Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Luis Dias on September 08, 2014, 05:06:47 am
-
So after that other thread went into the obvious flames everyone guessed it was going into, there are still ideas floating around that I find possible to discuss in a rational, sensible manner about the actual topic that I believe we should be discussing, objectification of women (and men? perhaps not?), and I propose using particular examples to try to dissect where people's opinions differ on this, and why.
I think this is possible, because I have noticed that the harsh emotional rants, back and forths, flame wars, accusations, harrassments (and even death threats in some places) and what nots in both here and especially in the wider internet are all about particular people*, not the subject at hand. When people are discussed rather than the topics, is it any wonder the **** hits the fan? I personally believe the internet "made" the mistake to be more concerned with human drama than the material at hand, and I thought, "why not try the exact opposite approach?" That's the purpose of this thread, to bring out the best parts of that last thread into the prominent topic of this one. Level up the discussion so to speak.
In order to kick this off, I thought to bring two examples, one already partially discussed from Watch Dogs and another yet to be discussed from Hitman. I have a formed opinion on both of these examples, but they are not brick and mortar, and I think we can all learn a thing from each other with this dissection. I think it would be awesome if everyone interested tried to bring their own particular example that they thought interesting to discuss.
The hitman example
(http://i.imgur.com/85klE3U.jpg)
So it happens that there is a special mission within Hitman wherein you are on a rooftop and with a sniper rifle you have to shoot down evidence for an act of your client. Apparently it involves finding and shooting three pieces of clothing scattered inside a huge building filled with roofttops and parties and people and whatnot. If you manage to do that, this is your prize: a woman dancing for you (pole dancing style) behind a window. Let this be clear: this is a prize. This kind of objectification is undeniable and condoned by the game itself as an award to you the player. Furthermore, you are looking at her from a ****ing scope, and yes, you can kill her at any time, but who cares, it's just a whore right?
This to me is the kind of women objectification that can be seen as a perfect baseline of consensus. Not even the most prominent ... ahh... skeptics in the youtubes and whatnots would deny this (well I might be wrong there but still). Am I wrong in assuming this? Your thoughts?
The Watch Dogs example
(http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/images/14/may/watchdogs9.jpg)
Now things get a bit more nuanced and complex. Yes, the "women for sale" example. This has been highlighted as an example of women objectification. I think this particular truth is consensual. I think it's also consensual that the game itself is aware of this ghastly truth so it doesn't sell you the idea that this is "ok" in the narrative sense (unlike in the former example in Hitman, or say in Duke Nukem where you get to pay women to dance for you, while saying "shake it baby" and so on). It's painted as a dark setting painting everyone inside it as psychopathic monsters, or mysoginists, or whatever other nasty adjectives you might prefer. The protagonist is an "outsider" who is trying to do something else, merely observing the darkness around him.
The argument why this is still a bad thing is that the trope is about using a woman's objectification as a way to characterize your antagonists, which is a lot more subtle than the mere brute usage of plain objectification. The point is that both the game and yourself are aware and disgusted at the objectification taking place, but are both revelling in the fantasy of shredding the people responsible for it, and in doing so you are indeed taking part of the objectification. Perhaps this can be more eloquently stated.
The problem I have with this interpretation is not that I don't believe in it. I do. It makes sense. The problem is of course that this is not necessarily "bad" per se. Not everyone inside games will be written with gusto or sufficient development. Shortcuts will be used. Tropes will be used to quickly paint bad people, and this is an effective manner to do so: to show the "bad things people do". And the set of "bad things" also includes "women being sold". What I probably think is an issue is the prevalence of these types of tropes, which in conjunction can create the idea that women are only these passive objects that are used by bad people. This is a different point. Or is it? What do you think?
* Given all the wild speculation people made about my beliefs, I just want to stress that my thoughts on a certain woman is strictly because of a story wherein I honestly think she was most definitely behaving in a psychopathic way, I have never taken 4chan seriously and never will take their paranoia without such grains of salt that turn them relevant. It's also a moot thing. I am not interested in discussing people, period. Hope that settles it.
-
The argument why this is still a bad thing is that the trope is about using a woman's objectification as a way to characterize your antagonists, which is a lot more subtle than the mere brute usage of plain objectification. The point is that both the game and yourself are aware and disgusted at the objectification taking place, but are both revelling in the fantasy of shredding the people responsible for it, and in doing so you are indeed taking part of the objectification. Perhaps this can be more eloquently stated.
The problem I have with this interpretation is not that I don't believe in it. I do. It makes sense. The problem is of course that this is not necessarily "bad" per se. Not everyone inside games will be written with gusto or sufficient development. Shortcuts will be used. Tropes will be used to quickly paint bad people, and this is an effective manner to do so: to show the "bad things people do". And the set of "bad things" also includes "women being sold". What I probably think is an issue is the prevalence of these types of tropes, which in conjunction can create the idea that women are only these passive objects that are used by bad people. This is a different point. Or is it? What do you think?
It probably can be stated more eloquently, but I for one don't care. This is pretty much my thinking on the matter.
Blatantly obvious titillation is one thing. Anyone with functioning eyes can see it. The latter example, which is more murky and can be argued about based on narrative decisions (i. e. "We need to show these are bad people that need a good taking down") is imho more insidious. Not only is it more prevalent[Citation needed], it also creates a discussion environment where one side of the argument says "This is objectification, it's bad and needs to stop", and the other retorts "Well, the narrative is telling us that these are bad people doing this, it's a condemnation, not an endorsement", which is a magnificent example of two well-meaning debaters talking past each other.
My point here is this: It's not a problem per se if you use violence against women (or children, or animals) as a quick way to characterize someone, or a group of someones. It is, however, a problem if that's one of the default ways in which villains are characterized. There are so many ways in which we can show someone is a bad person that don't involve the presence of scantily clad women or that cast women in the role of victim without agency, it's time to start using them more often.
-
This has been highlighted as an example of women objectification. I think this particular truth is consensual. I think it's also consensual that the game itself is aware of this ghastly truth so it doesn't sell you the idea that this is "ok" in the narrative sense (unlike in the former example in Hitman, or say in Duke Nukem where you get to pay women to dance for you, while saying "shake it baby" and so on).
Honestly, I think that regarding pole dancers, strippers, etc.. as something low, dirty or wrong does more damage to women doing those jobs than anything else.
There was recently some ruckus and discussion about that. I belive it was some college student that paid her fees by shooting pornos, and told her side of the story.
The argument why this is still a bad thing is that the trope is about using a woman's objectification as a way to characterize your antagonists, which is a lot more subtle than the mere brute usage of plain objectification. The point is that both the game and yourself are aware and disgusted at the objectification taking place, but are both revelling in the fantasy of shredding the people responsible for it, and in doing so you are indeed taking part of the objectification. Perhaps this can be more eloquently stated.
If that is the case, then one cannot use objectification of women at all in any context or for any purpose. It will always be wrong.
This in turn limits creative writing.
I honestly think that way too much time and effort is spent fighting ants, believeing them to be elephants (all the while real elephants are trmapling your fine china)
-
My thoughts exactly. Instead of objecting to games depicting strippers, we should object to people who think being a stripper is wrong or incorrect in any way. If a woman (or a man, for that matter) willingly, consciously decides to use her own body, or even sex, as a means of earning money, that's fine. If anything, it should be demeaning to be depicted as client in such establishments (as this implies the client in question can't have sex any other way than by paying for it).
If that is the case, then one cannot use objectification of women at all in any context or for any purpose. It will always be wrong.
This in turn limits creative writing.
Also an important point. Depicting evil isn't wrong. Even making the player do "evil" things isn't really wrong, as long as it's clear those things are evil. You can have a story without evil (the conflict being rooted in struggle against a force of nature, or, more tragically, two good sides with mutually exclusive goals), but it's somewhat harder to pull off than "good vs. evil" conflict.
The point is that both the game and yourself are aware and disgusted at the objectification taking place, but are both revelling in the fantasy of shredding the people responsible for it, and in doing so you are indeed taking part of the objectification.
Say again? Yes, this could be more eloquently stated, because the way you said it, it's utter BS. By this logic, in any WWII shooter, both the game and yourself are aware and disgusted at Nazi atrocities taking place. You take pleasure in making those Nazis pay for those atrocities, slaughtering them in droves. And by taking part in this fantasy, you're also taking part in said atrocities? Sorry for using Godwin's Law, but it's just the first thing that comes to mind, WWII shooters being as common as they are. This sort of argument doesn't hold up, plain and simple. Even if they actually depict a concentration camp, with SS gassing people and everything, I assure you there's nothing wrong with either seeing this happen, or putting a round into each SS-man that comes in your sight, precisely because of what they're doing.
You can, of course, create a fantasy in which Holocaust didn't happen, in which women aren't objectified, in which there is no cancer... But should you only be enjoying this kind of abstract, idealized fantasies? If so, you shouldn't even enjoy real life, since it's full of suffering and injustice. We have no obligation of only enjoying playing games depicting a better world than ours, much less a perfect one. Also, enjoying the game doesn't mean enjoying an entirety of it. In particular, the aforementioned concentration camp scene would likely be gut-wrenching and terrifying. That's the whole point of it. You're supposed to feel bad about those things happening, and even if you aren't, it's your fault (unless it actually is glamorized, or the designers are incompetent and make it look stupid or funny, regardless of intent. Then it's disrespectful on their part).
-
The point is that both the game and yourself are aware and disgusted at the objectification taking place, but are both revelling in the fantasy of shredding the people responsible for it, and in doing so you are indeed taking part of the objectification.
Say again? Yes, this could be more eloquently stated, because the way you said it, it's utter BS. By this logic, in any WWII shooter, both the game and yourself are aware and disgusted at Nazi atrocities taking place. You take pleasure in making those Nazis pay for those atrocities, slaughtering them in droves. And by taking part in this fantasy, you're also taking part in said atrocities? Sorry for using Godwin's Law, but it's just the first thing that comes to mind, WWII shooters being as common as they are. This sort of argument doesn't hold up, plain and simple. Even if they actually depict a concentration camp, with SS gassing people and everything, I assure you there's nothing wrong with either seeing this happen, or putting a round into each SS-man that comes in your sight, precisely because of what they're doing.
First off, you are equating two things that aren't really equatable. Outside of a very few isolated examples, games have not been depicting the liberation of concentration camps in any great deal at all. Taking the games out of their historical context, we are rarely if ever actually shown why Nazis are bad in a collective (rather than in an individual) sense. We're told, or it is implied, that Nazis are committing atrocities on an unprecedented scale, but the games almost never directly depict this.
Two, in the Watch Dogs example Luis cited, the player gets a good long scene in which he can partake in the same objectification as the supposedly evil villains; You are (I think, I have not played WD) actively penalized if you try to help these women right then and there, you have to stay undercover. Yes, the people you're there to take down a bad people for treating women as a commodity to be bought and sold, but in the context of the game, you as the player are not incentivized to care about the women as more than plot coupons either. They could be replaced with exotic animals and the plot would effectively be the same. The question asked here is, do you care about these women because they're people and noone should be treated like this, or do you care about them because you have to save at least 3 of them or else fail the mission?
The other example from Watch Dogs, the one with the domestic abuse scene, is more clear in this regard: Not only are you penalized for intervening before violence happens, after violence has happened and the woman is dead or lying there crying on the sidewalk, you are unable to do anything except chase after the perpetrator for a quick action scene. The women in those scenes could be replaced with animals, or even cars, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference in terms of the decisions the player makes.
-
First, about the prostitution / pole dancers thing. Of course, like all nuanced, ambiguous things, this is a contentious matter even in feminist circles (http://"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_prostitution"). What is important is the exact issue of "objectification", that is, the representation of a particular objectification of a woman, whose only purpose of existence is to titillate you. This is not without issues. It could be that this particular woman enjoys being objectified, it very depends on context and ideologies. The worst problem is, IMHO, when these things are issued without further thought (like The_E's example of women being mugged vs men).
It's a hard thing to differentiate, I think, between being an object or a subject. It's inherently subtle, and it at least requires a writer that is conscious of these problems.
Now, regarding the first watch dogs example. It could be that such juxtapositions of environments and "objects" are created precisely to put you at unease. Would you feel uneasy if the objects they were selling were dogs? Would you feel anger and frustration if you were able to save those girls? These things are not only tools of objectification of women. By denying the player's action on that moment I think we can even say it "levels the playfield" in regards with the poor women, since one of the common criticisms focus precisely on the disparity between these women who are deprived of any means to save themselves - they are merely objects and fully dependent on your decisions - and yourself, full power fantasy protag capable of saving everyone if you so wish. Still, all that is left for the player to do is willfully enjoy the visual objectification of those women, while conveniently disavowing their enjoyment and scapegoating all the pervert pleasures unto the evil antagonists.
This is why I disagree with The_E here, I do think there is a good analogy to be made regarding the WW2 thematics and the nazis and whatnots. We scapegoat all the terrible **** we do ingame, all the crazy gore and torture and sadism that happens in (say) Wolfenstein, unto the existence of the Nazis themselves. They take the blame, while you the player are the one actually reveling in the pleasure of killing and torturing everyone on sight. In this sense, every nazi is "objectified" for you, but that's OK because the code is that nazis are a synonym of absolute evil. This is the basic engine that turns Inglorious Basterds so magnificently sweet and delicious, especially in that bloody part at the end.
-
Two, in the Watch Dogs example Luis cited, the player gets a good long scene in which he can partake in the same objectification as the supposedly evil villains;
Can, but that doesn't mean he should or has to. From what Luis said, it's exactly something the player should feel bad about. It's not a reward or anything. I haven't played Watch Dogs, but I think this might be similar to the MASH scene in Apocalypse Now: Redux. Yes, there are no less than two very attractive topless women around. Yet, given the situation, it's hardly titillating, quite the contrary. Here, it's fairly clear (at least, from reading about it. Never played the game) that was what the creators intended. You're supposed to feel uneasy about something like this happening.
The question asked here is, do you care about these women because they're people and noone should be treated like this, or do you care about them because you have to save at least 3 of them or else fail the mission?
That highly depends on how immersive the setting is, actually. If people in general are depicted realistically, then the player has an incentive to care about all of them, to be angry about villains being evil and to care about their innocent victims. It's a part of a broader issue, and if a game does a good job immersing the player in it, then he will care about the women. If not, he'll be only saving them "to beat the game", but the same will be true of taking out the villain, or anything else the player does. It's up to the creator to make the player care about the world, be a part of it, believe that the people depicted are, well, people and not some abstract figures. It also has to do with how immersed someone is. As such, the answer here is rather personal, I think. Watch Dogs seems to be designed to be immersive (some games aren't, and if it was such a game, it'd be a no-brainer), so I think the creators did all they could there.
I don't think you could replace the women with exotic animals, either. There wouldn't be nearly as much emotional impact, even an immersed player wouldn't care much for animals, no matter how endangered. Also, with animals, there'd be a risk of falling into eco-nut territory (depicting animal trading villains as truly, irredeemably bad can easily come off as ham-fisted environmentalism) breaking immersion unless the whole game is like that (and then, ham-fisted environmentalism doesn't usually make for a good story).
The other example from Watch Dogs, the one with the domestic abuse scene, is more clear in this regard: Not only are you penalized for intervening before violence happens, after violence has happened and the woman is dead or lying there crying on the sidewalk, you are unable to do anything except chase after the perpetrator for a quick action scene. The women in those scenes could be replaced with animals, or even cars, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference in terms of the decisions the player makes.
I don't have enough information here. For all I know about domestic abuse, this would chillingly realistic. This is how it usually goes, you can't intervene until it happens (because that would be against the law) by which point it is too late. Again, I don't know who are those people (is the perpetrator just a random guy killing his wife, or are they both developed characters? Or maybe only one of them is?), how exactly is it handled (just what determines if she dies?) and all those details that really matter. Also, what is the nature of penalty you get for early intervention? Such a situation could be used for a lot of things. I'd use it as a way to show that sometimes, law and "doing what is right" don't always match up, in a tragic way. However, the designers might've had other ideas. And no, you couldn't replace her with an animal, unless we're talking one very firmly established as a character (it's possible elevate an animal to nearly human status, but it requires a lot of screentime and even then, it's tricky).
EDIT: Ninjaed, some good points in the above post, too. Indeed, what I didn't consider was that objectifying German WWII soldiers (not even Nazis, most of them likely didn't care for the ideology) might be objectionable, too. In a way, they have it much worse than women in video games, being shot, killed, tortured and generally equated with evil. Of course, very few of them are still around to complain (and they likely seldom play video games, given their age), but it's a related phenomenon. This just goes to show what WWII really did to people...
-
I don't have enough information here. For all I know about domestic abuse, this would chillingly realistic. This is how it usually goes, you can't intervene until it happens (because that would be against the law) by which point it is too late. Again, I don't know who are those people (is the perpetrator just a random guy killing his wife, or are they both developed characters? Or maybe only one of them is?), how exactly is it handled (just what determines if she dies?) and all those details that really matter. Also, what is the nature of penalty you get for early intervention?
It's like this. The bit under discussion is a random scene that can play out while you are wandering around. It always follows the same script; the male is verbally abusing the female, while this happens, the player gets a "violence imminent" warning. If he intervenes before this meter turns red, he gets no points (in fact, he gets points deducted). Whether or not the woman dies is entirely up to whether the player manages to intervene in time (again, in that interval between the game giving you permission to intervene without penalizing you for it and shots being fired).
Such a situation could be used for a lot of things. I'd use it as a way to show that sometimes, law and "doing what is right" don't always match up, in a tragic way. However, the designers might've had other ideas. And no, you couldn't replace her with an animal, unless we're talking one very firmly established as a character (it's possible elevate an animal to nearly human status, but it requires a lot of screentime and even then, it's tricky).
Sure, you can interpret the scene that way. And yes, the victim in that situation could just as well be a dog for all the emotional impact it has. But the point is, the range of options you have is extremely limited. There is one path you have to follow to get positive feedback from the game, and that path is to assault the assaulter and chase him a bit before shooting him or something. You do not have the option to intervene before it escalates (something you would be able to do in real life), you do not have the option of staying with the victim to call the cops or an ambulance or something, no, the only option available to you is to be avenging Angel.
I know that building all these options takes time and effort and money. But is it really necessary to make such a shallow scene in the first place? One that, yet again, involves having a woman as a passive object that only serves to compel the player to action?
-
Two, in the Watch Dogs example Luis cited, the player gets a good long scene in which he can partake in the same objectification as the supposedly evil villains; You are (I think, I have not played WD) actively penalized if you try to help these women right then and there, you have to stay undercover. Yes, the people you're there to take down a bad people for treating women as a commodity to be bought and sold, but in the context of the game, you as the player are not incentivized to care about the women as more than plot coupons either. They could be replaced with exotic animals and the plot would effectively be the same. The question asked here is, do you care about these women because they're people and noone should be treated like this, or do you care about them because you have to save at least 3 of them or else fail the mission?
I don't see a problem.
If you're undercover, of course you're not going to risk the whole operation there and then.
As for the underlined, I don't think the game should "incentivize" me to care about something specific. I have enough moral anvil dropped all around. Actually, I didn't put that properly.
Yes, to a player there wouldn't be much difference.
Anything in a game is a plot cupon - especially characters you don't get to interact with.
The other example from Watch Dogs, the one with the domestic abuse scene, is more clear in this regard: Not only are you penalized for intervening before violence happens, after violence has happened and the woman is dead or lying there crying on the sidewalk, you are unable to do anything except chase after the perpetrator for a quick action scene. The women in those scenes could be replaced with animals, or even cars, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference in terms of the decisions the player makes.
It could be a man and it would be the exact same thing...
-
It's like this. The bit under discussion is a random scene that can play out while you are wandering around. It always follows the same script; the male is verbally abusing the female, while this happens, the player gets a "violence imminent" warning. If he intervenes before this meter turns red, he gets no points (in fact, he gets points deducted). Whether or not the woman dies is entirely up to whether the player manages to intervene in time (again, in that interval between the game giving you permission to intervene without penalizing you for it and shots being fired).
So, it's just a random event? Well, you've got a point, then. Domestic abuse as a random event? Now that's something to be angry about. Was this a story event, something dealt with accordingly to just how much of a deal domestic abuse is. Including this as a random event cheapens it incredibly. At least they could've gave it a 50/50 chance of it being a female on male abuse (it also happens, depressingly often, too)... Wouldn't make it much better (it'd still cheapen domestic abuse, which is a bad thing in my book), but at least be fair. Oh, and yes, an option of staying with the victim (if she's still alive, that is), or at least returning after getting the perp should be present. It's like they weren't even trying.
Indeed, I think that it's the best case made so far. It's easy to defend "storyline" uses of misogyny, where it's often explored and explicitly condemned. Story can address the things it depicts. Random events, on the other hand, a different thing. They're "the usual", which is generally not dealt with in any meaningful way.
Sure, you can interpret the scene that way.
Now I see that I really can't. I assumed it was a story event, with proper emotional impact intended. However, it's just a very shoddy random encounter. I would have ensured that the player has a choice there. He could, at the very least, intervene before any violence happens, getting some flak from the "law", but getting the woman's heartfelt thanks (and perhaps something else, like a karma reward), or chose to act lawfully and wait. more options could be added, time/budget permitting, but it's important that there's a choice, that the player needs to ask himself a question "Do I value my points more than her?". This wasn't done, the designers are thus guilty of: cheapening domestic abuse, misogyny, and a wasted opportunity to add a dramatic choice. They could've added in a meaningful choice between being lawful and good, but here, I don't think they even thought about the latter possibility.
It could be a man and it would be the exact same thing...
Of course, but they failed to acknowledge that. They could have included female on male abuse, which is a thing, too. But they didn't. At the very, very least, it should have been done, if only to show the world really is rotten through.
-
What The_E is referencing, circa 12:40 of the below video:
-
I didn't have all the time to read all (I will correct that later) but I though that given my knowledge of the subject I should chip in...
Prelude:
I as a rule don't discuss topics of importance over the internet for two reason: 1) Discussion of every matter of note should be done in envoirment that allows for as much ways of communication as possible; if you discussion something of importance you do it in a fashion so exchange not just texts but also hear your fellow participants speak, see their physical reactions etc. so you can have a full and rich discussion, which more often then not is relying on more than rational agruments (for rationality is only a part of the human psyche). 2) For a Nihilist I have an exaggered sense of rightousness (which means when I think I'm right by any standard that can be argumented in fashion I find easy) which often imparts my judgement once I'm set on something. It's a social inheritance from my mother's side of the family - Stubornness is their family trait.
First I would like to put a methodolical criticism; you state this topic is about "objectivication of genders/of a gender" in games but you limit you argument only to sexual objectivation. With that you imply this is the only form of objectivication there is in Video Games as a medium which is not exactly true. Sexual Objectivation is a present and pervasive in Video Games but not the only phenomenon that can be discribed as objectivication that is present in Games (e.g. the objectivication of humanoid depicted "units" in Strategy Games); I guess this comes from it being currently the most pominent phenomenon in public discussion, so I don't think you meant to offend here just commited an oversight.
(more will come later, I'm not finished yet)
-
Sorry to interlude before you finish that post. I think that's a highly appropriate criticism of the possible narrowness of the topic and I am interested in reading anything you have to say over kinds of objectifications other than sexual. I also think we have crossed that line already by referencing the objectification of german soldiers in WW2 as "objects of evil, do what you please unto them", i.e. violent stuff. Do you have any particular examples in mind?
-
I think the watchdogs example is certainly egregious pandering that attempts to pleasure the player with the sexualized power fantasy motivation of saving these women's nubile asses from the clutches of the bad guys. You can't give it a pass just because it's pandering to an audience pretending to be social justice vigilantes rather than an audience pretending to be lecherous assassins, the tits are still out for the enjoyment of the player.
That said, I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with art that is tacky or exploitative (provided that it's produced and consumed with the full consent of all parties involved). We are responsible for making it known that some of these things are pretty messed up and would be totally unacceptable behavior IRL, but if someone out there really loves Custer's Revenge, well, let he who hasn't massacred untold thousands of virtual people cast the first stone.
-
My point here is this: It's not a problem per se if you use violence against women (or children, or animals) as a quick way to characterize someone, or a group of someones. It is, however, a problem if that's one of the default ways in which villains are characterized. There are so many ways in which we can show someone is a bad person that don't involve the presence of scantily clad women or that cast women in the role of victim without agency, it's time to start using them more often.
I think this statement is a wonderful summary of the problem in general, and also a good summary of why there are so many arguments about gender objectification in games. Indulge me for a moment while I expand on this.
I think the vast majority of reasonable people can agree that examples like the Hitman example in post one are purely and simply gender objectification that serves no purpose whatsoever. It's in the same vein as my favourite pet peeve of scantily-clad females in combat alongside males dressed in the equivalent of power armour. It doesn't make sense in any form other than as a purely voyeuristic experience for players. In that sense, these examples really don't bear arguing about further here because they are obvious. Unless there's someone who disagrees.
Where the more nuanced and interesting argument lies for us of HLP, I think, is on things like the Watch Dogs example and specifically related to The E's point which I've quoted above - because it's reasonableness all depends on the perspective of the viewer and the broader context.
In a game that is set based on real-world modern day dynamics or history, objectification and victimization of women in a critical manner to establish villany, misogyny, or simple distatefulness of particular game characters is, as Luis/The E pointed out, not an inherently sexist thing. It is perfectly reasonable for game makers to characterize female characters in victim roles when they do it critically and in a manner that is narratively consistent. An excellent example of this is historical games - while there are examples of very powerful women throughout history, it is well-established that women have been historically in subjugated power relationships relative to men, which had produced relatively high rates of victimization among women. It is not inherently sexist or "bad" to use this information to present situations and characters to a modern audience as evil, as by our modern-day judgement they are. It is, however, at least a little bit lazy... because if you're playing a historical game as a male character, chances are the character is unlikely to view that victimization with the same lens that a modern person does today. This is why I say such use has to be done in a critical way, as it's far too easy to fall into this usage as a shorthand for "character = bad guy." Victimization of women can be a part of what makes a character a bad guy, or it can be so egregious that it is truly the only thing the player cares about that makes the fellow a bad guy, but it should not be a default trope to highlight bad guys in a generalized manner in games.
But while we're talking about objectification and stereotyping of characters in games concerning women, we're ignoring that there's what I think is an even more problematic trope on the other side of that coin, and that is that if women are being continuously objectified for their sexuality in a victim role, men are being continuously objectified for their sexuality in the emotionless hero role. It's a double-hit; not only are some of these games teaching young male audiences that women are sexual objects and victims, they're teaching young male audiences that to be male is to be physically dominating, emotionless, and a paternalizing hero figure for women.
While many game developers are getting better at giving us playable or direct-supporting female characters that are multi-dimensional - Mass Effect, Tomb Raider, Dragon Age, Bioshock Infinite among some of the best I've personally played among AAA releases in recent years - top selling game charts are still dominated by titles that include men as uber-macho-emotionless-heroic-robots (chief offenders being the Call of Battlefield Gears tripe). Where men are given some emotion in games, they are often motivated by retribution and rage, as opposed to more dynamic human emotional sets. Games like Dishonored, DX:HR, Half-Life, etc are interesting departures from that general depiction of men because their quasi-silent role-playing elements actuall allow players to project their real-world emotions onto the character and adjust their playstyle to match. I loved all of those games because I could approach them in a non-lethal manner that allowed me to project "well, this world is going for **** but I am standing by my principles" onto the character without being forced into a murderous bloodbath, but still having to do distasteful things to defend those principles. Another game series that largely avoids male gendered stereotyping is the Thief series, in which Garrett is a multi-dimensional character who has some player agency in his persona, but also has large segments simply written in (and written in well).
I find that there are numerous troubling aspects of gendered stereotyping and objectification in games that need to be directly challenge from multiple perspectives; I find it very concerning that the focus to date is predominantly on female depiction, because the male depiction coupled with the female depiction makes for a far more troublesome whole scenario, and I think it's important to look at the issue from a holistic perspective, rather than focusing on particular areas of objectification.
