This is actually from 2022, but I missed it back in the day. This is quite important research imo, and very relevant lately. Link to the paper itself: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563222001637

top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 72 points 1 year ago

It's almost like there's another reason for censorship

  • source
  • [–] 58 points 1 year ago (32 children)

    I mean sexualized movies with skimpy ladies and jacked dudes, and smut books are not harmful broadly speaking, so I don't really see why video games would be different.

  • source
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (31 children)

    They are causing harm, but not by being sexual. By posing unrealistic standards

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (23 children)

    I propose it's not the fiction that's posing unrealistic standards, but the people who can't tell the difference between fiction and nonfiction. Fiction, is by definition, unrealistic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    The issue is the many people who complain when a game or other media have women that look like actual women. Calling them men because they don't look like the perfectly sexualized women in media that they're used to.

    Yes they can't tell the difference, but they're still doing real harm.

    Banning sexualization is not the solution, but the prevalence of it in media to the point it is expected and people get angry when it's gone is a problem as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeah, I really think it's a type of media illiteracy, and it's much larger than just sexualization.

    Like, I grew up in the church, and remember when they adopted the Left Behind novels into church canon as prophecy. It's the same kind of not being able to tell fact from fiction, and my parent's church encouraged it because they were a bunch of con artists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    You said sexualised movies, I thought you meant movies in which human actors are jacked, sometimes to an unhealthy extent. That’s also the problem with a lot of actresses and also influencers, who are after plastic surgeries, in the perfect light, with a lot of makeup on, posing unrealistic standards for impressionable kids

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Somebody else said that, not me. But regardless, it's still a problem with people not being able to recognize fact from fiction. Makeup is not the problem, the problem are people who expect you to to look like that without makeup. Boob jobs are not the problem, the problem are people who think there's something wrong with you if you've not had one.

    If they replaced everything with mocap tomorrow so actors didn't have to look the part any more, the problem would still be that people look at Marvel and think it's an accurate depiction of reality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    Fiction can easily be realistic- You're thinking of fantasy which is unrealistic. Fiction means it's not a true story, not that it can't be realistic

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    "can be" ⇏ "has to be"

    And it's not fiction that sets high standards, but the people watching it, that are doing so.

    Now you may say that the people are setting those standards only because they are watching said stuff.
    But that is just rephrasing, "the people watching fiction are incapable of having their own imagination".

    Back in school, I had a classmate that had a much greater height than others, due to steroid usage.
    Now if you say that his parents did that because they watched "JoJo's Bizarre Adventure", I'll say it was not released yet and I have no reason to believe that they bought comic strips from another country and went ahead and made a 'gag' piece a basis for their standards.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Nah, fiction needs unrealistic elements. You can have realism in fiction, but fiction is defined by its deviance from fact. If a movie were completely realistic, itd be a documentary.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    This can't be your honest take...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Well, it's inaccurate. Fiction does not require unrealistic elements. There's just scads of fiction out there—across multiple genres—that's set in a real time and place, and doesn't involve anything fantastical.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    It is possible to have a realistic story in fiction. For example, Mad Men is a tv series that's pretty grounded in history but the characters and everything that happens to them are the product of the writers and their research. It's not a documentary, it's fiction, but quite realistic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    I envision 'realistic' as a spectrum. If it is 100% realistic, it's a documentary, if it's 100% unrealistic, it's probably a fantasy movie or something, and most works of fiction fall somewhere between.

    characters and everything that happens to them are the product of the writers and their research

    Like, you understand this is my point, right? The plot is not real, and that's what makes it fictional?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    What you're saying is sound and I agree the plot not being real is fiction; the only problem is you said fiction required unrealistic elements and most people see "unrealistic" as basically fantasy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    See, I hear 'fantasy' and think of orks and fairies and shit, but I can think of many non-fantasy movies that have incredibly unrealistic aspects.

