What is the difference between Sexism/racism and things just being what they are?

[Original Alear]

Here's the ultimate problem. Anything sexist against women is also sexist against men. Yes, Peach is helpless, but Mario is expected to drop EVERYTHING to go and save her and is a monster if he doesn't. There are two sides to the sexism coin to be sure.

Not so sure about that one. Plenty of times Mario will run around on sidequests or whatever, and I don't think I've ever seen that criticism leveled against Mario (probably because in the "main narrative" there's never any accounting of or attention to procrastination).

[Rehab]

Only if it's insulting in the first place. Are you insulted by the fact that princess peach got kidnapped in the first place? If not, then why are you insulted that she got kidnapped 13 other times as if she has shown that she is capable of defending herself against it?

Can you actually address the point instead of seeing me saying that VGs are in a vacuum and going "You're wrong".

Holy fuck you just saw me attack one of Anita's most beloved points about how "Video games are not in a vacuum" and yet you're still snarkily commenting about how I clearly haven't watched her videos. If you're not going to assume I'm intelligent enough to watch someone's videos before criticising them I don't see why I should take you seriously.

That is not intended nor is it achieved by anyone who doesn't overthink it. Men think "These guys hurt the one I care about I must stop them" not "oh my god look at all these whiny bitches who can't take care of themselves, why are all women like this?", it's not sexist or downgrading until you decide to perceive it that way.

As if she has shown that she is capable of defending herself against it? What? What does that have to do with the trope?

The stereotype that women are weaker than men, which is independent of gaming, is alive and well, despite some ongoing criticism of it. A bog-standard damsel in distress plotline is one that takes away any agency from the damsel, one that portrays her as unable to do anything about her situation. Thus, she is portrayed as weak. And this exact portrayal is still very common in games.

There are instances out there where the damsel is not helpless, even if she can't completely escape (and Paper Mario and Wind Waker are better than many others in this regard), but it still usually remains that she doesn't have control over her own fate without the help of the hero. Games in aggregate struggle to give non-protagonist female characters this agency thing, to let them have significant effects on the plot that aren't just being present and getting swept up by fate. Damsel-in-distress plots are the biggest, easiest thing to point to and go "that's what I'm talking about" when the subject comes up, particularly because there are still so many that just have the damsel do nothing until getting rescued.

Saying "there's only a hurtful message there if you want to see it" is lazy as hell. The damsels are and have been overwhelmingly female, and being the damsel has still overwhelmingly meant they're not allowed to do much of anything. Thus, the damsel-in-distress bit has mostly served to play right into the old "women are weak" chestnut.

Further, "no plot" is technically nigh-impossible to do, since the mere act of playing through a game forces it to have some kind of story, but it'd be much closer would be to simply have the bros start the level instantly with some dudes coming at them. That kind of setup was good enough for Breakout, Tetris, and the Scott Pilgrim game, it ought to be good enough for the grand majority of games with an uncritical presentation of the DiD.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Rehab

[Samias]

Objectively speaking, a woman being kidnapped is not sexist. The situation of being kidnapped so frequently your existence is equal to an inanimate object is problematic. You could replace Princess Peach with a sexy lamp and nothing would change. Princess Peach is an especially awful representation of the trope when you have quotes from Miyamoto himself saying “[Nintendo EAD] always want to have these dramatic scenes where Princess Peach gets kidnapped, but I always tell them, no, it’s fine — Princess Peach likes cake, so you can just have them use cake as bait to kidnap Princess Peach, and that’s enough." (source) Miyamoto has gone on record to say he sees a male protagonist as natural, that he won't make a game with a female protagonist unless there is a situation that "makes sense". With such a barebones kidnapping story as Princess Peach's, where her entirety of her story is that she's a glutton who can't resist junk food, what is so straining about coming up with a scenario where a princess is the hero? Later in the interview, Miyamoto admits that more and more women are playing games on the DS and that they should find ways to tap into the market. With the pressure put on the company to better represent female interests, Princess Peach has finally been reincluded in the roster for the upcoming Super Mario 3D World. Pokemon has a strong number of female gamers and they made a female protagonist available so girls could be better represented, plus they've integrated in gym leaders and champions who are both male and female, and inclusive of people of colour. There is a demand for this sort of thing and while it isn't essential to enjoy the game, it is an extra layer to make the game a more inclusive experience.

Also, I'd WOULD rather overthink why most video game women are kidnapped or killed off to become a motivator for a male-dominated story arc. It might not be declaring out-loud that women can't take care of themselves, but actions speak louder than words, and games are filled with females who just suddenly become incompetent even when they were supposed to be capable, for the benefit of a man's story. There wasn't really any reason for Zelda to have been kidnapped in Ocarina of Time. Link already had plenty of motivation to stop Ganondorf because the land of Hyrule was threatened. They needed to defeat him anyway. Kidnapping Zelda is so incredibly token at this point, it was only done because it hadn't happened yet. In Gears of War, Dom kills his own wife because she has literally become a useless burden and that death would be better for her. I like Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance and Radiant Dawn because even though Elincia is a distressed princess who is rescued early on, she is worked up to a level where she can defend herself and no longer needs the help of a man (Ike). Mystery of the Emblem played the damsel trope pretty straight with Nyna, Elice, Lena, and Maria, but the team moved on and we're better off for it.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Samias

[dondon151]

Poe's law and all, but if you have even the basic notion of reading between the lines and a decent internet background then there's very little ambiguity about the intentions of many of these posters who posted silly one-liners.

are you suggesting that sexist comments made on the internet should carry the inherent assumption of facetiousness? because as funny as i think sexism and racism are in the proper circumstances, i can't agree with that.

[Blademaster!]

Correct arguments need not have any impact on anyone (not necessarily saying that Sarkeesian's arguments are correct here). Credibility also means absolutely nothing when it comes to making a correct argument. We don't argue just for the sake of "impact" or "winning," we also argue with the eventual goal of constructing better and hopefully correct arguments. (edit 23:07 GMT: added in the words "just" and "also")

Without impact, your correct arguments will go ignored, and if you're credibility is being called into question, then no one will even bother to pay attention to your arguments, especially if it's something like you not even having played the video games that you are complaining about, since it calls to question why are you getting involved with something you were never apart of in the first place. You can have all the "correct" arguments in the world, but if you don't try and spread your message in a way that will reach the people and make them listen to you, ultimately you will accomplish nothing since no one will take you seriously or believe you.

