Oh god, how I hate these constant attacks on gaming, as if our community alone was responsible for the existence of all bad things. It's especially frustrating since I do support things like feminism or LGBT rights, but obviously only when it makes sense, when there actually is a problem.
Specific games that are clearly aimed towards a young male audience are the wrong target. By that logic, I could just as well be offended by a romantic comedy from Hollywood, because it's only showing me white, heterosexual, cisgender people that never have to deal with realistic problems like domestic violence or forced marriage. It's just ridiculous.
Again, how about real problems? Women are still getting paid less, that's a problem! But wait, you can't solve this problem with a shitstorm on a specific Twitter profile or by making enough whiny posts on Tumblr. That sucks, so let's just go after that evil developer who dares to make the male character the default option in the character creation screen!
Current project: Gex 3 any%
Paused: Gex 64 any%
There are no N64 emulators. Just SM64 emulators with hacky support for all the other games.
Women are still getting paid less, that's a problem!
Any specific examples?
I can't point at a specific example or personal experience, it's just something that can be seen in worldwide statistics. To this day, a part of the wage gap can still not be explained by anything else than discrimination (numbers vary on how large that part is). I trust those statistics because they aren't just coming from obviously biased sources. At least in my country, it's the official statistics of the government that proof this discrimination, and I doubt they would just make those numbers up, considering that they aren't exactly enthusiastic about regulations.
Current project: Gex 3 any%
Paused: Gex 64 any%
There are no N64 emulators. Just SM64 emulators with hacky support for all the other games.
I can't point at a specific example or personal experience, it's just something that can be seen in worldwide statistics. To this day, a part of the wage gap can still not be explained by anything else than discrimination (numbers vary on how large that part is). I trust those statistics because they aren't just coming from obviously biased sources. At least in my country, it's the official statistics of the government that proof this discrimination, and I doubt they would just make those numbers up, considering that they aren't exactly enthusiastic about regulations.
How do you know if women are earning less than men, rather than being paid (hourly salary for the same job) less than men? Sure, the statistics may be somewhat accurate, give or take, but they don't tell why total earnings are less for women than men.
It could well be due to personal choices, different career paths, and so on and so forth. There are many jobs where genders are not equally represented, and it's not because of discrimination, but simply because the distribution in applicants is not the same. (As an example, an overwhelming majority of applicants for becoming a miner are men, so employers don't even have a choice.)
This notion is supported by the fact that discrimination in pay is explicitly illegal in most western countries, yet you seldom see court cases on this, even though if what the pay gap claim says is true, there should be thousands and thousands of companies out there blatantly discriminating against women. People making the claim seldom seem able to point to specific companies or employers doing this. The claims are always based on general statistics, not on specific examples. (I'm sure there are specific examples, but they seem to be exceedingly rare, even though if the claim is true they should be really commonplace.)
On the contrary, when unbiased studies are made, invariably it is found that the difference in total earnings is explained by different career options, different yearly total working hours, and so on and so forth. (Ok, I can't point to any such study off the top of my head, so take this with healthy skepticism, as you always should.)
How do you know if women are earning less than men, rather than being paid (hourly salary for the same job) less than men? Sure, the statistics may be somewhat accurate, give or take, but they don't tell why total earnings are less for women than men.
There is actually a good deal of research on this subject. The factors that cause women to be paid less in the same job is due to primarily two reasons:
1. Women are taught to be less pushy about things (including, for instance, negotiating wages.)
2. Women are expected to take a few years off to have children, and are seen as less valuable (higher risk) and/or less experienced as a result.
These are caused by pervasive cultural differences in western society which normalize this sort of discrimination. You might not believe this is any single person's responsibility, and it's really not, but it's still the product of a sexist society. And we should address it.
This notion is supported by the fact that discrimination in pay is explicitly illegal in most western countries, yet you seldom see court cases on this, even though if what the pay gap claim says is true, there should be thousands and thousands of companies out there blatantly discriminating against women.
It's very difficult to prove intent. But there are cases where people are stupid enough to put this sort of thing in writing where it can be proven in the court of law, and there are court cases about this all of the time.
However, discrimination doesn't need to be blatant or even maliciously intended to be a problem. Normal, everyday subtle discrimination is always a problem.
