George Kamitani (Vanillaware) Vs Kotaku.

In reference to the post it was under, not in reference to white-knights. lol

So, essentially what I said. Except you took it to the polar opposite. I did not say that everything on the internet was a lie, but rather not 100% of it is true.

then i'm confused

are you suggesting it's presumptuous of me to take people WHO CAN DO NOTHING TO HURT ME (BECAUSE THEY ARE ON THE INTERNET) at face value; i.e., to afford them a basic modicum of decency and respect?

you sound like a 15-year-old. should i disregard you on the basis of that?


and you leave yourself ultimate license to decide which to trust and which to not, which leaves you even more disingenuous and dangerous; you choose not to impugn the motives of every argument, only (apparently) the ones you disagree with or would reflect poorly on you if they were correct

Says the guy that won't capitalize.

Let's not go down that road.

i like to think my posts are a line of angry ants

A 15-year-old that can obviously type and flow conversation better than you can follow. Let me spell it out since I mentioned being presumptuous about me several times to you already.


You can be aware of what people are capable of without it controlling your life, you dimwit.


Quite frankly, it's common sense to not fully believe everything you read, especially on the internet. Unless it's both from a credible source and you get both sides of a story, then you can form an opinion about how you feel. For the last time, stop rambling as if you know my mentality just from a couple pages of forum posts while debating over how ridiculous the notion that video games are creating a rape culture society and notion that white-knights don't exist.

if you assume the worst of people, it will define your life

this is unless you control how and when you will assume the worst of people, in which case you're an ***, which will end up defining your life for a completely different set of reasons


if some ***on the internet is straight up wrong you can disprove it with meritorious argument

so far with the white-knighting thing, Camiie has literally admitted it is a strawman

so, strike 1

We all have ulterior motives even if all we're after is the warm fuzzy feeling we get from helping someone out. That's not hateful. It's human. I don't consider that necessarily bad. That being said, I don't need the article writer to go to bat against game developers on my behalf. He can say what he wants to, of course, but he's still objectifying me in his own way whether he realizes it or not.



I was applying it to the article writer and those who write with the same bent. I'm not going to call out posters here by name. It would be rather stupid of me to make this some personal flame war. Besides, if I were truly a coward I wouldn't be in this discussion at all. I'd be afraid my opinion would ruffle some feathers and avoid it completely.


It was never my intention. I'll do my best to make things crystal clear in the future, but I can't guarantee I'll always make everyone understand. I just think it's annoying to have to have a bunch of prefacing statements before getting to the meat of the post.

If you move into a community that is noted for break-ins, you can assume that you face a higher risk of someone breaking into your house or car as compared to a community that isn't noted for break-ins. It does not make you an *** for realizing that fact.

What if the particular article is only a half-truth; one side of a story? You can form a full properly merited response for it without knowing the rest of the story? Mkay.

White-knighting is a term for specific guises for someone with an ulterior motive, way to reiterate what was already said earlier in the thread.

Sometimes I feel like I get super wordy too. I try to be as concise as I can, but usually when I cut something, it was specifically there for a reason and a little context can be lost, and this kinda thing will happen with me on the opposite side. I don't expect everyone to always be 100% clear with what they say, and I was pretty sure you weren't intentionally implying it, but I try not to infer deeper than the words permit. I WAS defensive because, from how I was reading it, I was either a pervert or a white knight, and I align myself with neither.

Thanks for keeping cool. I come off as abrasive and blunt a lot, but I'm usually not intending to be aggressive or up an ante.

okay

what is your evidence for this accusation, now that we've isolated it to people who cannot defend themselves


If you assume individual people that you meet in this neighborhood are likely to break in to your car, yes, you are an ***.

Actually, specifically here, you're probably a racist.


http://www.google.com/

We've never curtailed a conversation because Obama wasn't able to participate. Not that this guy commands anywhere near the same respect as a president, but neither are above criticism.

When you can learn to form a thought without trying to force your idealism into my thoughts, come back and talk to me then. With that, you've become a waste of time.

lol... Way to dodge the question.

the question stands

what has this guy done to deserve allegations of white-knighting

Wtf this thread.
It's 2 am, I should have watched porn instead of reading this.

I agree with Sylow on the quality of these boobs, I like boobs, but these are bad.

oh no someone is trying to appeal to my basic dignity as a human being

I mean, is it somehow news to you that forming judgments of people based not on what they've done, but what other people that have nothing to do with them have done, is a really shitty thing to do? Did I just blow your mind by restating page 1 of human decency?


It was a glib suggestion that you can verify or dispute claims with independent research.