Any of it worth reading?

If you're willing to wade through the "good and the bad" you may find something "worth" reading. Off hand, I don't have any kind of "copypasta" saved, and the only thing I can think of worth reading in relation to sexism and video games is that one thing where a photographer absolutely demolished(for lack of better wording) some guy at Kotaku who was responsible for bringing Dragon's Crown "issue" of sexism into the light, but that might not really have much to do with anything.

There wasn't really any reason for Zelda to have been kidnapped in Ocarina of Time. Link already had plenty of motivation to stop Ganondorf because the land of Hyrule was threatened. They needed to defeat him anyway. Kidnapping Zelda is so incredibly token at this point, it was only done because it hadn't happened yet.

Zelda being kidnapped had more to do with Ganondorf's motives than Link's considering she has the triforce of Wisdom and Ganondorf needs to get it from her, not to mention she was trying to get in the way of him taking over hyrule anyway.

[Samias]

Zelda being kidnapped had more to do with Ganondorf's motives than Link's considering she has the triforce of Wisdom and Ganondorf needs to get it from her, not to mention she was trying to get in the way of him taking over hyrule anyway.

Why not grab Link then? By this point, Link has been a thorn in Ganondorf's side for *ages*, killing his minions left and right and freeing the sages. From the very moment Link defeats Phantom Ganon in the Forest Temple, you'd think Ganondorf would be more proactive about getting rid of Link. There are so many holes when Ganondorf only grabs Zelda and ignores one of the biggest threats standing in front of him. From a gameplay perspective they don't want to rip control away from the player, but from a story standpoint it's abysmal.

[Zkirsche]

As if she has shown that she is capable of defending herself against it? What? What does that have to do with the trope?

Princess peach is incapable of stopping her kidnap. She lacks the physical strength to overpower a giant fire breathing turtle, much like the majority of the population I would imagine. If you think about her situation more though, it shows a great deal of willpower and determination to not be disheartened by the many attempts on her life.

Even if these characters are portrayed as weak very few are walking away from these games as white knights trying to save every women from the dangers of the outside world. If there is no negative impact on society then there is no harm for abusing the natural caring relationship that every normal man has towards the people he is close to as an easy plot device.

Saying "there's only a hurtful message there if you want to see it" is lazy as hell.

No it's not. Noone becomes a worse person from it and thus noone gets hurt from it. If you are choosing to be offended by something then it is you that has the problem.

The situation of being kidnapped so frequently your existence is equal to an inanimate object is problematic. You could replace Princess Peach with a sexy lamp and nothing would change

Except the whole point is that there existance isn't equal to an inanimate object. Their existence is important enough that the hero should go out of his way and risk his life to save her and expect little more than cake or the satisfaction pulling it off rewards you with.

I don't get what the rest of that paragraph has got to do with my point. Ok Miyamoto prefers male characters, but of course it's going to be easier for him to write and conceive of male characters as a guy himself. It's not sexist to relate to guys more because you are a guy.

I'd WOULD rather overthink why most video game women are kidnapped or killed off to become a motivator for a male-dominated story arc.

You'll find you'll enjoy games, and maybe life, more if you didn't.

games are filled with females who just suddenly become incompetent even when they were supposed to be capable, for the benefit of a man's story.

This is because losing a loved one or having a loved one taken away is easy motivation/reasoning for character development. All sorts of people have been thrown under the bus for the plot's convenience, and sure it occurs to women more but that is due to the large number of male protagonists. The large number of male protagonists is there because of a misconception that a vast majority of gamers are male or because the game makers originally targetted their games at young males. HOWEVER neither of those things tells us that the damsel-in-distress trope is sexist or it's use disempowers women in the eyes of men.

Edit: As for why Zelda was chosen over Link, its an overused plot device that the main antagonist likes to play with the protagonist and considering Ganondorf taunts link immediately after kidnapping Zelda it kinda supports the idea that that's all he wanted to do. Being the supreme ruler of everything can get kinda boring sometimes I suppose.

Edited August 29, 2013 by kirsche

[Loki Laufeyson]

Why not grab Link then? By this point, Link has been a thorn in Ganondorf's side for *ages*, killing his minions left and right and freeing the sages. From the very moment Link defeats Phantom Ganon in the Forest Temple, you'd think Ganondorf would be more proactive about getting rid of Link. There are so many holes when Ganondorf only grabs Zelda and ignores one of the biggest threats standing in front of him. From a gameplay perspective they don't want to rip control away from the player, but from a story standpoint it's abysmal.

From the game developer's point of view, this would cause a problem. What is that problem? Retooling the Zelda game entirely. I do agree that some spanner should be thrown into the works of the Zelda series in order to make it more fresh. Like, Ganondorf can nab Link and lock him up and he manages to escape without Ganon's knowledge. (Oh wait...Twilight Princess sorta did that one, huh! Oh btw, there was empowerment for a female character in that situation if i recall..Something about Midna basically rescuing Link..) OR (and heres the clincher) reverse the roles of Link and Zelda. The issue the devs seem to have a problem with this idea is giving Link actual dialogue because he'd either be a sidekick character, an optional player character (ala Richter Belmont in SotN), or an NPC. Nintendo doesnt seem to like that idea for some reason. I do think its way past due that Zelda gets a starring role in her game series.

[Samias]

From the game developer's point of view, this would cause a problem. What is that problem? Retooling the Zelda game entirely. I do agree that some spanner should be thrown into the works of the Zelda series in order to make it more fresh. Like, Ganondorf can nab Link and lock him up and he manages to escape without Ganon's knowledge. (Oh wait...Twilight Princess sorta did that one, huh! Oh btw, there was empowerment for a female character in that situation if i recall..Something about Midna basically rescuing Link..) OR (and heres the clincher) reverse the roles of Link and Zelda. The issue the devs seem to have a problem with this idea is giving Link actual dialogue because he'd either be a sidekick character, an optional player character (ala Richter Belmont in SotN), or an NPC. Nintendo doesnt seem to like that idea for some reason. I do think its way past due that Zelda gets a starring role in her game series.