On the contrary, when unbiased studies are made, invariably it is found that the difference in total earnings is explained by different career options, different yearly total working hours, and so on and so forth.
This is actually untrue. The raw wage gap is 79 cents to the dollar. The wage gap, when controlling for experience, position, etc, is closer to 95 cents to the dollar depending on the metrics used.
Now, there's very good reasons to ignore the second amount. Because why would you control for experience, position, etc? Part of discrimination is which jobs are available to you, how much you can work while still maintaining interpersonal expectations, and so on.
But even if we grant the second amount, against my better judgement. That's still a 5% difference that can only be explained as discriminatory practices.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
If the wage gap was really true. Don't you think some company would fire all men and hire all women by paying them 79c on the dollar? That way you would undercut your competition and put all your competitors out of business. The wage gap myth has been discredited for over 40 years now, but there is still people pushing this who either don't know any better or are praying on people who don't know any better.
The census year cited in your video is 1978, and Mr. Sowell says that his research is limited to "the academic world".
Further, he is pointing out quite effectively that women are required to take time away from their careers in order to "raise children" and "get married", detracting from a man and a woman "with the same number of years of experience, with the same continuous service, et cetera, et cetera" being likely to exist.
Finally, the clip ends with Mr. Sowell claiming that women "do not work fulltime to the same extent as men", and by extension that women "are part-time workers".
Your argument would hold more water if it came from a more recent source, and had more modern arguments.
I am still the wizard that did it.
"On my business card, I am a corporate president. In my mind, I am a game developer. But in my heart, I am a gamer." -- Satoru Iwata
<scrimpy> at least I now know where every map, energy and save room in this game is
There is actually a good deal of research on this subject. The factors that cause women to be paid less in the same job is due to primarily two reasons:
1. Women are taught to be less pushy about things (including, for instance, negotiating wages.)
2. Women are expected to take a few years off to have children, and are seen as less valuable (higher risk) and/or less experienced as a result.
These are caused by pervasive cultural differences in western society which normalize this sort of discrimination. You might not believe this is any single person's responsibility, and it's really not, but it's still the product of a sexist society. And we should address it.
I would, once again, ask for concrete examples. Name an actual company, with concrete proof, that they systematically pay women significantly less hourly salary than men for the exact same position. If the wage gap claim is true, there should be tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of companies out there paying women significantly less than men (even less than the mythical "77 cents per dollar", because we know for a fact that many companies demonstrably pay the same, which means that some companies need to pay significantly less than that for the average to be that.)
What you are writing sounds to me a lot like looking at global statistics and then hypothesizing on causes, with zero evidence that these hypotheses are true.
Could there be other factors at play? Are the jobs really the same? Are they really doing the same amount of hours per year? Have they been on the job the same amount of time (because many companies give salary raises based on how many years you have been working for them)? And so on and so forth.
I would, once again, ask for concrete examples. Name an actual company, with concrete proof, that they systematically pay women significantly less hourly salary than men for the exact same position.
Warp wrote:
(Ok, I can't point to any such study off the top of my head, so take this with healthy skepticism, as you always should.)
I am still the wizard that did it.
"On my business card, I am a corporate president. In my mind, I am a game developer. But in my heart, I am a gamer." -- Satoru Iwata
<scrimpy> at least I now know where every map, energy and save room in this game is
If the wage gap was really true. Don't you think some company would fire all men and hire all women by paying them 79c on the dollar? That way you would undercut your competition and put all your competitors out of business. The wage gap myth has been discredited for over 40 years now, but there is still people pushing this who either don't know any better or are praying on people who don't know any better.
Mijitsu, you're a smart guy. So the particular form of this argument signals to me that you probably haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it. That's fair. It's probably not in your wheelhouse because it's not directly relevant to you. So let me break it down.
First, as pointed out previously, intentional wage discrimination is very illegal. Any company who did this blatantly would be buried.
Secondly a minor quibble, you might have hunted down the only case in which the 95 cent statistic I quoted is actually relevant, and then you used the 79 cent one.
Finally the meat of the misunderstanding, what you seem to think about the cause and nature of the wage gap is a gross oversimplification. The modern wage gap is primarily caused by societal expectation and pressures acting upon disparate individuals. Actors at every level are involved, and the decisions come about without any explicit discrimination or bias in the majority of cases. But there's still a gap.