-
An excellent example of this is historical games - while there are examples of very powerful women throughout history, it is well-established that women have been historically in subjugated power relationships relative to men, which had produced relatively high rates of victimization among women. It is not inherently sexist or "bad" to use this information to present situations and characters to a modern audience as evil, as by our modern-day judgement they are. It is, however, at least a little bit lazy... because if you're playing a historical game as a male character, chances are the character is unlikely to view that victimization with the same lens that a modern person does today. This is why I say such use has to be done in a critical way, as it's far too easy to fall into this usage as a shorthand for "character = bad guy."
Manveer Heir's really good at challenging this "women being victimized = good because historical truths" argument, by simply pointing out that these so-called historical games are mostly fantasy games somewhat rooted in medieval times. One cannot be so hardcore about the very detailed and nuanced historicity regarding the women's oppression in a game where Dragons are flying around, mages and spells are part of the natural order of things, orcs and winged monsters are just your run-of-the-mill adversaries to defeat if you want to get supper by nightfall.
These are mostly fantasy games and if the portrayals of women as submissive victims to rape and prostitution and whatever are there, they are there because the designers chose to, not because "History demands it". They might be absolutely honest in saying this, but I think that it is just pure disavowal on their part. They are being cognitively dissonant here.
Let's be frank, they are being selective in what is "real" and what is not "real" in a very specific way of their own choosing. And I partially get it. In order to convey the fantastic parts, you have to base the experience in something "mundane", normal, expected, recognizable. And so they always fall to these usual medieval tropes as baselines. And it's on top of these where they add the fantasy things. But I think we can positively question this. If all of these medieval stories are in fact fantasies (which they are) in fantastic lands with fantastic creatures, then why not drop all the "historical portrayals of oppressed women" in here at all?
Imagine it. A DragonAgeSkyrim game where women are portrayed as exact equals to men. Why not? It's fantasy, revel in it. Challenge the tropes.
-
Manveer Heir's really good at challenging this "women being victimized = good because historical truths" argument, by simply pointing out that these so-called historical games are mostly fantasy games somewhat rooted in medieval times. One cannot be so hardcore about the very detailed and nuanced historicity regarding the women's oppression in a game where Dragons are flying around, mages and spells are part of the natural order of things, orcs and winged monsters are just your run-of-the-mill adversaries to defeat if you want to get supper by nightfall.
These are mostly fantasy games and if the portrayals of women as submissive victims to rape and prostitution and whatever are there, they are there because the designers chose to, not because "History demands it". They might be absolutely honest in saying this, but I think that it is just pure disavowal on their part. They are being cognitively dissonant here.
Let's be frank, they are being selective in what is "real" and what is not "real" in a very specific way of their own choosing. And I partially get it. In order to convey the fantastic parts, you have to base the experience in something "mundane", normal, expected, recognizable. And so they always fall to these usual medieval tropes as baselines. And it's on top of these where they add the fantasy things. But I think we can positively question this. If all of these medieval stories are in fact fantasies (which they are) in fantastic lands with fantastic creatures, then why not drop all the "historical portrayals of oppressed women" in here at all?
Oh, I agree with Heir, and that's the reason I didn't highlight certain fantasy games as example of what I consider acceptable historical use of sexual objectification or victimization. No, games where I see this as being more acceptable are things like Assassin's Creed, semi-historical shooters, or modern-world games that have all of that history stacked beneath them (like Watch Dogs, for example, which is a futuristic game based on present-day historical timelines).
Imagine it. A DragonAgeSkyrim game where women are portrayed as exact equals to men. Why not? It's fantasy, revel in it. Challenge the tropes.
DA is definitely an offender, but to be fair to TES, it is perhaps the least egregious of these examples, because (especially in Skyrim), women and men are both depicted frequently in all roles, though women may be marginally more frequently treated as victims (I haven't run the stats, obviously, but based on my own playthroughs I see victimized men nearly as frequently as women when it comes to live NPCs, and far more frequently dead). Where TES, or at least Skyrim, falls down a little is that the tavern wench phenomenon is still alive and well, if not nearly as ubiquitous in other games. Thinking more about this, I really do think Skyrim did an excellent job of casting women and men nearly equally in all roletypes. A couple tavern wenches aside, I really cannot think of any particular depictions of the women or men in that game that offended as a trope or shortcut that was over-used. It has a diverse cast of characters that have individual personalities, with no particular gendered stereotype shining through consistently.
Some edits to reformat for clarity.
-
What is important is the exact issue of "objectification", that is, the representation of a particular objectification of a woman, whose only purpose of existence is to titillate you.
Hm...come to think of it, doesn't every object or character in fiction exist with a specific purpose?
Mostly provoking a specific reaction?
For example, doesn't a starving urchin little girl with a sick puppy exist to makes you feel sad?
-
I will not rest in peace until women NPCs are reduced to characterless Gibbing Props as men so often are. So basically Unreal 1. Victory achieved 15 years ago.
Why is "objectification" so prevalent? A simple issue with a simple answer. People are lazy, they take shortcuts. Tropes are shortcuts.
That half-done game you are making needs to be final by next month. Make it happen.
-
Why is "objectification" so prevalent? A simple issue with a simple answer. People are lazy, they take shortcuts. Tropes are shortcuts.
Pretty much "tropes," as my personal beef with the Gaming media is an underwhelming lack of women spear-heading a push for a woman's perspective on the gaming identity.
There's a million Anita Sarkesians, only a small group of Fine Young Capitalists pushing for more women in the industry.
-
What I'm saying is that the whole thing is a sham. Objectification? Everything in fiction is. Every cahracter in fiction serves a purpose - to provoke some kind of response. What does it matter what kind of response it is?
Ceci n'est pas une pipe. I think you are absolutely confused about this subject and you should educate yourself a little more before trashing the concept. Now let me take you seriously for a moment here. Yes, games are technically filled with objects (meshes? sprites? mp3 voice overs? all of those combined into a single thing?) whose purpose is to effect us in some way. Perhaps they are just there to guide us, or to stop us, or to be a barrier we have to overcome, etc.
We are not discussing objectification at this level. We are discussing objectification at the level of what the relationship between the object and the "player object" is within the game. That is, we are discussing what is represented, not the fact that it is a representation. Objectification deals with the idea that certain objects are not only literally "objects" that are created to make an effect, but that they are represented as only things that are there to make an effect. Objectification can be, for instance, the representation of women whose only purpose in life is to give you a sense of [insert anything here], without any further kind of representation of any sense of own want, own agency. Contrast it with the existence of characters who give you a sense of existing exactly as they are designed even if you weren't there to be effected by them (and still make sense).
Women objectification deals, therefore, with the male gaze, they are determined by it. Women's dress are the way they are because they assume the male gaze. Men's representation never leave this impression. They are the way they are for their own ego's sake, not some kind of assumed "women's gaze". And so on and so on and so on.
-
Could someone please split the entirely-tangential-and-not-really-relevant discussion about whether or not dogs are more sympathetic than people out of the thread about sexual objectification and gender stereotypes in games? Many thanks.
-
What I'm saying is that the whole thing is a sham. Objectification? Everything in fiction is. Every cahracter in fiction serves a purpose - to provoke some kind of response. What does it matter what kind of response it is?
Ceci n'est pas une pipe. I think you are absolutely confused about this subject and you should educate yourself a little more before trashing the concept. Now let me take you seriously for a moment here. Yes, games are technically filled with objects (meshes? sprites? mp3 voice overs? all of those combined into a single thing?) whose purpose is to effect us in some way. Perhaps they are just there to guide us, or to stop us, or to be a barrier we have to overcome, etc.
We are not discussing objectification at this level. We are discussing objectification at the level of what the relationship between the object and the "player object" is within the game. That is, we are discussing what is represented, not the fact that it is a representation. Objectification deals with the idea that certain objects are not only literally "objects" that are created to make an effect, but that they are represented as only things that are there to make an effect. Objectification can be, for instance, the representation of women whose only purpose in life is to give you a sense of [insert anything here], without any further kind of representation of any sense of own want, own agency. Contrast it with the existence of characters who give you a sense of existing exactly as they are designed even if you weren't there to be effected by them (and still make sense).
I'm not talking about objects or meshes. I'm talking about every CHARACTER, every "individual" in a game or work of fiction is there to fill a specific role. They are all "objects".
Own wants? Own agency? What do those have to do with wardrobe?
Now I have been requesting normal, full-covering armor for females on every RPG forum for years, but even dont' see the connection to the "wants" or "agency".
Now I don't care if women run around in loincloth, as long as there is loincloth for male characters too (and likewise, proper armor for both.)
When you get down to it, 99% of all characters are flat and shallow. Male characters too. It doesn't even matter why.
Women objectification deals, therefore, with the male gaze, they are determined by it. Women's dress are the way they are because they assume the male gaze. Men's representation never leave this impression. They are the way they are for their own ego's sake, not some kind of assumed "women's gaze". And so on and so on and so on.
No?
(http://now-here-this.timeout.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Twilight-Saga-Breaking-Dawn-Part-1-Jacob-Black.jpeg)
The purpose a cahracter (or representation) may serve might be different. But does it matter?
Don't tell me women don't want to be good-looking and thin. Don't tell me men don't want to be well-built.
Fantasy is fantasy
Also, there is one difference between men and women in that men are more..physical. Women are more emotional. In general at least.
That's why a womans variant of "male gaze" is less obvious. Becasue it's more tied to behavior than apperance
-
While most characters in games are objects in the sense that they are flat, without personality and serve only as background pieces or plot devices, there is a disturbing trend in that prominent female characters in games (remember what the thread is about) are still more often depicted and written as sexual objects that assume the male gaze than male characters are depicted as sexual objects assuming the female gaze.
You made this very point using an egregious example yourself - armour and clothing is an obvious go-to concerning sexual objectification in games. There is literally no purpose to rendering female characters in scant clothing and male characters covered up other than an assumption that the females are there, in part, to be simply looked upon. Wants and agency are relevant because females are often depicted as having none - they are often simply scantily-clad setpieces that are otherwise treated as without gender at all. Take almost any scantily clad female character from a game and ask if there is anything about that character that makes her female other than her clothing in the game and a too-often-submissive demeanour. It's often true of males as well - take away physical depiction of male supporting characters and they suddenly have no quintessential gender either. The difference is that female characters are depicted as such almost exclusively by how they are dressed and will be looked upon; males are the assumed genderless default.
As for your example of the female gaze - obviously there are many examples of media that assume the female gaze; games just typically aren't one of them, and this is a thread inherently about games.
-
MP is absolutely right, and by no means would I ever suggest that the "woman-gaze" does not exist. Male objectification is real, but it's in such stark contrast with the other one that it's ridiculous to even compare the two. Think about it, you brought the only big time "success" in the past ten years of a female fantasy "saga" in here, and let's not even dwell on the fact that it is terrible.
I would even suggest that the forthcoming "Shades of Grey" movie will possibly have the same success (or more!) than Twillight. It has some advantages over it (first, it actually has a plot, character arcs, interesting characters, and it is filled with current thematics, one of which is precisely whether if feminism ideology is right or wrong... I could develop this further, after all I *did* read the novel and it fascinated me ... uuhhh.... from an ideological point of view - no really).
-
If we want to talk about gender objectification in games, you may also want to include the male issue here. True, the woman gaze is not nearly as prevalent in gaming as it is in TV shows, movies or the music business.
However, male objectification in games is existant, and it is rampant. We're just socially and culturally "trained" not to recognize it so easily. Basically, male objectification comes down to the concept of male disposibility. According to this concept, men are not regarded as human beings worthy in itself, but only in respect to their immediate use to society. They are taught and trained to disregard their personal well-being in favour of the service to others (family, company, country, fellow soldiers). To make it easier for men to accept their disposibility, society has come up with a variety of concepts like love, respect, honour, glory, martyrdom, heroship etc.
One social effect of male disposibility is that we don't take the suffering of men as serious as the suffering of women and children. This starts with the well-known phrase "X people have been killed, among them y women/children.", continues with the accepted movie standard of male cannon fodder prevalent in every action movie, whereas the wounding or killing of a woman receives far more screentime and attention in the script, and it ends with serious life-threatening consequences, when for instance Boko Haram goes on a killing spree in Nigerian catholic schools killing dozens of boys, and the international community doesn't give a **** until girls were affected; and I don't want to belittle or negate the suffering these girls must have been or are still going through, I just want to point out an outrageous double standard.
Now back to games. Over 90% of all male characters appearing in mainstream games are there simply to die by the hands of the player. They are cannon fodder. Just like many to most female characters in games are damsels in distress to be rescued or are there for the eye candy.
And while nobody really cares that there are tons of games around, in which the main gameplay mechanic is to kill men, there is no notable game which requires the player to kill or harm women by the hundreds. It is impossible, unthinkable. It would be social suicide for every person affiliated with this kind of game.
These are my 2 cents. I believe that we won't come very far in the discussion of gender stereotypes/objectification if we look only at one half of the problem. Both sexes face their problems, injustices and difficulties, though they are different ones.
-
-snip-
This is pretty similar to a point I've been making over in the Spiderwoman thread in GD, and I made on page 1 of this thread.
The fundamental difference in this thread is that Luis is specifically talking about gender objectification in games, and by far the best and most egregious examples of gender objectification in games concern female sexual objectification, to the point where they make up a very large part of the most egregious examples that they are the most useful to talk about to make the point.
We're not ignoring certain aspects of gender objectification here; for the purposes of responding to TrashMan, female examples were just the best to use for the moment.
-
Yep, and is one of the prime reasons we're having the discussion in the first place. Games do have a have a running theme of objectification, to say they don't is like pointing out that roads don't have potholes.
But my question is when will the arguments end and progress be made? Because the one recurring theme in objectification centered arguments is a decisive lack of solutions to the problem. Censorship, pressuring developers into unneeded politically correct stereo types (i.e. token black guy who gets knocked off), and feigning ignorance are not answers. Most Internet Feminists contend that the male culture has to be changed: more rational minds have actually pulled the can off the Internet Feminist lid and decided the real problem was not merely stagnation, but a woeful lack of feminine identity in the development of games and enfranchisement in Gamer culture.
Browbeating creates resent, and frankly, a lot of Internet Feminists are good a brow beating, piss-poor on actually elbow grease. And in many ways, the effort to get more representation and enfranchisement would require a more thoughtful and dual-gendered drive to achieve it. Most Twitteristas and Tumblrs (and their equivalent MRAs) would actively mock this because they damn know well it would undercut their soap-box and chorus of shrieking.
-
A critic is not required to be able to write Moby Dick to critique it. A doctor is not required to be able to cure a disease to diagnose it. Saying "you can't do better" is, was, and forever shall be not an argument for the quality of a thing.
This concept that people able to identify problems are somehow making them worse you seem to be pushing is one that's so breathtakingly crazy I don't know if you're serious. Conversations like this one are progress, because we weren't having them five years ago. When the gaming public talks, eventually companies must listen. We're at the talking stage. We're waiting for signs of the listening stage. Until then, we keep talking.
-
Critics can also be criticized on the fairness and reputability of their points. Most sane and rational critics have all found the problem, but fully acknowledge that Internet drudgery has made the problem worse, rather than better.
And yes, I'm actively calling out the Internet Feminists on this: There's been a serious problem within the Feminist movement of over-criticism and expecting others to do the work . When a part of the Third Wave thought for a moment, "hrm... perphaps we can be a real activist instead of a talking point..." they got a rude awakening when the older Second Wave, cathartic and slow from years of saber-rattling, didn't take very well to the idea of action over words.
The vein of Third Wave feminism I actively support is action and progression over saber-rattling. Mere discussion can enlighten, but what about action? Imagine games that are made and distributed by women to the mass audience of gamers. That's called being an activist. My real hope is when I can look up a development studio or publisher that is overwhelmingly lead and run by women, making games and being successful at it. More women have been pulled into the game market, and even for more "hard core" gamer types, we'll bound to see more women migrate there as well as the market increases.
We can debate endlessly, but the real problem is getting more women into the industry, and where we stand now, that needs to start happening rather than the cyclical flare ups whenever Anita Sarkesian posts a video. The industry is heavily slanted towards men, and industry with more women will change the culture. Simple in decree, hard in practice. At this current rate, camps are happily entrenching themselves rather than trying to reach out. I would argue that Anita has helped to polarize the community more than helping it.
And Anita isn't the type of Feminist who would be inclined to make a game. And we need more women making them.
-
Take almost any scantily clad female character from a game and ask if there is anything about that character that makes her female other than her clothing in the game and a too-often-submissive demeanour. It's often true of males as well - take away physical depiction of male supporting characters and they suddenly have no quintessential gender either. The difference is that female characters are depicted as such almost exclusively by how they are dressed and will be looked upon; males are the assumed genderless default.
This is silly.
What makes a male a male or a female a female?
Their gender. That's it.
what else are you looking for? Behavior? There isn't such a thing really as "100% male/female behavior", especially not for background characters.
You made this very point using an egregious example yourself - armour and clothing is an obvious go-to concerning sexual objectification in games. There is literally no purpose to rendering female characters in scant clothing and male characters covered up other than an assumption that the females are there, in part, to be simply looked upon. Wants and agency are relevant because females are often depicted as having none - they are often simply scantily-clad setpieces that are otherwise treated as without gender at all.
Wants and gender are irrelevant for both.
In general, what do male characters have in terms of those? Not much. They are big, burly (or fat) meat shields.
As for apperance, sometimes the differences are deliberately blown up to makes males and females stand ot more (especially in games with a more distnat camera/view).
I personally find all men looking like roided up bears in so many games UGLY. While I always vote for more body types in games and various clothing options, that in itself really isn't a big problem. It's that simple. It may go on someones nerves, jsut like scantly clad females, but really, it's not an important social issue at all.
-
@AtomicClucker: Consider we live in the age of KickStarter. There is simply no excuse for someone not to put work on this. Given the amount of money that was given to Sarkeesian by that same monstruous community that apparently doesn't exist anymore and whose Name Shall Not Be Named (... sigh...), I'd say there's definitely a market for these intentions. Go for it. What are you waiting? You cannot bring the excuse of depending on the big corporations anymore.
-
Christina Sommers talks about this in her latest video. She's snarky but good:
-
Blatently;
I think anyone who examines this much into sexual themes in video games is subconsciously projecting their own masculine and/or effeminate insecurities.
That isn't to say that sexism doesn't exist, at all. I just think that video games is definitely not the medium to fight the crusade. Art is a reflection of our culture; punching the mirror will just get you an embarrassingly broken hand. Turn around and fight the battle outside.
-
Christina Sommers talks about this in her latest video. She's snarky but good:
Ah, yes, I wondered what the american right wing thought about this. Which apparently is that there is no actual misogyny problem, that games explicitly aimed at teenage males and serving teenage male stereotypes are perfectly alright.
I mean, this is rather blatantly confirming all the points the gamergate idiots are making. It's a video that these people will point to and say "Look, there are scholars who agree with us, our points are valid, you and your social justice warrior hipsters with social studies degrees are WROOONG". Is this because they are, or because it's a good marketing move to make the conservative cause more appealing to a demographic that isn't inclined to vote conservative?
-
If the idiots who caused gamergate believe that the American Right are on their side, they're bigger morons than I thought.
And I was already only willing to measure their IQ in double digits.
-
Perhaps leaving out the right-wing left-wing dychotomy and actually listen to what people have to say is something that can be productive, yeah? I mean, I haven't dismissed any of Anita's points with a handwaving "bah she's a left wing moron who thinks in marxist-feminist lines how can people think these folks are on *their side*?"
I don't know, I think it's rather useful to listen to multiple points of view. And I also underline how Sommers is quoting far more scientific literature in 5:00 than Anita in her entire hours long series on games. Perhaps it's because she's actually a scholar who understands the value of empiricism. And The_E, regarding this particular point, for all your rant I didn't catch one single counter you had against the video. Just blatant ad hominem.
Regarding the right wing co-opting #gamergate, I think that should have been obvious. If you have the entire game journalism siding with left-wings and dismissing an entire group as "mysoginist monsters" and so on, what would you expect the more clever ones from the right wing to do? That right wing guy "Milo" something is skating this one too, gathering a ****ton of new "fans". Well, if you alienate half your audience, others will be more than pleased to cater to them. That's called the "marketplace of ideas" and it's something some of these feminists simply do not understand. They think they can bully their way into everyone's minds, and lo and behold it just doesn't happen that way.
-
Look, Luis, her entire point is a regurgitation of "There is no problem, I looked at games for a bit and talked to a couple of gamers and they didn't immediately attack me or cause me to hate women, so I don't see what the issue is". In other words, her entire piece is tailor-made to fit the narrative the idiotic side of this whole debate has been pushing. It's all a feel-good thing for that side of the debate to point to and say "look, an actual woman who calls herself the factual feminist agrees with us! There is no problem here, honestly!"
The counter to her points are the entire work of Anita Sarkeesian et al on the subject. Sommers says there is no problem. Her entire point seems to be that everything is OK, that games targeted at the teenage male demographic do not need to incorporate better representations of female characters because the demographic that buys them isn't interested in those topics. This, IMHO, is a misunderstanding of the general point of the debate here. She says that hardcore games do not need better representation of females because women are not hardcore gamers. That's a rather stupid thing to say IMHO, because the entire point here is to make games more inclusive, more welcoming to everyone, and through that arrive at better games for everyone.
See, if one side says "There's no problem at all, everything's mostly fine", and the other says "Well, actually, there are quite a few things wrong if you take a closer look", and the first side responds with "THERE IS NO PROBLEM YOU STUPID *****, AND WE WILL RAPE YOU UNTIL YOU AGREE", then I know which side I will support. Yes, I know that there are sane, rational people on the side of "there is no problem". Unfortunately, they're getting drowned out by the "STUPID ***** RAPE" people, and the usual talking points they come up with are not at all convincing to me.
Is it useful to listen to other points of view? Yes, absolutely. But Sommers' point of view isn't new. It's a summary of what gamers apparently want to hear. It's a feel good piece, a "you're right to believe this" piece, a "not all gamers" piece. Her characterization of the abusers and STUPID ***** RAPE people as psychopaths makes that clear.
-
I certainly dont agree with her that there is no problem but I do think the problem is overblown and is less acute or common than many self-proclaimed feminists and "social studies hipsters" would have you believe, so the truth is somewhere in the middle. And I tend to I agree with her about death threaths and such, anyone who attracts the attention of the internet in a slightly controversial way gets them and so they are not indicative of a problem with gaming community at large, unless a sizable part of this community actually sends them, which I dont believe is the case. Also her description of gender imbalances in gaming at the beginning likely reflects reality. And I dont think bringing the left-right dichotomy into this is productive at all.
-
Look, Luis, her entire point is a regurgitation of "There is no problem, I looked at games for a bit and talked to a couple of gamers and they didn't immediately attack me or cause me to hate women, so I don't see what the issue is". In other words, her entire piece is tailor-made to fit the narrative the idiotic side of this whole debate has been pushing. It's all a feel-good thing for that side of the debate to point to and say "look, an actual woman who calls herself the factual feminist agrees with us! There is no problem here, honestly!"
This is a misrepresentation of her video on such a scale that I am baffled. And why are you pushing for this narrative of "gun ho mysoginists agree with her she's just playing this part" I don't *care* what the thunderf00ts think about her. You clearly have no clue about who this woman is (hint, she was a liberal feminist in the 70s that was disillusioned with a lot of **** that happened in the 80s and 90s and has been pushing against this "post-second feminist wave" for decades now, and she has had a lot more harrassment than Anita could ever dream of), and you just mansplain her away as some "right wing parrot" who says things the gamergate crowd likes.
The counter to her points are the entire work of Anita Sarkeesian et al on the subject.
Sommers never says "there is no problem". She could be more generous but she does admit they bring good points regarding sexist tropes and so on.
She says that hardcore games do not need better representation of females because women are not hardcore gamers. That's a rather stupid thing to say IMHO, because the entire point here is to make games more inclusive, more welcoming to everyone, and through that arrive at better games for everyone.
That's fine. I even think she would agree with this, but it was unstated so you have a point here. The problem is that Anita is not merely claiming that "you know, we could be a lot more inclusive here, it would be so nice for everyone", she is claiming that there's a huge mysoginy problem in games and that this mysoginy affects the world outside of it. Sommers is countering that particular line. There is no link whatsoever regarding portrayal of women in games in a "mysoginistic" fashion and an increase of mysoginy in young males. She makes the perfectly reasonable point that this is the least mysoginistic generation ever, coinciding with the fact that it is the most "gamerish" generation ever. It doesn't fit, just like the huge violence in games didn't affect violence in the real world.
Now, here's where I agree with you: mysoginy in games is bad *per se*, just like racism in games (or tv or movies or whatever) is bad *per se*. You don't need such studies linking games with reality to reach this conclusion.
See, if one side says "There's no problem at all, everything's mostly fine", and the other says "Well, actually, there are quite a few things wrong if you take a closer look", and the first side responds with "THERE IS NO PROBLEM YOU STUPID *****, AND WE WILL RAPE YOU UNTIL YOU AGREE"
Yes, definitely everyone who disagrees with Anita is a mysoginistic psychopath. Of course they are. It's not like there are millions of people who disagree with Anita (I am not exagerating here, she has multiple million views, and I don't think it irrational to infer some millions of those are critical of her), and it's not like it's obviously inevitable that a small percentage (0.5%? 1%?) of those are loud immature brats or just downright psychopaths. No, of course not, let's paint them all like the psychos they truly are. *ALL OF THEM*.
This is the biggest mistake Anita and all of the more "progressive" bloggers and opinion makers made here. They conflated criticism with mysoginy. Anita only addresses the worst parts of her haterz, and by doing that, she is only admitting the existence of "trolls and monsters", ignoring perfectly reasonable and polite but firm disagreements with her. She never addressed any criticism. She merely states "I'm so persecuted, look at these twitter trolls, therefore I am right". This further fuels frustration and anger, it's like she found this perpetual machine of offense taking. I kind of admire her in a machiavellian way (I even hope she's being deliberate at this, the alternative is that she's really stupid and unaware of the monster she is creating with her selective behavior).
The end result is that anyone who agrees with her conflates people who disagree with her with the kind of shout you are stating here. Let me just ask you this question: Did I ever sound like someone who is gonna threaten anyone of rape if they disagree with me? Did Sommers sound like that kind of person? Why are you painting everyone with the lowest common denominator?
...then I know which side I will support. Yes, I know that there are sane, rational people on the side of "there is no problem". Unfortunately, they're getting drowned out by the "STUPID ***** RAPE" people, and the usual talking points they come up with are not at all convincing to me.
They are being deliberately drowned by Anita and people like her, who only highlight and admit those kinds of people as their only critics. Actual scholars and thinkers in the best enlightenment fashion actually engage their best critics and ignore the trolls, for they are the "noise" that is in the way to reach truth. Not Anita. She does the exact opposite.
Is it useful to listen to other points of view? Yes, absolutely. But Sommers' point of view isn't new. It's a summary of what gamers apparently want to hear. It's a feel good piece, a "you're right to believe this" piece, a "not all gamers" piece. Her characterization of the abusers and STUPID ***** RAPE people as psychopaths makes that clear.
Are you saying people who threatened Anita with rape aren't psychopaths or behaving like ones?
-
Yes, I am saying that most of the people who are currently engaging in internet harassment are probably not psychopaths as defined by the clinical term.
-
Ah, yes, I wondered what the american right wing thought about this. Which apparently is that there is no actual misogyny problem, that games explicitly aimed at teenage males and serving teenage male stereotypes are perfectly alright.
I fail to see the problem.
Sure, you can argue that is always better to target a wider audience, but there is nothing inherently WRONG with creating content tailored to specific audiences and tastes.
Irritating to those who don't share those tastes and aren't the target? Sure.
Even more irritating if it's too common? Yes.
But WRONG? Not really.
I for example hate blatant, pointless fanservice and lolis in anime. Yes, I think it would be better if there is less of it. but I cannot really call it wrong (in most cases at least)
-
Yes, definitely everyone who disagrees with Anita is a mysoginistic psychopath. Of course they are. It's not like there are millions of people who disagree with Anita (I am not exagerating here, she has multiple million views, and I don't think it irrational to infer some millions of those are critical of her), and it's not like it's obviously inevitable that a small percentage (0.5%? 1%?) of those are loud immature brats or just downright psychopaths. No, of course not, let's paint them all like the psychos they truly are. *ALL OF THEM*.