Yeah, I realize why Nintendo chose to remove Zelda from the picture at that moment. For technical reasons, it's easier to remove Zelda from relevancy as Link tackles the last bit of the game instead of programming some sort of team effort to go in and stop Ganondorf's ambitions. At this point, kidnapping Zelda for her piece of the Triforce and gloating in front of Link is contrived but the game designers just decided not to do something more interesting and logical. I think Twilight Princess was, for the most part, an improvement on the situation of women in Zelda games, but it isn't really ZELDA being empowered. She has more combat training in this scenario (she uses a sword and bow pretty well) but her role in the game is fairly subdued. Midna, on the other hand, helps Link nearly the whole way through and Midna's moment of defeat is way less contrived than Zelda's kidnappings in OoT or Wind Waker. Link would have been stuck as a wolf forever without Midna's support and generally I have way less problems with the dynamic between Link and Midna, despite the slightly creepy bondage hints. I guess Midna is just kinky that way.

Super Mario Bros 2 (reskinned Doki Doki Panic) did not feature a princess to be rescued. It didn't really have much framework of a story at all. It just goes to show that we can go through Mario's adventures just fine without having to bait the end with a princess. With such a framework it's not really much of a hassle to have a female protagonist any less than a male protagonist, other than the assumption that men are stronger (despite this being a world of fantasy). Just because a creator of a game is a man doesn't mean there are no examples of women to use as templates other than the classic damsel trope. He isn't a video game creator, but Hayao Miyazaki is a fantastic film maker who draws inspiration from the strong women around him. He doesn't have to be a woman to understand that the world deserves to highlight female rolemodels a little more often. His male characters aren't weak to empower the women, either. I, and most other feminists, do not want male characters to have their stories diluted to useless sidekick either. We just want better women who can match the strength of the men.

And I do love games even if I think about why the underlying message sucks. The position of liking something and being critical about something is not mutually exclusive. I can like being a carnivore but that doesn't mean I can't call for the better treatment of animals, for example.

Ultimately I want to see more characters like Joanna Dark from Perfect Dark, but I also enjoy things like Bioware's equal opportunities for every kind of character. I don't demand every game have a woman as the main character. I know Final Fantasy XIV could be "Visual Kei Boy Band Fantasy XIV" and the title would still be accurate, but I am looking forward to the game. I don't even demand that the women be fully dressed, as the Amazon in Dragon's Crown is super fun and awesome and has been my favourite to play as. I just think it's awful to think that games SHOULDN'T change, just because we are comfortable with the status quo. We shouldn't avoid challenges just because it makes us uncomfortable. If it's so hard for men to want to play as women, why do they think it's any easier for women to relate to male characters? Can we at least see the industry change so we have titles that realistically represent the proportion of women who play games? Can female side characters not be tossed aside so casually to further the plot instead of implementing more co-operative measures? I think the industry is beginning to catch up to the reality that women are not a throwaway demographic, thankfully, but for now I'll continue to support sites like Escher Girls and Feminist Frequency as they call out the entertainment industry for their questionable choices on how to portray women, and as an extension, men.

Edit: I extended my point a little bit, since I won't really be able to continue for the night or over the weekend.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Samias

[Redwall]

Without impact, your correct arguments will go ignored, and if you're credibility is being called into question, then no one will even bother to pay attention to your arguments, especially if it's something like you not even having played the video games that you are complaining about, since it calls to question why are you getting involved with something you were never apart of in the first place. You can have all the "correct" arguments in the world, but if you don't try and spread your message in a way that will reach the people and make them listen to you, ultimately you will accomplish nothing since no one will take you seriously or believe you.

There is a distinction between persuasiveness and accuracy of an argument. Sarkeesian's persuasiveness is evidently low among those who have chosen to throw out the baby with the bathwater by using the fact that she used others' gameplay footage to somehow smear her credibility (when really it doesn't; it suggests that she hasn't recorded her own gameplay, but she promised on her Kickstarter only that she would be "researching and playing hundreds of titles," not once mentioning she would record her own footage).

You seem to be arguing one of two things, and I can't tell which you are saying: a) "Sarkeesian's credibility is shot, so she can't persuade the public at large" or b) "Sarkeesian's credibility is shot, so she can't persuade me."

If you're claiming a), it would seem that the only people who complain about her recording practices are people who were determined to block her out anyway. Just as a professor doesn't have to (and ordinarily won't) do any of the grunt work involved in her grad student's publication in order to be listed as the senior author, Sarkeesian likewise doesn't need to have recorded her own footage to make an informed critique; I think many people realize this. There are certainly some problems with the fact that she hasn't cited her LP sources, though I suspect that a) she'll start citing sooner or later and b) few people beyond those determined to ignore her will actually take this seriously.

If you're claiming b), in which Sarkeesian's accuracy matters to a larger extent, then I'd say that you're not being intellectually honest, since an intellectually honest person would consider her actual arguments (which are distinct from her credibility) point by point before making a judgment.

Zelda being kidnapped had more to do with Ganondorf's motives than Link's considering she has the triforce of Wisdom and Ganondorf needs to get it from her, not to mention she was trying to get in the way of him taking over hyrule anyway.

I've already addressed this, and I agree that it's rational for Ganondorf to kidnap Zelda for her Triforce of Wisdom. However, Ganondorf could have magic-trapped both Link and Zelda instead of just Zelda; Ganondorf could have held Sheik hostage and revealed a Triforce symbol on her hand to confirm her identity as Zelda; Ganondorf could have spied on Zelda from the outset, as he did with Link after he pulled out the Master Sword (since if Ganondorf were not spying on Link the whole time, how would he have reached him so soon after Sheik's reversion?), allowing him to catch Zelda while in Sheikah form.

If you think about her situation more though, it shows a great deal of willpower and determination to not be disheartened by the many attempts on [Peach's] life.

The developers make no attempt at portraying this as a strength, instead taking her continued mental soundness for granted; for this reason, you can't use this to say they're empowering her.

Except the whole point is that there existance isn't equal to an inanimate object. Their existence is important enough that the hero should go out of his way and risk his life to save her and expect little more than cake or the satisfaction pulling it off rewards you with.

Replace Peach with a gold statue in her likeness worth tons of money. Mario still has incentive to chase after it. Nothing of plot relevance is lost (sadly).

You'll find you'll enjoy games, and maybe life, more if you didn't.

Are you actually decrying the very act of contrarian thinking?

All sorts of people have been thrown under the bus for the plot's convenience, and sure it occurs to women more but that is due to the large number of male protagonists.

The victim's gender (assuming a victim exists) doesn't have to be the opposite of that of the protagonist; they don't even have to be in a romantic relationship. Yet this is taken for granted, for some reason.