No decision is made in a vacuum. And the fact that women are perceived as riskier, or are themselves less willing to take risks, or are taught not to assert themselves and so do not, or are expected to bear children and raise them, or are expected to take the lion's share of the housework, and so on, these all contribute to an uneven playing field.
So for the most part, you can't point at any single decision by any single hiring manager and go "Ah ha!" Because in most cases the hiring manager could justify their position using metrics that are perceived as legitimate. The culpability has shifted from mostly individual biases to mostly societal biases, and this makes them a hell of a lot harder to talk about and address.
But wherever the blame lies doesn't make it any less of a problem with real, often painful consequences. If it were easy to fix it would have probably been fixed already.
Or to quote a cartoon: "Oh Steven! Humans ... want to blame all the world's problems on some single enemy they can fight, instead of a complex network of interrelated forces beyond anyone's control."
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
The census year cited in your video is 1978, and Mr. Sowell says that his research is limited to "the academic world".
Further, he is pointing out quite effectively that women are required to take time away from their careers in order to "raise children" and "get married", detracting from a man and a woman "with the same number of years of experience, with the same continuous service, et cetera, et cetera" being likely to exist.
Finally, the clip ends with Mr. Sowell claiming that women "do not work fulltime to the same extent as men", and by extension that women "are part-time workers".
Your argument would hold more water if it came from a more recent source, and had more modern arguments.
quite the opposite,most western countries have isonomy in salaries as a work law,enforced by the legal system,so a company takes a risk by not following this practice.Also,the very nature of hiring the workforce is enlisting the benefits the person will receive BEFORE THE PERSON APPLIES(be it a man or woman),AND MOST WORKERS' LAWS WON'T ENABLE YOU TO BACK DOWN ON THE SALARY OFFER.
So what really happens is:
-women flock into courses which are paid less,by personal preference.I can back this up with a documentary about gender differences in "gender equalized" countries
-the culture of women being more responsible for household and fostering of children distracts them from their careers,this is the actual part where most cultures are making women disadvantaged, it's not the industry's fault but their families and spouses themselves who demand more of women on the house,which is unfair. This subtracts from their education if they keep working,as they will be the ones who will stop continuing their qualification and educational processes.
-only in very informal or shitty jobs someone would be able to pay differently for men and women,and again,that wouldn't make a lot of sense since you usually have the money for a job pre calculated.Saying people want to pay women less is like a person never went into a fucking HR department in any company on their lives.I make this statement because people with poor education are most susceptible to not knowing the worker rights or have vulnerable situation in which they cannot fight against the injustices they suffer.
-motherhood takes women out of the job market,reducing their education significantly.
-when the data is controlled for the relevant variables,a lot of times women have a lot more of the higher earnings.
-western countries also have a high prevalence of women actually being more educated than men in most,if not all,educational levels.I live in Brazil and this is a fact even in third world country like mine,i can only guess how much more educated women than men are in the other western countries.This fact is also relatively recent,so they might not reflect in the job market instantaneously.
Tl;DR most of the assumptions made about jobs are made by people who don't understand economics or business in general,which happens very often everywhere including tasvideos.The real solution is to educate men to do more housechores and for the workplace to give men the same license women receive to put off work when a child is born.
TAS i'm interested:
megaman series: mmbn1 all chips, mmx3 any% psx glitched
fighting games with speed goals in general
-motherhood takes women out of the job market,reducing their education significantly.
This is, in fact, often a deliberate choice by the mother herself.
Can you really blame a woman for wanting to spend time with her kids, and raise them, rather than running a corporation and being away from home for most of the day, almost every single day of the week? Many women choose the former, even in situations where they could perfectly well choose the latter. They just want to be mothers, they want to be with their kids. They consider parenting more important than working at or running some corporation. And can you really blame them? Isn't it understandable, and even commendable? What kind of good-hearted mother wouldn't want to spend time with her kids? And if it's their choice, who would tell them that they are doing something wrong?
Sure, some women become career moms, but they tend to be a minority among all women.
Any time anyone complains about a wage gap, I thoroughly enjoy reminding them that men make up 92% of all workplace fatalities. If I wanted to apply wage gap logic, I could say that men are nearly 12 times more likely to die on the job performing the same work as a woman, but obviously that's ridiculous.