This is the biggest mistake Anita and all of the more "progressive" bloggers and opinion makers made here. They conflated criticism with mysoginy. Anita only addresses the worst parts of her haterz, and by doing that, she is only admitting the existence of "trolls and monsters", ignoring perfectly reasonable and polite but firm disagreements with her. She never addressed any criticism. She merely states "I'm so persecuted, look at these twitter trolls, therefore I am right". This further fuels frustration and anger, it's like she found this perpetual machine of offense taking. I kind of admire her in a machiavellian way (I even hope she's being deliberate at this, the alternative is that she's really stupid and unaware of the monster she is creating with her selective behavior).
But is it absolutely necessary that Sarkeesian responds to what you believe is rational and sane and nuanced criticism? Where in the critic/audience contract is it stipulated that a critic MUST respond to criticism of her own work, and must do so publically? Sure, usually such a dialogue results in better work, but I don't think that there is an inherent duty to participate in the debate. Just like you are free to ignore her, she is free to ignore you.
The end result is that anyone who agrees with her conflates people who disagree with her with the kind of shout you are stating here. Let me just ask you this question: Did I ever sound like someone who is gonna threaten anyone of rape if they disagree with me? Did Sommers sound like that kind of person? Why are you painting everyone with the lowest common denominator?
No, neither you nor Sommers strike me as the kind to participate in internet hate brigades of the shouty, rapey kind. But you, personally, do come across as having more than a few axes to grind with people like Sarkeesian who you deem to be bad representatives of their particular viewpoints or philosophies; I get the impression that you are disagreeing with her because you find her disagreeable, not necessarily because her points are bad.
They are being deliberately drowned by Anita and people like her, who only highlight and admit those kinds of people as their only critics. Actual scholars and thinkers in the best enlightenment fashion actually engage their best critics and ignore the trolls, for they are the "noise" that is in the way to reach truth. Not Anita. She does the exact opposite.
I would put it to you that a critic is not required to lend her platform to her critics in turn.
Sure, you can argue that is always better to target a wider audience, but there is nothing inherently WRONG with creating content tailored to specific audiences and tastes.
Of course there isn't. But there is something wrong with assuming a given audience to be the default audience, which is what the games industry (especially the big high profile part of it) is rather fond of doing.
-
Yes, I am saying that most of the people who are currently engaging in internet harassment are probably not psychopaths as defined by the clinical term.
This is fair. Do you still think that solely engaging with idiots while ignoring every civil argument at all (and portraying every criticism as the former as if the latter doesn't even exist) is the proper intellectual behavior one would expect from ideological movement leaders?
But is it absolutely necessary that Sarkeesian responds to what you believe is rational and sane and nuanced criticism? Where in the critic/audience contract is it stipulated that a critic MUST respond to criticism of her own work, and must do so publically? Sure, usually such a dialogue results in better work, but I don't think that there is an inherent duty to participate in the debate. Just like you are free to ignore her, she is free to ignore you.
I think it's perfectly legitimate to ask someone who is spearheading a movement to defend it from criticism, either by debate, conversation, addressing criticism, etc. It's not that Anita is not doing this, no one from this movement is doing this. They don't even admit this criticism exists, they merely point to abuse, and only in the manner to further their own argument - that is, they only seem to regard this "interaction" as one more rethorical tool to have.
I have no demands for Anita. She does what she pleases. However, if you ignore everyone who disagrees with you while hammering on your agenda, all the while propping up in every media engaging with the fact that trolls are trolling her (therefore she's right), well, what amount of respect can you expect from those who disagree with her? Not much.
Again, this is not a legality issue. It's a huge opportunity being wasted. For all of us. Because I *honestly believe* that a kind of a Socratic and Dialectic approach with some debates and so on regarding this issue would have probably reached a huge consensus in all sides regarding many many issues.
No, neither you nor Sommers strike me as the kind to participate in internet hate brigades of the shouty, rapey kind. But you, personally, do come across as having more than a few axes to grind with people like Sarkeesian who you deem to be bad representatives of their particular viewpoints or philosophies; I get the impression that you are disagreeing with her because you find her disagreeable, not necessarily because her points are bad.
I'd love to see her points being fought a lot more in an actual dialogue. I think many of her points would fall down, and many more would not. This is something I enjoyed immensely in the "New Atheist Movement". Here were 4 guys (and a lot more on the sides) willing to discuss their reasoning against the theists in all dimensions, scopes and issues, and the amount of debate and dialogue that exists on the internet (mostly youtube) right now has been one of immense source of maturity and knowledge of my own consciousness regarding that particular question. Ideas were fought and tested. They were either destroyed or endured. Some remain in limbo (and that's also great, not every question is resolved).
Not with this branch of feminist criticism. Either you accept it or you don't. If you do, you're with the good guys. If you don't you're a mysoginist right winger #gamergate white male basement dweller dudebro virgin. There is simply no possible debate, because all these discussions mostly dwell on the aspects of the characters of those who promote these views and their detractors. But why? Well, just look at Anita's twitter TL. Just look at any Gamasutra or Polygon editorial about the subject. There's no discussion. There's only these Truths and then there's these assholes we must condemn until they fail to exist.
I would put it to you that a critic is not required to lend her platform to her critics in turn.
Where did I speak about "lending" anything? I don't even regard her decision to close her youtube channel to discussion as something bad (unlike many others did). I found that decision to be a good one (it let me watch her videos without all the noise below them, it was a good design decision so to speak).
However, the fact remains. There is no discussion. She made a lot of money with this and has been unwilling to debate it whatsoever. I even think she is unwilling to do so because she knows so little about the material she criticizes, and that would be used against her in any debate, etc., but still I think it's a waste that no one is willing to actually engage her critics in the fashion I outlined above. We all lose with this, and the internet becomes increasingly polarized. It's just not useful to state The Higher Truth to the Masses and expect them to eat it up.
Of course there isn't. But there is something wrong with assuming a given audience to be the default audience, which is what the games industry (especially the big high profile part of it) is rather fond of doing.
That's the Chicken and the Egg problem, more than anything.
-
But you, personally, do come across as having more than a few axes to grind with people like Sarkeesian.
That wasn't aimed at me, but I find that in discussions like this, it is a rarity to come across people who DON'T feel like they have some axe to grind.
There's no discussion. There's only these Truths and then there's these assholes we must condemn until they fail to exist.
Truth.
Now I must condemn all who oppose it until they fail to exist.
-
do come across as having more than a few axes to grind with people
Well that seems to fit most of the people (with precious few exceptions) who post a lot in these kinds of threads.
-
Yes, I am saying that most of the people who are currently engaging in internet harassment are probably not psychopaths as defined by the clinical term.
This is fair. Do you still think that solely engaging with idiots while ignoring every civil argument at all (and portraying every criticism as the former as if the latter doesn't even exist) is the proper intellectual behavior one would expect from ideological movement leaders?
No. But then, I don't see what Sarkeesian is doing as a deliberate suppression of the sane middle.
I have no demands for Anita.
Uhhh, yes you do:
I think it's perfectly legitimate to ask someone who is spearheading a movement to defend it from criticism, either by debate, conversation, addressing criticism, etc. It's not that Anita is not doing this, no one from this movement is doing this. They don't even admit this criticism exists, they merely point to abuse, and only in the manner to further their own argument - that is, they only seem to regard this "interaction" as one more rethorical tool to have.
Demanding to respond to criticism is a demand.
Again, this is not a legality issue. It's a huge opportunity being wasted. For all of us. Because I *honestly believe* that a kind of a Socratic and Dialectic approach with some debates and so on regarding this issue would have probably reached a huge consensus in all sides regarding many many issues.
But this is a debate that cannot be had on the internet. It can be publicized on it, but it can't be mediated by it. Scholarly debate is good, yes, but it does mean getting scholars in a room together to have it, and the internet, as far as rooms go, is pretty horrible.
-
I must clarify myself. I don't have any demands from Anita the person. But if she goes to venues like TEDx and XOXO and whatnot parading herself as some kind of movement leader, then I can assume that she is trying to fit in a "movement leader's shoes" at least a little bit. I *do* demand that Anita, the movement leader, to engage in critical dialogue. If she (and any others) fail to do so, the only crime that has been commited is one of waste and useless noise amplification. She will still be an influence, albeit a terribly limited one, and many many people out there will have their hears and eyes closed to whatever some feminist in the future might want to say.
But this is a debate that cannot be had on the internet. It can be publicized on it, but it can't be mediated by it. Scholarly debate is good, yes, but it does mean getting scholars in a room together to have it, and the internet, as far as rooms go, is pretty horrible.
It's the 21st century man, stop talking like it's 1971.
-
I fail to see the problem.
Sure, you can argue that is always better to target a wider audience, but there is nothing inherently WRONG with creating content tailored to specific audiences and tastes.
There is if those specific audiences and tastes are assumed and not empirically-driven. I think we can all agree that many AAA publishers are displaying a greater tendency to force the release of games that appeal to the lowest common denominator, and not the broad swath of relatively complex human beings that play video games.
It's also a problem if those games reinforce negative stereotypes, and many games have an unfortunate habit of reinforcing negative stereotypes of various minorities (including women, though they are not actually a minority).
-
But is it absolutely necessary that Sarkeesian responds to what you believe is rational and sane and nuanced criticism? Where in the critic/audience contract is it stipulated that a critic MUST respond to criticism of her own work, and must do so publically? Sure, usually such a dialogue results in better work, but I don't think that there is an inherent duty to participate in the debate. Just like you are free to ignore her, she is free to ignore you.
Hold up.
Sarkeesian is - or at least, purports to be - an academic interested in opening discussion of misogynistic elements in video games. On that basis, she actually does have an obligation to respond to critique of her work in order to defend her position. This is, like it or not, part of the academic process, particularly in the social sciences and liberal arts. That her work is not occurring in peer-reviewed journals is irrelevant; I would expect the same standard from any author who is using academic/scholarly methods to critique a social issue to a wide audience to effect change.
The fact that she is unwilling to do this and - as Luis has pointed out - simply uses the misogynist 'noise' as a demonstration that her point is correct without engaging with the actual, tangible, and reasonable critique of her work is the main reason I have difficulty accepting her as an academic who is interested in a reasoned and logical movement for change.
Sarkeesian is in many ways a drive-by forumite - she throws out a lot of statements which she may or may not back up adeuately, depending on the examples, then only shows up to quote the people being nasty to her afterward rather than engaging with the large body of legitimate questions and criticisms. That is not a scholarly/academic approach, and it is not an approach to this very sophisticated issue that I can really respect.
It is not enough to state merely that there is a problem (or that there isn't). You must explain why, particularly when there are counter-arguments that offer alternative explanations. I do agree with Luis that Sarkeesian does display one of the troubling hallmarks of parts of the modern feminist movement, in which there are fundamental truths that are not questioned and which the rational criticism of is never properly addressed.
-
This thread is homing in on what makes Sarkeesian so effective. That drive-by poster analogy is right on the money, but that's what the internet is! This isn't a conversation here, it's a communal exercise in grinding axes and throwing stuff at the wall (forum board, whatever) and seeing what sticks.
This is understandably very disappointing for people who believe in academic rigor and tradition, but academics should know that Socrates is just another meme. His method isn't a description of how things actually work or a good path to social change. You change things by getting popular and making people feel uncomfortable. What is this, our fourth thread of buttcheek-clenching discomfort on this same topic? Super effective.
Until we live in a world where what you've got to say means more than what and who you are, we'd better get comfortable with people using provocative postures (teehee) to agitate for social change.
/Drive-by
-
That was very cynical but probably very insightful as well. I'll ponder over that one.
-
This thread is homing in on what makes Sarkeesian so effective. That drive-by poster analogy is right on the money, but that's what the internet is! This isn't a conversation here, it's a communal exercise in grinding axes and throwing stuff at the wall (forum board, whatever) and seeing what sticks.
This is understandably very disappointing for people who believe in academic rigor and tradition, but academics should know that Socrates is just another meme. His method isn't a description of how things actually work or a good path to social change. You change things by getting popular and making people feel uncomfortable. What is this, our fourth thread of buttcheek-clenching discomfort on this same topic? Super effective.
Until we live in a world where what you've got to say means more than what and who you are, we'd better get comfortable with people using provocative postures (teehee) to agitate for social change.
I too was particularly impressed by MP-Ryan's drive by poster analogy.
However, I for one don't want to get used to a World where we have to get comfortable with people using provocative postures to agitate for social change. Riling up the trolls in order to use that as a vehicle to push your own agenda and trying to silence all voices of dissent instead of winning hearts and minds is not something which should be in any way encouraged, quite the opposite, it should be staunchly opposed imo.
These tactics aren't going to win hearts and minds, they just establish an us vs. them dynamic and force people to take sides. Push people to the margins and try to make them be quiet. Sarkeesian can't go into debate because she'd get shown up. I'd love to see her have to debate with MP-Ryan and see how that turns out.
We shouldn't have to be comfortable with such tactics. Shouldn't have to be comfortable with people trying to force their will on us and put us in boxes if we don't confirm to their World view. And we don't have to be if we don't let it happen. There is a reason why this topic is so difficult and it's because of the tactics people use, because of how hard they make it to stand against them, instead of having a friendly and inclusive discussion it always has to be turned into a you're either with us or against us kind of thing. You're either a feminist or a bigot. If you don't go with everything Sarkeesian says you're the enemy.
-
Yes, I am saying that most of the people who are currently engaging in internet harassment are probably not psychopaths as defined by the clinical term.
Sociopaths*
She didn't define them as psychopaths, she defined them as sociopaths ie people who can't tell the difference between right or wrong, lacks moral responsibility
To which threatening people with death threats and rape sort of falls into that category of "lack of moral responsibility"
Could also just categorize those sorts of people as "idiots". The other point related she conveyed alongside that being is they don't maketh the communityeth, and any culture that encompasses such a large amount of people are going to have a wide variety of people types, misogynists and sociopaths included. It's the majority % of person type that are included in the culture that people are forgetting about *which is what she was pointing out*
That's really all I needed to say, carry on
-
I fail to see the problem.
Sure, you can argue that is always better to target a wider audience, but there is nothing inherently WRONG with creating content tailored to specific audiences and tastes.
There is if those specific audiences and tastes are assumed and not empirically-driven. I think we can all agree that many AAA publishers are displaying a greater tendency to force the release of games that appeal to the lowest common denominator, and not the broad swath of relatively complex human beings that play video games.
It's also a problem if those games reinforce negative stereotypes, and many games have an unfortunate habit of reinforcing negative stereotypes of various minorities (including women, though they are not actually a minority).
90% of things in life and assumed and not empirically driven.
Also, are all stereotypes negative, what stereotyes are negative, are sereotypes negative by default, etc.. it's a whole nother debate. For one I'd say stereotypes exist for a reason that is the human brain. It won't be goign away.
-
Sociopaths*
She didn't define them as psychopaths, she defined them as sociopaths ie people who can't tell the difference between right or wrong, lacks moral responsibility
In clinical psychology, a sociopath and a psychopath are exactly the same thing. Nowadays it's called anti-social personality disorder.
-
90% of things in life and assumed and not empirically driven.
90% of statistics are made up. (In case you're unfamiliar with that phrase, it means your statement has no actual point as it has no actual basis).
Also, are all stereotypes negative, what stereotyes are negative, are sereotypes negative by default, etc.. it's a whole nother debate. For one I'd say stereotypes exist for a reason that is the human brain. It won't be goign away.
There are positive stereotypes and negative stereotypes. That would be why I differentiated. Stereotypes are heuristics. They serve a purpose, but they become problematic when they are used consistently in a definitive way, particularly the negative ones. Negative stereotypes have a habit of reinforcing particular traits as a negatively defining attribute of a group, to the exclusion of positive stereotypes, and are often exaggerated.
-
That was very cynical but probably very insightful as well. I'll ponder over that one.
Let me give you something else to ponder. The very video you shared with us. Manveer Heir. There is another way, and you showed it to us.
No one had anything but good things to say about Manveer Heir. I watched it too and he held me for the full sitting. He went to significant lengths at the start to make sure he wasn't putting anyone on the defensive, to make sure all minds were open to his words. I wasn't with him 100%, but I was with him at least 75% of the way, and I would listen to him talk him again. He came across to me as a man of charisma, passion and conviction, a man looking to effect positive change with a forward thinking and positive mental attitude. Compare his way of presenting examples to follow as opposed to Anita and her endless "this is bad, this is wrong, this is bad, this is wrong..." to Manveer's "This would be a good / better way because X, Y ,Z, this is an example to follow, this is good but could be better..."
-
But is it absolutely necessary that Sarkeesian responds to what you believe is rational and sane and nuanced criticism? Where in the critic/audience contract is it stipulated that a critic MUST respond to criticism of her own work, and must do so publically? Sure, usually such a dialogue results in better work, but I don't think that there is an inherent duty to participate in the debate. Just like you are free to ignore her, she is free to ignore you.
Hold up.
Sarkeesian is - or at least, purports to be - an academic interested in opening discussion of misogynistic elements in video games. On that basis, she actually does have an obligation to respond to critique of her work in order to defend her position. This is, like it or not, part of the academic process, particularly in the social sciences and liberal arts. That her work is not occurring in peer-reviewed journals is irrelevant; I would expect the same standard from any author who is using academic/scholarly methods to critique a social issue to a wide audience to effect change.
The fact that she is unwilling to do this and - as Luis has pointed out - simply uses the misogynist 'noise' as a demonstration that her point is correct without engaging with the actual, tangible, and reasonable critique of her work is the main reason I have difficulty accepting her as an academic who is interested in a reasoned and logical movement for change.
Sarkeesian is in many ways a drive-by forumite - she throws out a lot of statements which she may or may not back up adeuately, depending on the examples, then only shows up to quote the people being nasty to her afterward rather than engaging with the large body of legitimate questions and criticisms. That is not a scholarly/academic approach, and it is not an approach to this very sophisticated issue that I can really respect.
It is not enough to state merely that there is a problem (or that there isn't). You must explain why, particularly when there are counter-arguments that offer alternative explanations. I do agree with Luis that Sarkeesian does display one of the troubling hallmarks of parts of the modern feminist movement, in which there are fundamental truths that are not questioned and which the rational criticism of is never properly addressed.
A thousand times this. The value of an argument, whether it's correct or not, strongly depends on how well you defend it. If you either won't or can't, then there's no reason you should be treated any more seriously than a random Reddit comment.
-
Sociopaths*
She didn't define them as psychopaths, she defined them as sociopaths ie people who can't tell the difference between right or wrong, lacks moral responsibility
In clinical psychology, a sociopath and a psychopath are exactly the same thing. Nowadays it's called anti-social personality disorder.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but...
(background story) I remember in Psych101 we had group research projects, my group did anxiety disorders (sort of a general treatment), another group did anti-social personality disorder... maybe they did their research wrong, or maybe the prof's clarification was sloppy, but the takeaway I had was that the "social" in "anti-social" actually meant (or could mean) "societal".
I.e. it's a diagnosis by which a person who is a societal malcontent, regardless of their direct social interactions, may be institutionalized.
So unless someone tells me social strictly means social, never societal... **** that part of the DSM V, I'll stick with the vernacular meanings, TYVM.
-
90% of things in life and assumed and not empirically driven.
90% of statistics are made up. (In case you're unfamiliar with that phrase, it means your statement has no actual point as it has no actual basis).
Replace 90% with most if you want to be so nitpicky.
There are positive stereotypes and negative stereotypes. That would be why I differentiated. Stereotypes are heuristics. They serve a purpose, but they become problematic when they are used consistently in a definitive way, particularly the negative ones. Negative stereotypes have a habit of reinforcing particular traits as a negatively defining attribute of a group, to the exclusion of positive stereotypes, and are often exaggerated.
Ah...but what is a "negative" and "positive" portrayl is very subjective, is it not?
And part of the problem is - again - our assumption that a trait that isn't immediately shown isn't there.
-
This thread is homing in on what makes Sarkeesian so effective. That drive-by poster analogy is right on the money, but that's what the internet is! This isn't a conversation here, it's a communal exercise in grinding axes and throwing stuff at the wall (forum board, whatever) and seeing what sticks.
This is understandably very disappointing for people who believe in academic rigor and tradition, but academics should know that Socrates is just another meme. His method isn't a description of how things actually work or a good path to social change. You change things by getting popular and making people feel uncomfortable. What is this, our fourth thread of buttcheek-clenching discomfort on this same topic? Super effective.
Until we live in a world where what you've got to say means more than what and who you are, we'd better get comfortable with people using provocative postures (teehee) to agitate for social change.
I too was particularly impressed by MP-Ryan's drive by poster analogy.
However, I for one don't want to get used to a World where we have to get comfortable with people using provocative postures to agitate for social change. Riling up the trolls in order to use that as a vehicle to push your own agenda and trying to silence all voices of dissent instead of winning hearts and minds is not something which should be in any way encouraged, quite the opposite, it should be staunchly opposed imo.
These tactics aren't going to win hearts and minds, they just establish an us vs. them dynamic and force people to take sides. Push people to the margins and try to make them be quiet. Sarkeesian can't go into debate because she'd get shown up. I'd love to see her have to debate with MP-Ryan and see how that turns out.
We shouldn't have to be comfortable with such tactics. Shouldn't have to be comfortable with people trying to force their will on us and put us in boxes if we don't confirm to their World view. And we don't have to be if we don't let it happen. There is a reason why this topic is so difficult and it's because of the tactics people use, because of how hard they make it to stand against them, instead of having a friendly and inclusive discussion it always has to be turned into a you're either with us or against us kind of thing. You're either a feminist or a bigot. If you don't go with everything Sarkeesian says you're the enemy.
I understand that you don't want to live in a world where tactics like implicit shaming, not engaging with moderate opposing viewpoints, etc. are effective, but what if you did already live in that world? What if you lived in a world where consistently shaming and degrading groups of people was a highly effective way for another group to hold on to power, and when you tried to bring attention to that inequity in a non confrontational way nothing changed because most people were comfortable with the status quo?
Should you live your life going out of your way to avoid making other groups uncomfortable with the way you present yourself, or does the inequity give you license to ruffle a few feathers, even if it means bypassing the lofty methods of persuasion that society at large preaches but fails to practice?
That was very cynical but probably very insightful as well. I'll ponder over that one.
Sorry, I didn't mean to come off as cynical regarding Sarkeesian or Socrates or any of us forum people. I'm quite optimistic on mainstream video games and the tech industry at large becoming less tone deaf in the near future, and I very much enjoy reading all your guys' postings, even the ones that make me feel buttcheek-clenchingly uncomfortable :)
-
I have no idea what you're getting at, but in psychology there is no real distinction between sociopathy, psychopathy, and ASPD (which does indeed stand for social). There is also no real distinction between social and societal when it comes to sociology/psychology, either.
-
This thread is homing in on what makes Sarkeesian so effective. That drive-by poster analogy is right on the money, but that's what the internet is! This isn't a conversation here, it's a communal exercise in grinding axes and throwing stuff at the wall (forum board, whatever) and seeing what sticks.
This is understandably very disappointing for people who believe in academic rigor and tradition, but academics should know that Socrates is just another meme. His method isn't a description of how things actually work or a good path to social change. You change things by getting popular and making people feel uncomfortable. What is this, our fourth thread of buttcheek-clenching discomfort on this same topic? Super effective.
Until we live in a world where what you've got to say means more than what and who you are, we'd better get comfortable with people using provocative postures (teehee) to agitate for social change.
I too was particularly impressed by MP-Ryan's drive by poster analogy.
However, I for one don't want to get used to a World where we have to get comfortable with people using provocative postures to agitate for social change. Riling up the trolls in order to use that as a vehicle to push your own agenda and trying to silence all voices of dissent instead of winning hearts and minds is not something which should be in any way encouraged, quite the opposite, it should be staunchly opposed imo.
These tactics aren't going to win hearts and minds, they just establish an us vs. them dynamic and force people to take sides. Push people to the margins and try to make them be quiet. Sarkeesian can't go into debate because she'd get shown up. I'd love to see her have to debate with MP-Ryan and see how that turns out.
We shouldn't have to be comfortable with such tactics. Shouldn't have to be comfortable with people trying to force their will on us and put us in boxes if we don't confirm to their World view. And we don't have to be if we don't let it happen. There is a reason why this topic is so difficult and it's because of the tactics people use, because of how hard they make it to stand against them, instead of having a friendly and inclusive discussion it always has to be turned into a you're either with us or against us kind of thing. You're either a feminist or a bigot. If you don't go with everything Sarkeesian says you're the enemy.
I understand that you don't want to live in a world where tactics like implicit shaming, not engaging with moderate opposing viewpoints, etc. are effective, but what if you did already live in that world? What if you lived in a world where consistently shaming and degrading groups of people was a highly effective way for another group to hold on to power, and when you tried to bring attention to that inequity in a non confrontational way nothing changed because most people were comfortable with the status quo?
Should you live your life going out of your way to avoid making other groups uncomfortable with the way you present yourself, or does the inequity give you license to ruffle a few feathers, even if it means bypassing the lofty methods of persuasion that society at large preaches but fails to practice?
Two wrongs don't make a right.
I know what you're saying, but you shouldn't sacrifice your own integrity or the integrity of your cause just because it proves effective for the other side. Set the example by being the example. Take the right path, not the path of least resistance.
-
@MP-Ryan:
Do you understand the distinction between social and societal in common usage? It's the difference between a misanthropic loner and a perfectly well-adjusted activist. One has a problem, the other does not. And if the DSM V says "they're the same, institutionalize them both", then the DSM V has a problem.
And yes I realize what the D in DSM stands for, and so the DSM won't doesn't generally say "institutionalize them", but the fact that it doesn't distinguish is a problem.
-
Replace 90% with most if you want to be so nitpicky.
It still has no real point. Regardless of whether or not most things are assumed, the issue is that the so-called catering is going to an assumed audience that likely doesn't even exist the way the assumptions believe. Even if most things are assumed, that still doesn't make it a good or inevitable ay of operating.
Ah...but what is a "negative" and "positive" portrayl is very subjective, is it not?
And part of the problem is - again - our assumption that a trait that isn't immediately shown isn't there.
Subjective? Loosely, yes. Very subjective? Hell no. Is general portrayal of particular racial minorities as criminals a positive or negative stereotype? How about women as scantily-clad decoration?
Going back to the original point at hand, publishers and game studios catering to a perceived audience is problematic because there is little data to suggest that the perceived audience actually exists, and games that do this tend to resort to negative stereotypes as a quick method of characterization, ignoring everything else that can possibly be going on. Thus, you end up with games that are overly simplistic because of the assumptions of its creators, not the actual characteristics or wants of the audience.
Show of hands: who wants another Call of Duty singleplayer experience, versus who would prefer another game like Spec Ops: The Line? Yet publishers are far more inclined to make yet another CoD installment with an insipid singleplayer mode than take a risk on a game that critiques that sort of game.
Bad assumptions about your audience leads to bad games. Or, if that's mildly unfair, games that don't reach their full potential.
-
-snip-
I see the confusion. You're conflating "anti-social" in ASPD with the common misusage of anti-social to mean "someone who doesn't like to spend time with other people."
Two different things. The psychological term is define by diagnostic criteria; the colloquial term has diluted meaning.
-
This thread is homing in on what makes Sarkeesian so effective. That drive-by poster analogy is right on the money, but that's what the internet is! This isn't a conversation here, it's a communal exercise in grinding axes and throwing stuff at the wall (forum board, whatever) and seeing what sticks.
This is understandably very disappointing for people who believe in academic rigor and tradition, but academics should know that Socrates is just another meme. His method isn't a description of how things actually work or a good path to social change. You change things by getting popular and making people feel uncomfortable. What is this, our fourth thread of buttcheek-clenching discomfort on this same topic? Super effective.
Until we live in a world where what you've got to say means more than what and who you are, we'd better get comfortable with people using provocative postures (teehee) to agitate for social change.
I too was particularly impressed by MP-Ryan's drive by poster analogy.
However, I for one don't want to get used to a World where we have to get comfortable with people using provocative postures to agitate for social change. Riling up the trolls in order to use that as a vehicle to push your own agenda and trying to silence all voices of dissent instead of winning hearts and minds is not something which should be in any way encouraged, quite the opposite, it should be staunchly opposed imo.
These tactics aren't going to win hearts and minds, they just establish an us vs. them dynamic and force people to take sides. Push people to the margins and try to make them be quiet. Sarkeesian can't go into debate because she'd get shown up. I'd love to see her have to debate with MP-Ryan and see how that turns out.