HOWEVER neither of those things tells us that the damsel-in-distress trope is sexist

For the third time (at least), none of us is arguing the damsel-in-distress trope is sexist in all cases, so I'm not sure why you feel so compelled to repeat this.

or it's use disempowers women in the eyes of men.

It wouldn't surprise me if the effect were small compared to that of other forms of media. However, I see no reason to think this specific trope has no influence when Disney movies featuring it have given rise to princess culture among girls at an age where they as well as boys may start playing video games.

Edit: As for why Zelda was chosen over Link, its an overused plot device that the main antagonist likes to play with the protagonist and considering Ganondorf taunts link immediately after kidnapping Zelda it kinda supports the idea that that's all he wanted to do. Being the supreme ruler of everything can get kinda boring sometimes I suppose.

Nonsense. In OoT, Zelda tells us from the start that Ganondorf is looking for the Triforce. Ganondorf passes up opportunities to torment young Link in order to sneak into the Temple of Time and steal the entire Triforce, which winds up splitting in three as a result of Ganondorf's wickedness. In the future, he kidnaps Zelda with the intent of taking the Triforce of Wisdom.

[Espinosa]

are you suggesting that sexist comments made on the internet should carry the inherent assumption of facetiousness? because as funny as i think sexism and racism are in the proper circumstances, i can't agree with that.

No, I'm not. Plenty of people on the internet are serious in their hostility. I'm saying that the choice of wording (reference to memes or figures of speech etc.) can help determine the intentions with relative precision.

[Zkirsche]

The developers make no attempt at portraying this as a strength, instead taking her continued mental soundness for granted; for this reason, you can't use this to say they're empowering her.

They make no attempt at portraying her as weak, though; or at least noone thinks of her as weak until you overanalyse it at which point you can come to the same conclusion that I just made. The sexism is just an interpretation.

Replace Peach with a gold statue in her likeness worth tons of money. Mario still has incentive to chase after it. Nothing of plot relevance is lost (sadly).

Considering how many coins he can collect just from jumping into them, no he doesn't have an incentive. But speaking broadly about the entire damsel-in-distress trope, the point is that it's someone that they care about that is being hurt or taken away and that there is no benefit to yourself other than the knowledge that you've made them safe. So no, they are not gold statues as that would bring the protagonist material gain.

Are you actually decrying the very act of contrarian thinking?

Not entirely, but the degree at which it is done in this example is ridiculous. If it actually puts you off a game because all you can see is sexism where the average person doesn't see anything then it's a problem.

The victim's gender (assuming a victim exists) doesn't have to be the opposite of that of the protagonist; they don't even have to be in a romantic relationship. Yet this is taken for granted, for some reason.

Romance is easy motivation. But yes, it would be refreshing to see more friendship/brotherly bonds being used. That's just means teh damsel-in-distress storyline is stale and overused, not that it's sexist and degrading to women.

For the third time (at least), none of us is arguing the damsel-in-distress trope is sexist in all cases, so I'm not sure why you feel so compelled to repeat this.

And for the third time, I am going to say that I am arguing that the damsel-in-distress trope is not sexist in any case.

It wouldn't surprise me if the effect were small compared to that of other forms of media. However, I see no reason to think this specific trope has no influence when Disney movies featuring it have given rise to princess culture among girls at an age where they as well as boys may start playing video games.

Movies are not games.

Just because movies affect people does not mean that games affect people. Again, I point to the whole violent games thing as support for the idea that games do not influence people. Even if they did, the message to support and make sacrifices for those you care about comes across much more strongly than how women are all weak.

Nonsense. In OoT, Zelda tells us from the start that Ganondorf is looking for the Triforce. Ganondorf passes up opportunities to torment young Link in order to sneak into the Temple of Time and steal the entire Triforce, which winds up splitting in three as a result of Ganondorf's wickedness. In the future, he kidnaps Zelda with the intent of taking the Triforce of Wisdom.

What? Young link was sealed in the chamber of sages for 7 years after pulling out the master sword, which is how Ganondorf got the Triforce.

Edited August 29, 2013 by kirsche

[Blademaster!]

when really it doesn't

Too you that may not be the case, but to others(myself included), the fact that she just seems to be copying information from tvtropes and doesn't use her own footage(if she was really playing these games for the first time, a live play by play reaction would have been much better for helping her case) implies to many that she hasn't been playing these video games, and if you haven't been playing the games, you have no right to make arguments about them, let alone critique them, as it says you don't know what you're talking about. If Anita hadn't played OoT, then she wouldn't be able to respond to the statement about why Ganondorf would kidnap Zelda like you or Samias could which shows that you are just complaining about something you don't even understand the context of. It's like trying to argue that guns are dangerous and should be banned from being in the hands of citizens because someone used his gun to kill someone, but the actual context of the situation you are using is that the shooter actually used his gun to save his life from an attacker of some kind that wasn't using a gun, but rather some kind of everyday item he himself used as a weapon like a kitchen knife. Even with this, if your credibility has been called into question, at what point would anyone ever bother to consider you to be making a correct argument anyway, especially in a situation like this one?

Also, Anita isn't really comparable with a college Professor in this situation, since a college Professor's knowledge on their subject of study isn't really going to be called into question unlike someone who has no known past of having played video games and or an understanding of the medium. Here is some info on what Anita's past is like http://anongamer.tumblr.com/ just for the record though if you are curious.

However, Ganondorf could have magic-trapped both Link and Zelda instead of just Zelda

Could he? Could it be possible that trying to capture both of them at the same time would be too risky for him?

Ganondorf could have held Sheik hostage and revealed a Triforce symbol on her hand to confirm her identity as Zelda

Ganondorf had no idea who Sheik was

Ganondorf could have spied on Zelda from the outset, as he did with Link after he pulled out the Master Sword

Could have implying we don't know if he did with the likely answer being he couldn't since he was never able to capture Shiek, let alone know who Shiek was.

@Samias: What makes you think Ganondorf wasn't trying to kill Link all the time until the time he caught Zelda? As to why not capture Link instead of Zelda, assuming he is only strong enough to capture one, Link is clearly the stronger target to catch since Zelda never really fought back against him like he did, and for all he knows, he wouldn't be able too. I mean, he doesn't try and capture him when they meant again later considering he tries to fight him first.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Blademaster!