Men suffer more job-related fatalities than women because men choose different, more labor-intensive, and more dangerous jobs than women. Similarly, the reason women make less than men ON AVERAGE is because they tend to choose different jobs than men.
Source: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.nr0.htm
Any time anyone complains about a wage gap, I thoroughly enjoy reminding them that men make up 92% of all workplace fatalities. If I wanted to apply wage gap logic, I could say that men are nearly 12 times more likely to die on the job performing the same work as a woman, but obviously that's ridiculous.
It would, but not for the reasons you think. You are ignoring the fact that the wages are averaged, therefore the sheer number of men in the work force has no effect on the results, with the exception of having a smaller sample size of women.
But let's say you're right. In that case, there is definitely a wage gap, but instead it's women making far, far more than men. About tenfold.
z1mb0bw4y wrote:
Men suffer more job-related fatalities than women because men choose different, more labor-intensive, and more dangerous jobs than women. Similarly, the reason women make less than men ON AVERAGE is because they tend to choose different jobs than men.
Source: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.nr0.htm
Labor-intensive and dangerous jobs do not necessarily make more than other jobs.
If you can prove that women choose to take lower-paying jobs (i.e. not denied them), then you have a point. But as of right now your "proof" only serves to distract from the point
It would, but not for the reasons you think. You are ignoring the fact that the wages are averaged, therefore the sheer number of men in the work force has no effect on the results, with the exception of having a smaller sample size of women.
You say sheer number like it's an IMMENSE amount more, when in reality it's about 70% of all men participating in the workforce and 60% of all women. (https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/latest_annual_data.htm#labor)
That doesn't account for the 92%/8% split on death rates, so I'm not sure where you were going with this? I acknowledged that the wages are averaged literally two sentences later.
Anty-Lemon wrote:
But let's say you're right. In that case, there is definitely a wage gap, but instead it's women making far, far more than men. About tenfold.
Literally what? I have no idea what you're trying to say with this.
Anty-Lemon wrote:
Labor-intensive and dangerous jobs do not necessarily make more than other jobs.
At no point did I say they do. I used that as an example to show that despite risks associated with the positions, men gravitate towards those jobs, showing that sometimes negative aspects of a job (like lower pay) isn't enough to push someone away. Similarly, women might be willing to accept lower-paying jobs if they're more aligned with the skillset they've learned or been taught. Take a peek at the following link and note how much likely it is for a woman vs a man to get a degree in something like psychology, sociology, education, and english literature. Meanwhile, men are picking up more degrees in business administration, mechanical engineering, economics, marketing. That's just talking about bachelors degrees, not even the associates degrees where men are more likely to pick up electrical engineering, computer systems networking and IT, etc.
edit: Before you respond with salary figures, note that in all of this I'm not talking about salary differences but rather the different choices men and women make with their education before landing in the workforce.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010161.pdfAnty-Lemon wrote:
If you can prove that women choose to take lower-paying jobs (i.e. not denied them), then you have a point. But as of right now your "proof" only serves to distract from the point
The way you word that makes me say that no matter what I link to you, it wouldn't be enough "proof" :)
edit: Alright, after browsing that department of labor PDF a bit more, I'm convinced that there's a horrible wage gap that we need to fix. White males only make 83 cents for every dollar an Asian male earns. I feel disgusted and discriminated against.
Oh, pardon me, I misread and thought you were saying 92% men in the work force, and I was going along with it assuming it was a random number you came up with.
I am not so much arguing for or against the existance of a wage gap here as I am arguing against your refutation of it, which is needlessly tangential and superficially related. Please come up with evidence relevant to the point at hand, not whatever point you're trying to make about fatality rates.
(Honestly, "needlessly tangential and superficially related" summarizes the course of this thread, I mean, how does this relate to the gaming industry again?)
Any time anyone complains about a wage gap, I thoroughly enjoy reminding them that men make up 92% of all workplace fatalities. If I wanted to apply wage gap logic, I could say that men are nearly 12 times more likely to die on the job performing the same work as a woman, but obviously that's ridiculous.
There are actually several examples of injustices suffered more by men than by women, which go largely ignored or belittled by society.