    Like, idk, James Bond's gizmos are completely unrealistic and break the laws of physics, but it's not fantasy to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I'd argue James bond as a franchise is basically a hypermasculine fantasy and the gadgets are pretty much a tech fantasy within it. Breaking laws of physics is completely unrealistic, but the point I was making was that you don't need to do any of these things- you could write a story about how you went to the gym and broke a treadmill (even though you didn't) and it would be fiction. The bar to fiction is not that high.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    If you swap the words "fiction" and "fantasy" in your post, it makes the same amount of sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Have you ever read historical fiction? Stories like jane eyre are not real but they're sensible. A story can be fiction and realistic. You can write a short story based on stuff you've researched and seen and it's still fiction.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I'm not sure why this is being downvoted because setting unrealistic body standards is absolutely terrible for society

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Who said that was a requirement? It's still a fact that it causes harm

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Me arguing something can be harmful for society doesn't mean I'm arguing it has to be abolished in its entirety. I'm not sure why you think everything has to be black and white since obviously there's room for artistic use- remember you are the only one who thought that, or perhaps it just wasn't obvious for you. And can you explain how unrealistic body standards is not bad for society? It isn't far fetched seeing young people compare to beauty standards they are bombarded with. It doesn't only happen in video games but in tons of visual media.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)
  • You are reading waay to much into that title, man. Their claim is it doesn't make people more misogynistic. There are still tons of reasons to care about how media conducts itself.

    Or do you imagine it's just a neutral thing that the whites-only crowd would make it impossible to be a black actor again?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [+] 162 points 1 year ago (13 children)
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yeah. It's always been perplexing me that people who seem mentally okay in other ways can seem to think fiction and reality are basically the same thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Glad to see this opinion organically. I have been feeling like its moving more and more toward censure. I always thought japan pretty much had it right and then they took a step back. If its not real, its not real. I honestly don't care about any fictional stuff be it writing or painting.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 34 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    if someone is not able to distinguish between fiction (regardless of the medium) and reality, then the problem is much deeper than pearl-clutching religious fanatics insist on believing, and will NOT be solved by abolishing all the “bad” fiction

    We've been trying to make this exact argument to the exact same group of people since the earliest days of D&D and I'm sure someone was having the same conversation about some other thing before that. 😠

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    They used to think novels were bad for women in the 18th and 19th centuries bc they worried they were too dumb to separate fact from fantasy

    https://archive.nytimes.com/op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/when-novels-were-bad-for-you/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 42 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    i think if less tolerance for religion became more commonplace, it might be better for mental health in general honestly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 35 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Funny, but this just poses further questions. I.e. is it the absence of religion that causes wellbeing, or is it wellbeing that causes the absence of religion?

    I was told the story by a stranger once: The reason why people cling to religion is because they are unable to live their own life, i.e. they struggle and can't live in the moment, because it would be too depressing, so they cling to religion to seek an escape. Religion absolves them from thinking and therefore from recognizing the world around them, and so it's an escape. So, in this view, bad times cause religion, but not the other way around. At least it's one possible explanation. I don't know whether it's true.

    I'm just saying, don't confuse correlation with causality. Correlation does not imply causality in general. (though in this case it probably does)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I think the issue is not "religion" because that's hard to define. What do you count as a religion and what not? It's kinda not clearly defined. I.e., you can "believe" in science, yet does the belief make it a religion?

    I think what's more the issue is the fact that people cling to nonsensical statements and are unwilling to look at things the way they are. I.e. a recurring theme of religion is that it absolves people from thinking, i.e. from making their own thoughts and relating those to reality. That is the thing that must be dealt with.

    In other words, people must be taught to think and analyze the world around (and inside of) them. That is what leads to wellbeing and happyness.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    religion is an issue. and its not difficult to define.

    i agree with your second paragraph. its why i think its time to start being less hospitable to any and all religion.

    the less religion the world has, the better that people can be educated as you've said.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 67 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    It's almost like sex is a natural part of human existence and it being taboo is the bit that really fucks people up.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Okay but what games are considered sexualised and how many people are actually playing them?