[amadeuscho]

Princess peach is incapable of stopping her kidnap. She lacks the physical strength to overpower a giant fire breathing turtle, much like the majority of the population I would imagine. If you think about her situation more though, it shows a great deal of willpower and determination to not be disheartened by the many attempts on her life.

What? Young link was sealed in the chamber of sages for 7 years after pulling out the master sword, which is how Ganondorf got the Triforce.

"Princess peach is incapable of stopping her kidnap." That's really the pervasive mentality that comes with the damsel in distress role, which is why it can be so damaging. It reflects sexist attitudes to say the Princess is incapable of stopping her kidnapping. Because she is shown to be able to fight just like Mario and Luigi in Super Mario Bros 2 (Super Mario Advance), Super Princess Peach, and the upcoming Super Mario 3D World. So she is not incapable.

Ganondorf only got the Triforce of Power. Link got the triforce of Courage and Zelda got the triforce of Wisdom. He wants the whole triforce, but ends up using just the triforce of Power to become Ganon.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Viewtiful_J

[Zkirsche]

That's really the pervasive mentality that comes with the damsel in distress role, which is why it can be so damaging

It's not damaging at all to say that these women are incapable of defending themselves. They're human beings with their own limitations and them being unable to successfully stand up in terms of raw power to these foes which are hyped up to have considerable strength doesn't say that wall women will be unable to and doesn't even say that those that are are at fault.

"why it can be so damaging" implies that it has been damaging or even has the potential to be damaging. But violent games have been shown to have little to no effect on our compass of morality and there's much more evidence of that than of causing sexism, so this damsel in distress trope has the most miniscule effect to no effect at all.

Just because peach is capable of fight does not mean that Peach is stronger than Bowser, or that Peach has the power to escape a surprise attack. SMB2 is a remake of a different game with Peach thrown in last minute. In SPP Bowser surprise kidnaps Mario and Luigi and not Peach herself, so if Mario and Luigi can be caught off-guard then it is reasonable that Peach can be caught off-guard.

He wants the whole triforce, but ends up using just the triforce of Power to become Ganon.

His goal was not to become Ganon it was to rule Hyrule, and to do that he needed all 3 pieces.

[Dark Sage]

are you suggesting that sexist comments made on the internet should carry the inherent assumption of facetiousness? because as funny as i think sexism and racism are in the proper circumstances, i can't agree with that.

this is an interesting question. you're right that people who make racist/sexist comments on the internet are often serious. however most of the people making such comments are full of hot air. they don't have the balls to actually do anything besides make idle threats because this is the internet and there's no incentive not to act like a jackass. basically, those kinds of comments should be taken with a grain of salt.

on topic, i don't really believe that the "saving the princess" plot is necessarily sexist; it really depends on the portrayal. the worst type of this kind of plot is if the damsel is shown to be tough and independent before but reverts into a helpless, sexist caricature when she's in trouble and needs a man to save her. I don't think these kinds of plots actually teach men that most women are like this. many men i know actually scoff or make fun of this kind of thing and realize that this is fiction and not necessarily an accurate portrayal of human behavior.

[amadeuscho]

It's not damaging at all to say that these women are incapable of defending themselves. They're human beings with their own limitations and them being unable to successfully stand up in terms of raw power to these foes which are hyped up to have considerable strength doesn't say that wall women will be unable to and doesn't even say that those that are are at fault.

"why it can be so damaging" implies that it has been damaging or even has the potential to be damaging. But violent games have been shown to have little to no effect on our compass of morality and there's much more evidence of that than of causing sexism, so this damsel in distress trope has the most miniscule effect to no effect at all.

Just because peach is capable of fight does not mean that Peach is stronger than Bowser, or that Peach has the power to escape a surprise attack. SMB2 is a remake of a different game with Peach thrown in last minute. In SPP Bowser surprise kidnaps Mario and Luigi and not Peach herself, so if Mario and Luigi can be caught off-guard then it is reasonable that Peach can be caught off-guard.

His goal was not to become Ganon it was to rule Hyrule, and to do that he needed all 3 pieces.

The development of SMB2 doesn't matter; it exists in Super Mario canon. Also the game started development as a Mario title, and was released as Super Mario Advance in all regions, making the game canon in all regions.

The problem with the concept is that there is a reason why an individual would say this about Peach "is incapable of stopping her kidnap" and not the same about Mario. Because in a majority of her appearances, she plays the damsel in distress. This weakens her role as a fully formed character because she functions more so as a plot device. She has made appearances where this isn't the case, proving that she can defend herself.

Sexism in the media is not about individual instances in media. Nor is about how many people that particular piece of media influences necessarily. Rather, it is because sexism exists in continuum across all media, which displays sexist tradition. The media attempts to reflect human or individual society norms and displaying sexism is a poor reflection of one gender. Sexist attitudes come from traditional gender roles and may include the belief in a gender's superiority over others. Just like displaying racist attitudes in a game is a poor reflection of that particular group. A bad film with sexist themes that nobody watches should be criticized just as a popular and "good" film with sexist attitudes should be criticized.

Never said it was Ganon's quest to become Ganon. Just stated what happened. The point was he didn't get the whole triforce, just only a part of it. What Redwall said was correct.

[Zkirsche]

The problem with the concept is that there is a reason why an individual would say this about Peach "is incapable of stopping her kidnap" and not the same about Mario. Because in a majority of her appearances, she plays the damsel in distress. This weakens her role as a fully formed character because she functions more so as a plot device. She has made appearances where this isn't the case, proving that she can defend herself.

Peach cannot defend herself from a surprise attack on her castle. She has never proved that she can. She has proved that she can launch assaults against Bowser's castle, but not survive them.

Also all characters in a plot are plot devices because they are characters which exist solely to push forth the narrative. Peach's role is of someone that Mario cares about and thus needs rescuing. As for being "fully formed" Mario doesn't really have a personality either, so instead of looking at it like "oh they didn't give this women enough character" you should realise that character and plot are not the focus of Mario at all. So any criticism of them is just overanalysating it.

Sexism in the media is not about individual instances in media. Nor is about how many people that particular piece of media influences necessarily. Rather, it is because sexism exists in continuum across all media, which displays sexist tradition. The media attempts to reflect human or individual society norms and displaying sexism is a poor reflection of one gender. Sexist attitudes come from traditional gender roles and may include the belief in a gender's superiority over others. Just like displaying racist attitudes in a game is a poor reflection of that particular group. A bad film with sexist themes that nobody watches should be criticized just as a popular and "good" film with sexist attitudes should be criticized.