We shouldn't have to be comfortable with such tactics. Shouldn't have to be comfortable with people trying to force their will on us and put us in boxes if we don't confirm to their World view. And we don't have to be if we don't let it happen. There is a reason why this topic is so difficult and it's because of the tactics people use, because of how hard they make it to stand against them, instead of having a friendly and inclusive discussion it always has to be turned into a you're either with us or against us kind of thing. You're either a feminist or a bigot. If you don't go with everything Sarkeesian says you're the enemy.
I understand that you don't want to live in a world where tactics like implicit shaming, not engaging with moderate opposing viewpoints, etc. are effective, but what if you did already live in that world? What if you lived in a world where consistently shaming and degrading groups of people was a highly effective way for another group to hold on to power, and when you tried to bring attention to that inequity in a non confrontational way nothing changed because most people were comfortable with the status quo?
Should you live your life going out of your way to avoid making other groups uncomfortable with the way you present yourself, or does the inequity give you license to ruffle a few feathers, even if it means bypassing the lofty methods of persuasion that society at large preaches but fails to practice?
What? You don't want to pretend we're all PhDs having a nice public forum at Cambridge pleasantly conversing on things that no actual bearing on our everyday lives?
Tea parties don't change anything. You can attack and condemn and rail against and demand that we look inside ourselves and summon all of your personal passions and channel them into a torrent of righteous fury to make your case, and be totally correct and just in doing so.
As long as your points are good.
Anyone wants to talk about how they don't like Anita's style, fine. I certainly can't stop any of you from doing that. But her points are good.
-
Replace 90% with most if you want to be so nitpicky.
It still has no real point. Regardless of whether or not most things are assumed, the issue is that the so-called catering is going to an assumed audience that likely doesn't even exist the way the assumptions believe. Even if most things are assumed, that still doesn't make it a good or inevitable ay of operating.
I would agree with you if most things you do in life, most things you believe, are all backed up by empirically tested evidence.
They are not.
Life is too short for that, and thus, assuming many things is simply the way humans work.
It is not the "best" way in terms of accuracy, but it is in terms of ease and expedience.
Subjective? Loosely, yes. Very subjective? Hell no. Is general portrayal of particular racial minorities as criminals a positive or negative stereotype? How about women as scantily-clad decoration?
As long as you're not portraying every member of the minority as a criminal, and as long as there are other woman in the story too, I'd say it's relatively neutral.
Because the world isn't neatly divided and ordered to always present you "nice" ratios or numbers.
Hypothetically speaking - what if I told you that in my country, members of a specific minority produce a large number of the criminal element?* The reasons why are irrelevant for now, but would it be racist then if I were to portray my country as it is? It doesn't have to be a country.. It could be a town, or a neighbourhood. Pick a place on earth. Do a check to see if races, genders and religions are all equally spread out among different facets of society. You'll find they are usually not.
The part/snapshot of the world a creator makes does NOT have to correspond to the real world or to the world average. Especially when it comes to fantasy worlds. You may not like it - heck, I don't like it most of the time - but the creator has that right to make any kind of world he wants. If poeple don't like it, then thy should ignore it.
* - not actually true, but as I said, hypothetical
Thus, you end up with games that are overly simplistic because of the assumptions of its creators, not the actual characteristics or wants of the audience.
Assumptions of the creators are always present, aren't they?
Bad assumptions about your audience leads to bad games. Or, if that's mildly unfair, games that don't reach their full potential.
Full potential?
By who's standards?
-
Quick note to point out that there's no such thing as publishers "catering to a perceived audience" like smelling the wind and what not, and that the whole "we would all rather prefer something like Spec Ops The Line rather than CoD" is a typical case of We think we know what we want, but in reality what we really want is different than what we say we want ****.
In reality, all these publishers have very tight and "scientific" study groups that are able to determine with incredible precision exactly what consumers want from games. They then add all these things up and the end result is what we get from the shelves, typically a soulless addition of thousands of little findings by these groups tied in by the flimsiest, simplest "narrative" or concept that was also subject to study. And if you think these things don't work, please tell me how many "The Line" games were sold VS "Call of Duty". I know you say you want "The Line" far more than CoD, but the market is saying exactly the opposite. Sorry.
e: the best personification of this process is the latest Destiny game. Filled with incredible detailed "little things" that work amazingly well, all glued in a completely mindless and irrelevant backdrop, an intellectual complete failure (both from storytelling perspective and innovative gameplay).
-
The problem is that we're not representative of the market at all. For every one SpecOps: The Line fan, there's ten
morons casual COD players who couldn't care less for story or indeed, anything intellectual about a game. They'd only care about shooting people, preferably in multiplayer, not even needing a good reason for it. I've seen a review of SpecOps: The Line that lowered the rating (slightly) because the multiplayer was bad. Who plays it for multiplayer anyway? The only reason it was included was that the publisher wanted it. Generally, stuff is most often marketed to the lowest common denominator, because it's just that: common. It simply sells better. It's somewhat similar with movies, there's a market for intelligent, deep movies with philosophical overtones. There's also a much larger market for mindless action flicks, stupid comedies and softcore porn. It's the former that make the classics lists, but the latter are much easier to produce and sell better.
-
Exactly, I mean you cannot berate certain media products for catering to the majority of people. If you are proud of your own intelligence and delicate stellar taste, you cannot then complain that the world doesn't fall in line to your taste, for it was you yourself who decided long ago to go beyond the median. And it's not even about people "being stoopid". It's way more mundane and simple than that, most people just don't ****ing care about 90% of the things they consume. I know I don't. Some people worry a lot about food, I just care that it is edible and tasty. Some others worry a lot about movies. Some others worry about cars. Some do worry about games, but perhaps they focus on mechanics. Others might focus on social characteristics of them, games that allow them to have a good time while you and your friends are partying at home. Others just like to shoot **** in a well oiled and crafted shooter game.
-
I understand that you don't want to live in a world where tactics like implicit shaming, not engaging with moderate opposing viewpoints, etc. are effective, but what if you did already live in that world? What if you lived in a world where consistently shaming and degrading groups of people was a highly effective way for another group to hold on to power, and when you tried to bring attention to that inequity in a non confrontational way nothing changed because most people were comfortable with the status quo?
Should you live your life going out of your way to avoid making other groups uncomfortable with the way you present yourself, or does the inequity give you license to ruffle a few feathers, even if it means bypassing the lofty methods of persuasion that society at large preaches but fails to practice?
Two wrongs don't make a right.
I know what you're saying, but you shouldn't sacrifice your own integrity or the integrity of your cause just because it proves effective for the other side. Set the example by being the example. Take the right path, not the path of least resistance.
I think that for Sarkeesian, the pervasive shaming and degradation of women is a more onerous burden to bear than whether or not her public persona measures up to the extraordinarily varied and inconsistent standards of integrity imposed by men on the internet. The fact that many people don't approve of her is not her problem.
-
[...]
I see the confusion. You're conflating "anti-social" in ASPD with the common misusage of anti-social to mean "someone who doesn't like to spend time with other people."
Two different things. The psychological term is define by diagnostic criteria; the colloquial term has diluted meaning.
Not what I needed to hear :p
Let's pretend there's some sort of "psychiatry-con", and as a party event the psychiatrists are drawing the names of different conditions from a hat and then acting them out for the others to guess (like charades but with talking; alternatively, like that Seinfeld episode where Kramer role-plays a guy with gonorrhea). Suppose on your turn, you draw the card for "ASPD", and have to act it out. You decide to recite a shortened version of a quote from Agent K in Men in Black: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals."
Would people guess it correctly? Would they think you had a proper understanding of how ASPD is defined and what people with ASPD are like, or would they think you're some random who happened to walk in on their game?
Unless the answer is "they would think it was a horrible, inaccurate caricature of what ASPD is like", then I still have a problem with the fact that ASPD is a disorder in the DSM.
-
The fact that many people don't approve of her is not her problem.
You miss the point. Everybody has "problems". What has become part of the public discussion is how much we should care about "her problems", and the media conclusion is "very much", and if anyone disagrees they become "part of the problem". Sarkeesian even wants to push forward the notion that the "best thing we can do" to help regarding solving mysoginy is to believe and accept uncritically when women talk about their problems*.
This is not just a problem of "methodology". It's a complete attack on the public use of Reason, trying to regulate and censor the ways and discussions we have with one another, and sleazily inserting in society the dangerous notion that we should uncritically accept what she has to say. The tight regulation is enforced by an organic and spread "army" of internet feminists, harrassing everyone who crosses the line (see the latest imbecilic salvo against Sam Harris over one totally innocent passing comment regarding the gender gap of the number of atheist men and women as an example, but there are dozens... each month!). Words become forbidden, thoughts become mysoginistic just by suspicion, a thought police is sweeping the twitterosphere and tumblerosphere to submission to these rules.
It's a kind of revolution, with lots of anger and frustration at the patriarchal system, with hierarchies of privilege checking (from the white male on top, who obviously has a lot to check over his supremacist enslaving sins, followed by white women, who in return must check their privilege against women of color, who in turn must to the same against lesbian women of color, then Transwomen, then etc., etc., with a lot of infighting whether if muslim brown males living in america should check more privileges than black women or not, where are the jews in all this line of hierarchy, etc), and lots and lots of hashtags #notyourasiansidekick, etc.
I have no idea where this sweeping wave will lead the internet into. I hope it's a fad that will die soon, and hopefully we are able to retrieve the better parts of it (like a good portion of the critique on sexism on games, for example!) and leave the worst shenanigans away (the dreadful internet tactics, the shamings, the bullyings, the censorships, the ridiculous rituals that accompany them, etc.).
*Except when it comes to someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali of course, then it behooves the liberalmedia to harrass and censor her, even though her "problems" are three magnitudes or five worse than anything Sarkeesian has ever experienced. But the problem is that her speech runs counter to more liberal narratives, so it's not mysoginy to silence her.
-
Exactly, I mean you cannot berate certain media products for catering to the majority of people. If you are proud of your own intelligence and delicate stellar taste, you cannot then complain that the world doesn't fall in line to your taste, for it was you yourself who decided long ago to go beyond the median. And it's not even about people "being stoopid". It's way more mundane and simple than that, most people just don't ****ing care about 90% of the things they consume. I know I don't. Some people worry a lot about food, I just care that it is edible and tasty. Some others worry a lot about movies. Some others worry about cars. Some do worry about games, but perhaps they focus on mechanics. Others might focus on social characteristics of them, games that allow them to have a good time while you and your friends are partying at home. Others just like to shoot **** in a well oiled and crafted shooter game.
I feel like you missed the fact that I specifically mentioned the COD singleplayer experience and excluded the multiplayer.
I am not convinced that game marketing is as sophisticated as it likes to claim. I suspect, like with many modern marketers and statistical aggregate systems, it relies on self-report data collected primarily over the Internet and not a random sampling of all types of people who play games. I suspect modern game marketing is composed largely by preaching to the choir, which is why AAA publishers have been totally floored by the success of some indie titles.
Regardless, this diverges immensely from gender objectification in games, so I'm inclined to drop further argument as we simply don't and cannot know without conducting research of our own.
-
-snip-
OK, not going to clutter the thread further beyond this brief explanation, anyone wanting to discuss further can create a new thread or PM me after this.
You can read the diagnostic criteria for ASPD on pages 2-4 here: http://www.psi.uba.ar/academica/carrerasdegrado/psicologia/sitios_catedras/practicas_profesionales/820_clinica_tr_personalidad_psicosis/material/dsm.pdf I strongly suggest you do so.
You appear to be hung up on the words "anti-social" and feel like ASPD is a targeting of people who are anti-social in the colloquial sense. If you read the diagnostic criteria, you will find that isn't even remotely the case. Psychology as a discipline doesn't particularly care that people use the term anti-social differently than its correct usage, nor are they about to run around diagnosing people with ASPD because they don't like social situations (the clinically-significant form of that behaviour is an anxiety disorder).
-
This is not just a problem of "methodology". It's a complete attack on the public use of Reason, trying to regulate and censor the ways and discussions we have with one another, and sleazily inserting in society the dangerous notion that we should uncritically accept what she has to say. The tight regulation is enforced by an organic and spread "army" of internet feminists, harrassing everyone who crosses the line (see the latest imbecilic salvo against Sam Harris over one totally innocent passing comment regarding the gender gap of the number of atheist men and women as an example, but there are dozens... each month!). Words become forbidden, thoughts become mysoginistic just by suspicion, a thought police is sweeping the twitterosphere and tumblerosphere to submission to these rules.
It's a kind of revolution, with lots of anger and frustration at the patriarchal system, with hierarchies of privilege checking (from the white male on top, who obviously has a lot to check over his supremacist enslaving sins, followed by white women, who in return must check their privilege against women of color, who in turn must to the same against lesbian women of color, then Transwomen, then etc., etc., with a lot of infighting whether if muslim brown males living in america should check more privileges than black women or not, where are the jews in all this line of hierarchy, etc), and lots and lots of hashtags #notyourasiansidekick, etc.
Bwahaha cishetwhiteman, your puny "Reason" can not protect you from our Mindless Meme Mantras! The New World Order has come, all will grovel at the feet of the Transqueerblackquadriplegicdownwoman! Check your privilege
Seriously though, that's kind of a weird narrative you outlined in that post there. People being combative and going off on twitter doesn't represent an attack on reason or a revolution or anything, it's just twitter. The problems are real so the complaints resonate with people and they join in because that's how the internet works. Calling out perceived bigotry doesn't make you the thought police. It sucks if some people do it overzealously and hurl around false accusations, but there are always gonna be jerks in any kind of social environment.
-
-snip-
OK, not going to clutter the thread further beyond this brief explanation, anyone wanting to discuss further can create a new thread or PM me after this.
You can read the diagnostic criteria for ASPD on pages 2-4 here: http://www.psi.uba.ar/academica/carrerasdegrado/psicologia/sitios_catedras/practicas_profesionales/820_clinica_tr_personalidad_psicosis/material/dsm.pdf I strongly suggest you do so.
You appear to be hung up on the words "anti-social" and feel like ASPD is a targeting of people who are anti-social in the colloquial sense. If you read the diagnostic criteria, you will find that isn't even remotely the case. Psychology as a discipline doesn't particularly care that people use the term anti-social differently than its correct usage, nor are they about to run around diagnosing people with ASPD because they don't like social situations (the clinically-significant form of that behaviour is an anxiety disorder).
Very much this. Misandry is not an anti-social disorder.
-
The word is misogyny, not mysoginy. Just like the country is Libya, not Lybia. :mad:
-
Well, fears of a Feminist army being raised on Twitter is slim, non-existent at best XD.
They'll scream at ya, call you a ManPig, then go back to *****in' how the Patriarchy is oppressin' them. They're the sort that would never actually lift a finger to do any real helpful other than exercising their Twitter tapping.
@Luis Dias: I was talking to a few lady friends of mine about the hurdles of getting more women into the games industry: what it comes down to is that for now, the best bet for more women is to start small and make greater steps, as the Indie market has shown lots of nice elbow room and actually is more forgiving than the AAA publishers/dev houses. Self-publishing or working with smaller publishing outfits allows devs to retain more creative control of their IP. As I've stated before, I think its pretty "dumb" for Internet numbskulls to demand on a whim that the AAA market suddenly cater to their politically correct demands. The Fine Young Capitalists is a good start, and I hope we see more grass roots activism as opposed to gatherings of Twitter hen's spouting off nonsense.
Frankly, it should be on the mass of gamers to make their intent known, but that's a subjective request on my end. The AAA machine appeals (and stupidly I might add) to the lowest common denominator. I view trying to tell publishers/devs to produce less Call of Duties like telling a Soccer Mom to ditch her SUV. Leave it to the AAA market to price, market, and wear out its welcome with IPs and other things.
But I think, as MP-Ryan pointed out, that much of Anita's work is less scholarly and more, well, agenda driven, in my opinion at least. For me the "breaking" point came when she decided to establish that her featured list of games encouraged deviant behavior, dehumanization of females and reinforces violence against women, which while makes some sense, starts to cross the "boundary" per say. What boundary? Hard to say, but it falls into the "well, people insisted that games encouraged violent behavior, and we know how that argument went..."
Unlike other gamers who think their vidya games are going to be censored or taken away, I'm more concerned about political correctness in gaming: the last thing I want in my games is stock tropes and cliches I see in movies just to pay lip service to minorities, gender identity, etc. Political Correctness is not empowerment, it's window dressing at best and insulting at worst. I do expect a degree of self-consciousness within the gaming medium, and I can do without token minorities and characters just to fill a check box for "diversity."
-
ALL MY LIKES!
-
Well I was using "twitter" as a proxy, I use it as a kind of a portal to the entire internet. I agree 100% with the "politically correct" dystopia, which is exactly what I hinted at when I mentioned "regulation".
Also, sorry for my rant. I believe this feminist wave going through the nets right now are violent precisely because they believe they must be violent for the system is violent towards them. They believe there's no other way. They read "don't be so rude, don't be so nasty" as if the entire system is trying to silence them or something. And then there's this kind of gap between this persecution complex they bring to the table and the rest of us who are just "what are these crazies doin now? Who are they throwing under the bus today?", resulting in weird events when people like Suey Park get interviewed by people who won't take **** just because they are told to do so. And what's funny then is that both "sides" will look at that interview and will both eyeroll at it for exactly the opposite reasons. This gap is a product of this violence, its roots and the frames of reference we have to map them.
The idea that this gap will always exist and this is how ideas change around the world, which is a complete dismissal of the Enlightenment ideal, is a real disappointment for me. It's like suddenly realising that conservatives' outlook on the world and the "changes" it takes might not be that wrongheaded, that somehow in twenty years or so I'll become such a curmudgeon myself for having witnessed so many "movements" being so random and so lacking in simple civility and modernity, filled with themselves and their own pathetic egos.
-
"persecution complex"
that's a good one, i'll have to remember that
(srsly)
-
It's like suddenly realising that conservatives' outlook on the world and the "changes" it takes might not be that wrongheaded, that somehow in twenty years or so I'll become such a curmudgeon myself for having witnessed so many "movements" being so random and so lacking in simple civility and modernity, filled with themselves and their own pathetic egos.
He, I'm already past this point. On the political map I was pretty far left during my early and mid-twenties. But the more I got to know the left movement the more I realized that not a small number of people among this movement endorses totalitarian ideas, most of all limiting freedom of speech, so that only approbriate ideas may be allowed to discuss.
This realization also made me highly sceptical and critical of feminism, and it also showed me that the world is far more complex than some leftwing worldviews describe it.
Now, I wouldn't describe me as a conservative, rather as a left-leaning liberal.
-
Well I was using "twitter" as a proxy, I use it as a kind of a portal to the entire internet. I agree 100% with the "politically correct" dystopia, which is exactly what I hinted at when I mentioned "regulation".
Also, sorry for my rant. I believe this feminist wave going through the nets right now are violent precisely because they believe they must be violent for the system is violent towards them. They believe there's no other way. They read "don't be so rude, don't be so nasty" as if the entire system is trying to silence them or something. And then there's this kind of gap between this persecution complex they bring to the table and the rest of us who are just "what are these crazies doin now? Who are they throwing under the bus today?", resulting in weird events when people like Suey Park get interviewed by people who won't take **** just because they are told to do so. And what's funny then is that both "sides" will look at that interview and will both eyeroll at it for exactly the opposite reasons. This gap is a product of this violence, its roots and the frames of reference we have to map them.
The idea that this gap will always exist and this is how ideas change around the world, which is a complete dismissal of the Enlightenment ideal, is a real disappointment for me. It's like suddenly realising that conservatives' outlook on the world and the "changes" it takes might not be that wrongheaded, that somehow in twenty years or so I'll become such a curmudgeon myself for having witnessed so many "movements" being so random and so lacking in simple civility and modernity, filled with themselves and their own pathetic egos.
Well people certainly aren't wired up to operate on Enlightenment principles, but I don't think that what we are seeing is anything to get depressed about. Feminism is basically an outgrowth of Enlightenment memes. Enlightenment memes are really fit because they appeal to a broad base and they generally lean towards prosperity if people actually follow through on them, but that doesn't mean that they magically convince people to adopt them on their own merits. People have to force them down their children's' throats just like any other "values" indoctrination because it's ultimately good for everybody.
Knowing that isn't disappointing, it's liberating and great! We've got the best memes! Our memes are so great they are capable of leading us towards understanding how they and the rest of the world works. But just because we have those great memes doesn't meme that we aren't still running them on Windows 50,000 BCE and it's a really bad fit that's full of exploits.
In this particular case, you say that the current wave of feminists takes a violent posture towards the system. Smash the Patriarchy! But is anyone actually advocating violence? Is their goal to subjugate men? Are they trying to stifle freedom of speech with their trigger warnings and privilege checks? No, they're trying to realize a more enlightened world where women aren't treated like **** by men who have convinced themselves that the Enlightenment is on their side and that feminists are just a bunch of hysterical *****es who don't know how good they've got it.
Some gentle feminists will do exactly what you approve of and appeal directly to enlightenment ideals with carefully researched powerpoint presentations. Some idiot feminists will go on all-out emotionally manipulative power trips and make asses of themselves. Then there are those in the middle who will lightly touch nerves and just really bother men in a way that invites in depth discussion from some, revealing misogynistic tirades from others, and a whole lot more attention from everybody than the issue would have received otherwise. I think those are the people that can really speak effectively, people operating in those gaps between how our minds actually work and how we like to think they work.
I'm not saying I think Sarkeesian is some uniquely talented master manipulator or anything. I think everyone does this and it's just a natural part of human communication and social evolution. My point is that I don't think it's particularly fair to criticize feminists for taking short cuts that everyone else also exploits. That's my Enlightened opinion and I'm sticking to it even in the face of overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary.
-
I'm not saying I think Sarkeesian is some uniquely talented master manipulator or anything. I think everyone does this and it's just a natural part of human communication and social evolution. My point is that I don't think it's particularly fair to criticize feminists for taking short cuts that everyone else also exploits.
I want to put in my bit on this, I criticise anyone who uses the exploitative short cuts. It says a lot about you as a person if you do this, and a lot about you as a person if you take the right path instead of the path of least resistance.
I look at someone like Anita Sarkeesian and I think you haven't earned this. She's got to where she's got by taking manipulative short cuts, and I believe success by such foul means should be discouraged at every turn. People need to be more choosy when selecting their role models and heroes, and not just jump on board the first bandwagon they see that has some momentum going for it. People won't identify as feminists even though they fit the dictionary definition because of the face of feminism and the associations people take from that that they don't want thus applied to them if they identify as feminist.
-
Well people certainly aren't wired up to operate on Enlightenment principles, but I don't think that what we are seeing is anything to get depressed about. Feminism is basically an outgrowth of Enlightenment memes. Enlightenment memes are really fit because they appeal to a broad base and they generally lean towards prosperity if people actually follow through on them, but that doesn't mean that they magically convince people to adopt them on their own merits. People have to force them down their children's' throats just like any other "values" indoctrination because it's ultimately good for everybody.
Look, this is going to sound sarcastic and I must stress it doesn't come from that place, but you make me say it: I am not a child and I won't have anything forced down my throat. If anything, these are the children trying to force **** down their elders' throats, all the while making it all too apparent they are just incredibly new to this thing called life and are still in the early stages of learning how to be proper human beings. It doesn't stop them from being such a-holes in the mean while though.
In this particular case, you say that the current wave of feminists takes a violent posture towards the system. Smash the Patriarchy! But is anyone actually advocating violence? Is their goal to subjugate men? Are they trying to stifle freedom of speech with their trigger warnings and privilege checks? No, they're trying to realize a more enlightened world where women aren't treated like **** by men who have convinced themselves that the Enlightenment is on their side and that feminists are just a bunch of hysterical *****es who don't know how good they've got it.
Violence is all too visible for all that aren't with their eyes closed. The bullying is everywhere, it's obviously not physical. It's reputational. If you don't toe the party line, if you fail to consider all these new rituals invented by some bloggers with PTSD from twitter interactions then you will be tarnished, demonized, called out, etc. Donglegate was not atypical, it was merely more newsworthy.
What you fail to understand is that the fact that I am deeply critical of all this phenomena, I fully understand and know all these ideas came from good intentions. The "Check your privilege" has good intentions within it. However, they do operate in anti-meritocratic, anti-hierarchical terms, which is amazing in principle and almost always terrible when in action. It becomes bullying by identity politics: I am a woman, so you must shut up and listen to me. No, I musn't because I am a black woman, you shut up. Terms like "mansplaining" and "whitesplaining" become clichés of shutting down any disagreement to the party line. Funnily enough, consistency is not at all a good thing. If a woman is saying things that are running counter to the party line, she will be shut down by men without any risk of charges of "mansplaining". At that point, if a woman is saying that her experience is not the oppressed feminists are claiming it is, she becomes a "woman myoginist" or a "shill girl", is bullied and harrassed. Scholars who dare present evidence that boys are being left out in education get shout down and harrassed in lectures until it becomes impossible to discuss anything.
This is the mindset that if not tamed, if these people aren't shook a bit and told "hey you're being assholes, cut it out", it becomes totalitarian.
Some gentle feminists will do exactly what you approve of and appeal directly to enlightenment ideals with carefully researched powerpoint presentations. Some idiot feminists will go on all-out emotionally manipulative power trips and make asses of themselves. Then there are those in the middle who will lightly touch nerves and just really bother men in a way that invites in depth discussion from some, revealing misogynistic tirades from others, and a whole lot more attention from everybody than the issue would have received otherwise. I think those are the people that can really speak effectively, people operating in those gaps between how our minds actually work and how we like to think they work.
I know you are trying to paint a kind of Gaussian curve with the purpose of saying that I'm focusing in the rubbish part of it. I think that's untrue. Where is this middle ground filled with great contributions? Manveer is the exception, not the gaussian middle. The middle is the noise within the internet, the shouting down, the Sarkeesian supporters who are daily commenting her tweets about the latest hate mail she got, the 10 reporters in game magazines who declared gamers to be dead in a single day, etc.
I'm not saying I think Sarkeesian is some uniquely talented master manipulator or anything. I think everyone does this and it's just a natural part of human communication and social evolution. My point is that I don't think it's particularly fair to criticize feminists for taking short cuts that everyone else also exploits. That's my Enlightened opinion and I'm sticking to it even in the face of overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary.
I agree with all of what you are saying, with one simple exception, which is the shape of the gaussian curve of this whole situation. The forms of both gaussian perceptions determine both your optimism and my pessimism.
-
Children forcing ideas down their parents' throats is also a pretty normal part of life though. I would hope that young people would have the nerve to tell their racist grandparents or whatever that their views were embarrassing and hurtful. It sucks when people misuse that capability or level false accusations, but using public expressions of disapproval to try to influence opinion and control behavior has always been part of human society. I mean, all these threads we've been having basically boil down to "Look, something I disapprove of is happening on the internet" and "I disapprove of your disapproval"!
It's a real shame that people tend to get dogmatic regarding issues they feel passionate about, but I definitely don't think that this issue is at all unique in that regard. Frankly, it seems a lot more benign than the actual issues that feminists are trying to bring attention to (not that that makes it ok to bully people or be a douche or anything). Really the only unique thing about it that jumps out at me is that it impacts straight white men, and anything that is a potential threat to straight white men immediately becomes a sign of nascent totalitarianism.
As for the privilege hierarchy, I'm guessing you would probably agree that when discussing the severity of difficulties faced by black women, black women's voices should be treated as being more authoritative than white men's for the same reason you would give more weight to a veteran's account of what it's like to be in a war versus a CoD player's. I think where a lot of men feel threatened is when people point out that men's opinions are treated as being more authoritative than women's in general. When that's brought up in an argument to discredit a man's opinion it can feel like he is being shut down just for being what he is (which is sort of the thing that feminism is supposed to be fighting against), and people's love of arguing and desire to "win" means that at some point it's probably going to come up. The thing is, it's absolutely true that men's voices are more respected than women's. Until that stops being true, men are probably going to have to make arguments good enough to stand up to their audience's unfair biases, just like women do.
