The New Exodus from Video Gaming, Revisited

The New Exodus from Video Gaming, Revisited

Taking a second look at harassment in video gaming.

Read Full Article

Ironically, it's the prevailing social image created by the "progressive" PC crowd (who proclaims to want to stop harassment) that men are the perpetrators and women the victims which hinders effective studies and therefor solutions because it's become a taboo subject and anything not in line with the socially political party line faces hordes of abuse & ridicule and becomes relegated to the fringes as outcasts and cave-men if male or gender-traitors if female..

Essentially thought-crime. So much for facts.
The people who feel that they should control others opinions, tastes and views are the most insidious and dangerous.
Even though such people are, hopefully, a minority, they do shout the loudest and gets listened to.

I agree with the general thrust of the article, but too many years in academia are forcing me to argue about the semantics of the Somme vs. Normandy example.

Which is a roundabout way of saying, "Yes, Mr. Marks, I think it's very important to gather statistics correctly and thoroughly, and report them honestly, so that we can all see and understand just what is going on."

Thunderous Cacophony:
I agree with the general thrust of the article, but too many years in academia are forcing me to argue about the semantics of the Somme vs. Normandy example.

That's a nice quote, thank you for that. You don't even need to go that far though, you need only look at the casualties suffered in both battles and compare it to the number of soldiers involved to realize that the Allies suffered far more at Somme then in Normandy (Germany suffered more total casualties at Somme, but in relative numbers actually suffered worse in Normandy, reaching near a 50% casualty rate). If nothing else the Somme had over 30,000 allied casualties in one day, something that not even D-day itself gets close too.

Gethsemani:

Thunderous Cacophony:
I agree with the general thrust of the article, but too many years in academia are forcing me to argue about the semantics of the Somme vs. Normandy example.

That's a nice quote, thank you for that. You don't even need to go that far though, you need only look at the casualties suffered in both battles and compare it to the number of soldiers involved to realize that the Allies suffered far more at Somme then in Normandy (Germany suffered more total casualties at Somme, but in relative numbers actually suffered worse in Normandy, reaching near a 50% casualty rate). If nothing else the Somme had over 30,000 allied casualties in one day, something that not even D-day itself gets close too.

That's the fun thing about metrics. The numbers are objective; but the interpretations aren't.

Thunderous Cacophony:

Which is a roundabout way of saying, "Yes, Mr. Marks, I think it's very important to gather statistics correctly and thoroughly, and report them honestly, so that we can all see and understand just what is going on.

Isn't that a good example, then? Because the harassment standards paint a different picture when you look at more severe forms of harassment.

Granted, not a good example of the argument being MADE....

CaitSeith:
That's the fun thing about metrics. The numbers are objective; but the interpretations aren't.

Only when you include subjective elements. Corrigan's argument that the Somme is over-represented in British military culture is one that can be debated to worthwhile ends, but it is facetious to say that it was less dangerous than Normandy, and to use dishonest interpretations to get there. The worst thing one can do with data is to take a single point, or a small selection from a larger piece, and use it as representative when it truly is not within context.

Thunderous Cacophony:

CaitSeith:
That's the fun thing about metrics. The numbers are objective; but the interpretations aren't.

Only when you include subjective elements. Corrigan's argument that the Somme is over-represented in British military culture is one that can be debated to worthwhile ends, but it is facetious to say that it was less dangerous than Normandy, and to use dishonest interpretations to get there. The worst thing one can do with data is to take a single point, or a small selection from a larger piece, and use it as representative when it truly is not within context.

Sorry, but I was referring to how Robert used the raw numbers and Gethsemani used percentages. But thanks for pointing out that detail.

This seems like a good place to start if one wants to get to the bottom of the harassment issue. Well pontificated.

The study would've been more useful if it had it tracked the frequency, circumstances and severity of the harassment. Whether the harassment was conducted anonymously, via an online pseudonym, or through a social networking account linked to the presumed legal identity of the harasser would also be useful information to know. Not to mention how often online harassment escalates into more serious types of offline harassment, and vice versa.

Paradoxrifts:
Whether the harassment was conducted anonymously, via an online pseudonym, or through a social networking account linked to the presumed legal identity of the harasser would also be useful information to know.

Which is why, even if I welcome more data, because more data and good reliable stats are always good, I fear we can only have reliable data on the targets demographics. We can't have accurate data on the harassers right now because a lot of it is basically anonymous - and I don't think a survey/poll of internet denizens asking them if they've ever harassed someone online would have reliable results.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here