In most countries men are more likely to commit suicide than women. The vast majority of people aren't even aware of this statistic, nor care about it even if they are. AFAIK no social movement or funding is done to find the cause and try to fix it.
In some (even many) western countries men are given harsher prison sentences for the exact same crime than women. You could say there is a "sentencing gap" based on gender. Again, most people aren't aware of this, and don't care very much even if they are. I don't see many advocates to end the disparity. (On the contrary, there are a few who would want to widen it even more.)
In many (perhaps most) western countries, in cases of domestic violence, the cases where it's the woman who is the victim, and the cases where it's the man who is the victim, are surprisingly close to 50-50. And again, almost nobody cares about one half of those cases, only the other half. (There exists a few associations to try to help men who are being abused, but they are really, really rare.)
This is not meant to diminish the gravity of injustices committed against women. My intent is to point out the clear double standard in our society. We, as a society, are more protective of women, and thus we pay more attention to and care about cases where women are being mistreated, and pay little to no attention to cases where men are being mistreated (especially when the perpetrator is a woman). The existence of this double standard is seldom even acknowledged, or taken seriously. On the contrary, it's often claimed to be in the other direction.
There are actually several examples of injustices suffered more by men than by women, which go largely ignored or belittled by society.
I agree with you on this. I don't have a problem with considering myself a feminist and still acknowledge discrimination against men. A good example of this is the fact that in most countries, only men are required to serve in the military. I find this unacceptable in a modern society, it should either be mandatory for anyone or no one. Everyone is well aware that this is obvious discrimination, yet it's still ignored around the world, it's just that one thing that "doesn't count".
At the same time, we shouldn't ignore discrimination against women, even in the rich, western countries. No, feminism hasn't become "obsolete" yet, there's still more than enough reasons to keep fighting for equality. Just the fact alone that feminism is still met with that much hate in our society, proves this.
Current project: Gex 3 any%
Paused: Gex 64 any%
There are no N64 emulators. Just SM64 emulators with hacky support for all the other games.
A good example of this is the fact that in most countries, only men are required to serve in the military. I find this unacceptable in a modern society, it should either be mandatory for anyone or no one. Everyone is well aware that this is obvious discrimination, yet it's still ignored around the world, it's just that one thing that "doesn't count". .
Just like most things feminists complain about, it's all based on the fallacy that things should be in any way equal between sexes in the first place. Men and women are different (by definition), and any good scientist will tell you that if you use different input, you'll get different output.
Men are physically stronger than women, have more testosterone, and actually have a mindset which facilitates aggression. Women's bodies are smaller, weaker, have less aggression hormones, and have a mindset built for nurturing our species versus destroying it. Needless to say, that makes women far less suitable for the job of fighting. Society figured this out thousands of years ago, nature itself figured this out millions of year ago, what's taking feminists so long?
So not only would you be hiring less suitable people, but it's bad for population growth as well. You can use a man for the army, while his pregnant partner remains at home. If the father dies in war, np, the pregnancy can still continue and our population can sustain itself. Now imagine the man staying at home, and pregnant women marching into battle (waddling into battle?). If the woman dies, so does the child, and thus the population CANNOT sustain itself if we use women for the job. That's not 'discrimination' or whatever, that's just the way biology works. EG 1 man and 5 women can have 5 children simultaneously. 5 men and 1 woman can only have 1 child simultaneously. The two situations are NOT comparable, and thus there's no reason whatsoever to suggest there should be in any way an equal representation of both scenarios.
Equality is a lie, please don't fall for it.
Well. if you want to reduce the topic of military service to purely combat, I can somewhat agree with you. But at least in my country, where the army is getting reduced more and more to save costs, it's being discussed to change the whole concept of military service into more of a vaguely defined "service to society". The general opinion in Switzerland is clearly in favor of keeping an army and a mandatory military service (I disagree in both things), so it's not unlikely for something like this to become reality. And the more you take away the aspect of actual combat training, the harder it becomes to justify it being only required for men. Hell, even now we have "Zivildiesnt" and "Zivilschutz" as alternatives, for those who are either unfit or unwilling to join the army. Those have nothing to do with combat, yet they are still just as mandatory if you don't join the army.
Current project: Gex 3 any%
Paused: Gex 64 any%
There are no N64 emulators. Just SM64 emulators with hacky support for all the other games.