And for the Gaussian curve thing, that's not what I was trying to get at. I don't think you're gonna see an accurate distribution of real world opinions on twitter (or any internet thing really). What you see are things that people post to try to look cool to their friends, to get popular, because they're bored and want to stir up **** etc. It's mostly a vanity thing IMO. The average liberal feminist person isn't a shrill mindless manhater any more than the average CoD player is a psychopathic mouthbreather who wants to eat Sarkeesian's brain.
TL/DR: No *****y apocalypse this year!
-
I'm not saying I think Sarkeesian is some uniquely talented master manipulator or anything. I think everyone does this and it's just a natural part of human communication and social evolution. My point is that I don't think it's particularly fair to criticize feminists for taking short cuts that everyone else also exploits.
If they're bad shortcuts, which ultimately get in the way of understanding the problem, then why do you think they should not be criticized? Why do you think anyone who uses them should not be criticized? I don't think anyone is offering feminists a special anti-exemption here, and trying to cast it that way is exactly the sort of thing that's the problem.
Because it's not "more benign"; reasoned critique is a fundamental part of the process here. Shaming tactics have their place, but they are not a methodology by which anyone is going to arrive at a better understanding of what is going on nor one that is going to produce people who actually believe in your point of view.
Racists still play a large role in shaping our public discourse, though being racist has been publicly shameful for about thirty years. Shaming them was good for breaking down their public organization but has ultimately not proved effective in reducing their numbers very much. Shaming as a sole tool is useless now; and this is the stage the sexism issue is already at.
-
It really pains me in this thread to see people talking about "Feminism" as if a few vocal political activists are an accurate representation of the concept itself.
It particularly pains me to see "Feminism" tossed around like a dirty word. I think it speaks to the polarization on both sides that it's being used as such, and that polarization is not a good thing.
Before the post edit: This seemed a lot more relevant before the last couple posts. I think the idea is still present, and an issue in the thread, however.
-
It really pains me in this thread to see people talking about "Feminism" as if a few vocal political activists are an accurate representation of the concept itself.
It particularly pains me to see "Feminism" tossed around like a dirty word. I think it speaks to the polarization on both sides that it's being used as such, and that polarization is not a good thing.
Before the post edit: This seemed a lot more relevant before the last couple posts. I think the idea is still present, and an issue in the thread, however.
I'm amazed most gamers don't realize that "Feminism" isn't a big bad boogeywoman, but instead a very fractured movement, as in the other thread, there are many flavors of Feminism some us threw around like salad. The average gamer knows little of Feminism, and the best medicine to a stupid gamer is to let that them know that there are types of Feminism rather than a cuckold of idiots on Twitter.
@Luis Dias: Humans, are by trade, dumb and pretty stupid, and very irrational despite attempting to cling to rationality. It comes down to perspective and self-validation, i.e. "I'm right!"
-
@NGTM-1R I don't think that the shortcuts are necessarily bad or that it's necessarily wrong to criticize people for using them. I think it's revealing when the standards that people claim to hold people to at all times suddenly get applied in earnest when it comes to uppity feminists taking their games away. The types of manipulation that Sarkeesian is being accused of are pretty much fair game when it's Bill Maher trolling religious people or what have you. Not saying anyone here engages in that type of double standard, but I do think that we tend to reward men for playing loose or with bravado while punishing women who show any hint of the same.
I'm not saying reasoned critique isn't useful or that shaming is going to win over people with profoundly sexist attitudes, but I do think that making it shameful to make sexist remarks in public makes life better for the targets of those remarks.
I don't think that the persistence of racist attitudes proves the inefficacy of public shaming any more than it proves the inefficacy of reasoned discourse. Well reasoned arguments against racial prejudice were widely disseminated long before it became embarrassing to hold racist attitudes in the US. Racism and sexism are deeply seeded problems that aren't going to go away quickly no matter what kind of social changes do or don't occur.
-
More of a general comment rather than to one specific person: Feminism is an off-shoot of Marxism (theory, not economics). That's the reason it's primarily about conflict (in all its forms) and it deals very much in group classifications of oppressors versus oppressed (in virtually all its forms).
Talented Marxists and Feminists are very much alike, using real-world and relevant examples of social conflict (in the case of classical Marxism, between class groups; in the case of Feminism, between sexes and gendered stereotypes) to argue a tight thesis and effect change. These people are rarely the spotlighted few because their arguments are inherently reasonable, although people may disagree with their content.
Theorists like Sarkeesian come from another side of the coin, where many of their arguments are quite loose and not always reasonable, but they make them to make a loud point in the hopes that it will stick.
History has shown that the loudmouths rarely actually bring about change; they tend to be more polarizing than catalyzing, and it's the reasonable discussion in the background that typically makes progress. Many modern Feminists of Sarkeesians type, and the considering more radical ones, have a habit of forgetting that the major changes brought about by first- and second-wave Feminism came not from the extremists, but the reasoned and rational activists who changed public opinion generally. There is a role for the loudmouths to play, but Sarkeesian appears to be aiming for a place among the reasoned/rational while using the tactics of the loudmouths (for lack of a better term), which is why many people who agree generally with her cause have such a problem with the way she goes about her work.
-
http://www.polygon.com/2014/9/19/6373669/christina-hoff-sommers-is-just-plain-wrong-about-games
-
It's a real shame that people tend to get dogmatic regarding issues they feel passionate about, but I definitely don't think that this issue is at all unique in that regard. Frankly, it seems a lot more benign than the actual issues that feminists are trying to bring attention to. Really the only unique thing about it that jumps out at me is that it impacts straight white men, and anything that is a potential threat to straight white men immediately becomes a sign of nascent totalitarianism.
Is it?
Severity of some things, their impact and such is partially subjective too.
As for the privilege hierarchy, I'm guessing you would probably agree that when discussing the severity of difficulties faced by black women, black women's voices should be treated as being more authoritative than white men's for the same reason you would give more weight to a veteran's account of what it's like to be in a war versus a CoD player's.
Only if that black woman was talking about her own experiences AND NOTHING ELSE.
The thing is, it's absolutely true that men's voices are more respected than women's.
Since when?
-
TM, are you going to provide any constructive comments here, or just play contrarian to every single point you don't like?
-
http://www.polygon.com/2014/9/19/6373669/christina-hoff-sommers-is-just-plain-wrong-about-games
It's hard to take Colin seriously given his role in the recent events, or at least hard to take him as an unbiased eye to any of this. He makes some good points though, no matter how interspersed between straw mans and character attacks. More than half of his diatribe is to quote and present Sommers' views on other subjects regarding feminism struggles, as if they are automatically wrong and thus representative of how she's so wrong here too. It's an absolutely sleazy rethorical technique, especially on how I am so sure ms Sommers would have so much to teach this journalist in all of those matters.
I also found Colin's obliviousness regarding the "attacks" he got (mansplaining, mysoginist, etc) and actually taking them seriously other than recognizing them for the satirical element they had as a kind of clinching evidence of the ****ty nature of his character. No way he could have misunderstood it and yet he decided to paint these as actual insults and so on. Either a moron here in action or a sleazy asshole.
Regarding his good points, I think we here had already pointed them out. Sexism in games is something bad per se, and the fact that games are mostly for men should never be an excuse to these problems. Thus the problem is real, it does exist, despite what ms. Simmers say.
Finally, Colin's point that games "are stories" is probably my most important take away from that article. Colin is absolutely clueless. Games can *have* stories and you all know how important I find them to be, but the most important trait of Games is the core "game mechanic", the Game itself. That's what games are all about. Not stories.
-
Still regarding her video, I guess it's only fair I post a rebuttal in sine form of... Tune?
Note to the interested, Sommers is actually a registered Democrat voter...
Also, summary of "gamergate" here for those interested:
-
TM, are you going to provide any constructive comments here, or just play contrarian to every single point you don't like?
What exactly is the problem?
Disagreements or doubt is a valid response.
What? Do I now need a license to doubt someone elses words?
If you want me to back up my claims (or disagreements) with data, then be fair and demand the same from everyone else.
-
Gamergate
Gamergate got discussed in GenDisc and that lead to... unexcellency - let's not discuss it here, it's not like it's all that related anyway.
-
As for the privilege hierarchy, I'm guessing you would probably agree that when discussing the severity of difficulties faced by black women, black women's voices should be treated as being more authoritative than white men's for the same reason you would give more weight to a veteran's account of what it's like to be in a war versus a CoD player's.
Only if that black woman was talking about her own experiences AND NOTHING ELSE.
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. This issue revolves around what types of environments (both in-game and in the real world) we want to create for men and women. It's pretty much entirely informed by the experiences we are having in those environments as they currently stand. If most women found the depiction of women in a video game to be degrading but most men did not, I would be inclined to accept that the depiction was degrading precisely because of the personal nature of their experiences. The depiction is degrading because it makes people feel degraded.
The thing is, it's absolutely true that men's voices are more respected than women's.
Since when?
Probably the Neolithic in a lot of places. You might live in a country with less gender inequality, but where I'm from women face a slew of deeply ingrained prejudices that lead to their contributions outside of a few narrowly defined roles being downplayed, appropriated, or suppressed.
@Luis I couldn't make it through either video. The first I had to stop because I was having Rent flashbacks, and that second one was like watching a car wreck. He could mail that in as a video application to join "the totally non-partisan American Enterprise Institute!" Is that what it feels like for you to watch the Sarkeesian videos? I think those two together form as good of a send-up of this issue as anyone could hope to wright. Great stuff!
-
Gamergate
Gamergate got discussed in GenDisc and that lead to... unexcellency - let's not discuss it here, it's not like it's all that related anyway.
I think you're right! Sorry.
@Luis I couldn't make it through either video. The first I had to stop because I was having Rent flashbacks, and that second one was like watching a car wreck. He could mail that in as a video application to join "the totally non-partisan American Enterprise Institute!" Is that what it feels like for you to watch the Sarkeesian videos? I think those two together form as good of a send-up of this issue as anyone could hope to wright. Great stuff!
ahaha, I totally understand you on both accounts. I cringed in my viewing of that first one. I can't bear with hipsterdom, I get all Nicholas Cagey with the bees stuff with it. Regarding Sarkeesian, not at all. I actually don't get mad at all while watching her videos. Her videos are "fine", except for the lazyness that MP acknowledged and the unconvincing argument that stems from an all too obvious agenda bias. It's the outside shenanigans that drive me up the wall, the absolute rejection of any dialogue or conversation. At first I thought it was because they felt they would be pwned, but now I'm beggining to believe it's part of the ideology. They sincerely believe there's no such thing as "conversation" and reasoned debate. There's only Power, Status Quo and Revolution. The ones In Power must be defeated, anyone who doubts us stands for the Status Quo and therefore are the enemy, we will hammer home the point until we win sort of mentality.
-
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. This issue revolves around what types of environments (both in-game and in the real world) we want to create for men and women. It's pretty much entirely informed by the experiences we are having in those environments as they currently stand. If most women found the depiction of women in a video game to be degrading but most men did not, I would be inclined to accept that the depiction was degrading precisely because of the personal nature of their experiences. The depiction is degrading because it makes people feel degraded.
Problem is, a lot of things make people feel degraded.
Some people are VERY easy to insult.
Others are not.
So what exactly is so degrading for women in games?
That in SOME games women wear skimpy clothes? Well, I can't say that I ever saw a scantly clad women. Not in TV, not in magazines, not on billboards. Clearly a big problem.
That they have to be rescued? Again, only sometimes. You have to rescue SOMEONE. It's either a woman, a child or an older king/*president/whatever.
And today, more than ever, you get customization options and sex selection in games.
So I don't really see the MASSIVE issue.
Probably the Neolithic in a lot of places. You might live in a country with less gender inequality, but where I'm from women face a slew of deeply ingrained prejudices that lead to their contributions outside of a few narrowly defined roles being downplayed, appropriated, or suppressed.
Gender roles are normal, they were born out of practicallity more than anything else. Everyone had their crosses to bear.
Women didn't suffer nearly as much as some would have you believe.
Who did the most dangerous job with the highest mortality rates? Men.
Who was the last to be evacuated in case of disaster? Men
Who's life was worthless in combat? Men.
Women were prized. They were considered valuebale. It's a double-edged blade, but I've yet to hear feminists talking about the other edge.
(http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/woman+had+it+bad_30e280_4774657.jpg)
But clearly, what do I know? I have a penis, therefore I'm a member of the dreaded patriarchy and my only goal in life is to shame and oppress women!
(http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/keep-calm-and-oppress-women.png)
-
Gender roles are normal, they were born out of practicallity more than anything else. Everyone had their crosses to bear.
Women didn't suffer nearly as much as some would have you believe.
Who did the most dangerous job with the highest mortality rates? Men.
Who was the last to be evacuated in case of disaster? Men
Who's life was worthless in combat? Men.
Women were prized. They were considered valuebale. It's a double-edged blade, but I've yet to hear feminists talking about the other edge.
That is because a woman was often the single most valuable piece of property a man would have.
-
Women were prized. They were considered valuebale. It's a double-edged blade, but I've yet to hear feminists talking about the other edge.
Because a cage, no matter how gilded or comfortable, is still a ****ing cage.
-
Are you talking about prisoner of war cages?
-
Re: TrashMan's "MASSIVE" issue, I don't see anyone saying that gaming has a "MASSIVE" issue more than any other form of media. However, gaming clearly has issues with its history in depictions of women outside of very stereotypical gendered roles. It can really be summarized like this: games are far more likely to make three-dimensional interesting CHARACTERS out of male entities than they are out of female entities, and that is what's actually unacceptable. Female "characters" are more frequently defined by their clothing, artistry, and stereotyped gender role than what actually makes them tick. This does not dispute that there are many female and male entities in games that are solely backdrop and that they exist in gendered roles - I don't have an issue with that, necessarily - but rather that games still default to a straight white male character when they are making three-dimensional characters (especially protagonists), and that needs addressing.
The rest of your post is straight out of a Men's Rights Activist's textbook and largely ignores broader history. Until very recently (and even then, the change has only occurred in some countries), a woman's power, agency, worth, and rights were solely a function of the men in her life. This is still true in many parts of the world, and it was true in the Western nations well into the 1900s. It wasn't until well-after the Second World War that women were able to be truly socially and economically independent from and near-equal to men. My mother-in-law STILL regularly advocates for my wife to hold aspects of her finances separate from our joint accounts and ownership (which she does not, because I do not) because she could not buy a car or house or access any sort of credit as a fully-employed young single woman in England ~45 years ago without a *male* co-signor.
-
The rest of your post is straight out of a Men's Rights Activist's textbook and largely ignores broader history. Until very recently (and even then, the change has only occurred in some countries), a woman's power, agency, worth, and rights were solely a function of the men in her life. This is still true in many parts of the world, and it was true in the Western nations well into the 1900s. It wasn't until well-after the Second World War that women were able to be truly socially and economically independent from and near-equal to men. My mother-in-law STILL regularly advocates for my wife to hold aspects of her finances separate from our joint accounts and ownership (which she does not, because I do not) because she could not buy a car or house or access any sort of credit as a fully-employed young single woman in England ~45 years ago without a *male* co-signor.
Historically, a women had less rights than a man, because she had less responsibilities. And even in the late 19th, early 20th century women enjoyed some privileges, a man had not. For instance, she had the right that her income and property were set apart from the family income and property, to which her husband contributed. So a man was legally not able to access his wife's assets without her consent. On the other hand, a man's income and property always became family property after marriage, belonging to him and his wife.
Another example, men could be drafted, women not. And after WWI it was the fact that men had been eligible for military duty with the age of 18 that was the reason to lower the age for the right to vote from 21 to 18 in the US (or Canada, not quite sure). It simply seemed unfair that the state could force young men to die for their country, in which they had no say about its policies. Appropriately, the first women to get the right to vote in Canada, where the Red Cross nurses who served in the European Theater during WWI. The majority of women got the right to vote without the possibilty of having to sacrifice their lives for their country.
Gender roles served the need for survival. No one asked if you were happy in your role. You had to fulfill it, because otherwise you jeopardized the lives of your fellow human beings. Only recently, because of technological and social progress, do we have the luxury of questioning gender roles. And it is a good thing, since it means that every one should be able to choose a way of life he or she prefers. But unfortunately, feminism focused, surprise surprise, almost exclusively on women's issues, leaving men alone with their traditional role expectations plus a large heap of new expectations, which often enough contradict each other and have led to inreased social pressure and insecurity.
I'm following Warren Farrell when I think that we need a gender liberation movement, which adresses issues of all genders, especially since these issues are often interdependent.
-
I'm going to do the selective quote thing because there are a few specific points that need addressing.
Historically, a women had less rights than a man, because she had less responsibilities.
Women had different responsibilities than men; you'd be hard-pressed to argue they were lesser in any meaningful way without an inherently gender-biased value judgement.
And even in the late 19th, early 20th century women enjoyed some privileges, a man had not. For instance, she had the right that her income and property were set apart from the family income and property, to which her husband contributed. So a man was legally not able to access his wife's assets without her consent.
You're going to need to dig up a citation for this. While it may be an obscure matter of law that I'm not aware of in one particular country, it certainly was not a widespread phenomenon across Western countries. There's also the question of whether or not that consent existed solely as a right on paper and was never actually exercised; keeping in mind that until the 19th/20th centuries, it was perfectly legal to beat your wife and children, even in Western countries.
Another example, men could be drafted, women not. And after WWI it was the fact that men had been eligible for military duty with the age of 18 that was the reason to lower the age for the right to vote from 21 to 18 in the US (or Canada, not quite sure). It simply seemed unfair that the state could force young men to die for their country, in which they had no say about its policies. Appropriately, the first women to get the right to vote in Canada, where the Red Cross nurses who served in the European Theater during WWI. The majority of women got the right to vote without the possibilty of having to sacrifice their lives for their country.
Voting was not originally tied to military service, but land ownership (something, incidentally, women were also denied until quite recently). Voting did not move beyond land ownership purely on the basis of war, either; rather it was one among many reasons why voting rights progressively expanded in the last 200 years in Western democracies. The narrative that young men earned the right to vote as a result of the draft is historically wrong; men who were not landowners earned the vote earlier, and it was expanded to a younger age it some countries with the incongruence of the draft age and other social policies (the US 26th amendment passed in 1971, after many years of various debate; the World Wars and the Vietnam War were just part of it).
In nearly all Western democracies, adult women gained the right to vote before the voting age was lowered to 18.
-
With less, I meant fewer, and few responsibilities which would threaten her life (child bearing is the obvious exception). A man was (and is even today) expected to sacrifice his health and life to protect not only his family but also other people in danger or need. Though it is a noble thing to defend the weak and helpless, there was and is not a comparable expectation towards women to do that.
As to the property law, I mentioned: It refers to Section 50 of the Domestic relation law of the State of New York from 1909: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/DOM/4/50
Here's an article from the New York Times from 1910 refuting several half-truths regarding to family law feminists made even back then: http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.ca/2012/12/a-feminist-hoax-in-1910-strategy-of.html
Regarding the right to vote, I then stand corrected on this issue. Though it doesn't change much that different responsibilites lead to different rights in connection to social roles, which still have nothing to do with oppression of one gender by another.
-
With less, I meant fewer, and few responsibilities which would threaten her life (child bearing is the obvious exception). A man was (and is even today) expected to sacrifice his health and life to protect not only his family but also other people in danger or need. Though it is a noble thing to defend the weak and helpless, there was and is not a comparable expectation towards women to do that.
Women had fewer responsibilities than men? Really? You have an objective list of these responsibilities somewhere? This reeks of a values judgement that assigns more value to roles perceived as requiring physical strength or capability toward violence than it does any actual comparison. With regard to responsibilities that could be life threatening, are you really going to argue men were expected to place their lives in harm's way more often than women, because, with the exception of warfare - which women were generally prohibited from participating in yet many did so anyway (https://www.google.ca/search?q=participation+of+women+in+war&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=N3MgVOShEsiC8QeSwoCgDw) - the notion that men were expected to die to defend their families and women were not is largely an entertainment media construct.
Even if this were true, it still assumes that a hypothetical expectation that a man risking his life for his family is a greater responsibility than that of traditional roles of childbirth, rearing, care, and general running of the greater family household and unit, and that a woman will not risk her life for her family in fulfilling any of those roles (an assumption which, on its face, is patently untrue).
Lots of conjecture and assumptions here; no data to support it.
As to the property law, I mentioned: It refers to Section 50 of the Domestic relation law of the State of New York from 1909: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/DOM/4/50
That, as far as I can tell, is actually still on the books as of at least 2006: http://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2006/domestic-relations/dom050_50.html Regardless, one single law in one single state in one single country with an unspecified date of enacting does not a general trend make. In general, matrimonial property is matrimonial property. Furthermore, the notion of a dowry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry) is long-standing and widespread, even today.
Here's an article from the New York Times from 1910 refuting several half-truths regarding to family law feminists made even back then: http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.ca/2012/12/a-feminist-hoax-in-1910-strategy-of.html
I find little credence in a piece on a blog entitled "The Unknown History of Misandry" with a historical piece from the opinion section of a paper in 1910, particularly one of which the author purportedly was the President of New York State Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage. Are you familiar with the term "confirmation bias?"
Regarding the right to vote, I then stand corrected on this issue. Though it doesn't change much that different responsibilites lead to different rights in connection to social roles, which still have nothing to do with oppression of one gender by another.
Well, aside from the fact that females were long denied the right to own land, and even after that was gained were still denied the right to vote even as it was being expanded to non-landowning males, no, nothing to due with gender oppression at all...
The history of gender rights, responsibilities, and oppression is rife with interest and advocacy, half-truths, data manipulation, factual inaccuracies, and a general political mess. It's further complicated by the fact that you have to separate differences in gender roles from values assignment as to their worth. But with all of those complications in mind, there is a very clear pattern that emerges through history and still exists in many parts of the world today that shows that women have not enjoyed a level of rights, protection, and individual freedom equal to that held by men. People may have "justified" this situation in the past with gendered norms and a variety of other pseudo-arguments concerning capability, mental acuity, physical strength, desire, etc but, today, we know there really is no excuse for a law or social norm that treats one party inferior to another on the basis of gender.
-
Wouldn't a pretty obvious and basic indicator of gender inequality would be how common it is for people to actually believe that they'd have been better off had they been born to be of the opposite sex?
I doubt there's much hard data on it, but does someone really believe that historically, it has ever been anywhere near as common for men to wish they had been born women than it has been the other way around?
-
I doubt there's much hard data on it, but does someone really believe that historically, it has ever been anywhere near as common for men to wish they had been born women than it has been the other way around?
Maybe we should ask the pathetic excuses for humanity that frequent parts of 4chan. (http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2014/09/22/3570220/emma-watson-to-men-everywhere-gender-equality-is-your-issue-too/[/url)
-
Side nitpick: Linking to google as an argument may not work, as google's search results are personalized based on the browsing preferences associated with IP adresses.
-
So, being the evil person I am, went back to my heretical feminist roots.
This is partly derived over the game furor, but instead piqued my interest of gender demographics and the targeted roll of demographics of game types.
First, a few videos from an evil heretical feminist (Christina Hoff Sommers) who I attended a few lectures during my stint as a Philosophy major:
Sexism in Games (by a Feminist, oh noes!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MxqSwzFy5w&feature=youtu.be
War on Boys (yes, we go there~)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqOTj9NDv80
Welcome to fun facets of Academia and boring lectures. Yes, there are Feminists who actually fight for men and men's liberation, wonder how gamers would react to this?
Edit: For disclosure, I don't agree with all of her points- well, actually many of them, but she does raise some eyebrows on how times have indeed changed. Hell, don't get me started on the wage gap between sexes, but she does make a point with the danger of statistics and data manipulation.
-
Women were prized. They were considered valuebale. It's a double-edged blade, but I've yet to hear feminists talking about the other edge.
Because a cage, no matter how gilded or comfortable, is still a ****ing cage.
And it's still gilded and comfortable. The grass is always greener on the other side as they say.
Life sucked in many ways for both sexes, but for different reasons.
It can really be summarized like this: games are far more likely to make three-dimensional interesting CHARACTERS out of male entities than they are out of female entities, and that is what's actually unacceptable.
Bollocks.
1) equality does not mean equal number of everything HAS to be there for both sides. What next - are you going to demand that every company has to exactly employ half males half females? That every game has a checkbox of things you have to put in so as to satisfy every group under the sun? Quotas are bull****.
2) There are more and more women characters and games for women each year. (And male characters aren't exactly deep) Women entered gaming relatively late so of course it's gonna take some time to pick up steam. Yes, I know - you want it all and you want it now. But it's a process that is well underway and it takes time.
-
I'm following Warren Farrell when I think that we need a gender liberation movement, which adresses issues of all genders, especially since these issues are often interdependent.
Frankly I think we need a "everyone just chill" movement.
@MP-Rayan.
The world is a big place. Many different countries with different cultures and practices.
I really wouldn't use the history of one country and project it to others. There are vast differences between countries, some subtle, some less so. Some things were basically common without being in any law book. Law on paper and situation in reality are two completely different things. At least in my country women were always respected.
There are a few villages around that 50 years ago didn't have running water or electricity and people lived like in the middle ages. And I can tell you a womans word was as much law as a mans was. Everyone pulled their weight.
I am fortunate enough to live in a country that abolished slavery very early.
-
There are a few villages around that 50 years ago didn't have running water or electricity and people lived like in the middle ages. And I can tell you a womans word was as much law as a mans was. Everyone pulled their weight.
In my region there was some sort of hybrid model, where males essentially took the lead of each family but stepped down in favor of females very frequently. Even today, though not in my town, there are families that still apply a "modern" version of that.
-
You what they say - a law that isn't enforced is just dead weight on paper.
Even if women didn't have some right on paper, in may parts of the world they had them in practice. Out here, disrespecting an older woman? Unthinkable. Their word was law as much as any mans.
It's only when the life become more comfortable and it wasn't about survival anymore (appearance of wealthy middle class) that what was on paper became more important and many men started really believing they were the lords of the house and acting like it.
-
-snip-
Nobody is saying that there should be quotas or that there hasn't been progress. Read what I wrote. Games are still far more likely to make three-dimensional male characters than female ones. Male is still the default protagonist state. The fact that there is progress on this front does not mean the present situation is acceptable.
Did you watch Manveer Heir's lecture? You should: http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1020420/Misogyny-Racism-and-Homophobia-Where
-
The fact that there is progress on this front does not mean the present situation is acceptable.
Except it is.
Of all the "issues" in the world, this one is probably the least important of all.
And yelling like a moron at the people building a bridge won't urge them to make the bridge any faster.
Which reminds me...which well-defined 3D character are we talking about here?
-
-snip-
-snip-
Women in Croatia gained the vote in 1945. Women in Italy gained full voting rights in 1946.
Moreover, Croatia's population in 1941 (closest I see in a quick search to universal suffrage date) was about 7 million. Italy had about 45 million in 1946.
Compare to the US at over 106 million when women gained the vote in 1920, Canada at over 8 million in 1919, Australia at 3 million in 1902, and the UK at over 45 million in 1928. I haven't included France (comparable to Italy) or Germany (comparable to UK, slightly earlier though) because I'm tired of looking up numbers.
Even if Crotia and Italy, to name two, were bastion's of democratic freedom and rights for women (which they were not), they were much smaller and gained universal voting for women much later than the larger collection of English-speaking democracies that advanced democratic rights generally in the early 20th century. There is anecdotal evidence all over the world that women in some places were treated nearly as equals in social situations and occupied highly respected roles in society (true, for example, of all the English-speaking countries I just listed), but there is also much greater actual demographic and statistical evidence that women have generally been treated as socially and legally inferior to men in most societies until the 20th century, and still are in many societies today.
-
Except it is.
Of all the "issues" in the world, this one is probably the least important of all.
And yelling like a moron at the people building a bridge won't urge them to make the bridge any faster.
This is a thread about gender objectification in games. If you feel this topic is unimportant, you are welcome to leave it at any time. There are much greater issues that concern gender equality, I agree (I have argued that in response to GenDisc threads about various eruptions in the games industry myself), but the fact of the matter is that this thread exists solely to discuss this issue, and no one is forcing you to continue to post in it.
Which reminds me...which well-defined 3D character are we talking about here?
I'll make you a deal. You spend an hour of your day watching Manveer Heir's video first, and then I'll answer that question, since he actually talks about this in his lecture and I don't feel like repeating a exercise in writing that you can simply watch.
