So did Atheism + bite the dust?

[Dystopia]

I'd just like to point out that, once again, instead of answering the criticism, you're attacking the source.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I don't care what they say about anything else, in the context of this thread. I care about what they say on this subject, and if you think they're wrong, I want to know why you think they're wrong, not why they're unworthy of credibility. The first task you need to accomplish yourself; the second task, I will do on my own.

I've already told you why I consider the institution unworthy of credibility and I've pointed out links that disprove some of their claims. Additionally, I've made a constructive (non-hateful) criticism of gaming and gender representation and recommnedated a book by a 2nd wave feminist that corroborates my view (it's basically about how the media affects our perceptions in real life) - By showing that what we seen in forms of media (including games) affects the stereotypes we attach to people in real life. My opponent posted a LOT of videos, many by people who are notoriously against social justice activism or feminism, so in my opinion it's not a reliable source - I could go into youtube and find basically any video about any topic and use it as proof. Another problem with the AEI is that showing the video isn't enough - I need the study/survey itself and the variables, methods, and target population used to see if it's reliable. Many times, and this is valid for all ideologies, people omit variables in studies to make their points seem right and when it comes to youtube videos there's a lot of things left aside.

Simply because they're conservative, does that mean that they must share that position? I will dig through that link, but honestly, you appear to have some baggage attached to "conservative" that isn't necessarily pertinent. There are plenty of conservatives who consider rape a crime heinous enough to merit the death penalty. There are plenty of liberals who think that rapists shouldn't be serving long terms. Introducing those terms of ideology which you yourself have in this thread denounced is disingenuous. If it's not about ideology, quit using ideology as a reason to dismiss countervailing views, and answer the criticism directly.

No baggage, I'll say right away that I've gotten into pretty of serious debates with liberals, but conservatives are generally the ones who make dubious quotes about rape (Republicans in America in particular) - In my country, conservatives are actually fair minded and more moderate.

I am not using ideology as a reason, but attacking the source is not that invalid if I have reasons for it. Is it too much to ask for the study with all the data? And is it fair to keep receiving youtube videos as a reply? Isn't it more constructive for people to quote other more objective sources?

They have some valid points, and some bullshit to go along with them.

You see, when MRA's claim that men get less custody of kids it's a valid point, so is domestic violence against men, etc. The problem is that MRA's were born as a response in the 70's against feminism and instead of focusing specifically on the problem and why it's bad they focus on "why women are hurting men" or they highlight a man problem that is undoubtedly important but the only purpose of it is to discredit the women's side of the problem. I won't stop anyone from being MRA but I prefer egalitarian people or feminists to fight for my cause since movements like those have benefited my male status. I also linked several articles that debunk MRA and it's problems - If MRA's were an alliance with feminism to fight together issues, I would support them.

My particular critique was addressing your propensity for saying that "that source is conservative, stop using it". I'm not saying that is the only thing you've written. I'm saying that that practice you've shown is fallacious -- to wit, it's an ad homeneim.

Ah no... Ad Hominem would be for me to attack the source just to discredit - But attacking the source with truthful facts is not an ad hominem, it's legitimate - If my opponent is a well known liar, I can point it out if I have proof that he is so, it's only an ad hominem. Also, it would be an ad hominem if I attacked TheMessiah, which I didn't (ok I told him to fuck himself but sometimes I lose patience - That was not to be taken seriously)

Some of your replies have indeed been pretty substantial, and I'm enjoying reading this back-and-forth between you two. It's making me think, and that is a gift.

I just want people to have a constructive stance without leaning too much on the extremes. Maybe it's true like TheMessiah said that there are bad people on the feminist side of GamerGate - Honestly I'm not aware of the situation; but regardless what I've read was that someone lied by saying that a female reviewer was sleeping with men to gain more favourable reviews. I honestly don't care and probably we won't know the story but it isn't an excuse to quit talking about gaming stereotypes and -isms.

"If" your standards are "reasonable".

I think there's plenty of irrationailty on both sides of this discussion, myself.

I wouldn't require impossible, magical standards of evidence, I'm no fool. But requiring a pdf study seems reasonable to me. Quoting youtube videos and websites like MRA's or others that are usually more aggressive towards feminism or women is obviously going to result in the absolute worst of one side. I think instead we should abstain from leaking videos and take a constructive criticism without being excessively convinced that one side is right. That's what I do - I never claimed that videogames were all sexist pieces of shit, I just showed some examples of how male representation is generally better and more appealing for male gamers and I linked one of the most reliable surveys that shows a growth in the female population of gamers (the study doesn't tell us who plays only smartphones and who plays console + PC, but still, the numbers are growing every year, and old people as well) -> Conclusion, following the principles of capitalism, game developers should care about female demographics. Putting women in games as sexy babes without relevant content is saying "Hey women gamers, you don't matter as a player and this game is not for you" (again there are inclusive games, I'm talking about some common trends) -> I don't think that (1) More female playable characters (2) More realistic standards of beauty (not every girl needs to look a playboy bunny) (3) more important roles for women in plots (4) More female characters in general (5) Less sexist tropes like putting all women as strippers, hookers, gold diggers or whores -- Is going to hurt gaming. In my opinion, this will in fact raise sales + It will increase fanbase for games. There is no proof that sexy people sell in games. Skyrim is an example of how an inclusive game can sell (+20Million copies)