>It comes down to this: We're talking about a guy who plays video games while other people watch. And people want to mandate _who_ he plays with. What right do they have to demand that?
> Please say your point explicitly. _What_ is highlighted by my response?
You are defending and rationalizing a passive form of sexism as normal: It's just a game... Other people made him do it... He's protecting himself/his wife... It's just the streaming part... etc
Ninja has earned his influence, fame, and profit. He is a business/brand that monetizes a massive (growing) following of idolizing young boys/men who now think gender segregation and exclusion is noble.
The ninja situation makes me sad when I think about my mother. It makes me angry when I think about my daughter.
If one has a problem with harassment, then rationally one attacks the problem (harassment)...not the victim (women). Then there's Ninja...
>You can criticize him for it all you want, that's your freedom to do so
"freedom" is an interesting word choice, given the whole problem we're discussing
Are you a gamer? Can you explain how gaming with girls works or doesn't work the point of excluding them? I've watched some streams, not a ton. Not my cup of tea - but some kids I know are obsessed.
More importantly does Ninja "streaming" with a random player, give that player massive exposure & potential opportunity?
>None of this makes any sense...
Just clarifying: using absolute conditions is a common way to wash out the noise/distortion to get to the crux of the issue - it's meant to over simplify. It's helpful in highlighting the implications of the action in question. So to make sense of this - i think - swap "compete" with "stream" with "opportunity." And the implications remain the same.
>Did you even read his own justifications for his choices? I suspect not as you created a throwaway account so you could get angry about something and spout nonsense without repercussions.
Yep, a lot. Read quite a few articles trying to sift out the hyperbole, learn about his history and backstory.
Btw, attacking me is possible sign you are confused or defending something you don't know how to defend. I'm not upset with you, unless you did something that was offensive - then I might be offended.
It doesn't help prove how Ninja's actions are helpful to a "community." Taking such a position - when in power - has ramifications (direct and indirect). I'm actually more concerned about the indirect - which is highlighted by responses like yours.
PS I haven't been on HN in a while (ie lost my login)...karma still works just fine though. Sooo...I'm ok if you're ok.
The top competitor in a supposedly open competitive field is refusing to compete with [blank] players for fear of [blank]. So what, exactly, does that look like?
Here's an easier experiment: play out a scenario to the extreme:
When the #2 spot is held by a female gamer, his refusal to play with female players is exactly what you claim it's not. By refusing to play she will never get the chance to compete for the "top" spot. Then sequentially every other player that is not "a her" will get a chance to "win."
Last point, he's not just playing games he's building a massive brand/business (at this stage) that rationalizes the exclusion of women. The secondary and tertiary effects will be damaging for younger generations - as they will see this as the norm.
This is called rationalizing...