Gender politics and the bizarre world of 'e-sport'

[dismal]

Why is this a problem for the collective "we"?

The organizers should be allowed to organize it the way they think is best. Even if some or many of us think it is stupid.

Who said they shouldn't be allowed

Tell me, if I criticise your choices, have I made that choice unallowable?

Do you think that criticising someone's bad taste means you've banned them from having bad taste?

And do you think that an organisation should not listen to the feedback of its customers?

You must have accidentally posted this in a politics forum.

Perhaps a mod can move it to a forum for the discussion of matters of taste?

 

[Jarhyn]

Who said they shouldn't be allowed

Tell me, if I criticise your choices, have I made that choice unallowable?

Do you think that criticising someone's bad taste means you've banned them from having bad taste?

And do you think that an organisation should not listen to the feedback of its customers?

You must have accidentally posted this in a politics forum.

Perhaps a mod can move it to a forum for the discussion of matters of taste?

Politics is as much about wielding shame and the saber of public opinion as much as the rule
Of law. I see it as vitally appropriate to place discussions of social education and shame in a forum of politics.

Why else would you and others be so butthurt, posting topics decrying civilian boycott of bigoted businesses?

 

[Metaphor]

I play board games, and many of these have tournaments at conventions. To call the competition a sport is laughable, and the winner an athlete, absurd.

- - - Updated - - -

I think that the decision to make Heartstone a male only game was incredibly stupid. The IeSF were being idiotic, and deserve all the ridicule they get.

Do they really still deserve ridicule after changing their rules? What would it accomplish? The fact that they changed their rules is admirable enough, to me.

They changed their rules to make most games open (good) but they left other games female-only. That deserves ridicule.

Flawless execution of the no-true-Scotsman. I do not know your exact motivations for it, but your desire to deride the sports you don't like in favor of your deference to grotesque mutations playing at violence is laughable. The new sports are better for the collective 'us' than the old ones.

Evidently, you have completely misread the situation, and imagined values for me that I do not hold.

If you knew anything about me, you would have seen that over multiple years and threads, I have ridiculed Australia's obsession with sport, I have spoken out against sports scholarships at Universities, I have asked sports fans to take responsibility for the increasingly violent sports they watch by boycotting them.

No, Jarhyn. I do not object to the term 'e-sport' and 'cyber-athlete' because I barrack for a real sport (because I don't watch sport and I never have). I object to it because it's a ridiculous mangling of language.

As for 'grotesque mutations' -- whilst there are some sports physiques I find to be too over the top, there are many athletes (swimmers, divers, gymnasts) who appear to me to have almost ideally attractive bodies.

EDIT: Also, whether sport is better than computer games I'm agnostic on, given they both encourage (sometimes obsessive) competition but one of them does nothing for the increasingly obese generation of children.

 

[dismal]

You must have accidentally posted this in a politics forum.

Perhaps a mod can move it to a forum for the discussion of matters of taste?

Politics is as much about wielding shame and the saber of public opinion as much as the rule
Of law. I see it as vitally appropriate to place discussions of social education and shame in a forum of politics.

Why else would you and others be so butthurt, posting topics decrying civilian boycott of bigoted businesses?

Politics may involve shaping public opinion but it does not follow that thus shaping public opinion is always about politics.

If I am trying to shape public opinion about which oat flake if crunchiest it's not politics.

If I am trying to shape public opinion to cause some law about oat flakes to be passed then it is.

 

[Enigma]

Then I have to ask what exactly is the demarcation line you are using between sport and non-sport? In other words, why are high level golf, pool, and/or bowling sports, while high level Starcraft 2 isn't?

My first thought was that the first three involve balls as part of play, but I don't think so, partly because that criteria would disqualify boxing and/or ultimate frisbee, and partly because it would make your stance on the whole sexism discussion seem rather ironic.

Huh? What would be ironic about it?

'Twas a little joke about a difference between male and female gamers.