I don't see what this has to do with anything I said.

Never said it was Ganon's quest to become Ganon. Just stated what happened. The point was he didn't get the whole triforce, just only a part of it. What Redwall said was correct.

I misinterpreted what he meant, but he missed the point entirely. My point is that dorf kidnapped Zelda and not link because he was trying to mock Link. Him being ignored when he was young has nothing to do with it.

[Phoenix Wright]

How would you guys change Mario and Zelda? They were never known for deep stories in the first place. Especially this deep into tradition?

Like, would you reverse the roles? What?

[Zkirsche]

I wouldn't change a thing because I don't see any problem with it.

[Rehab]

It doesn't matter to me that strongly what those two franchises in particular do. It'd just be nice to to have a smaller share of games use the DiD.

But since you asked, they could just make up some adventures that don't involve anybody being kidnapped. Super Mario Sunshine didn't have that plotline for a good part of the game, and it's one of my favorites in the series even without even taking that into account.

And Zelda has had a shitload of powers of her own for awhile now, I don't think it'd be so bad if she got a protag role some time. I don't think Link has to become "the damsel" for that to happen, either, he doesn't even necessarily have to come into the equation. Just giving Zelda some more screentime and agency might make for something cool.

I'm not going to boycott either series or whatever if they don't, and unless a game is really vile about it (like, I dunno, if the damsel was sexualized in defeat really, really hard) I generally don't automatically rule out purchasing a game over that, alone, or protest that other people shouldn't buy it or whatever. I don't have Borderline Personality Disorder, I think games and things can have parts I think are harmless and good while having parts I think are bad. I'd just be more likely to vote with my wallet for a game that, all other things being equal, does those things better, and I'd call it an improvement if less games came out that didn't do so.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Rehab

[Redwall]

They make no attempt at portraying her as weak, though; or at least noone thinks of her as weak until you overanalyse it at which point you can come to the same conclusion that I just made. The sexism is just an interpretation.

Your word games amuse me. My opinion is "just an interpretation," while yours is a "conclusion."

Of course they make an attempt at portraying her as weak. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the writers ensure Peach has fewer choices available to her than Mario; her salvation is achieved not through her own agency, but through Mario's. She does not perform any actions beyond things like talking and existing (something every character does); instead, actions are primarily done to her (Bowser kidnaps Peach; Mario saves Peach; in both these instances, Peach is the object of the independent clause, whereas Mario and Bowser are the subjects.

In the one game in which Peach plays a starring role, Super Princess Peach, her secret weapon is being...overly emotional? If her character development were substantial, then this might be negligible, but the game doesn't parlay much, if any, of this into substantial character development for her (from what I understand; I haven't played the game, so correct me if I make any factual errors). Instead, the focal character is her male (of course) parasol.

And like I said, you could replace Peach with a very valuable inanimate object, and nothing of value would be lost (since this inanimate object wouldn't have the capacity to fear Bowser), suggesting this "emotional strength" you speak of isn't meant to be relevant to the player.

Considering how many coins he can collect just from jumping into them, no he doesn't have an incentive. But speaking broadly about the entire damsel-in-distress trope, the point is that it's someone that they care about that is being hurt or taken away and that there is no benefit to yourself other than the knowledge that you've made them safe.

Were your eyes and ears in skim mode when you watched Sarkeesian's videos and replied to Samias' post? Because, surprise, Sarkeesian has explicitly addressed this, and agrees that Mario's actions are noble and unsexist. Everybody in this thread who has replied to this has also mentioned that Mario's acts and intentions were noble and decidedly unsexist. The point is that whether Mario's goal is to save a gold statue or Princess Peach, both the statue and Peach herself remain incapable of freeing themselves on their own.

Now the question becomes, is this sexist? Given that a woman, one who is powerless to secure her freedom from the villain, is the captive in a disproportionate number of Mario games, then I'm inclined to say it is. It is not just the fact that the captive is disproportionately a woman that leads me to claim this, it is also the fact that she is powerless and portrayed as incapable of playing a substantial part in her rescue. Though obviously it is an improvement that games like TP and WW have been letting Zelda play a role against the final boss.

I hope that if I repeat this enough it will penetrate your reality-distortion field: it is not Mario's choices that are sexist, it is the writers' choices that are sexist (but likely not intentionally so) for disproportionaly framing the narrative as "Mario saves Peach, who does nothing of substance and who is also helpless and whose rescue is the objective." Although tradition explains why the developers continue to do this, it doesn't make the consequences--an essentially powerless Peach, someone who is written as a means to an end (the end of the game)--any less sexist. And of course no one is claiming all instances of the damsel-in-distress trope to be sexist.

So no, they are not gold statues as that would bring the protagonist material gain.

I'm amazed you actually thought that was what I was saying.

Romance is easy motivation. But yes, it would be refreshing to see more friendship/brotherly bonds being used.

But not sisterly bonds, though, fuck those.

That's just means teh damsel-in-distress storyline is stale and overused, not that it's sexist and degrading to women

I do not think it is intentionally sexist and degrading.

And for the third time, I am going to say that I am arguing that the damsel-in-distress trope is not sexist in any case.

Already addressed why I think it remains sexist (in many but not all cases) earlier in this post.

Movies are not games.

Just because movies affect people does not mean that games affect people. Again, I point to the whole violent games thing as support for the idea that games do not influence people. Even if they did, the message to support and make sacrifices for those you care about comes across much more strongly than how women are all weak.

The analogy doesn't exist. Well-socialized people agree on that violent acts in real life are bad, and so children are told to avoid committing these acts; it is likely that for this reason (or similar), violent games have a small, if not zero, influence on real-life violence (though the studies on VG violence are hardly conclusive). Yet, these same people often disagree on what constitutes sexism:

Meanwhile, foo camp itself had a session on discrimination in which it was explained to us that the real problem was not racism or sexism, but simply the fact that people like to hang out with others who are like themselves.

The denial about this in the tech community is so great that sometimes I despair of it ever getting fixed. And I should be clear, it’s not that there are just some bad people out there who are being prejudiced and offensive. Many of these people that I’m thinking of are some of my best friends in the community. It’s an institutional problem, not a personal one.

Also see this.

Video game narratives are really not so different from narratives in mythology and such that we all know and that have obviously influenced our culture. For this reason, the prima facie assumption is that, yes, they do have some influence; not necessarily a lot, but influence nonetheless.