    Cyberpunk certainly qualifies both. It's got explicit sex, and it's got a large player base. But while uncouth and perverse things happen, you can't really be party to them. You tend to show up after. Maybe your choices might lead to some, but you're not there for it. The only sex involving the player is generally wholesome. Except, you know, the ghost of Johnny Silverhand riding shotgun and not necessarily consenting to it (especially when you hook up with the cop).

    Then there's Skyrim. Bigger player base but no sex outside of mods. And there are plenty of mods, but if you look at the player count among people using those mods... it's nowhere near the player count of Skyrim as a whole, or Cyberpunk, or even a lot of the other games. And from there it drops off sharply.

    So... what sexualised video games?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago

    Sexualisation is not the same as sexual content. Widowmaker in Overwatch is a sexualised character, because she is portrayed as sexually attractive, seductive and generally in such a way as to have her viewed as a sexual being. There are other characters who are not sexualised.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    I'd also say the way sex is portrayed throughout Cyberpunk 2077 is important to the setting. Sex is everywhere, but none of it is particularly fulfilling. That the PC can find a healthy sexual relationship at all almost seems like a one in a million chance in Night City. Capitalism pushes forms of sexuality that can be monetized. Capitalism can get you laid, but it can't get you happiness.

    (I totally get the criticisms that the game is a mediocre experience. It is, but it's not without value, either.)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Isn't this just the equivalent of the "shooter game discussion" that we had a few years ago?

    I.e., some people argued that playing shooter games would make the people more inclined towards gun violence and we'd see more shootings IRL. but that didn't happen, as we know a few years later.

    it's quite straightforward then to assume that sexualized video games don't really lead to more sexualization IRL, i guess.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    The violence discussion comes and goes every couple years. It has since the 80s at least. It's never had any ground in reality, it's just fear of whatever media they don't understand.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    RFK Jr., noted brainworm host and multi talented repeater and innovator of quackery, said that shit within the last 24 hours lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I saw, but this is the admin to bring back up such heinous bullshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Oh I was offering that as supporting evidence for your point lol. There's roughly nothing (besides reason and compassion) these folks can shit out of their mouths that will surprise me anymore.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I was beating my meat to Natalya's (Goldeneye 64) cone-shaped tits at age 10. It may have been arguably better for me than jerking off to droves of actual tits.

    ...Not that I wasn't doing that also..

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    She had nothing on Xenia's polygonal proportions

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    As a dude, I exclusively use female characters to get gifts in multi-player games

  • source
  • [+] 16 points 1 year ago* (6 children)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Conservatives want to take all our games away, they have hated video games for decades, they made it clear for years that they want to see games censored the same way as movies and television.

    Wasn't the OG 80s era censorship campaign coming from Tipper Gore and Joe Lieberman?

    Didn't we get this whole '10s era Christian Conservative "We just want to debate! We just want our free speech on College Campus and The Internet!" campaign?

    It seems as though censorship of is mostly just a wedge issue to put your partisan group on the side of the current popular media trend. In the '80s, it was saying you were Opposed To Satan during the Satanic Panic. In the 90s, it was saying you were Opposed to Gangster Rap and Saggy Pants and Drugs. In the '00s, we were in an ideological war against Islam. In the '10s, we were in an ideological war against Big Government Socialism Taking Over Our Lives. In the '20s its been the War on Woke Foreigners.

    Do you all really think Palantir and associated social monitoring programs are just going to make drones to try to spy on what American citizens are masturbating to? Nope! Palantir is a broad-spectrum monitoring company, and they will have various manner of AI bots scanning the contents of your hard-drive and reporting your browsing and downloading habits to all kinds of agencies and institutions who would loooooove to have more “product” to sell to our for-profit prison industry!

    That's one theory.

    Another is that we're trying to put together an industrial scale compromat operation, such that any given individual can be smeared and alienated from the public at-large if they oppose the current regime.