-
"Why are you concentrating on X when Y is so much more important?" (http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/04/12/faq-why-are-you-concentrating-on-x-when-y-is-so-much-more-important/)
-
It's called "Whattaboutery".
I fully agree with the recent postings by MP Ryan, except for one small detail, when MP tries to share this idea that women fought in battles "too". It's ridiculous, and all the shenanigans we were exposed this month about how many viking women were also soldiers reek of how mind-bogglingly idiotic feminism can be in discussing any sort of scientific or historical knowledge, always skewing and parsing any miniscule flair of a scent of some kind of narrative on how some women were possibly warriors as well as sudden evidence that women were as much soldiers as men. It's completely ridiculous to suggest women beared the same kind of burden in providing their blood and lives to the war machinery of thousands of years of struggle as men did. Yes, there were women soldiers in history. They are called the *exception* for a bloody good reason.
-
*snip*
Exactly what are you trying to prove here? That your country is better than my country?
Don't care about any wikipedia data you dig up (funny how you forget how long slavery was A.O.K. in both US and UK). It is irrelevant and it's only a small piece of the puzzle.
Much greater evidence?
"Much greater" means diddly squat to me, as simply saying it doesn't make it true. Especially given how everything is further filtered and biased.
Oh, the "there's the door" routine?
Cute, but try something better next time.
Yes, I do think the issue is over-inflated, but that is all that I meant by it. If you want to read more into it (stop discussing this right now!) be my guest, but at that point you might as well have an argument with your immaginary friend.
-
TrashMan, you are welcome to post some actual evidence that refutes the notion that women have enjoyed fewer rights and protections than men, a premise which you started along in the first place and still haven't actually backed up except for a weak appeal to anecdotal evidence and a statement that the law doesn't/didn't really matter in practice. Your bland assertions don't cut it. I posted the voting data to show a clear picture of one particular legal right in which women were long considered inferior to men, and emphasized country data to demonstrate that despite yours and Mobius' anecdotal assertions, legal rights are important and the broad international trend was not one of equality, with a few exceptions. This is all in direct response to your continued unsupported assertions that women weren't and aren't treated differently than men in any real and broad manner.
As for your comment about "much greater evidence," considering the evidence you've now posted for any of your assertions - for the record, that would be none - I would suggest you stop blustering and actually come up with a coherent fact-based argument.
While I'm on the subject of blustering, saying there are much greater issues, being reminded of the topic of the thread and the fact that your participation in it is voluntary, then blustering and complaining about that reminder is dangerously close to arguing in bad faith.
-
I fully agree with the recent postings by MP Ryan, except for one small detail, when MP tries to share this idea that women fought in battles "too". It's ridiculous, and all the shenanigans we were exposed this month about how many viking women were also soldiers reek of how mind-bogglingly idiotic feminism can be in discussing any sort of scientific or historical knowledge, always skewing and parsing any miniscule flair of a scent of some kind of narrative on how some women were possibly warriors as well as sudden evidence that women were as much soldiers as men. It's completely ridiculous to suggest women beared the same kind of burden in providing their blood and lives to the war machinery of thousands of years of struggle as men did. Yes, there were women soldiers in history. They are called the *exception* for a bloody good reason.
You'll note I never actually said they participated on anywhere near the same scale as men, Luis. However, there is a mountain of historical evidence that women have not been sheltered delicate flowers throughout history, but have fully participated in war and defensive violence in their own right as well, if on a much smaller scale.
-
In a kind of scale where it would be completely ignored by feminists if it was the other way around (like say men babysitting, men being oppressed by women in the job, etc., etc., etc.). Saying "delicate flowers" is a grave deception. Life was a lot harder for everyone, women included. The sheer pain and suffering our great grandfathers and great grandmothers went through in no way should ever be depicted as "delicate flowers".
This kind of #notallwomen is a distraction to the conversation. I'm also baffled when people make huge walls of text (not you MP) to hammer home the point that women "were scientists too", and then point and discuss the lives and discoveries of some 4 or 5 women scientists wherein I bet only one of those is common knowledge around here. All this in evidence that women's role in Science has been "silenced" in history, as if there's a great conspiracy of historians who forgot to pay attention to women scientists... who were obviously as great as men. The kind of truly bizarre lack of the most basic mathematical intuition in all of these ideas annoys me. /rant
-
Are you by essence talking about these (http://fozmeadows.wordpress.com/2012/12/08/psa-your-default-narrative-settings-are-not-apolitical/) two (http://aidanmoher.com/blog/featured-article/2013/05/we-have-always-fought-challenging-the-women-cattle-and-slaves-narrative-by-kameron-hurley/) articles Luis? I noticed your ranting before on the climate debate, where you started ranting about things that were not being discussed in the topic and about people which I have never heard of. Please provide context for your rantings so atleast I can better understand them - it's difficult to reply to otherwise. And at the moment I would actually love to reply.
EDIT: The latter of the two, "We have always fought", is perhaps the most interesting as it directly adresses some of your points. Consider it my reply.
-
In a kind of scale where it would be completely ignored by feminists if it was the other way around (like say men babysitting, men being oppressed by women in the job, etc., etc., etc.). Saying "delicate flowers" is a grave deception. Life was a lot harder for everyone, women included. The sheer pain and suffering our great grandfathers and great grandmothers went through in no way should ever be depicted as "delicate flowers".
Whether or not certain feminists would ignore the scale were it men acting in traditionally female roles is irrelevant; small scale still indicates some participation, which was the point I was making to rail against the notion of women as 'delicate flowers' who were coddled and protected from responsibility at home while men were expected to fight and die for their countries/families/etc.
There is a notion among the so-called Mens' Rights groups - some of the ideology of which both Trashman and SkycladGuardian have espoused, be it unintentional or not - that women want more rights than men but are unwilling to shoulder the same responsibilities as men in society, a narrative that is often linked to one or more of (1) military service, (2) defense of home and hearth by violence, or (3) hard labour.
-
Are you by essence talking about these (http://fozmeadows.wordpress.com/2012/12/08/psa-your-default-narrative-settings-are-not-apolitical/) two (http://aidanmoher.com/blog/featured-article/2013/05/we-have-always-fought-challenging-the-women-cattle-and-slaves-narrative-by-kameron-hurley/) articles Luis?
That article is fine insofar as it tries to qwell the idea that certain roles cannot be portrayed by women because that was "impossible". I agree with that assessment, and furthermore, "women in games" is something that is fictional to a point, so all those arguments regarding "verissimilitude" and so on fall absolutely flat on me. Why can't we have pirate women, viking women, etc. in all of our games? I certainly support that kind of inclusivity. Jessh, I still remember that I would mostly play Quake3 as a woman avatar because I felt it kinda expressed my "way of playing" better (that is, flexibility over strength, wild gymnastics over raw power, railgun over shotgun, etc.).
That was not the article I was railing against, but my memory fails me now where I saw it. It certainly linked to this one, however.
No, mostly my rails go against all those feminist articles that heralded a 2011 finding (but only now they got into it?) wherein dead women were found with swords in some british grave. Therefore, women were as much soldiers as men were, 50:50, they all said. It's ****ing facepalmworthy. Here's a video Sargon put up on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9vcRzerT2E
-
There is a notion among the so-called Mens' Rights groups - some of the ideology of which both Trashman and SkycladGuardian have espoused, be it unintentional or not - that women want more rights than men but are unwilling to shoulder the same responsibilities as men in society, a narrative that is often linked to one or more of (1) military service, (2) defense of home and hearth by violence, or (3) hard labour.
I have no idea if that is a fair representation of what MRAs say, nor do I care that much. I merely think there's an obvious sexual dymorphism that has contributed immensely to what we refer to as "gender roles" throughout history, and that there's something to say about how the perceived privilege of men might not have been the outright abhorrent thing we take them to have been, considering that men's fate was a lot more dangerous and in many ways, fatal. If the idea is to paint women as "delicate flowers" count me out of it, at least personally. I do think that privileges and duties were a lot more assymetrical in many respects and that nowadays a lot of those ideas feel so alien to us that we cling to the most simple idea we have to explain them: sexism, mysoginy, women's oppression.
But I do wonder if this oppression was coming from the patriarchal ideology itself or just the material realities at hand, or at least I wonder how much we should attribute to the ideological answer. I don't think it is 100%, but if you ask me where I should put a percentage I am genuinely clueless at that.
-
Breaking news: some people misinterpreted a scientific study! On the internet! Since none of them seem to be on HLP, though, bringing it up reeks of declaring war on straw.
-
There is a notion among the so-called Mens' Rights groups - some of the ideology of which both Trashman and SkycladGuardian have espoused, be it unintentional or not - that women want more rights than men but are unwilling to shoulder the same responsibilities as men in society, a narrative that is often linked to one or more of (1) military service, (2) defense of home and hearth by violence, or (3) hard labour.
Not all women. But some. And what's wrong about the MRA?
On an earlier note on suffrage. It was indeed connected to military service, though indirectly by the right to own land, since in the Middle Ages every free man owning land had to render military service to his liege, or pay him an approbriate sum. Though the reason behind suffrage for land owners was that only these would pay taxes (property tax). In revolutionary France, men who did not have suffrage could even be drafted.
-
There is a notion among the so-called Mens' Rights groups - some of the ideology of which both Trashman and SkycladGuardian have espoused, be it unintentional or not - that women want more rights than men but are unwilling to shoulder the same responsibilities as men in society, a narrative that is often linked to one or more of (1) military service, (2) defense of home and hearth by violence, or (3) hard labour.
There is also the opposite and just as wrong notion among certain feminist circles, which love to argue how men allegedly had it better or have it better overall than women, basically pointless and subjective opression olympics, or so called male privilege (while in reality the privilege very much varies based on the matter in question). This toxic notion devalues the male perspective and the considerable suffering of men over the course of history. Symptoms include putting undue weight on voting rights etc. while ignoring the things you mentioned or other systemic disadvantages males faced, or dismissing them as the fault of "the patriarchy" (as if that makes them any less acute even if true).
I guess the bottom line is, reasonable people, feminists or not, tend to focus on individual issues (everyone should have equal voting rights, property rights, equal military service laws etc) while not making broad inflammatory statements about who had it better which are entirely subjective and serve no good purpose whatsoever.
-
Breaking news: some people misinterpreted a scientific study! On the internet! Since none of them seem to be on HLP, though, bringing it up reeks of declaring war on straw.
The viking idea was caught on every feminist circles, especially those who are worried about gaming. On twitter, Anita started a discussion surrounding one of her "harrassers" who was telling her that women weren't soldiers back then, and immediatelly you could see the barrage of her followers mocking the guy (which I actually think is fair, that dude had a really wrong idea to tweet femfreq, period) but simultaneously referencing these "news" and how ignorant this moron was, how history is actually showing women were soldiers, how it was 50:50, etc.
-
That is actually true up untill the last part - There are quite a few armies which have employed women in the field troughout the ages (Israelis, Russians, Persians, and I would say Vikings as well - you don't get buried with your sword if you don't own a sword and you don't own a sword if you don't know how to use it)- not so sure about the 50:50 ratios.
-
There is a notion among the so-called Mens' Rights groups - some of the ideology of which both Trashman and SkycladGuardian have espoused, be it unintentional or not - that women want more rights than men but are unwilling to shoulder the same responsibilities as men in society, a narrative that is often linked to one or more of (1) military service, (2) defense of home and hearth by violence, or (3) hard labour.
There is also the opposite and just as wrong notion among certain feminist circles, which love to argue how men allegedly had it better or have it better overall than women, basically pointless and subjective opression olympics, or so called male privilege (while in reality the privilege very much varies based on the matter in question). This toxic notion devalues the male perspective and the considerable suffering of men over the course of history. Symptoms include putting undue weight on voting rights etc. while ignoring the things you mentioned or other systemic disadvantages males faced, or dismissing them as the fault of "the patriarchy" (as if that makes them any less acute even if true).
I guess the bottom line is, reasonable people, feminists or not, tend to focus on individual issues (everyone should have equal voting rights, property rights, equal military service laws etc) while not making broad inflammatory statements about who had it better which are entirely subjective and serve no good purpose whatsoever.
Couldn't have said it better. Though I got entangled in the voting rights argument...
-
I think it's absolutely silly to discuss hypothetical feminists when these feminists you describe do not exist on this forum - it's just another red herring - or strawmen building. I have not seen these people, and their (non-)existence does not matter to this discussion.
-
That is actually true up untill the last part - There are quite a few armies which have employed women in the field troughout the ages (Israelis, Russians, Persians, and I would say Vikings as well - you don't get buried with your sword if you don't own a sword and you don't own a sword if you don't know how to use it)- not so sure about the 50:50 ratios.
"Viking" children were also buried with weapons. So it does not have to mean that the buried person was a warrior. It could mean that the weapons were heirlooms, passed on to the last surviving child of a family. Or it could signify the status as head of a household. Or maybe it was thought that the buried could bring these weapons to a previously deceased person, who had not had a decent burial (lost at sea, or some such). If it was normal for women to be warriors during the viking age, archeologists should have discovered more graves of women with weapons.
-
archeologists should have discovered more graves of women with weapons.
The problem si currently that, whenever graves of swords and such were found, the archeologists have naturally assumed that these were men due to them projecting their ideas of that society onto their findings - Determining the sex of a skeleton is actually rather hard, which is why it is rather hard. recent studies reveal that roughly half of the danish settlers were women (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2011/07/invasion-of-the-viking-women-unearthed/1?csp=34tech&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+usatoday-TechTopStories+%28Tech+-+Top+Stories%29#.VCHADhZKYok) - This does not mean that half of the warriors were women, obviously...
But it does not exclude that possibility either - at this point, it is impossible to determine whether or not the danish used women in their armies - assume either way. If you want to state that vikings employed all-men armies, you are going to have to come up with solid evidence.
-
archeologists should have discovered more graves of women with weapons.
The problem si currently that, whenever graves of swords and such were found, the archeologists have naturally assumed that these were men due to them projecting their ideas of that society onto their findings - Determining the sex of a skeleton is actually rather hard, which is why it is rather hard. recent studies reveal that roughly half of the danish settlers were women (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2011/07/invasion-of-the-viking-women-unearthed/1?csp=34tech&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+usatoday-TechTopStories+%28Tech+-+Top+Stories%29#.VCHADhZKYok) - This does not mean that half of the warriors were women, obviously...
But it does not exclude that possibility either - at this point, it is impossible to determine whether or not the danish used women in their armies - assume either way. If you want to state that vikings employed all-men armies, you are going to have to come up with solid evidence.
Ah yes. I read about it. And I do not want to state that Vikings had an all-male army. And I also do not want to state that women were delicate flowers that had been put away for protection. My main gripe is the notion that across all time until the 1960s women had been oppressed and exploited by men solely to men's benefit. Society is far more complex than that. Moreover it is an insult to both women and men. The former being helpless and clueless victims, unable to live their lives in autonomy, the latter being oppressive, cruel misogynists until feminism showed them the way.
-
I oppose that notion as well, albiet for different reasons.
-
Not all women. But some. And what's wrong about the MRA?
So, so much. But that's a different topic. Suffice to say that MRAs are basically equivalent to radfem in terms of usefulness and ability to actually argue fact or reasonable premises. Both types of groups suffer from severe myopia.
On an earlier note on suffrage. It was indeed connected to military service, though indirectly by the right to own land, since in the Middle Ages every free man owning land had to render military service to his liege, or pay him an approbriate sum. Though the reason behind suffrage for land owners was that only these would pay taxes (property tax). In revolutionary France, men who did not have suffrage could even be drafted.
Most countries (etc) defined original right to vote by landownership exclusively; you will not find mention of military service as a prerequisite to the right to vote in the histories of most democracies (of course, there is the odd exception). This is largely because the vote was conferred on nobility, aristocracy, and the upper class originally. The right to vote came about well after the Middle Ages (in terms of modern democracies; obviously the Greeks and Romans had it previously but still not all Greeks or Romans) during the Renaissance/Enlightenment. The link between military service and voting has always been tenuous; voting never guaranteed military service, nor did service guarantee a right to the vote (in most places).
There is a notion among the so-called Mens' Rights groups - some of the ideology of which both Trashman and SkycladGuardian have espoused, be it unintentional or not - that women want more rights than men but are unwilling to shoulder the same responsibilities as men in society, a narrative that is often linked to one or more of (1) military service, (2) defense of home and hearth by violence, or (3) hard labour.
There is also the opposite and just as wrong notion among certain feminist circles, which love to argue how men allegedly had it better or have it better overall than women, basically pointless and subjective opression olympics, or so called male privilege (while in reality the privilege very much varies based on the matter in question). This toxic notion devalues the male perspective and the considerable suffering of men over the course of history. Symptoms include putting undue weight on voting rights etc. while ignoring the things you mentioned or other systemic disadvantages males faced, or dismissing them as the fault of "the patriarchy" (as if that makes them any less acute even if true).
I guess the bottom line is, reasonable people, feminists or not, tend to focus on individual issues (everyone should have equal voting rights, property rights, equal military service laws etc) while not making broad inflammatory statements about who had it better which are entirely subjective and serve no good purpose whatsoever.
People suck at recognizing nuance and complexity in arguments. That should come as no surprise to anyone. I agree that the focus should actually be on ensuring equal rights today versus quibbling over the history of various inequities, but unfortunately many people are unwilling to contemplate the notion that there are inequities today are a result of inequality in the recent past.
I also don't think it should be the slightest bit controversial to acknowlege that, while everyone had much tougher lives in the recent past, women as a general group were subjugate to men in several areas of society based purely on the fact that they were born with a vagina instead of a penis. That's not radical feminism or inflammatory half-truth, it's a matter of historical fact.
My main gripe is the notion that across all time until the 1960s women had been oppressed and exploited by men solely to men's benefit. Society is far more complex than that. Moreover it is an insult to both women and men. The former being helpless and clueless victims, unable to live their lives in autonomy, the latter being oppressive, cruel misogynists until feminism showed them the way.
No one - at least, no one in this thread - is saying that. Rather, it does a disservice to history to pretend that women and men had it equally unfair throughout history, too. There are several clear areas where women as a group have had fewer legal rights and protections than men, based purely on gendered stereotypes with no reasonable excuse.
-
I also don't think it should be the slightest bit controversial to acknowlege that, while everyone had much tougher lives in the recent past, women as a general group were subjugate to men in several areas of society based purely on the fact that they were born with a vagina instead of a penis. That's not radical feminism or inflammatory half-truth, it's a matter of historical fact.
My personal problem with it is (and here we chime in to the whole gender objectification in games again) that "historical accuracy" is used as an excuse for game's poor presentations of female characters (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/09/17/risen-3-review/comment-page-1/#comment-1676641) (to take one example). People were subjected to stereotypes then, obviously, but there were also subversions back then, too.
-
Not all women. But some. And what's wrong about the MRA?
So, so much. But that's a different topic. Suffice to say that MRAs are basically equivalent to radfem in terms of usefulness and ability to actually argue fact or reasonable premises. Both types of groups suffer from severe myopia.
Hm, I'm not sure with what kind of persons you came in contact, who thought of themselves as being MRAs - idiots can be found everywhere, I guess. But just to give you an opportunity to balance your view I'll drop this link: http://www.avoiceformen.com/are-mens-rights-activists-misogynists/
To return on topic. I agree that most AAA games display women stereotypical and as flat characters, and I think in many games, men are note much better off (maybe I'm playing the wrong games...)
However, we should keep in mind that flat, stereotypical characters are also a legitimite narrative device. Especially if the writer does not want to spend much time on characterization he or she may resort to a set of stock characters. In games (and in movies) where the story is not much more than a pretense and excuse for explosions and shooting people and stuff, I don't find the lack of deep characters (of both sexes) overly tragic.
-
SkycladGuardian, if you want to prove that MRAs are not misogynist, you should not use A Voice For Men as your example. Unless you are able to explain all this as not really being part of AVFM (http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/category/a-voice-for-men/), which is kinda difficult. The MRA movement on the internet is made up not of people who actually care about furthering men's rights, but of people who believe feminism to be the source of all manner of badness that has happened to them.
-
SkycladGuardian, if you want to prove that MRAs are not misogynist, you should not use A Voice For Men as your example. Unless you are able to explain all this as not really being part of AVFM (http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/category/a-voice-for-men/), which is kinda difficult. The MRA movement on the internet is made up not of people who actually care about furthering men's rights, but of people who believe feminism to be the source of all manner of badness that has happened to them.
Have you actually looked at the link and watched the videos?
And about your link: It is one person, who is obviously upset about the gamergate issue and who has a fondness of overly dramatic prose. I've heard good and valid arguments from both sides of the gamergate (pun intended), and I don't want to judge anybody involved prematurely.
I don't see anything which proves that all men and women from Voice For Men are mysoginists, sorry.
-
That webpage argues that MRAs and Gamergate people are villains because they adopt cartoon villains as their own avatars.
No, really. That's the kind of argumentation we are being presented here.
-
I am not going to discuss this with you in this thread, but please take a close look at what issues AVFM considers to be important in their mission statement, and how many of them are simple reversals of feminist goals. Then consider that this is a community that produces gems such as this (http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/08/04/lying-as-pr-avfms-janet-bloomfield-libels-jessica-valenti-then-brags-about-it/), this (http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/07/11/how-to-lose-a-debate-in-45-minutes-paul-elam-fumbles-his-debate-with-matt-binder/) or this (http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/07/08/paul-elam-all-your-donations-are-belong-to-me/). A community that counts among its leading figures this person (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Paul_Elam), who has no problem facilitating the doxxing of people, who has stated that it would be a really good idea to answer domestic violence with more domestic violence (quote: "I don’t mean subdue them, or deliver an open handed pop on the face to get them to settle down. I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won’t fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles. And then make them clean up the mess.").
Basically, these are not the people you should be looking for as good representatives of men's issues on the net.
Also, Luis, SG? Please do me the courtesy of reading more than a few headlines or the articles on page 1 of that particular link. If you think that Anita Sarkeesian is a bad representative of feminist thinking, then you should also be able to see that the leading figures of the MRA movement are just as bad, if not worse.
-
Regarding MRAs I'll only say the following, and I think you'll agree with me. I think it's an absolute shame that in the current environment, a movement that attempts to pay attention to men's issues and tries to solve them is an absolute impossibility. It is immediately shut down as a mysoginistic movement and this kind of defamation turns anything that could be taken by moderates and, you know, common sense people that watches some stats and figures and perhaps realises "we could do more for boys and men in general just like many feminist movements have made for girls and women, at least a bit", but anyone who tries to do so is immediately glued with the extreme wings and avoid such movements like the plague.
The incessant platitudes by feminists that they also "support men" regarding their own issues is perhaps good politics but it is useless given how they don't do anything (actual lobbying, actual activism, etc.) to solve said issues (regardless of their constant co-opting them as "examples of patriarchal role problems" and so on).
The main difference between feminists and MRAs is mostly that one is absolutely mainstream (there are thousands of feminist groups everywhere, they have lobbies, they have reached the top of academia, schools have feminist groups everywhere, etc.) while the other is relegated to the margins. The fact that a MRA group will have mysoginists should be no surprise to anyone, the problem is that there is no "moderate" group whatsoever that deals with this problem, so whenever someone like me acts a bit annoyed or angry that these issues are not being even admitted to exist or whatever, somehow the "MRA" tag will eventually come up as an insult. Given all the ideological bullying, I'm really inclined to accept the challenge and take the ****ing tag and own it to be frank. Perhaps if moderates owned it, the more ridiculous mysoginist fringe would turn irrelevant and ignored. IDK, it could also be too much poison and mud for me to even care.
-
I am not going to discuss this with you in this thread, but please take a close look at what issues AVFM considers to be important in their mission statement, and how many of them are simple reversals of feminist goals. Then consider that this is a community that produces gems such as this (http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/08/04/lying-as-pr-avfms-janet-bloomfield-libels-jessica-valenti-then-brags-about-it/), this (http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/07/11/how-to-lose-a-debate-in-45-minutes-paul-elam-fumbles-his-debate-with-matt-binder/) or this (http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/07/08/paul-elam-all-your-donations-are-belong-to-me/). A community that counts among its leading figures this person (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Paul_Elam), who has no problem facilitating the doxxing of people, who has stated that it would be a really good idea to answer domestic violence with more domestic violence (quote: "I don’t mean subdue them, or deliver an open handed pop on the face to get them to settle down. I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won’t fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles. And then make them clean up the mess.").
Basically, these are not the people you should be looking for as good representatives of men's issues on the net.
So Paul Elam's failures, questionable and, regarding the quote concerning domestic violence (if it is true, you haven't provided a source) also damnable, statements make the statements of people like Warren Farrel, Erin Pizzey, Karen Straughan and Tara Palmatier less true?
-
I have to say, I've gone to those links and most of them are specious as hell. The first is about how Jessica Valenti was libeled. That's fine I guess, no one should be libeled and if I ever come across anyone who practices these things I'm not even angry, I'll just unfollow them for I have no patience for misinformation. The notion that someone even needs to libel Jessica Valenti to get her to say the stupidest **** is hilarious to me. No, you don't even need to work too much. A lot of what she says is amazingly abhorrent or just plain dumb.
The second is about a debate. I've listened to the first 10 minutes and I'm already disgusted by the challenger to Paul Elam and how he's framed in the whole site. There's no real attempt at generous debate here, just gotcha techniques "oh you thought this was Elliot Rodgers, it was actually Stephan Molyneux AINT I CLEVER", what kind of 12 year old does this ****? I'll listen to the end but I have no hopes of this being even remotely reasonable, just children trying to outplay an angry curmudgeon. Perhaps he'll get annoyed and tell them to get off his lawn?!? Dunno, I mean I liked to watch Dennis when I was young but I've grown up since then, jeeeesh.
The third is disgusting. As if feminists never beg for money. Come the **** on. "Oh he's getting money, he must be baad". Jesus F Christ.
Look, I didn't even know the guy himself! He did appear in some of my queries before, but he never came off as anything remotely interesting so I never listened much to the guy. The criticism towards Molyneux would be fine because the guy is an absolute asshole, but that's an entirely different matter (he's not an asshole for being an MRA, he's an asshole regarding everything, period).
E: I've listened to 35 minutes of that. I can't take it anymore. Somebody shoot Matt Binder in the face. I can't believe his stupidity, his smugness, his condescension, it's downright disgusting. If this is the kind of **** that should make me appalled at Paul Elam I'm really disappointed, The_E. No, really, if you actually want to "like" AVfM then this is the kind of "debate" (lol) you should make. This Binder is a complete fool, absolutely ignoring Paul's points, simply declaring he can't take him seriously, misrepresenting him, accusing him of making "random examples" after he had been given actual statistics (about men in jail, about suicide rates, about depression rates, etc., etc.), it's like every word coming out of that guy is sheer vomit. I can't watch anything coming from that moron again.
-
Regarding MRAs I'll only say the following, and I think you'll agree with me. I think it's an absolute shame that in the current environment, a movement that attempts to pay attention to men's issues and tries to solve them is an absolute impossibility. It is immediately shut down as a mysoginistic movement and this kind of defamation turns anything that could be taken by moderates and, you know, common sense people that watches some stats and figures and perhaps realises "we could do more for boys and men in general just like many feminist movements have made for girls and women, at least a bit", but anyone who tries to do so is immediately glued with the extreme wings and avoid such movements like the plague.
#HeForShe
No, seriously, have a look. It's a UN-backed initiative.
The fundamental problem I have with MRAs is that they almost universally espouse views that are not pro-equality, but counter-feminism. I, too, think feminism in some of it's most vocal forms has done gender equality a disservice by ignoring gender issues that affect men as irrelevant or inconsequential as compared to those that affect women... but the way to counter that is not to claim that feminism generally expects special treatment of women or advocate for policies that are more beneficial to men than women. MRAs are not about equality, they're about opposition to the perceived ills of feminism and a focus on men's specific issues. They eaxcerbate the problems of gende rinequality (in much the same way as militant/radical feminists do) instead of approaching solutions.
The solution to gender inequality in all its forms is a concerted, holistic approach. Both broad swaths of feminism and MRAs in general miss that point spectacularly.