Physical ability has to be a major component for something to be a sport. Chess is not a sport, even though it is a game with a high level competition. A quadriplegic could play chess and be a legitimate champion, even if someone else has to physically move the pieces. Card playing is also not a sport.

A quadriplegic could not do the same for Starcraft 2, as a non-trivial amount of the difficulty is in terms of execution. In other words, nobody is going to buy that a "champion" who is only able to yell out build orders and general battle tactics (i.e. split all of your marines in order to avoid them all dying due to baneling explosions, which is only effective if you have the APM to pull it off) to a player who can input/implement those commands at the needed pace is the real champion, even if that team does win the tournament. If such an odd situation did occur, my money would be that the guy actually at the keyboard would be considered the sole winner.

But I'll go to my grave before I call someone ganking a n00b on Warcraft a 'cyber athlete'.

Meh. I can take or leave the term cyber athlete. I wouldn't have any objection if it went the way of the term 'Japanimation'.

 

[Jarhyn]

I play board games, and many of these have tournaments at conventions. To call the competition a sport is laughable, and the winner an athlete, absurd.

- - - Updated - - -

I think that the decision to make Heartstone a male only game was incredibly stupid. The IeSF were being idiotic, and deserve all the ridicule they get.

Do they really still deserve ridicule after changing their rules? What would it accomplish? The fact that they changed their rules is admirable enough, to me.

They changed their rules to make most games open (good) but they left other games female-only. That deserves ridicule.

Flawless execution of the no-true-Scotsman. I do not know your exact motivations for it, but your desire to deride the sports you don't like in favor of your deference to grotesque mutations playing at violence is laughable. The new sports are better for the collective 'us' than the old ones.

Evidently, you have completely misread the situation, and imagined values for me that I do not hold.

If you knew anything about me, you would have seen that over multiple years and threads, I have ridiculed Australia's obsession with sport, I have spoken out against sports scholarships at Universities, I have asked sports fans to take responsibility for the increasingly violent sports they watch by boycotting them.

No, Jarhyn. I do not object to the term 'e-sport' and 'cyber-athlete' because I barrack for a real sport (because I don't watch sport and I never have). I object to it because it's a ridiculous mangling of language.

As for 'grotesque mutations' -- whilst there are some sports physiques I find to be too over the top, there are many athletes (swimmers, divers, gymnasts) who appear to me to have almost ideally attractive bodies.

EDIT: Also, whether sport is better than computer games I'm agnostic on, given they both encourage (sometimes obsessive) competition but one of them does nothing for the increasingly obese generation of children.

This is to me no different than bigots a grilling that marriage is only between a man and woman, and that 'civil union' is good enough. Whether or not it is your intent, placing the requirement of physicality as the requirement for the prestige of "sports" and "athletes" is insulting to everyone whose sport doesn't meet your narrow 'true Scotsman' definition of sports.

It isn't a mangling of language because language cannot be mangled in that way. Grow up,
And get used to the fact that new sports are being invented that don't involve muscles.

 

[laughing dog]

I play board games, and many of these have tournaments at conventions. To call the competition a sport is laughable, and the winner an athlete, absurd.

- - - Updated - - -

I think that the decision to make Heartstone a male only game was incredibly stupid. The IeSF were being idiotic, and deserve all the ridicule they get.

Do they really still deserve ridicule after changing their rules? What would it accomplish? The fact that they changed their rules is admirable enough, to me.

They changed their rules to make most games open (good) but they left other games female-only. That deserves ridicule.

Flawless execution of the no-true-Scotsman. I do not know your exact motivations for it, but your desire to deride the sports you don't like in favor of your deference to grotesque mutations playing at violence is laughable. The new sports are better for the collective 'us' than the old ones.

Evidently, you have completely misread the situation, and imagined values for me that I do not hold.

If you knew anything about me, you would have seen that over multiple years and threads, I have ridiculed Australia's obsession with sport, I have spoken out against sports scholarships at Universities, I have asked sports fans to take responsibility for the increasingly violent sports they watch by boycotting them.