That's how the article came across to me.

because _______________

Blow my mind, by inserting words into my posts? No, it just means you cannot support your arguments, so you have to make a statement from something that isn't even there. Please point out where I said x race is responsible for break-ins in x community.

At this point I think you're just trying to pick a fight scav, but it's fine.

He claimed that the character in question was developed by a 14 year old boy. The implication being that the particular game dev is an immature, horny person with an underdeveloped sense of self-control. That's normally the implication when one is accused of being a 14 year old when one is not.

Clearly we are supposed to be insulted and offended by this dev's horrible injustice, and his creation should not exist in its current form because it is offensive presumably to women.

It's like the guy is trying to be offended when he's not in any real position to be. It's like in the movies where the white guy becomes completely outraged and indignant at something his black friend is suffering while the friend is like no big deal. It's more than a bit disingenuous. It's like instead of guilty white man syndrome we have guilty male syndrome in this case.

It's further compounded by the "wanna-be journalism" that is Kotaku.

regardless, how is that white-knighting

white-knighting implies he is saying all this for sexual reward

why can't he just be saying it because he believes it, regardless of whether or not you agree with him


i did not think he objected to it because it was offensive to women

he objected because it was offensive TO HIM, and to other men that would like to be able to not encounter embarrassing sexist ***in basically every single game that comes out

like, in any given year the game that is least likely to make me go UGGGGGGHHHHHHHH usually has "Madden" in the title

(the larger issue, which the kotaku author tried to beat into your thick skull and i have subtly and i think pretty effectively coaxed out here, is that sexist games are in fact so common that they have created a situation where gamer culture is a SAFE SPACE FOR SEXIST THOUGHT AND BEHAVIOR, which has been borne out by at least 5 different posters responding to me directly)

the racism swipe was not the substance of my response

the substance was your prejudicial assumptions that person x is more likely to break into your house because they live in neighborhood x, or you encounter them in neighborhood x, etc.

still, I can't get past how that's....basically the substance of racism and I would dearly like to see an argument about how it isn't based on more than 7th-grade sophistry

if you aren't talking about how you interact with individual people, why bring up the example of a bad neighborhood in this context

kotaku sucks but i'll give them some ad clicks if they keep encouraging dipshits like you to be gross in public

I'm sorry but I have to post a reply to this...

That kind of make me feel sorry about the - button being removed a while ago. Oh well. :\

Y no troll, k ?

If you can't talk without calling other people names, don't say anything at all. Go sit in the corner.

When you can remember what you posted and you can follow what I post without interjecting something I didn't say into it, then you can talk to me. This isn't even an argument anymore, it's just repeating the same thing over and over again.

You think games are sexist, they're turning society into a rape culture, and disagree with anyone who disagrees with you. The fact is, you're wrong. There are sexual elements in a lot of Japanese games and anime, but as long as you have women out there willing to be pornstars or women wanting to dress-up as these characters at conventions, I don't see how it is sexist and think you need to move on to something worthwhile like how the Republicans don't want to give women equal pay. Now that's is sexist.

Appropriate:

So when players white knighted Tanaka they wanted.... ewwwww... Actually it doesn't necessarily imply a need for sexual gratification. It's just a need to be someone's hero. To defend the weak and the helpless... and perhaps to make up for a bit of a guilty conscience. You're white knighting this author right now, but I don't think you want any sexual favors from him.


Maybe he is. My speculation is as good as yours.




That's pretty easy to do since most games do avoid embarrassing sexist ***. If Sorceress were the norm there wouldn't be much of a story here to begin with.


You're vastly overblowing the situation. There's tons of games out there without giant scary boobies if you care to look. You're coming across like one of those moral guardians who only sees what you want to see. A world of depravity. A world that exists to offend your sensibilities. Look past that and see reality.

The problem isn't a sexy video game character really - it's that society puts greater emphasis on female value being a function of sex appeal and passivity. Yet - despite the emphasis on sex appeal - she must also be pure and untouched

When it comes time to put a man down you attack his credentials or intelligence - maybe even his career

When people attack a woman they either go straight for appearance (demean her sex appeal) or call her a *** (which is bad because women are supposed to be passive) or perhaps call her a *** (and take away her purity)

So while an overly sexy video game character is mostly "innocent" (for lack of a better term) it does highlight an incongruence in gender-based societal worth rubrics

Is there any reason to get bent out of shape over this besides the fact that BOOBS SHOULD NOT UNDULATE AND LIST PERPETUALLY LIKE A FORLORN SHIP IN THE SARGASSO SEA DURING A STORM - probably not

But the underlying operative mechanism is worth dicussing - or at least it would be with people who care about something besides a big rack o' titties