    I'm sure advertising can function as a side hustle. But we've been drifting away from any kind of real consumer economy for nearly a decade. Everything is "how quickly can the government and its business interests cycle money between one another to replicate economic growth"? You don't really need end-users if all you're making is an AI-driven marketplace.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Ive been worried a bit about that compromat situation. My Internet history alone makes me easily politically assassinatable if I ever try and take up politics.

    Dont worry, nothing illegal, but it'd be enough. This guy got took out by an ill timed stealth photograph of him eating a sandwich. I'd be toast.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Wasn't the OG 80s era censorship campaign coming from Tipper Gore and Joe Lieberman?

    It's cute that you think Democrats aren't conservative.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago

    How dare you! You can't throw facts at puritanical arguments; that's illegal.

  • source
  • [–] 42 points 1 year ago (22 children)

    Skimming their data tables (don't have access to the journal outside of work), it feels like a really broad hodge pdge of semi-related studies (which the authors essentially admitted).

    But it also kind of misses the point. The problem isn't titties or dicks in video games. The problem is the culture around it and what it reinforces and it very much goes far beyond video games. Big jiggly titties? You are a mature game. Dick size slider so you can rock a magnum dong that needs a monster condom? You are progressive. What? Both of those are just more male gaze?

    And all of that is normalized. You won't see a significant change from the baseline because that IS the baseline.

    You know what you almost never see (outside of those "problematic gay games that turn the kids into litter boxes")? A sexy twink. We all made the same joke about Lies of Timothee Chalamet being one of the better souslikes of the past decade but it is also very telling that we mostly see our twinks in full stillsuits or twelve layers of Victorian clothing. Look, but have enough chastity belts that nobody needs to be worried about being able to touch. And the moment you have a woman who doesn't have an hourglass figure? See: The Last Of Us 2.

    Which is the issue. We have a cult of toxic misogyny that insists everything MUST be male gaze and the only acceptable nudity is big titty girls and guys who look like Ahnold. And any divergence from that is "ruining games" or "being woke" to the point that we don't even GET those games outside of the rare case of a game nobody cared about becoming popular (I'll always cite that Yasuke was a recurring character in Nioh long before people turned him into a culture war).

    Its like saying that gas stoves cause no meaningful decrease in air quality but having every study take place in the home of a pack a day smoker.

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You know what you almost never see (outside of those “problematic gay games that turn the kids into litter boxes”)? A sexy twink.

    So you never played JRPGs ?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago

    You mean the homeboys that are almost always wrapped in about forty buckles and, at best, exist as a viewpoint character for the harem of big titty anime girls?

    But yeah. East Asian media tends to have fewer massively jacked protagonists. But it is still the fundamental male gaze. It is just that East Asian dudes tend to be less likely to spend dozens of hours a week working on glamour muscles.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    Maybe we need more women working in game design. I don't know the figures, but I'm guessing they are underrepresented. We probably need more diversity in games generally. It feels like this should be obvious to studios too - the more diverse your team, the more likely your game is to appeal to a diverse audience = a larger pool of customers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    That was always my experience. You can force people to do hundreds of hours of sensitivity training and explain to them why making the acronym for their solver "SLUR" is inappropriate. But if you just focus on increasing the diversity of your hiring pool and ACTUALLY hiring the best and the brightest, so much of that solves itself because now there is someone to explain that China and Japan may have a lot of shared culture and history but are very much not the same country or why that word is totally a slur and so forth.

    I don't know the actual metrics per studio (and most that DO report it are heavily skewed because they put the administrative staff in with the creative to juice their numbers). But, mostly, every time I think about "popular gamedev" it just reeks of startup culture. The idea that if you were part of a successful team then you should lead your own and that this game was made by one auteur rather than a giant team and so forth.

    And that has the exact same problems we see at so many startups as a whole. The person who was real good at coding is HORRIBLE at management and has no understanding of what HR is even for and so forth. Which leads to the kind of shit that was deeply frowned upon in a conference room at 3 am becoming corporate culture and leading to "cube crawls" and the institutional abuse at companies like Blizzard or Ubisoft.


