one each events have differents formates and rules, so their can’t be a all out banned when rules varies from event host.
two While Aris action is questionable this didint happen in typical FGC event. Cross assualt was a capcom event that just had some FGC members in it. So the FGC is noway entitile or responsible to adress it IMO.
three The repocuassion of crossassault has already been made and anything further into the matter is uneccissary. Aris and Miranda made their peace and move on. If the people diireclty involve can move on than I don’t see how other can’t.
Call me out on this fi you will but intentions of wanting aris punish sound more like witch hunt than anything.
Because she didnt even care. she wanted to quit the show anyways, and dumped it on Aris as an excuse.
I’m pretty sure most of the people arguing here didn’t even WATCH cross assault, all they saw was a heavily edited video that Kotaku posted which made it look like Aris was being an extreme creep/harassing her, but actually all he was doing was reading from the Stream chat (Which miranda was reading earlier that day and everyone was laughing at the creepy chat comments), yet the Kotaku video made it look like Aris was just saying all that stuff himself.
We have a “bad rep” in the media, because making sensationalist/click bait/comment bait articles is what websites do now to get more money. Stop listening to them and use your own brain for a change.
It wasn’t “several days” it was actually only a couple of hours tops.
Basically people like to hate on Aris because they are insecure, and he fits their “neckbeard gamer” stereotype. Or whatever buzzwords you prefer.
There’s guys like KassemG who are literally paid to sexually harass women on YouTube and i dont see you complaining.
The problem is that I don’t think there’s a clear line of what’s acceptable and what isn’t. ( I mean in the common courtesy term, not legality. Of course none of the things we are discussing about are illegal…)
“Offensive” isn’t an objective term and it’s childish and destructive to cry for censoring everything that you personally don’t like around you.
A possible solution to this problem is that before shit hits the fan, you must first raise the issue and speak directly and clearly.
You must present a clear red line and let the other person make a conscious decision if s/he wants to cross it or not.
Example: Person A jokes around with person B. Person’s B’s feelings are hurt. Person B then says to A in the clearest fashion: “Look man, when you say this and this to me I have a huge problem with it because of that and that.”
Person B can now either tell him that he doesn’t give a shit, proceed to follow him around and continue making remarks at him (which is rarely going to happen because most people are not genuine assholes, or actual racists, or real misogynists) or… Person B will now proceed to stop joking around with Person A who can’t take the jokes and go hang out with Person C who has a thicker skin and can take these jokes for what they are.
But what is never good to do: Get a huge internet mob involved with every little miscommunication that you could have solved easily between the two of you. If someone comes to an event actively looking for a reason to get offended as ammunition to slander people (like both the presenters in the opening post) then this person is just here to cause trouble and should not be allowed in the next events.
All the more reason to do something about it. Just because it permeates everything doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a discussion on it.
So what you’re saying is that it is my duty to inform someone acting inappropriately that they are acting inappropriately and that they have no fault in the matter?
Come on Tataki, no one goes to any event looking to be offended, I’ve seen your previous posts and your Guilty Bits videos, you’re definitely smarter than that. Aris should have used common sense and realized that saying you want to smell someone along with other lewd and sexist comments is unacceptable. It’s not about censorship it’s about courtesy. That and it is kind of hard for two people to rectify something in private while on a live stream.
I’m against censorship too but one’s right to freedom of speech in the form of insults doesn’t mean that other people should/have to hear it nor is it acceptable.
Why didn’t Aris have the sense to stop? That and simply because someone is a gamer doesn’t mean they have to have some arbitrary tolerance for racism, sexism or anything really. That is a social construct we gamers have made and it isolates us from the rest of the world. Awful lot of victim blaming here on this thread.
No one was taking it easy on her though. That and Aris wasn’t even playing, he was commentating, how can you beat a commentator? I’m glad your time in the FGC was filled with interesting experiences, but your experience and how you grew from it doesn’t change anything about the situation that happened. Sure you can earn respect in the game, but disrespect outside the game is unacceptable. That is what makes it interesting, you have a commentator being sexist to a player, if Aris was playing, the situation may be different, but alas it wasn’t.
I’m sure “Bitch Tits” wouldn’t even care to be completely honest if we blew up people for trying to describe Yipesisms.