A good example of this is the fact that in most countries, only men are required to serve in the military. I find this unacceptable in a modern society, it should either be mandatory for anyone or no one. Everyone is well aware that this is obvious discrimination, yet it's still ignored around the world, it's just that one thing that "doesn't count".
To my knowledge, to this day not a single woman has passed the physical tests for the United States Navy Seal training. And it's not for the lack of trying, or some kind of discrimination. It's simply because even the fittest and strongest women lack the stamina that the fittest and strongest men have. They simply can't keep up; at some point they run out of strength and stamina, and fall back.
We are a dimorphic species. That's just a fact of nature, and there is no way around it. The strongest men are capable of physical feats that the strongest women cannot. In fact, even more average men are physically stronger than fit women. It's just how our biology works.
I think a pragmatic approach should be taken in things where the strength of men can be used more effectively. It's not a question of discrimination or prejudice; it's a question of practicality. Sometimes it can be a question of life and death. For example, a firefighter who can work for hours on end in a highly physically stressing situation is better than a firefighter who cannot, because the first one will ostensibly save more lives and be more helpful. I don't think that identity politics should be introduced where lives are at stake, and where the disparity in genders is due to practical considerations, not discrimination or prejudice.
No, feminism hasn't become "obsolete" yet, there's still more than enough reasons to keep fighting for equality.
Is there any situation where women do not have the same legal rights as men?
Just the fact alone that feminism is still met with that much hate in our society, proves this.
Justifying the existence of something by the criticism that something receives is a rather silly argument.
Modern feminism is criticized because of all the anti-constitutional things that it promotes. It seeks to silence, censor, ban and criminalize dissenting opinions and criticism, and to stop people from peacefully congregating to discuss those opinions. It divides people into groups based on gender, race and sexual orientation, and assigns rights, privileges, responsibilities and shared guilt onto people based on which such group they belong to, completely disregarding personal merit or guilt. It promotes gender and racial segregation. It promotes discrimination in hiring. It promotes reversing the burden of proof with certain crimes.
You may disagree that "true" feminism does any of that, but those are the things that feminism is hated for, because those are things that many vocal and influential feminists do. How is opposing and detesting those things proof that feminism is needed? It certainly is not.
I think a pragmatic approach should be taken in things where the strength of men can be used more effectively. It's not a question of discrimination or prejudice; it's a question of practicality. Sometimes it can be a question of life and death. For example, a firefighter who can work for hours on end in a highly physically stressing situation is better than a firefighter who cannot, because the first one will ostensibly save more lives and be more helpful. I don't think that identity politics should be introduced where lives are at stake, and where the disparity in genders is due to practical considerations, not discrimination or prejudice.
Men and women have different strengths, it's not just that women are weaker and therefore useless. You mentioned firefighters, would you only want that job to be done by men? Women can be just as useful in any job, they have their own strengths that should be used effectively, just like you said.
Is there any situation where women do not have the same legal rights as men?
Interestingly enough, men are arguably discriminated more on a legal basis (military service, parental leave), aside from countries like Saudi Arabia. Women have the problem that their equal rights are not enforced enough.
Modern feminism is criticized because of all the anti-constitutional things that it promotes. It seeks to silence, censor, ban and criminalize dissenting opinions and criticism, and to stop people from peacefully congregating to discuss those opinions. It divides people into groups based on gender, race and sexual orientation, and assigns rights, privileges, responsibilities and shared guilt onto people based on which such group they belong to, completely disregarding personal merit or guilt. It promotes gender and racial segregation. It promotes discrimination in hiring. It promotes reversing the burden of proof with certain crimes.
You may disagree that "true" feminism does any of that, but those are the things that feminism is hated for, because those are things that many vocal and influential feminists do. How is opposing and detesting those things proof that feminism is needed? It certainly is not.
I know why many aspects of feminism are criticized and rightfully so, I could give you many examples of things I disagree with. But there are way too many different approaches to feminism to just oppose it as a whole. And not all critics argue in a civilized manner with actual arguments, there are many people on the internet, as well as the real world, that are nothing but misogynists or trolls. As usual, those are the loudest.
Current project: Gex 3 any%
Paused: Gex 64 any%
There are no N64 emulators. Just SM64 emulators with hacky support for all the other games.