What? Young link was sealed in the chamber of sages for 7 years after pulling out the master sword, which is how Ganondorf got the Triforce.

Ganondorf seizes the Triforce the entire Triforce from the Sacred Realm, and it splits in three since his heart isn't in balance. Regardless, this doesn't address my point at all.

Too you that may not be the case, but to others(myself included), the fact that she just seems to be copying information from tvtropes and doesn't use her own footage(if she was really playing these games for the first time, a live play by play reaction would have been much better for helping her case) implies to many that she hasn't been playing these video games, and if you haven't been playing the games, you have no right to make arguments about them, let alone critique them, as it says you don't know what you're talking about. If Anita hadn't played OoT, then she wouldn't be able to respond to the statement about why Ganondorf would kidnap Zelda like you or Samias could which shows that you are just complaining about something you don't even understand the context of. It's like trying to argue that guns are dangerous and should be banned from being in the hands of citizens because someone used his gun to kill someone, but the actual context of the situation you are using is that the shooter actually used his gun to save his life from an attacker of some kind that wasn't using a gun, but rather some kind of everyday item he himself used as a weapon like a kitchen knife. ?

Let us assume for a moment that Anita has never played any of the games she features (which I doubt, but let's just go along with this); there would be ethical problems associated with this since she promised on her Kickstarter that she would play the games (but not necessarily record her own footage).

...this is the most elitist thing I've read on this site. Is there some sort of central accreditation agency that confers special badges to Real Gamers and allows only them to have the "right to make arguments about them?" Even if she hadn't played the games, Sarkeesian would still be able to view all the dialogue and cutscenes, and it is those things that actually matter in the formation of literary critique. I made the professor/grad student example to communicate this basic point.

As for the ethical problems associated with the hypothetical broken promise of actually playing the games, Sarkeesian could be a complete sociopath and that still wouldn't overturn her analysis.

You've wasted nearly all your keystrokes implying "oh, Anita might have made a factual error" and saying "well, for this reason people aren't gonna listen" instead of saying a) "Anita definitely made this factual error and it negates her analysis of VG tropes at large for this reason."

Even with this, if your credibility has been called into question, at what point would anyone ever bother to consider you to be making a correct argument anyway, especially in a situation like this one

Simple: those who are intellectually honest, willing to look at the actual arguments and consider both the possibility that Sarkeesian's analysis is inaccurate and the possibility that it is accurate.

Could he? Could it be possible that trying to capture both of them at the same time would be too risky for him?

The laws governing magic and other such things are entirely up to the discretion of the writers. It's trivial to conceive of a situation in which Ganondorf has enough strength to capture both Sheik and Link simultaneously.

Ganondorf had no idea who Sheik was

I addressed this in a previous post. Ganondorf could easily have shot first and asked questions later by kidnapping Sheik even while unaware of her true identity. I say this keeping in mind that Ganondorf deliberately allows Link to be aided by Sheik and to restore the temples.

Could have implying we don't know if he did with the likely answer being he couldn't since he was never able to capture Shiek, let alone know who Shiek was.

Why is he capable of overpowering Zelda but not Sheik? Keep in mind that because Ganondorf allows Link to be aided by Sheik in Link's quest to restore the temples, it would be trivial for Ganondorf to just plant himself outside a temple.

Samias: What makes you think Ganondorf wasn't trying to kill Link all the time until the time he caught Zelda?

I've addressed this. Ganondorf explicitly mentions that he deliberately allows Link to go around restoring the temples.

As to why not capture Link instead of Zelda, assuming he is only strong enough to capture one

Not a necessary assumption, as I've explained.

Link is clearly the stronger target to catch

Why?

since Zelda never really fought back against him like he did

Why?

and for all he knows, he wouldn't be able too

Why?

I mean, he doesn't try and capture him when they meant again later considering he tries to fight him first.

There's my answer, but let me reiterate that the writers can write VG physics however they want. Your arguments constrain themselves to the "canonical" set of physics and narrative, why must they continually write the physics and the narrative in a way that generally makes Zelda less capable than Link? This is the Legend of Zelda.

[Zkirsche]

Your word games amuse me. My opinion is "just an interpretation," while yours is a "conclusion."

What? Ok since you want to argue semantics over wording you come to the conclusion from your interpretation. Why is this a point?

Of course they make an attempt at portraying her as weak. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the writers ensure Peach has fewer choices available to her than Mario; her salvation is achieved not through her own agency, but through Mario's. She does not perform any actions beyond things like talking and existing (something every character does); instead, actions are primarily done to her (Bowser kidnaps Peach; Mario saves Peach; in both these instances, Peach is the object of the independent clause, whereas Mario and Bowser are the subjects.

No they aren't, they are simply having her kidnapped for Mario to rescue. Noone thinks about how weak she is or what the implications are until you analyse it and then multiple conclusions can be reached depending on your interpretation. I don't see how talking and having relationships with other people alone makes you an object. Her actions include ruling the kingdom and inviting Mario round for tea and cake, making her a friendly kind person whom we care about and thus don't want to see harmed. Ok, so she doesn't have a big say of what happens to her in the games but that doesn't mean we view her as an object to be obtained. You have a very pessimistic view of people if you think we do.

In the one game in which Peach plays a starring role, Super Princess Peach, her secret weapon is being...overly emotional? I

Just a gimmick for a change in gameplay.

f her character development were substantial, then this might be negligible,

No characters in Mario have substantial character development. It's fucking Mario.

but the game doesn't parlay much, if any, of this into substantial character development for her (from what I understand; I haven't played the game, so correct me if I make any factual errors). Instead, the focal character is her male (of course) parasol.

Oh my god it's so sexist for a game company to think that they have done enough with a character and decide to focus on an interesting minor character.

And like I said, you could replace Peach with a very valuable inanimate object, and nothing of value would be lost (since this inanimate object wouldn't have the capacity to fear Bowser), suggesting this "emotional strength" you speak of isn't meant to be relevant to the player.

Really? You think Peach's existance is of the same value to gamers as an inanimate object? Not just Peach, but any damsel-in-distress character in any game. People do not kill Dom's wife and think "pffffft serves her right fucking women are just objects. Too much work to try and reintegrate her into society". If they like the game they go "God damnit how dare they fucking do this to someone. Holy fuck, I'm sorry Dom." If they don't they might go "Unoriginal" or something but that'll be their distaste in the games' story and not their distaste in women or their view of women as objects. (Maybe they'll see everyone in a game as objects but then that's clearly not sexist unless the entire cast is female and the reasonign for it is because they're female).