Inappropriately withing the realm of legal free speech. When you inform them you can clear any possible misunderstanding and now the ball is in their court.
I wasn’t referring to Miranda with this one, but there are people out there who are actively seeking for approval for assumptions they already have, or have ulterior motives such as finding a scoop for a clickbait article.
In the legal aspect they have to accept it. In the courtesy aspect they are free to think you are an asshole, but my advice is on how to avoid a situation where person A didn’t really mean to hurt person B, but person B “takes it personally”, and forms a false assumption about person A, which is bad for a group of people who need to be able to tolerate and even have fun with each other in the same room. The damage, as you can see in the cross assault incident is hard or even impossible to fix when it’s too late, so everyone should do their part in avoiding miscommunications, including the ones who tend to get offended.
The default assumption should be “he probably said something harsh just in the context of humor, irony or hyperbole, and it doesn’t reflect actual world views and hatred” because ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is always better than ‘guilty until proven innocent’.
So if we use an example from the articles in the OP, a group of friends trash talking each other with words like “faggot” is not some definitive proof that they actually hate homosexuals… You can’t just jump the gun on a word without looking at the concept and the situation when it was said.
He did not say that at all in the quotation you used from Tataki.
I, and many other people in this thread, said that the responsibility lies in both parties.
This is not so. The stream wasn’t a 24 hour surveilance of these people and there were many opportunities before and after the stream to handle this issue in private between broadcasts. The “comedic bit” persisted across multiple days with multiple breaks of “performing on camera.” It shouldn’t have been hard, and of course the issue wasn’t settled. With the means and opportunities made available, Miranda handled this in one of the worst ways possible; and, it serves to increase notoriety and publicity more than the actual “comedic bits” have served on the show. Was the way she handled the case all necessary to resolve the issue? It isn’t, and it was excessive and inappropriate.
This is incorrect based on what is being said here. “No one” is persuing or wanting to be offended. This is a hasty generalization and that there are cases where people intentionally goad people in order to receive “offensive responses.” Why? There are multiple reasons and cases; but for the sake of this issue, people could intentional seek “offensive remarks and responses” to use as evidence in a case against a person or a group of people, especially if the evidence could be strewn to be used out of context. And that’s exactly what Tataki’s reasoning was:
You can say something equally fallacious such as “no one/entity is looking to be aggressed upon.” When we have cases such as the Mexican-American war where the US intentionally goaded the Mexican army to “be the first to aggress” in order to use that as “justifiable evidence” to go to war and “incidentally” “buy” a vast portion of Mexican territory after the “war.” Among many other contradicting examples, to say that “no one” intentionally seeks to be offended or seeks aggression is simply false.
Define common sense. Define courtesy. Explain smelling someone and define what makes a comment lewd and or sexist. And explain how and why a lewd comment is unacceptable. The issue here is that there is very little tangibility here and that these standards are really subjective. People, especially with the denizens of the “fighting game community” that come from very ecclectic backgrounds, hold different cultural perspectives and standards. Let’s say that Aris wasn’t being purposefully offensive. He could or could not have the intent to cause Miranda discomfort. If he truly didn’t know, should he be held solely and fully responsbile in this “transgression” that he wouldn’t have know he crossed? Is this not more a case of miscommunication and misunderstanding than intentional cause of harm? Is it also Miranda’s responsibility to create shared communicative meanings with Aris to have him understand that his actions were offensive and made her uncomfortable? Is it Aris’ responsibility to confirm that he did transgressed some boundaries?
Now, Aris was intentionally offensive. What was the reasoning behind this intent? Was it to truly cause Miranda any mental/emotional harm? Was it to use the sense of empathy and offensiveness in a means of generating comedy? It could be both, it could be neither, and it could be for all sorts of different reasons. I feel that he really used these opportunities more to create some entertainment value rather than wanting to intentionally hurt Miranda. Comedy often uses self-depreciation as well as the depreciation of others, and is often very subjective to the amount and means of using those tools. But, the standards of courtesy between people are different and the boundaries are different in which how far someone could take the joke. This is where Tataki’s statements comes in.