No, Jarhyn. I do not object to the term 'e-sport' and 'cyber-athlete' because I barrack for a real sport (because I don't watch sport and I never have). I object to it because it's a ridiculous mangling of language.

As for 'grotesque mutations' -- whilst there are some sports physiques I find to be too over the top, there are many athletes (swimmers, divers, gymnasts) who appear to me to have almost ideally attractive bodies.

EDIT: Also, whether sport is better than computer games I'm agnostic on, given they both encourage (sometimes obsessive) competition but one of them does nothing for the increasingly obese generation of children.

This is to me no different than bigots a grilling that marriage is only between a man and woman, and that 'civil union' is good enough. Whether or not it is your intent, placing the requirement ofp hysicality as the requirement for the prestige of "sports" and "athletes" is insulting to everyone whose sport doesn't meet your narrow 'true Scotsman' definition of sports.

No one is obligated to accept your change to the generally accepted understanding of "sport".

It isn't a mangling of language because language cannot be mangled in that way.

Of course it can. Your claim contradicts history. Sometimes the mangling becomes accepted over time, sometimes it does not. Until the new meaning is generally accepted, it is reasonable to consider it mangling.

And get used to the fact that new sports are being invented that don't involve muscles.

Why do you think anyone feels the need to reinterpret the term "sport" in this manner? The only reason I can for this is some sort of inferiority complex.

 

[Metaphor]

This is to me no different than bigots a grilling that marriage is only between a man and woman, and that 'civil union' is good enough. Whether or not it is your intent, placing the requirement of physicality as the requirement for the prestige of "sports" and "athletes" is insulting to everyone whose sport doesn't meet your narrow 'true Scotsman' definition of sports.

Really, it's no different? What an astonishing claim that you find no difference between my skepticism at calling a computer game a sport, and homophobes who would use the power of the State to entrench their perception of marriage and deny it to others. Actually, it's more than an astonishing claim, it's a fucking insult.

If you don't think physicality has been a requirement of sport since time immemorial, I don't know what to tell you.

It isn't a mangling of language because language cannot be mangled in that way. Grow up,
And get used to the fact that new sports are being invented that don't involve muscles.

What's bizarre is that you accuse me of wanting to 'narrowly construct' the term 'sport' and that I'm afraid of the 'prestige' of the words 'athlete' and 'sport' being applied to computer gamers, and yet it is you who calls athletes 'grotesques'. It seems to me it should be you that would not want computer gamers to be associated with the grotesques.

 

[dx713]

Well, pistol shooting is an olympic sport...
When you start with that premise, calling starcraft or world of tanks competitors in international events e-athletes isn't so far fetched.
After all, you do need a modicum of fitness to be able to play at your best level (I think it's telling that when you see the top players, they generally look quite fit even if not muscular, and you don't often see the obese geek stereotype).

As for the existence of a "women only" league, I don't see the problem.
The discrimination for the top league, when it was men only, was a problem, because it created a glass ceiling for the other demographics. Creating a special women (or kids, or senior, or whatever you need) league dedicated to attracting to your "sport" a part of the population you think is currently underrepresented is a good and understandable marketing move, and should be supported by other players who only stand to gain by making their game more popular.

 

[Togo]

As for the existence of a "women only" league, I don't see the problem.
The discrimination for the top league, when it was men only, was a problem, because it created a glass ceiling for the other demographics. Creating a special women (or kids, or senior, or whatever you need) league dedicated to attracting to your "sport" a part of the population you think is currently underrepresented is a good and understandable marketing move, and should be supported by other players who only stand to gain by making their game more popular.

The problem from my point of view is the splitting of events into a men-only games and women-only games. They're now letting women into the men-only games, but we're still segregating the games by gender.

Oh, and as a regular on the international board games circuit, and the organiser of the first Die Siedler tournament in the UK, I think calling computer and board games 'sports' is simply an unnecessary attempt to borrow status. Particularly since games about existing sports are already a recognised sub-category of games, for which tournaments already exist.