And no, just because both a golden statue of Peach and Peach herself have the same chance of escaping Bowser's clutch, they are not the same thing and gamers do not view them as the same thing. I'm physically weak but that doesn't mean I have the same value of a stick of pencil lead (at least I hope I don't).

Now the question becomes, is this sexist? Given that a woman, one who is powerless to secure her freedom from the villain, is the captive in a disproportionate number of Mario games, then I'm inclined to say it is. It is not just the fact that the captive is disproportionately a woman that leads me to claim this, it is also the fact that she is powerless and portrayed as incapable of playing a substantial part in her rescue. Though obviously it is an improvement that games like TP and WW have been letting Zelda play a role against the final boss.

No it's not: it's saying that that one particular women is powerless to secure her freedom from the villain. It's not sexist to say such women exist because they do. Just like such men exist (I'd be just as powerless in the same situation). Someone being unable to escape highlights the desperation of their situation and thus is an event to induce drama.

And in all games, it is just a case of one particular woman. The reason for the large number of such "one particular woman" is the large popularity of such story arcs

I'm amazed you actually thought that was what I was saying.

I'm amazed that you fail to see the difference between a person who has emotions and a golden statue of that person.

But not sisterly bonds, though, fuck those.

I didn't mention those or motherly bonds because they have also been done before a fair bit (Anita even criticised some of theose instances in her second video). But hey, I'm an inconsiderate assfuck for disagreeing with you.

Already addressed why I think it remains sexist (in many but not all cases) earlier in this post.

Thanks for pointing that out, I might've missed it otherwise.

The analogy doesn't exist. Well-socialized people agree on that violent acts in real life are bad, and so children are told to avoid committing these acts; it is likely that for this reason (or similar), violent games have a small, if not zero, influence on real-life violence (though the studies on VG violence are hardly conclusive). Yet, these same people often disagree on what constitutes sexism:

Well-socialised people don't originally agree that sexism or violence in the real life is ok or bad to begin with, their opinions and beliefs are formed from the world around them. Considering video games have not changed people's opinions on violence, why would it be the same with sexism? The sexism is formed from interctions with other people and maybe other forms of media.

Also see this.

This link is broken for me.

Video game narratives are really not so different from narratives in mythology and such that we all know and that have obviously influenced our culture. For this reason, the prima facie assumption is that, yes, they do have some influence; not necessarily a lot, but influence nonetheless.

I'm 100% ignorant in mythology and how it affects our daily lives today, so I can't really comment on this point. I would like to add that even if games have influence, their influence isn't necessarily the sexism you perceive to exist in these games.

Ganondorf seizes the Triforce the entire Triforce from the Sacred Realm, and it splits in three since his heart isn't in balance. Regardless, this doesn't address my point at all.

This is getting really off-topic but can you then elaborate on your point. My interpretation of your point was "No, Ganondorf isn't messing with link because otherwise he would have tormented young link instead of going straight to the triforce." so my response is "He couldn't mess with Link then because Link was safe in the inner temple of light". If you were saying that Ganondorf wasn't messing with young link full stop so why would he mess with adult link, then it should be obvious that he didn't really know much about young link or his threat and/or thought it best to interfere as little as possible so link can open the way to the temple of light.

As we're going this far in, maybe Ganon chose to capture Zelda and not Link because those imprisoned like that have their magic power sealed and thsu sealing Zelda is necessary as sealing Link might allow Zelda to cast some kind of counter spell or something. I dunno, this is getting really silly now.

[amadeuscho]

Sexism in the media is not about individual instances in media. Nor is about how many people that particular piece of media influences necessarily. Rather, it is because sexism exists in continuum across all media, which displays sexist tradition. The media attempts to reflect human or individual society norms and displaying sexism is a poor reflection of one gender. Sexist attitudes come from traditional gender roles and may include the belief in a gender's superiority over others. Just like displaying racist attitudes in a game is a poor reflection of that particular group. A bad film with sexist themes that nobody watches should be criticized just as a popular and "good" film with sexist attitudes should be criticized.

This was response to this:

"why it can be so damaging" implies that it has been damaging or even has the potential to be damaging. But violent games have been shown to have little to no effect on our compass of morality and there's much more evidence of that than of causing sexism, so this damsel in distress trope has the most miniscule effect to no effect at all.

How would you guys change Mario and Zelda? They were never known for deep stories in the first place. Especially this deep into tradition?

Like, would you reverse the roles? What?

Zelda has had great stories, they just usually hinge on that same old premise. The simple answer would be for Zelda to be working with Link, hidden in cave or within a vllage. She would be working on a separate part of the story to stop the big bad. Zelda could working on dispelling a spell that his been cast on all the citizens. At the last battle she can come out and help him like she did in the Wind Waker. They could even go further and make some portions of the game require Link and Zelda to work together.

Each game would have a different story. So this would be a premise of one game. And the roles could change with the next. Not every Zelda has used the Damsel in Distress. Games like Link's Awakening and Majora's Mask excelled. Even though they took place on foreign lands, by removing the damsel in distress trope, the games were able to have some of the most interesting stories.

For Mario, the answer has already been done. We have Super Mario 2 and the upcoming Super Mario 3D World. Even if Peach isn't playable, her capture is not essential to gameplay mechanics. If the game goes the classic Super Mario route (castles and lands), he could just collect an item, like he did in SM3 with the wand to turn the King's back. Maybe he could transform all the citizens back rather destroying them in his block form. If they go the collecting stuff (the 3D Mario route), he just needs to collect stuff toward a purpose. He could be using stars to rebuild Mushroom Kingdom. Or he could use them to fill a cannon that he needs to access Bowser's castle.

The only thing that needs to happen in a Mario game is that Bowser or another bad guy needs to be terrorizing the Mushroom Kingdom or wherever Mario is protecting. And Mario (and/or his friends) need to stop them.

[dondon151]

No, I'm not. Plenty of people on the internet are serious in their hostility. I'm saying that the choice of wording (reference to memes or figures of speech etc.) can help determine the intentions with relative precision.

but you are asking a lot from someone if you go by this assumption. i frequent the internet fairly often like the rest of you guys here, but i can't tell whether some internet trolls are serious when making inflammatory remarks.