    One thing that sticks with me that has only been vaguely alluded to by the more "woke" games media outlets. Ikumi Nakamura kind of became a sensation when she went full kawaii during a press conference for (I want to say) The Evil Within and all follow up interviews revealed she was a fricking genius with amazing ideas and really strong arguments for why certain features were there or not. Then she mysteriously disappeared. She alluded to it being the stress of game dev and "politics" but considering the next time we saw her (at a completely new studio) she was still doing horror but ALSO had a kid...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (8 children)

    If you have a way to make (qualified) women study software engineering and other game dev related fields, please do share. I would love that.

    But you can't fix lack of women and generally diverse people skilled in game dev during hiring. We have seen the results of trying multiple times.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    Wow. Every dog in the tri-state area suddenly started barking. I wonder why...

    But yeah. That is some bullshit that comes up every time anyone tries to address the diversity issues. "Well, if there were more intelligent black people, maybe we would hire a black or two" level comments.

    In my experience, most first year undergraduate courses for STEM related degrees more or less match the demographics of the university itself. Depending on how rigorous the program that can change drastically as the weeding out courses happen, but it generally is "close enough" by the time they are in the 400s and going to special guest lectures by us industry a-holes.

    The problem is what comes after. There is a reason there are Black Engineering and Women in Engineering mailing lists. Because so many companies (and graduate programs) basically want a "diversity hire" and nothing else. So you might have a class that graduates with 40% women entering a workforce that will hire 5%, at best. And... the good groups talk about this and encourage people to have a plan B. Whereas men (at least up until recently) know that if they just keep trying they'll get hired eventually because 95% of those jobs are for them.

    And grad school (less an issue for game dev) has the added problem where so many advisers are complete creeps with tenure. But that is a different mess.

    No. Whatever the field, if you actually work towards having a diverse hiring pool and actually hire on merit, you tend to have an employee demographic within a stones throw of the regional breakdown. Because, yes, socioeconomic and institutionalized racism do give certain ethnic groups a serious disadvantage. But when you are hiring for roles with undergrad or graduate degrees? The best of the best are the ones who actually DO tend to find a way to bootstrap themselves up (or have parents who did). And... long term that goes a long way towards fixing things. It isn't the complete solution but it REALLY helps.


    A very good friend of mine who I worked with heavily on doing exactly that at our old company loved to joke about it as "reverse-gentrification of the work force". The idea that if you get a diverse foothold into a "neighborhood", it spreads. Those pesky women are more likely to know other pesky women who are a great fit for a role. And the kids of the Walker family are suddenly growing up in Silicon Valley and going to private schools rather than fighting for scraps at PS 118.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    In my experience, most first year undergraduate courses for STEM related degrees more or less match the demographics of the university itself.

    I don't know anything about other STEM fields or other countries, but where I live, most sw engineering courses don't have above 5%. (And I guess even fewer men in the medicine field. Some fields just seem to attract specific genders, idk why.)

    But yeah, dismiss reality I have seen with my own eyes as "The dog whistles! The dog whistles!" And then act surprised when no one outside your echo chamber takes you seriously.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    Makes me think why those big tech corporations are suddenly supportive of that regime in DC.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    The "good" news is that the vast majority of that has nothing to do with ideology. It is all about staying in fuckface's good graces so they can get more government contracts or, best case scenario, have some legislature and grants built up specifically to benefit them musk-style.

    As you go more towards the startup size of company (O(10) or even O(100) heads, including admin) things get a lot murkier and you have a lot more True Believers. But the zucks and Jensens of the world are pretty much the definition of apolitical in that they only care about what makes them more money in the short term.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    I would like to add that why they're so open for the scumfuck is because they want to ditch what they see as "troublesome" and "costly" progressive programs aka DEI; they would like to restore conservatism in the tech industry like in the 80s, the so-called "natural order of things" that is, white men in top positions while women and minorities clean up the mess.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    Again, there are definitely the scumfucks who are true believers. And NOBODY liked "DEI" as a policy since it almost always manifested as all the worst elements of "affirmative action". It was well intentioned but it was very much a bunch of white liberals behind it. Its why the republicans run on "anti-DEI" platforms so much. Yes, it is a dog whistle but it also is one of those things where it is hard to find anyone who actually wants to defend those poison pill initiatives. What differs is "Why would we want any fucking blacks in our company" versus "Let's actually focus on making a diverse hiring pool so that our workforce is the best and the brightest and not just hiring the first person we can find so that we can check off a box". The number of times I had to say the work safe equivalent of "I'm not with that nazi"...