By the way, while it's unrelated to gender objectification in games except in the broadest sense, we've veered away from that some on this page so I'd like everyone to take 12 minutes and watch this:
-
Oh sorry I had to quit the video around the 8 minute mark. HeForShe indeed, my ass. I'm baffled by the entitlement Watson displays. She speaks about men's issues, only to divert the desired solution of them to the benefit of women. "When these issues of men are solved, then things get better for women." Yes, HeForShe. Man's well-being has no value in itself, only if it serves women, is it desireable.
Watson speaks about male genderroles only to use one for her agenda: Men's worth is defined by what they do for others, not by the individual human beings they are.
E: For a more elaborate reply to Watson's speech: http://eldritchedain.wordpress.com/2014/09/21/an-open-letter-to-emma-watson/
-
Oh sorry I had to quit the video around the 8 minute mark. HeForShe indeed, my ass. I'm baffled by the entitlement Watson displays. She speaks about men's issues, only to divert the desired solution of them to the benefit of women. "When these issues of men are solved, then things get better for women." Yes, HeForShe. Man's well-being has no value in itself, only if it serves women, is it desireable.
Watson speaks about male genderroles only to use one for her agenda: Men's worth is defined by what they do for others, not by the individual human beings they are.
If that's what you think she's saying, you need to quit reading MRA crap right now and actually listen to the words coming out of her mouth. I'm not surprised at your response, since it's common to anti-feminists and currently being spewed all over social media, but it's factually incorrect.
What Watson says - accurately - is that by addressing issues facing one gender, you also address the issues confronting another, because gender equality is inexorably linked, as are the causes of it.
-
I still don't grasp what is so horrible about recjecting modern feminisim. It's an ideology like any other and last time I checked I am not required by law to support any ideology.
-
I really don't see the point of another movement that is based around the notion that men should liberate women from the oppression that perhaps Emma Watson is the perfect symbol of?!?!
It's like there's no winning with all of this. Now we don't merely have to listen and accept everything feminists say, we must work for them too. Well either that, or just the plain continuation of plain old feminism. It's not as if there aren't lots of PZ Myers and Matt Binders in the world already, so where is this going towards? What is the novelty here? ... Is this about the developing nations? Not clear.
The sleazyness might be not intentional but it *is* there. The idea is "gender equality is also about men", but the point remains: what is to be solved is about her. It's "He for She", not "all of us for each other". The assymetry is there, and I don't like it. Kinda reminds me of Chris Rock old joke about marriage:
(especially from 1:00, although he's always amazing).
-
I still don't grasp what is so horrible about recjecting modern feminisim. It's an ideology like any other and last time I checked I am not required by law to support any ideology.
It's not horrible to reject the mechanics of modern feminist theory. I've said before, I'm not actually a feminist but technically-speaking a theoretical Foucaldian neo-Marxist (no, that doesn't mean I support Communism or wealth re-distribution). Rejecting the evidence used to support feminism or its actual goals - gender equality, as its actually defined - isn't "horrible" either; it merely indicates that the person doing it is unwilling to consider evidence in a rationalist manner, and doesn't actually support the Enlightenment principles of liberty and equality either. Which, again, is a opinion that is perfectly legal to hold, but exposes one to the social consequences of holding that opinion.
In other words, a person has the legal and moral right to hold and espouse views as they please; other people have the legal and moral right to adjust their social interaction with that person accordingly. If that doesn't sound so bad, consider: ~70 years ago, one could expect that if one espoused racist views in public that one wouldn't be fired or suffer contractual consequences of one's livelihood as a result. This past year, an extremely wealthy owner of a sports team had his contractual relationship with the authorizing sports organization revoked and transferred on the basis of his stating of those same sorts of views.
Are you required by law to express and hold views supporting gender equality? Nope. But you can absolutely experience social consequences of holding beliefs that society at large deems unacceptable, and they can be unpleasant.
-
The sleazyness might be not intentional but it *is* there. The idea is "gender equality is also about men", but the point remains: what is to be solved is about her. It's "He for She", not "all of us for each other". The assymetry is there, and I don't like it. Kinda reminds me of Chris Rock old joke about marriage:
Well, for one, it's a UN-backed global initiative, which is largely aimed at developing nations, for which there very clearly is a skewed relationship where men hold power and women do not. For two, it's an initiative being put forth by Women's organizations; I don't find it unreasonable that it is actually presented from a women's perspective. I think criticism of the movement being called "HeForShe" speaks far more to insecurities of men uncomfortably with it than any meaningful idea that the movement is about primacy of women and not gender equality.
You can check out the website for the background (heforshe.org) but the fundamental rationale behind the name is that through most of recent history, the movement for gender equality has been fought by women for women. The name is a call to invite all men to the conversation, something that badly needs doing, particularly in parts of the world where the equality gap is less a crack (as in first world democracies) and more a ****ing chasm (the developing world).
-
Count me skeptical about it. This is how I intuitively predict it: Men are invited to the "conversation" about how women are being oppressed by men and how men can do the things that women will tell them they should be doing. I can't see it going anywhere else. I don't see men's issues being accepted in these "conversations" if the core idea is to solve women's issues in the first place. The moment men come to the conversation thinking they can also be accepted in their own issues and perhaps get laws and cultures changed to correct some injustices, a backlash will inevitably occur, feminists will cry how the movement is being hijacked by "MRMs" or whatever (even if they aren't), men will be pointed as "peddling" mysoginistic ideologies, etc. and drawn out.
Don't get me wrong, I think it is a *step* in the right direction, but it is *one*. Many others are needed before I get positive about it.
-
If the movement specifically includes a number of men's voices who were invited to it to discuss gender equality from both male and female perspectives, I don't think it has any choice but to accept men's issues as well as women's into the broader conversation.
It of course depends on the men who actually participate. If those who advocate for gender equality and focus on men's issue abandon the idea and leave participation solely to men who already identify with feminism and are content to address women's issues alone, then it will ultimately fail. That is why objections of the type Skyclad cited/linked are actually extremely counterproductive.
-
It's precisely about who those "men" are. Will they be able to espouse, for instance, the same points Christina Hoff Sommers likes to point out? Will they be able to say these things without getting angry looks and be either quickly or slowly thrown out of the movement? Yes, you are allowed to speak, but speak softly, for you're threading on feminist dreams...
Nevertheless, I'll keep an eye on it. Roads to hell are paved with good intentions, but then so are roads to heaven...
e: I'm deeply skeptical of this coopting of men's issues into feminism in the first place. They should be distinct movements that should be able to talk civil with one another. They have different agendas. If the goal is "gender issues", then it should never be assymetric in the first place.
-
MP-Ryan, I don't like the way you dismiss certain things someone says just because "MRA's said it." I know very little about MRAs, but I'm not going to believe they're crap, especially every last one of them, just because someone says they are, even when it's coming from you, who in terms of Gen Disc posting I respect more than anyone else here. So if someone (and I don't know if SkycladGuardian even reads / supports MRA stuff) actually does support those ideas, I don't think telling them they need to stop reading that crap because MRAs said it is going to solve anything, nor is scare tactics about social consequences.
Wouldn't it be better instead of loading someone down with that baggage to actually explain why you have a problem with certain views instead of just dismissing it as crap? That's not going to disabuse anyone of anything. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but for the first time in all the time I've been here I think you're coming across as closed minded. This is not the MP-Ryan I'm used to seeing, and it's the first time you've ever posted things which make me feel uncomfortable.
Luis, SkycladGuardian and I all clearly have issues with certain aspects of modern feminism. It doesn't mean we're not in favour of gender equality. I'd like to call up the video AtomicClucker posted which shows where there is a real problem regarding men, or rather boys, imo:
War on Boys (yes, we go there~)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqOTj9NDv80
And equality should mean equal opportunity. If you've got what it takes you're in regardless of gender or race or whatever. Not artificially enforced quotas. Men are superior to women at certain things and vice versa, but that doesn't mean both genders aren't capable of producing individuals who can perform at a high level even in their gender's weakest areas. But what it does mean is one gender is going to outnumber the other in that field due to natural advantages.
-
Oh my god. Lorric is being the proper discussion moderator we need... I am very uncomfortable right now (in a good, sarcastic way =d).
-
I still don't grasp what is so horrible about recjecting modern feminisim. It's an ideology like any other and last time I checked I am not required by law to support any ideology.
It's not horrible to reject the mechanics of modern feminist theory. I've said before, I'm not actually a feminist but technically-speaking a theoretical Foucaldian neo-Marxist (no, that doesn't mean I support Communism or wealth re-distribution). Rejecting the evidence used to support feminism or its actual goals - gender equality, as its actually defined - isn't "horrible" either; it merely indicates that the person doing it is unwilling to consider evidence in a rationalist manner, and doesn't actually support the Enlightenment principles of liberty and equality either. Which, again, is a opinion that is perfectly legal to hold, but exposes one to the social consequences of holding that opinion.
In other words, a person has the legal and moral right to hold and espouse views as they please; other people have the legal and moral right to adjust their social interaction with that person accordingly. If that doesn't sound so bad, consider: ~70 years ago, one could expect that if one espoused racist views in public that one wouldn't be fired or suffer contractual consequences of one's livelihood as a result. This past year, an extremely wealthy owner of a sports team had his contractual relationship with the authorizing sports organization revoked and transferred on the basis of his stating of those same sorts of views.
Are you required by law to express and hold views supporting gender equality? Nope. But you can absolutely experience social consequences of holding beliefs that society at large deems unacceptable, and they can be unpleasant.
I support gender equality, as I do support rationalism and the principles of enlightenment and empiricism. I simply do not accept certain believes, methods and goals of modern feminism as it exists today primarily in my country (Germany) and the industrialized, western countries. I do not deny that women face grave injustices and inequalities in other parts of the world. However, since for procreation it is most of the time still required for both genders to live together, ignoring men's perspective and refusing to genuinely care about their issues won't solve anything in the long run. Even in obviously largely patriarchic societies like in India the male perspective is important to be included.
Returning to the state of affairs in my country: It is simply a fact that in areas like education, healthcare and economics our society has spend a tremendous amount of energy and money focusing on the (legitimate) needs of women and girls, but it completely left out men and boys, going so far as to ignoring facts like an increasing number of struggling boys in the educational system, huge injustices in family law at the expense of divorced fathers and male victims of domestic violence, the much larger suicide rates among male teenagers especially and men generally, the lower life expectancy, pathologizing normal masculine behaviour and character traits etc. etc.
And the feminists (the academic, instutionalized as well as the "freelance") in my country does jack **** about it. If MRA try to organize presentations and discussions on universities, the feminists form flashmobs and try to mob the university officials into canceling such events (which they have done successfully on a number of occasions), basically denying MRAs their legitimate basic right of free speech, not to mention that they pervert the idea of a university, where the free exchange of different ideas is one of its most crucial basic principles.
Instead those feminists and gender activists are concerned that our language might be "sexist" and spend tax payer's money on finding ways how to speak and write without potentially offending anyone (no women, gays, lesbians, transsexuals, queers, people of colour, mentally and bodily disabled, illiterates etc.). So I'm sorry if I simply cannot take modern feminisim serious anymore.
E: Another eloquent reply to Emma Watson's UN speech. This time by a woman: http://naughtynerdess.tumblr.com/post/98184739316/an-open-letter-to-emma-watson
-
Wouldn't it be better instead of loading someone down with that baggage to actually explain why you have a problem with certain views instead of just dismissing it as crap?
So I actually (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=88327.msg1764367#msg1764367) did that... (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=88327.msg1764377#msg1764377)
Writing about social consequences is not scare tactics; it's to explain that while opposition to the tactics and approaches to feminism is both rational and reasonable, opposition to much of the evidence it relies on and the goals it seeks are not, and that society in general already recognizes much of this.
And equality should mean equal opportunity. If you've got what it takes you're in regardless of gender or race or whatever. Not artificially enforced quotas. Men are superior to women at certain things and vice versa, but that doesn't mean both genders aren't capable of producing individuals who can perform at a high level even in their gender's weakest areas. But what it does mean is one gender is going to outnumber the other in that field due to natural advantages.
There is nothing in this entire thread that says otherwise.
I support gender equality, as I do support rationalism and the principles of enlightenment and empiricism. I simply do not accept certain believes, methods and goals of modern feminism as it exists today primarily in my country (Germany) and the industrialized, western countries.
And there is nothing wrong with this, either.
The trouble with most MRAs, and the way many men often frame this debate, is they become an exact mirror image of the type of feminism they oppose, using all the same tactics, logical fallacies, poorly-interpreted data, and general nonsense that the same feminists they criticize do.
: It is simply a fact that in areas like education, healthcare and economics our society has spend a tremendous amount of energy and money focusing on the (legitimate) needs of women and girls, but it completely left out men and boys,
I have often joked - well, said it in a joking manner, thought the claim is factual - that if I was a disabled Aboriginal female, my grades would have paid for my entire 7 years of post-secondary education and living expenses in scholarships several times over. Instead, they paid for about two semesters. So I understand the whole concept of measures to promote equality resulting in less of it, too. On the other hand, there is room for unequal measures to promote equality in outcomes.
-
Oh my god. Lorric is being the proper discussion moderator we need... I am very uncomfortable right now (in a good, sarcastic way =d).
:)
*snip*
I didn't mean to imply you hadn't done that at all, I just meant wouldn't it have been better to do that instead of. And thanks for the clarification on scare tactics, I'm okay with that. :yes:
And yes, that last paragraph is something I wanted to emphasise from the video. Perhaps I should have been more clear there.
-
Oh my god. Lorric is being the proper discussion moderator we need...
Only by ignoring the previous parts of the thread that did what he asked. So...not really.
-
The moderation staff has not received any reports about this thread. Considering that it's remained fairly civil so far, no action is necessary.
If we stopped every instance of thread drift on these forums, we'd be locking or heavily moderating at least 80% of threads. No one wants that. :P
-
Given the nature of the discussion I think that's already a small victory around here.
-
SkycladGuardian, I think you might have cut Emma Watson off too soon, because if it's the part I think it is she does change gears to talk about the male side too after she talks about the female side.
I think it's a very good speech. I like how she tackles the stigma of the word feminist and tries to put distance between HeforShe and that word, while at the same time identifying as feminist herself. While people are squabbling over what feminist means and the stigma that word carries, it's not a word you can unite people under, so instead we use HeforShe instead, as a distinction for what this movement and this movement only stands for.
I think she was sincere about wanting gender equality for both male and female, and focusing on both genders and getting both genders to see their goal as the same. I didn't feel like the stuff about men was just lip service and there to further the agenda of women, I felt she cared about all of it.
I'll be interested to see how this all plays out. They're getting a lot of men on board. I'm sure if it's empty words, they'll soon realise it and then they will go.
EDIT: While I do like Emma Watson's speech, unfortunately now that I'm looking around at what HeforShe is supposed to be, it's still very focused on women seemingly. So while Emma Watson's speech is very nice, HeforShe itself doesn't seem to match her narrative.
Instead of billing HeforShe as men standing up for women's rights, I think it would have been better if the for was in terms of men being for women as opposed to against women.
But it seems to be a very new thing, so I'll keep my mind open and see what happens.
-
I have to admit I'm a little surprised by the idea that improving society must be done in a way that provides more benefits for the group providing assistance than the group that needs assistance. It reeks of realpolitik in an arena where realpolitik is a definite stumbling block.
-
That would be really surprising yes. Fortunately no one said something dumb as that, so I am a bit surprised at your surprise.
-
Interesting quote I found somewhere:
Gaming is not a big deal. The gaming journalism industry is small and poor, and they don’t have the money or experience to launch any major information coverup or maintain a sizable conspiracy. This whole thing has been a sloppy and pathetic attempt at a real conspiracy.
And yet, people are still falling for it.
Sure, it might not matter now. A news site can declare “gamers are misogynists! We need to push back!” and the worst that will happen is some people get bullied on the internet or mailed an ominous syringe. But what happens when the news declares “Egyptians are terrorists! We need to attack!”? What happens when you have actual collusion and falsified information, headed by professionals, guiding you to political conclusions?
The manipulation tactics people have fallen for over the course of GamerGate are appalling in their simplicity. You see people using grouping as a call to arms - “you’re a social justice warrior. If you want to keep being one, you need to stand against these misogynists with me”. You see harassment and threats given to people who speak out - before the syringe, Milo Yiannopoulos was sent 90 rolls of toilet paper as a presumed message of “I know where you live (and you’re ****)”. You see people using guilt by association - citing Adam Baldwin’s homophobic statements and how he’s a GamerGate supporter - or relying on the Genetic Fallacy - pointing out how much of this started on 4chan and claiming that ruins its credibility. I swear you even see ****ing negging: people getting hit with these subtle implications that they’re inherently racist or overprivelaged, but that they can counteract it a bit by opposing GamerGate. Negging, for God’s sake!
If you want a picture of how sloppy this entire operation is, consider this for a moment: there is no name for people who are against GamerGate. People who oppose abortion, for example, get the cheerful title of “Pro-Life”, but people who oppose GamerGate aren’t pro- anything. They can say “I’m pro-safety in the games industry”, but then GamerGate people just reply “so are we. We want people to be able to speak without losing their jobs”. They could say “I’m pro-women in gaming”, but then GamerGate people point out that they are too, and funded The Fine Young Capitalists after they were DDos’d and slandered by journalists and their friends. If they say they’re against harassment, the GamerGate people will point out that they have been actively calling out harassers in their own ranks while their opposition hasn’t. The anti-Gamergate people can’t even claim they’re “pro-representation in media” because, as people have pointed out, the gaming journalism clique is predominantly white men. #NotYourShield was created (and promptly ignored) because minorities were pissed off at these people’s claims to “represent” them. The only position anti-GamerGate people have is that they are against GamerGate. Sometimes, they even endorse all its goals but are pushed to stand against it anyway.
And this is all so easymode. We are better than this; these are manipulation tactics that should be harmlessly bouncing off anyone who graduated highschool. I’m glad that GamerGate seems to be winning, but understand: we need to be able to win harder. We need to learn from this, and become resistant to these methods. There are bigger enemies all around us, and we can’t afford to waste this much time struggling to beat the rat in the starting dungeon.
-
EDIT: While I do like Emma Watson's speech, unfortunately now that I'm looking around at what HeforShe is supposed to be, it's still very focused on women seemingly. So while Emma Watson's speech is very nice, HeforShe itself doesn't seem to match her narrative.
Instead of billing HeforShe as men standing up for women's rights, I think it would have been better if the for was in terms of men being for women as opposed to against women.
Unfortunately this is not very surprising. The UN so far has failed to acknowledge human rights violations that are or were committed primarily against men, like trafficking and forced prostitution, gendered genocides or mass rape against men and boys in war torn countries like Sudan, Somalia, Liberia, Bosnia etc. (www.gendercide.org)
Clarification: I do not mean that genocide, trafficking, forced prostitution or mass rape are not committed against women. However there have been instances when these crimes were mostly and sometimes exclusively committed against men, and the International Community ignored it.
-
-snip-
Perhaps you may find unattributed, unsourced, anecdotal opinion pieces fun to read, but they're generally considered irrelevant by anyone actually wanting to discuss an issue.
I also wasn't aware there was a "Gamergate" group and an "anti-GamerGate" group, seeing as the term has been used to describe the whole gigantically stupid kerfuffle in the first place. I agree with Luis and Joshua; this thread is not improved by bring discussions of the rampant idiocy that is GamerGate into it.
Clarification: I do not mean that genocide, trafficking, forced prostitution or mass rape are not committed against women. However there have been instances when these crimes were mostly and sometimes exclusively committed against men, and the International Community ignored it.
Citation required.
Also, I'm not entirely sure that gendercide.org site says what you think it does. It points out that atrocities are committed against both genders but in different ways, something long acknowledged by both the UN and various Human Rights groups around the world. Sex-selective mass murder / executions are well documented within the international community. Much of the information on that site is derived from UN-backed organizations and related groups like Human Rights Watch. That seriously undermines your premise that the international community ignores gender-specific violence and crime directed at men.
-
It's about the difference between acknowledging in research and acknowledging publicly in mass media to actually raise support for male victims world wide. The former happened, the latter not. One example would be the gendercide in Kosovo: http://www.adamjones.freeservers.com/effacing.htm
I posted the link to gendercide.org, not because it proves that gendercide agains men are not at all acknowledged (since the page's existence disproves this), but simply to show that such things like gendercide actually existed, since I didn't know of such a thing a year or so ago.
-
It's about the difference between acknowledging in research and acknowledging publicly in mass media to actually raise support for male victims world wide.
First, that's a political goal that several groups (HRW among them) already perform.
Second, let's break something down from that article you picked out:
I do not pretend to have read every word of every article posted these sources -- far from it. Rather, I was confident that I could zero in on a sufficiently wide range of material to generate some propositions about the coverage of events within war-torn Kosovo. The task was made easier by print and electronic media's "pegging" of content through headlines. Many of the claims made here pertain to media "focus," which in such a news culture I see as reducible to the headline and "lead," that is, the opening paragraphs of the standardized news story. (These opening paragraphs are ever more important, as news is chopped into smaller bits for the benefit of advertisers and, allegedly, readers with low attention spans.)
Although the article does not operationalize its arguments via a formal content analysis, it is my belief that the vocabulary and frameworks presented here will be useful in developing more statistically-based and methodologically-rigorous studies of this type. In a late section of the paper, I also explore some of the more accurate and responsible media coverage of male victimization in the Kosovo conflict.
Translation: this a qualitative, subjective exercise that makes the case for there being a potential problem worthy of actual rigorous analysis to be done in the future [by someone else].
The authors conclusions may or may not be valid; however, on the basis of his methodology, which did not use a representative sampling of media coverage, he can't actually draw meaningful conclusions. It's called selective sampling, and while it's valid to make a case for further research (as he has partially done), it's not a valid method of conducting a rigorous analysis from which meaningful conclusions can be drawn.
It's like if I tried to argue that games represent women as three-dimensional characters, and selected Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Tomb Raider (reboot), Bioshock Infinite, and Metroid as the examples from which I draw conclusions. I might be able to effectively argue that there is some indication the games industry is creating three-dimensional female characters that bears further study, but I can't argue that it is a meaningful or widespread phenomenon in the industry.
Or, in a shorter and quipped version: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Now, is gender-based crime against men covered by media in the same way as it is against women? Likely not. Is that fair? Not particularly. Is the problem ignored? No. Although media often emphasize sexualized violence against women, violence and crime against people is the measure against which international intervention and assistance is balanced concerning violence. It's also worth noting that, particularly in the developing world, targeted aid measures toward female health and education has been shown to raise the standard of women for everyone, which isn't exactly a surprise as those measures typically help bring better childhood outcomes, improved gender equality and raise economic output, which benefits both genders.
-
It's also worth noting that, particularly in the developing world, targeted aid measures toward female health and education has been shown to raise the standard of women for everyone, which isn't exactly a surprise as those measures typically help bring better childhood outcomes, improved gender equality and raise economic output, which benefits both genders.
Pardon me, but that's not true. At least in Germany, where boys are now in the minority when it comes to higher school graduations, in the vast majority regarding school drop outs, and lower school graduations. Male suicide rates are still up to eight times higher than female suicide rates, around 80% of homless people are male and their overall life expectency of males is still five years less than womens average life expectency (and in the US the difference once was only one year in the 1920s).
Women entering the workforce have indeed raised workplace security standards for men, too (though not so much in men-dominated fields of work). But I don't think that is a universal rule. Women joining the armed forces in the US has not led to better care for veterans. For every killed soldier during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, 25 veterans have committed suicide.
In family law, the disproportionate focus on women's wants has worsened men's standing and has disenfranchised countless of divorced fathers.
In laws about sexual offences, the alarmism about a so-called "rape-culture" fueled with false statistics like the 1 in 5 women wreaks havoc on US colleges and universities, demolitioning human relationships and due process.
There are problems of men, which are not solved by a policy solely concentrating and solving women's issues. And you cannot deny the right of men to draw attention to them and demand action.
-
There is a natural longevity factor for females though based on the fact they have ovaries. It has something to do with them producing fresh cells I think which extend female lifespan.
-
In family law, the disproportionate focus on women's wants has worsened men's standing and has disenfranchised countless of divorced fathers.
In laws about sexual offences, the alarmism about a so-called "rape-culture" fueled with false statistics like the 1 in 5 women wreaks havoc on US colleges and universities, demolitioning human relationships and due process.
You're going to have to provide citations for at least both of these claims. Dividing the Child (http://www.amazon.com/Dividing-Child-Social-Dilemmas-Custody/dp/0674212940) (that's a book, by the way) addresses the first issue directly, and comes to the conclusion that there is not a disproportionate focus on women's wants. I'll quote the relevant section:
We have found that although mothers receive sole physical custody in the vast majority of cases, the proportion of joint or father custody outcomes approaches 50 percent for high-conflict families. At first blush, this finding would appear to disprove allegations that the California divorce process reflects and perpetuates gender bias. Why, after all, shouldn’t a 50-50 distribution of outcomes suggest gender neutrality?
Both advocates for women’s rights and advocates for fathers’ rights would probably reject this reading of our findings, and in fact the presence or absence of gender bias in the legal process is not so simple to establish. A fathers’ rights group might well argue that since the overall gender ratio in cases where there are conflicting requests is 2 to 1, the law in action still reflects a maternal presumption. Why, after all, would fathers who conceded custody at lower levels of the conflict pyramid have settled for less than they wanted if they believed they had a 50 percent chance? Advocates for women, on the other hand, would counter that our findings demonstrate that escalation of legal conflict over custody clearly operates to the benefit of fathers. As we demonstrated in Chapter 3 before divorce mothers are the primary caretakers of children far more often than men. Thus, a 50-50 distribution of outcomes should be considered neither fair nor neutral. Rather, a “fair” distribution of outcomes should reflect differences in the care-taking base rate for mothers and fathers.
Alternatively, suppose that, on the merits, custody claims of mothers were, on the average, no stronger than the claims of fathers. (Imagine a judge going into her chambers and flipping a coin in all contested cases.) The outcome ratios might still vary by conflict level if most mothers simply cared more about the custodial outcomes than most fathers, and were therefore more prepared to escalate the conflict to a higher level rather than settle for less than their preferred custodial alternative. Because it takes time and energy to work one’s way up the conflict pyramid, this would imply that only in a small minority of families would the father be prepared to pay the price, even though those who did so might have a 50 percent chance of prevailing.
But one thing does seem reasonably clear: our finding that the gender ratio of custody decrees at the top approaches 50-50 even though the overall ratio among conflicted cases is closer to 2 to 1 in favor of mothers demonstrates neither the presence nor the absence of gender bias.
-
I'm having trouble parsing those particular mathematics. If 50% of the cases result into either joint custody or father custody, then it necessarily means that the remainder 50% is woman's custody only. One out of three hypothesis, I am missing something in the way it is written, the writer of that book is incapable of expressing himself, the writer is simply clueless about mathematics.
Given all the research, the writer seems incapable of reaching any conclusion. Reeks of either lazyness or "let's not touch this -ism". For ****s sake, this isn't rocket science even taking to account all the variables and social issues involved.
-
You may want to reread that last paragraph one more time. The numbers approach 50-50 when the father and mother both push for full custody. The fact that the actual custody numbers are more skewed at lower levels indicates that the mother is typically more willing to push for full custody than the father is - which is not in any way an indication of gender discrimination on behalf of the system.
-
And you may want to read the first paragraph again:
We have found that although mothers receive sole physical custody in the vast majority of cases, the proportion of joint or father custody outcomes approaches 50 percent for high-conflict families. At first blush, this finding would appear to disprove allegations that the California divorce process reflects and perpetuates gender bias. Why, after all, shouldn’t a 50-50 distribution of outcomes suggest gender neutrality?
This paragraph says the following:
- Majority of cases women get full custody.
- in high conflict cases, fathers get full custody or joint custody 50% of the time
- The second point "would appear to disprove (...) gender bias" because 50-50 "suggests gender neutrailty"
This paragraph shows the writer is incapable of mathematical / logical thought. If 50% of the cases fathers get either joint or full custody, this necessarily means 50% women get full custody. How on earth could anyone read this as a "50-50" "gender neutral" result is beyond me. IDK, have maths changed since I went to school or something? The only WAY these maths could hold on was if "Joing Custody" was near zero percent. But that's obviously not true, so what the **** gives?
Notice that it becomes irrelevante to point to the last paragraph if it is in direct contradiction with the first (and the first is in contradiction with itself).
