[tbiwiti]

That article is really strange to me. On one hand, he's probably 100% right. There's no other way to avoid rumors and jokes like that. On the other hand, that's a completely unacceptable excuse to bar women from something. Can someone refuse to hire a female secretary out of respect for their wife?

[Bizarro]

That's a dumb analogy and bordering on being disingenuous. He's not barring women from something...you know that. And the people that he plays with are not his employees. You know that too.

[dangeh]

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.

[bschwindHN]

> The top competitor in a supposedly open competitive field is refusing to compete with [blank] players for fear of [blank]

He's not refusing to compete with women. He's refusing to do two-person co-operative streams with them to reduce the amount of rumors and garbage that terrible people on the internet will create about him.

> 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."

None of this makes any sense, you don't know what you're talking about. Have you ever played Fortnite or watched a stream? 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.

To be clear, the gaming community in general is shitty to women, this is known. And it would be great if Ninja supported _everyone_ who wants to stream with him. But you can't just force another individual to have your viewpoints and do what _you_ want. You can criticize him for it all you want, that's your freedom to do so, just as he is free to choose who he plays video games with.

[roel_v]

Well the question is interesting when you look at the legal aspect instead of the 'I feel' aspect. If he deliberately refuses to play with some people based on a protected trait, it might be illegal. This seems like a much less clear cut case than e.g. having women and men basketball leagues. Your claim of 'freedom' doesn't (always) hold, you're not allowed (everywhere) to discriminate in all cases because of 'freedom'.

[bschwindHN]

That would be interesting, are there any existing laws which prohibit his current choice?

[dangeh]

I just read through these again, you might want to as well https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[dangeh]

TLDR;

Ad Hominem - doesn't do anything here.

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.

[bschwindHN]

> If one has a problem with harassment, then rationally one attacks the problem (harassment)...not the victim (women)

In this situation, the harassment is directed at Ninja and his wife, thus he and his wife are the victim, not women. Also it is not feasible for one person to "attack" the problem, which is that there are a lot of shitty people on the internet. I'm sure if he could "attack" it he would.

> Are you a gamer? Can you explain how gaming with girls works or doesn't work the point of excluding them?

I am to a degree, nothing competitive, but I at least understand how the game and streaming works. What he's made very clear is when he streams one-on-one with women, there's an increase in rumor youtube videos, hate mail, harassment, and attacks against him, his wife, and others who may be involved. He doesn't want that, thus he doesn't stream with them.

> More importantly does Ninja "streaming" with a random player, give that player massive exposure & potential opportunity?

Yes it does. But note that streaming with Ninja is not the exclusive way to gain subscriptions and viewers on the platform. And yeah it sucks that he doesn't stream with women but that's still his choice to make.

> It doesn't help prove how Ninja's actions are helpful to a "community."

I'm not trying to prove that it's helpful to the community. The community is mostly garbage anyway, have you ever seen the chat in a stream? I'm just saying he made a personal choice that, by what we've observed so far, is his to make.

> I'm actually more concerned about the indirect - which is highlighted by responses like yours.

Please say your point explicitly. _What_ is highlighted by my response?

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?

Edit: I do want to say, if it turns out there is a law which prohibits what he's doing, then I find that interesting and would no longer defend his right to do so. Perhaps if his twitch channel is defined as a company and his co-streamers are legally his "employees", then I could see there being a case. Interested to hear from anyone who is educated in these legal matters.

[dangeh]

> 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.

[tbiwiti]

Getting to stream with Ninja would have a large, direct effect on their income, not to mention the promotional aspect.

But sure, lets instead imagine a male-only social club that directly promotes the business and career interests of it's members. That would get shut down real fast.

[hnzix]

If a pro tennis player declined to play in mixed doubles to shield their spouse from paparazzi gossip, would you call them sexist?

[roel_v]

What Joe Random would call them isn't so interesting, but the legal question is (can be, I haven't had my coffee yet...)

[sushid]

Not sure if you read the article, but he's more than down to play with women in group settings or public events. It just happens that 1. you tend to banter and joke as you play together 2. due to his popularity, any innocent interaction is clipped and made into a scandalous clickbait for profit by people online.

If anytime someone in an office had a private meeting with the blinds down with a female employee led to accusations of infidelity would you continue having said meetings with the blinds down?

[thecatspaw]

I get what you're trying to say, but your analogy isnt the best imho. It would be more like having the blinds open, and you both get photographed going into the room, and taking of a jacket (oh look, they go in there and undress)

[thecatspaw]

I(male) cannot play with ninja either

[roel_v]

Time to raise up against The Man who is holding you down, my friend.

[lwansbrough]

It’s not Ninja’s job to fix the immaturity of children. Nor is it reasonable to expect that he could even if he wanted to. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to tame hundreds of children in your chat? Let alone hundreds of thousands.

It’s totally fair that Ninja wants to limit his family’s exposure to that toxic environment.

It’s no secret that women are subjected to excessive abuse in gaming communities (especially streaming to children/young teens.) But they stream by choice and expose themselves to that by choice. Ninja can choose to not expose himself to that, and that’s not “completely unacceptable.”

[bschwindHN]

> On the other hand, that's a completely unacceptable excuse to bar women from something.

So what do you do? Force him to do something he doesn't want? As far as I'm aware, his choice isn't illegal and he's free to choose it and face the social repercussions. It's clear he'd rather take the heat from people complaining about that choice than to deal with the internet trolls and the rumors they start.

[drharby]

Title IX now applies to my twitch stream?

Jumping off the cliff there