    But the thing to understand is that the mega corporations? They don't give a fuck about white supremacy. Most are global affairs with a fairly diverse upper level management (albeit, with an over-representation of East Asia). They have zero incentive to actually want white supremacy to be a thing. But they DO have a lot of incentives to make token gestures and spend marketing money on placating the white supremacists who are increasingly in power globally.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    All they want is maximum profits with the minimum of cost. Even if someone has to die for those techbros.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    Which is, if anything, against white supremacy. You want the best bang for your buck which is, funny enough, often an H1-B slave (or outsourcing).

    Which is one of those dark secrets of the world. Rampant Capitalism is HORRIBLE for countless reasons but also tends to be the model that creates the most diverse workforces. For the absolute worst reasons but... yeah. Which is why it is hilarious when you have the chuds who think The White Man is going to win when all that matters is profits.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    A sexy twink.

    Plenty in gachas, jrpgs, and such, imo.

    We have a cult of toxic misogyny that insists everything MUST be male gaze and the only acceptable nudity is big titty girls and guys who look like Ahnold. And any divergence from that is “ruining games” or “being woke”

    I think in heated discussions about "DEI slop" people mostly complain about women being desexualized rather than anyone else being sexualized. Do you have any examples of games where in addition to women being sexualized there were twinks or someone else being sexualized and people insisted that only women should be sexualized but not those other groups? Think of BG3 - it goes beyond regular "male gaze" but it's still widely beloved because it's more inclusive to wide range of appeals including regular ones.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Funny you bring up gachas because in most of them the cast is overwhelmingly women.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Genshin has plently of male characters (F to M is ~1:2 iirc), and there is a variety of niches covered: cute twink-like types like Venti, hot tall guys like Diluc, etc. Anyway, vote with your wallet. It's only natural there are more girl characters if that's what larger chunk of playerbase want.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Even in your example there is way more women than men

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 year ago

    I personally wouldn't call 1:2 "overwhelmingly", but even so, if there was just a single male Venti in the whole game, it wouldn't in any way make the claim "Plenty in gachas, jrpgs, and such" untrue, because these games combined have a lot of sexy twinks to pick from.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    And any divergence from that is “ruining games” or “being woke” to the point that we don’t even GET those games outside of the rare case of a game nobody cared about becoming popular

    I would argue the origin is sales. E.G. the publisher wants the sex appeal to sell, so that's what they put in the game. Early 'bro' devs may be a part of this, but the directive from up top is the crux of it.

    And that got so normalized, it became what gamers expect. And now they whine like toddlers when anyone tries to change it, but that just happens to be an existing problem conservative movements jumped on after the fact.


    TL;DR the root cause is billionares.

    Like aways.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago*

    You hear that, sexists? It's all in you. Can't blame the games. 🙂

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Much as I’d predict support for that conclusion, I feel like there’s room to doubt the survey process used - as has often been the case for studies on gamer behavior.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago*

    Sure, it's not a high quality study. But there is only so much effort countering this baseless fear mongering deserves. This study may already be more effort than it deserves.

    The fear mongering doesn't end. Violent movies cause violent behavior. No they don't. Violent games cause violent behavior. No they don't, actually research show gamers are less aggressive. Now it's sexualized games that cause harm. And every time, they don't even really care about the research anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    no its the right wing influencers backed by russia doing this. they are responsible for getting men into Right wing politics, and by extension hating women is one of thier goals too.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›