[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.

[bschwindHN]

> You are defending and rationalizing a passive form of sexism as normal

I didn't defend it as being normal, I said he's free to make that choice (unless it's illegal?). I wouldn't have made that choice in his position but I don't really have a say in the matter.

[dangeh]

>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?

This is called rationalizing...