culture" group club for my city and all it is, is people discussing buying things and giving each other info on where merch is for sale. No care for the aesthetics or anything, if there is merch, it must be purchased, also hierarchy in the group is basically based on how big your collection is.

When you are part of a book club, you rent books, you get together every fortnight and you discuss the themes, the politics, the prose, the author etc etc, literally none of that happens with pop culture, if there is discussion, its on lore or stupid shit like who would win in a fight.

Notice the most popular pop culture youtubers have massive collections behind them? This is to give them "cred" because this is what self-worth is based on in pop-culture.

>>7069433
Papers please. Nothing else

>>7072676
Not at all. Critical theory is a perfectly valid approach to lit crit (although I wish it weren't quite so dominant in the academy these days, I'm a formalist at heart). My issue is with the combination of amateur social media critics and the moral righteousness attributed to censuring "problematic" work. Even in academic publications, it's never "let's examine the ways in which AUTHOR handles women/queer folk/race etc. and consider how it affects, and is affected by the surrounding social environment" it's "AUTHOR is racist and must be stopped" or "AUTHOR hates women in 2015 ffs!" or "PUBLISHER allows AUTHOR to spew ----ist bile!" It's gotten to the point where even depiction is seen as endorsement if it's not critical ENOUGH (God forbid you make a prejudiced character sympathetic), and ANYthing that endorses PROBLEMATIC THING is not just worth examining, it's harmful and wicked and will lead DIRECTLY to ACTUAL harm against GROUP. It's a practice of grotesque oversimplification built on moral outrage and a desire for the critic to matter as something more vital to society than the artist.