Which ties in back to my main point regarding this whole case, the issue between Aris and Miranda is held accountable by both parties. Read this, both parties. The intent of Aris wasn’t of to intentionally harm Miranda, but use depreciating remarks to generate comedic value, a value that is extremely subjective. The real issue here isn’t Aris being an aggressor striking down another. The real issue here is the miscommunication between parties as Tataki, others, and I have said. Aris wanted to generate humor and Miranda’s response and the presume lack of off-camera communication about the issue miscommunicated consent for him to continue on that bit. So it’s Miranda’s fault it continued; but I’m not stopping here. It’s also Aris fault for confirming before or after the fact that if it’s okay to continue that bit. And the issue could have been resolved if they talked it out and laid “defined” boundaries (or “present a clear red line”) when it comes to comedic bits, and Aris could have used other means to generate entertainment for the stream be it depreciation of other players on the team that were fine with the bit or through other means. “You must present a clear red line and ‘let the other person make a conscious decision if s/he wants to cross it or not.’”
Frankly, CaptainGinyu. I don’t know why you keep deflecting the issue that Miranda “and” Aris should be held responsibile. You keep inferring that many of us are just saying that solely Miranda should be held accountable and that there is an “awful lot of victim blaming here on this thread” when that isn’t the case.
To get past the issues of racism, sexism, v-ism, and whatever-isms there may be, effective communication is an imperative tool to solve these issues. Ironically, you’re not demonstrating that right now in regards to the kinds of responses and arguments you’re making and in regards to interpreting what others are saying. Frankly in my eyes, your credibility is completely shot down. Especially when it comes to ethos when you have that pretentious title of being an “anti-obstructionist” when your interpretations and arguments are clearly obstructed.
Women can’t protect themselves, that’s why men need to do it. Luckily they have legions of idiots willing to do it for them, for the small, small price of them getting to flop around ontop of her for a couple minutes.
You’re doing them a service by victimizing them, guys. God speed.
Women can’t protect themselves physically which is why it is looked at as so abhorrent when a guy hits a woman. Men are 1.5x stronger pound for pound and substantially bigger. Also why many are quick to defend the girl.
In terms of throwing insults, women are conditioned to be victims and in need of help by the media. Malibu stacy (Simpsons) is a good example…look pretty, spend lots of time on grooming, giggle, shop, and don’t be an independent thinker. This conditioning is controlled by those that rule society, obviously men. Why do women wear make up? Heels? Other clothes that is designed not with utility in mind (like most men’s clothes) but just to look like pretty dolls to be ogled by men. Men on the otherhand are conditioned to be fighters and not take shit from everyone. That is why if prime Mike Tyson starts shit with u and wants to take it outside, u go outside even though u know u r going to the hospital. That is why if Aris says that shit to a guy, the guy probably calls him a fag and punches him.
I could swear I’ve seen this type of thinking somewhere else before hmm…
Hey guys here’s my conspiracy theory and if you disagree your opinion is invalid because you are probably possessed by Satan brainwashed by the Patriarchy!
All our problems are derived from jews men controlling the media!
A patriarchy doesn’t need to be a deliberate, conscious societal entity with ringleaders to nevertheless exist. Basically you look at the statistical and material realities and work from there, being careful not to disappear into a fucking mire of essential-ism.
This was the first part I was referring to, The Aris and Miranda thing was taken care of thats why I didn’t bring it up after the initial post. I even spaced each comment apart to show they were completely different. What where you talking about?
Old man rant had to do with the quote/post above no Miranda, no Aris. In regards to the story on page one by her own admission yes they were. Read the story posted from page one get my response into context then come back for a comment. It hand nothing to do with Aris. He had his section sectioned off then I went into a new thought/sentence, and now you know.
The roles of women and men wasn’t just some kind of magic. Men didn’t one day just say “fuck it lets oppress women” like whites did to blacks. These were the roles we had in nature. We are no longer in nature and are smarter.
There are literally people above the age of 10 that believe this shit?
Also shoutouts to ‘if Mike Tyson starts a fight with you, you go outside and get your ass beat up’ as a generalization of men. I can assure you that if you had a world champion boxer screaming in your face you’d be pissing your pants, not getting ready for a bare knuckle fight outside.
Brilliant reply, as expected from someone of your meager intelligence. Lol.
Hmm…is that the best response you can give? Are women equal to men in physical strength/size ability to fight? Maybe personal experience is influencing your opinion, maybe you are one of those far outliers that is so physically weak that your average woman is a tough opponent.