-
In family law, the disproportionate focus on women's wants has worsened men's standing and has disenfranchised countless of divorced fathers.
In laws about sexual offences, the alarmism about a so-called "rape-culture" fueled with false statistics like the 1 in 5 women wreaks havoc on US colleges and universities, demolitioning human relationships and due process.
You're going to have to provide citations for at least both of these claims.
Hm I thought it is now more or less common knowledge that the 1 in 5 statistic is based on a survey which defined sexual assault so broadly that even acts that are not criminal were counted as such.
Anyway, here are two articles, describing the procedure on US campuses when dealing with a student accused of sexual assault:
http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2013/04/23/the-secret-war-on-men/
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324600704578405280211043510?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424127887324600704578405280211043510.html
Another article how the conceived "rape culture" and actual data fall apart:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388502/rape-epidemic-fiction-kevin-d-williamson
And finally data from the US Department of Justice, which show that from 1995 to 2010 rape declined by 58%:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvsv9410.pdf
E: Just found a handy site with a collection of statistics illustrating various men's issues: http://realsexism.com/
Obviously I can't verify every statistic cited on this page, but I find it more important that they highlight the issues the MRA are concerned about (the moderate MRAs, at least).
-
It's also worth noting that, particularly in the developing world, targeted aid measures toward female health and education has been shown to raise the standard of women for everyone, which isn't exactly a surprise as those measures typically help bring better childhood outcomes, improved gender equality and raise economic output, which benefits both genders.
Pardon me, but that's not true. At least in Germany
particularly in the developing world
It's also worth noting that the rest of the examples you've talked about where men are perceived to have it worse don't actually offer any baseline comparison. Gender equality is not a zero-sum game. Have those trends actually worsened for men as compared to a baseline, or have they simply not improved as rapidly as have trends concerning female gender equality?
Hm I thought it is now more or less common knowledge that the 1 in 5 statistic is based on a survey which defined sexual assault so broadly that even acts that are not criminal were counted as such.
Anyway, here are two articles, describing the procedure on US campuses when dealing with a student accused of sexual assault:
http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2013/04/23/the-secret-war-on-men/
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324600704578405280211043510?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424127887324600704578405280211043510.html
Another article how the conceived "rape culture" and actual data fall apart:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/388502/rape-epidemic-fiction-kevin-d-williamson
And finally data from the US Department of Justice, which show that from 1995 to 2010 rape declined by 58%:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvsv9410.pdf
E: Just found a handy site with a collection of statistics illustrating various men's issues: http://realsexism.com/
Obviously I can't verify every statistic cited on this page, but I find it more important that they highlight the issues the MRA are concerned about (the moderate MRAs, at least).
You really need to learn how to pick and choose reputable non-partisan sourcing to emphasize your points. The US DOJ site is fine. National Review is a partisan rag with an agenda. WSJ is usually reasonably reputable. Blog posts are worthless. Lastly, sites like "realsexism.com" are actually worse than worthless as they're unverifiable (and fun fact, it's blocked by corporate webfilters as pornographic, which is always a sign of a reputable site *eyeroll*).
All that said, the 1-in-5 statistic is demonstrably flawed: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/05/01/one-in-five-women-in-college-sexually-assaulted-the-source-of-this-statistic/
There are problems of men, which are not solved by a policy solely concentrating and solving women's issues. And you cannot deny the right of men to draw attention to them and demand action.
I'm sorry, where did I do that precisely?
Nobody - here - is denying that there are male-specific social problems which need addressing, nor that they should be addressed. Indeed, I've been pretty consistent in pointing out that gender equality needs to be addressed in a holistic manner and neither the MRA-types nor radfem is helpful.
-
I suppose I'm playing a game which fits the topic title right now. Dusted off Silent Scope after however many years it is since I last played it for a bit of fun. And there are parts of the game where if you happen to catch a babe in your scopes you get an extra life. Complete with your character going "Wow!", a woman's voice saying "bonus life" and your scopes turning into a pink love heart and romantic music playing. Forgot about that aspect of the game, I just want to shoot some bad guys and have fun.
-
Well, that a not too well-known website with the wordparticle "sex" in its name, is flagged by a content filter as pornographic is very surprising...
You may have also noted that the site provides links for some of the statistics to reputable sites (whatever this means) like WSJ, University of Michigan, British Medical Journal, US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, US Department of Justice, California State University etc.
Is the site partisan? Yes, of course. But a large part of its statistical claims can be verified by following the links (sometimes you have to run throug on or two further links to arrive at the original data).
Also, I am not well-versed in the political landscape of the North American blogosphere. And it is quite hard to judge the reputation of any site, unless its name is "KKK" or "WhitePower" or such bull****. Looking up a a site on wikipedia is also not very helpful since wikipedia is partisan itself as far as social issues are concerned (the German Wikipedia is especially horrible with a strong feminist bias), googling it is also not that much useful, since every judgement about the site maybe again partisan. You won't find many feminist or liberal sites talking fairly about MRA sites and vice versa. So who's right? Several years ago I dismissed any article from a conservative or libertarian outlet that'd challenge my worldview. But that's obviously bull****. It's not important where it is published, it is important what is written. And sometimes conservatives have valid arguments, and sometimes liberals/socialists are plain wrong.
The only really reliable way would be to go straight to the source material, finding the surveys, but even that wouldn't be enough, because to be absolutely sure how to interpret the survey you'd need the raw data: the questions, the weighting of the answers, the way the sample was chosen and so on. I am neither a statistician nor a social scientist, I am only a historian and I still have a life and a pregnant wife to care for, so I'm afraid I just do not have the time dig that deep.
The holisitc manner your are talking about does not happen. The large part of academic and "professional" feminism sees every bit of attention men's issue get as a threat to their public funding programs, since they believe gender politics are a zero-sum game, and are afraid that the funding of programs for men's issues is going to be cut from their budget.
-
Also, I am not well-versed in the political landscape of the North American blogosphere. And it is quite hard to judge the reputation of any site, unless its name is "KKK" or "WhitePower" or such bull****. Looking up a a site on wikipedia is also not very helpful since wikipedia is partisan itself as far as social issues are concerned (the German Wikipedia is especially horrible with a strong feminist bias)
The fact that you feel wikipedia has a feminist bias of all things speaks volumes. If anything, Wikipedia in general is biased toward a classical liberal perspective, with reliance on evidence, data, and corroboration. It's a fundamentally democratic system, and it's very useful for background information, though not as a academic source.
It's not important where it is published, it is important what is written. And sometimes conservatives have valid arguments, and sometimes liberals/socialists are plain wrong.
This is only true insofar as the publication reveals its sourcing and methodology for the reader to judge for themself. Publications that announce they have outright political bias - which the National Review does, incidentally - are not reputable sourcing because they are partisan and driven by a particular world-view spin on the source materials (if they disclose them).
The only really reliable way would be to go straight to the source material, finding the surveys, but even that wouldn't be enough, because to be absolutely sure how to interpret the survey you'd need the raw data: the questions, the weighting of the answers, the way the sample was chosen and so on.
No, there are plenty of reputable and reliably-sourced publications out there from which you can draw conclusions. As I used to remind fellow university students years ago: "General Field" peer-reviewed journal (Science, Nature, Lancet, British Medical Journal, etc etc) > highly field-specific peer-reviewed journal > peer-reviewed journal that no one has heard of > raw-data interpretation (including academic blogs, etc) > government sources (if not peer-reviewed) > Large international news organizations > smaller international news organizations > national news organizations > Wikipedia > accredited international advocacy groups > opinion-based magazines / individual blogs without data sources / personal opinion / etc >>>>>>>>> nondescript unsourced agenda-driven websites.
And really, the last is the only one I truly dismiss out of hand.
The large part of academic and "professional" feminism sees every bit of attention men's issue get as a threat to their public funding programs, since they believe gender politics are a zero-sum game, and are afraid that the funding of programs for men's issues is going to be cut from their budget.
Citation absolutely required.
Based on the sourcing you're using alone, I question how much actual interaction you've had with actual academic/professional feminism (of the non-radfem persuasion).
-
My take on Wikipedia is this:
Technical stuff, natural science, science theory: very solid information for a general overview
History: generally good, as long as no controversial events are concernced that are somehow important for the identity of a nation/ethnicity/religious group
Social topics: to be taken with a grain of salt, especially if it comes to current controversial topics
Biographies: good if the person is long dead and no focal point of an ideological following; careful, if the person is still alive and of public interest (polticians, activists, artists etc.)
I very often prefer the English wikipedia over the German one, mostly reading both versions if they exist. The concept and goal of Wikipedia is a noble one. But since everyone can create and edit articles, it is not suprising that there are some authors that are not interested in unbiased and objective information, but pursue a political agenda. And I think it is safe to say that PR agencies and governments have also discovered the potential of wikipedia.
The German Wiki is a special case as some administrators have their political agenda. Among other things they edited biographies of German MRAs to make them appear as associates of the radical right (in Germany a political/social death sentence), they edited articles about feminists deleting controversial statements these feminists have made, they manipulated articles about domestic violence, deleting evidence that shows that this form of violence is not gendered etc.
As far as I'm concerned, some articles on Wikipedia are PR battlegrounds.
-
Perhaps you may find unattributed, unsourced, anecdotal opinion pieces fun to read, but they're generally considered irrelevant by anyone actually wanting to discuss an issue.
Discussion IS sharing of opinions.
What the hell do you think you're doing when posting?
Or when you post a video of someone talking about the issue?
Or do you consider opinions and thought of everyone but you (or people you approve of) irrelevant?
Really Ryan, get off your high horse for a minute.
-
http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/25/gamergate-an-issue-with-2-sides/
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/columbia-mattress-emma-sulkowicz_n_5811030.html
The fact that this blatant witch-hunting is supported by all mainstream feminist circles speaks volumes about how modern academic feminism (in some countries?) has gone off the deep end. The accused student was found not responsible, despite the university kangaroo courts being required to use an extremely low standard of evidence (>50% likehood, instead of beyond reasonable doubt). Apparently going to the police is too much work, but carrying a mattress everywhere is not... What could be the end goal of this demonstration? Should we lower the standard of evidence even further? Should an accusation be enough?
There is nothing wrong with social movements for equality, however the unfortunate truth is that such movements almost never seem to stop at that, but instead swing to the other side (payback time?) - even if this was not the movement's original intention, it can always be hijacked/infiltrated by different people. This is why the anti-feminism/MRA movement, despite its misogynistic streak, fulfills an important societal function - to keep feminism in check (this is true for all reactionary movements in general).
-
Electronic Arts Director speaks up about #gamergate:
http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2hfx8s/ea_director_comments_on_gamergate/%20%E2%80%A6
We have all had to deal with trolls, a-holes, hacker kids, and gamers/fans/haters of all stripes for years. The one redeeming quality of all them (to me) was that they were always gamers – and that was an enthusiasm and love that we all shared. That passion made people do crazy things. As easy as it could have been, I never lost respect for the audience. The people we make games for – even some of the bad ones. That’s our business, and I HOPE its why we all still do this. Love for the art AND for the fans. Two sides of the same coin.
This group of gamers for #GamerGate are angry. PISSED. I don’t think this incident with Ms. Quinn and the media are the direct cause of this exclusively, but rather a spark that blew up some smoldering issues that have been building for years. This level of anger and commitment by these gamers is intense, and its growing. Something is wrong here, this is abnormal.
My opinion: Its not about Social Justice warriors, that has always been a strong influence in gaming. Sometimes its annoying, sure, but it can also be a positive force as well, a much-needed conscience, and a reminder to us all to consider what we create says and means to people of all ages and backgrounds.
Its not really about ethics. Games Media and Games Development have always been intertwined like Siamese twins. We depend on each other greatly, and this relationship (when properly balanced) benefits games and gamers as a whole.
I think the real problem here is alienation. Not of values. That’s misguided. Its not liberal/conservative values, politics, or world-view. Its fear of being meaningless. Its about our loss of connection between ordinary gamers and the games industry. We are losing our connection with people. I think our industry has been drifting further and further away from our fans, as our business get larger, and our global reach gets broader. This lack of a relationship, of mutual feedback, of a personal connection between ourselves and the audience (I believe) is really the true culprit of most deep seated anger here. There is no connection with us, no trust, not even understanding. Yet gamers depend more and more on us for their primary entertainment (important!) and we absolutely depend on them as customers. Yet, our relationship – is increasingly one-sided. They being the unit sale, the % converted on the acquisition funnel, or the revenue target – not the person, the player, the gamer who is (or was) exactly like all of us. We NEED them, and they KNOW we need them. They NEED us too – but have we forgotten that? Do we sometimes feel, we don’t really need them?
This alienation and dependency brings about epic rage – think banks, cellular providers, airlines, cable companies and the hate those relationships generate with customers who NEED that service but get treated like beasts… that’s our future (some would say our present). And in this environment, a back-handed slap to a mass group of gamers who are mass-labeled “misogynists” “rapists” “gamers are dead” “Games ashamed” are just fighting words yelled by a distant, contemptuous, un-connected gaming entity that is part of the establishment elite – and this same recipe (the exact same spark) of every single race/political/protest riot the world over from the beginning of time. And like every protest, there are those who support the activists and those who support law & order, and the establishment. But the root cause of the event is usually NOT what they are yelling and fighting about, but something much deeper, and harder to explain.
Usually being oppressed, insulted, or just generally being abused and invisible. And in this outburst of anger, some of the media turned and fired into the gamer protesters, which then became a riot.
Both sides now dehumanize the other, making it easier to escalate. I wish I knew how to diffuse it. Your friend, Chris
My one second reaction to it: Amazing how the corporation formerly widely known as "EA" has shown to have more empathy than the whole game journalist sites. Let that detail sink in for a moment. Electronic ****ing Arts more empathic with their audience than game sites.
-
The moderation staff has not received any reports about this thread. Considering that it's remained fairly civil so far, no action is necessary
I disagree with that somewhat. Given that it's no longer about games, I'm moving this to Gen Discuss.
*Predicts destruction of thread in 3-4 posts at most*
-
My one second reaction to it: Amazing how the corporation formerly widely known as "EA" has shown to have more empathy than the whole game journalist sites. Let that detail sink in for a moment. Electronic ****ing Arts more empathic with their audience than game sites.
Meh.
Two things spring to mind here:
1) What game sites are people actually reading? I never get these vibes from the likes of, say, Rock Paper Shotgun
2) Off course EA will pick the "Gamers" side here - They need the goodwill! They don't need gaming websites all that much - those that are not "objective" and repost press releases all the times often give them bad reviews.
-
And since the thread is now about #Gamergate and everything surrounding it anyway, here's Zoe Quinn on The Fine Young Capatlists and what they have been up to lately (https://storify.com/jbradfield/zoe-quinn-re-tfyc). Some interesting links in there.
-
Believe that woman as you like, I cannot even take one word she says as anything remotely near the "truth". After that long post by her boyfriend, why on Earth does anyone still believes any word that comes from her is somewhat of a mystery to me. My inclination is, "She said something, probably untrue, without external proof I'll take it as untrue period". Pretty sure that my skepticism is probably mysoginism of the highest order, waiting to have the police knocking my door for raping some sensitivity now!
While I understand Karajorma's decision to move this thread to GenDisc (after all a lot of the discussion went to become less focused on games), I question it precisely on the merit of the followup prediction of it being destroyed within 3-4 posts at the most. It's obviously not the intention to shred a thread to ruins by moving it to GenDisc, but if this consequence of moving it is so predictable, then wouldn't it be better if it stayed in GameDisc?
-
Perhaps you may find unattributed, unsourced, anecdotal opinion pieces fun to read, but they're generally considered irrelevant by anyone actually wanting to discuss an issue.
Discussion IS sharing of opinions.
What the hell do you think you're doing when posting?
Or when you post a video of someone talking about the issue?
Or do you consider opinions and thought of everyone but you (or people you approve of) irrelevant?
Really Ryan, get off your high horse for a minute.
I'm guessing TrashMan can no longer respond to this since it's in GD, but I'll respond to this anyway.
The difference between quoting what you did, and things like what Scotty and Luis did, is that in your case we have no means of knowing who wrote it, why they wrote it, or what information they were working from when they wrote it. Opinion articles aren't bad; unattributed/unsourced ones are (unless they contain internal citations in which case you can usually evaluate them).
More generally, if this thread is going to devolve into the GamerGate nonsense, which I have explicitly avoided paying any attention to because the entire thing is idiotic, then I am OUT.
-
well, if you have explicitly ignored it then you might not be aware of the fact that you are knee deep in it right now.
-
While I understand Karajorma's decision to move this thread to GenDisc (after all a lot of the discussion went to become less focused on games), I question it precisely on the merit of the followup prediction of it being destroyed within 3-4 posts at the most. It's obviously not the intention to shred a thread to ruins by moving it to GenDisc, but if this consequence of moving it is so predictable, then wouldn't it be better if it stayed in GameDisc?
Basically it was a sarcastic reminder to all concerned to NOT destroy the thread. :p This thread has been pretty good so far. Keep it that way.
And for that matter, my opinion (Taking off the admin hat for a moment) is that we should continue the sensible topic on sexism and avoid this gamergate crap.
-
I'm personally interested in this #gamergate crap myself, but I agree we could discuss more interesting things here :yes:
-
I agree we could discuss more interesting things here :yes:
+1
-
maybe splitting the GG stuff off would be a good move? then it can continue it's life cycle without taking this thread down with it.
-
Or everyone could just collectively Stop Talking About It so that there's nothing to split. :p
-
I somehow do not think that is likely to happen any time in the near future.
also that tech crunch article on the last page was really good, not specifically on the GG stuff but on online communities in general. makes some good points about accountability.
-
Believe that woman as you like, I cannot even take one word she says as anything remotely near the "truth". After that long post by her boyfriend, why on Earth does anyone still believes any word that comes from her is somewhat of a mystery to me. My inclination is, "She said something, probably untrue, without external proof I'll take it as untrue period". Pretty sure that my skepticism is probably mysoginism of the highest order, waiting to have the police knocking my door for raping some sensitivity now!
Given that you're skeptical of everything she says, but apparently believe everything her ex-boyfriend says, despite no evidence of her having lied about anything... yup, that sounds like misogyny to me!
If you don't like being called a misogynist, maybe you shouldn't act like one.
-
Believe that woman as you like, I cannot even take one word she says as anything remotely near the "truth". After that long post by her boyfriend, why on Earth does anyone still believes any word that comes from her is somewhat of a mystery to me. My inclination is, "She said something, probably untrue, without external proof I'll take it as untrue period". Pretty sure that my skepticism is probably mysoginism of the highest order, waiting to have the police knocking my door for raping some sensitivity now!
Given that you're skeptical of everything she says, but apparently believe everything her ex-boyfriend says, despite no evidence of her having lied about anything... yup, that sounds like misogyny to me!
If you don't like being called a misogynist, maybe you shouldn't act like one.
I'm personally interested in this #gamergate crap myself, but I agree we could discuss more interesting things here :yes:
I share a viewpoint with Luis at the moment. Could we please navigate back to the previous discussion?
-
...
could you not go for the low hanging bait one time? she is shouting the damned rallying cry for the SJW side, how could she possibly be considered reliable? and she is one ****ing person who has a very visible recent history, his opinion of her cannot possibly be used to extrapolate how he feels about women in general. but then again if name calling is the best you've got why should I care what your opinion is.
-
she is shouting the damned rallying cry for the SJW side, how could she possibly be considered reliable?
What rallying cry? Also, would that make you pro-social-injustice?
and she is one ****ing person who has a very visible recent history, his opinion of her cannot possibly be used to extrapolate how he feels about women in general.
It was just the most recent example of him acting like a misogynist; the inherent cognitive dissonance was too extreme to let pass without comment.
but then again if name calling is the best you've got why should I care what your opinion is.
/me bursts out laughing
Point out one instance of me name-calling anyone.
-
but then again if name calling is the best you've got why should I care what your opinion is.
/me bursts out laughing
Point out one instance of me name-calling anyone.
would you be implying that being a misogynist is fine because calling someone such isn't name-calling/insulting?
-
I share a viewpoint with Luis at the moment. Could we please navigate back to the previous discussion?
This is no longer a polite request.
-
What rallying cry? Also, would that make you pro-social-injustice?
gamergate is a bunch of blahblahblah, gamers are dead blahblah, gameovergate, etc, read her twitter
Point out one instance of me name-calling anyone.
what he said
-
Alright, let's make it clear. Next person who talks about gamergate gets banned for 3 days from Gen Discuss.
In family law, the disproportionate focus on women's wants has worsened men's standing and has disenfranchised countless of divorced fathers.
In laws about sexual offences, the alarmism about a so-called "rape-culture" fueled with false statistics like the 1 in 5 women wreaks havoc on US colleges and universities, demolitioning human relationships and due process.
You're going to have to provide citations for at least both of these claims. Dividing the Child (http://www.amazon.com/Dividing-Child-Social-Dilemmas-Custody/dp/0674212940) (that's a book, by the way) addresses the first issue directly, and comes to the conclusion that there is not a disproportionate focus on women's wants. I'll quote the relevant section:
We have found that although mothers receive sole physical custody in the vast majority of cases, the proportion of joint or father custody outcomes approaches 50 percent for high-conflict families. At first blush, this finding would appear to disprove allegations that the California divorce process reflects and perpetuates gender bias. Why, after all, shouldn’t a 50-50 distribution of outcomes suggest gender neutrality?
Both advocates for women’s rights and advocates for fathers’ rights would probably reject this reading of our findings, and in fact the presence or absence of gender bias in the legal process is not so simple to establish. A fathers’ rights group might well argue that since the overall gender ratio in cases where there are conflicting requests is 2 to 1, the law in action still reflects a maternal presumption. Why, after all, would fathers who conceded custody at lower levels of the conflict pyramid have settled for less than they wanted if they believed they had a 50 percent chance? Advocates for women, on the other hand, would counter that our findings demonstrate that escalation of legal conflict over custody clearly operates to the benefit of fathers. As we demonstrated in Chapter 3 before divorce mothers are the primary caretakers of children far more often than men. Thus, a 50-50 distribution of outcomes should be considered neither fair nor neutral. Rather, a “fair” distribution of outcomes should reflect differences in the care-taking base rate for mothers and fathers.
Alternatively, suppose that, on the merits, custody claims of mothers were, on the average, no stronger than the claims of fathers. (Imagine a judge going into her chambers and flipping a coin in all contested cases.) The outcome ratios might still vary by conflict level if most mothers simply cared more about the custodial outcomes than most fathers, and were therefore more prepared to escalate the conflict to a higher level rather than settle for less than their preferred custodial alternative. Because it takes time and energy to work one’s way up the conflict pyramid, this would imply that only in a small minority of families would the father be prepared to pay the price, even though those who did so might have a 50 percent chance of prevailing.
But one thing does seem reasonably clear: our finding that the gender ratio of custody decrees at the top approaches 50-50 even though the overall ratio among conflicted cases is closer to 2 to 1 in favor of mothers demonstrates neither the presence nor the absence of gender bias.
I'm going to make the counterpoint that this sort of quote is exactly the sort of thing that wouldn't be accepted if it was about a women's issue. Even if I agree with Luis that the writer obviously has issues with understanding how to write about mathmatics and his actual point is that men get a fair deal at the top level it's still an unacceptable conclusion to reach that this means the justice system is fair.
The issue of women being paid less than men for the same job is one of feminism's most famous issues. It's quite probable that this is very little to do with direct sexism ("Hey, let's be bastards and pay the women less the men") and more to do with the fact that companies can get away with giving women a lower starting wage and lower annual pay rises simply because women in general won't demand as much as men do. I agree with any feminist who says that this is an obvious problem with the way society expects women not to be as demanding and forthright as a man about making such demands for fear of being thought of as a *****. But let's have some fairness when the shoe is on the other foot and we're discussing a men's right issue.
The writer is making the argument that men don't drag their custody cases through the courts until they become what he terms high-conflict cases and therefore don't get a fair deal. He's basically saying that men get a raw deal in court cause they don't care enough about their kids to fight for them. This completely ignores the fact that expecting a raw deal from the divorce courts makes this a self-fulfilling prophecy even if there is no actual sexism. And that's assuming a perfect court system rather than one which is unfair at the bottom but gets better towards the higher level where you are dealing with better qualified judges.
-
That's an analogy that I hadn't thought up previously, but it fits. If one is indeed inclined to believe and assert that the wage gap is due to a systemic bias against women in regard to the speed of advances in their career and so on, then one cannot in the other hand assert that in custody cases systemic biases suddenly disappear and that women's dominance in the stats is actually men's fault again somehow, and not an analogous systemic bias against men.
I think both are equally credible biases that we could be more aware of.
-
Funny thing is that I've often said that men's failure to get a fair deal in divorce court is pretty harmful to women in and of itself. Sure it means they get the kids more often, but it reinforces the notion that women are the ones who should be looking after children, not men. And there's a lot of sexist bull**** that flows downhill from that particular notion.
-
That's an analogy that I hadn't thought up previously, but it fits. If one is indeed inclined to believe and assert that the wage gap is due to a systemic bias against women in regard to the speed of advances in their career and so on, then one cannot in the other hand assert that in custody cases systemic biases suddenly disappear and that women's dominance in the stats is actually men's fault again somehow, and not an analogous systemic bias against men.
I think both are equally credible biases that we could be more aware of.
The analogy does not work, since the wage gap does not exist. ;)
-
It might. There are two propositions in apparent contradiction in here, but I think both propositions can both be true. That is, that women in the *same* position have the same wages as men in the *same* position (and working in the same hours and so on), and that women are being left behind in promotions and so on, effectively creating a wage gap in the workforce between the genders that wouldn't exist if some sort of discrimination wasn't being taking place. These are not contradictory statements .
I'm deeply skeptical of both this "gap" being huge and this gap being nonexistent due to that naive argument of "If women were indeed being left behind in wages, wouldn't they be paid more?" which is an incredibly naive statement about reality. If the system favours men in promotions, then these men will get better and better CVs than their female counterparts, a bias will be effectively created, and all managers will without a doubt look at these CVs rather than the "years" of work of certain people. It might even create the ironical paradox of increasing the bias by managers looking at women's CVs and asking them (or just thinking) "why haven't you been promoted for so long in your previous? Perhaps you were probably not as good as the men I have in my list here".
Lots to entangle here, and perhaps a good look at studies here could be of a good help.
-
The "wage gap" is hard to prove IMO, because at first you have to account for all other possible reasons for different wages before considering simple discrimination.
This (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048?mod=googlenews_wsj&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048.html%3Fmod%3Dgooglenews_wsj) WSJ article lists some factors that come into play, which reduce the gap significantly.
-
I know there are a lot of factors involved, and I mentioned the possibility of one of them. You haven't addressed them, and I am quite sure that a study regarding this delaying effect on women's promotion would be the only way to forward this discussion on this particular topic but I have literally no time (shutting down the computer as I speak) to find this out.
-
One reason for a promotion delay could be that many women (not all, of course) do not aim at a high career, since striving for a position in higher management, for instance, requires a substantial cut back in freely available time. Few women tend to find such a lifestyle focused on career desirable, and even men do more often question the benefits of such a way of life.
This is actually a problem in Japan, as their economy is based on male middle class white collar workers working themselves to death (quite literally sometimes), but now more and more younger men refuse to follow their fathers. Combined with an extremely low birth rate and a not so open immigration policy, the Japanese economy may run out of workers. The government tries to counter this trend with encouranging women to enter the workforce, which, however may end up in an even lower birthrate, if more and more women prefer full-time career to family...
-
Yeah but why do women not strive for a positions in higher management? Aren't there are social reasons for that which have to do with gender roles?
Thing is though, the cause of the gap is largely irrelevant to this discussion. The wage gap is something that feminists acknowledge as being a real thing. Yet when it's a men's right issue, the custody gap, suddenly we don't hear about it.
-
Yet when it's a men's right issue, the custody gap, suddenly we don't hear about it.
That would be because when men ask for custody, they get custody in the majority of cases (http://amptoons.com/blog/files/Massachusetts_Gender_Bias_Study.htm). In fact:
In general, our evidence suggests that the courts hold higher standards for mothers than fathers in custody determinations.
It's only a "men's rights issue" according to MRAs.
-
That would be because when men ask for custody, they get custody in the majority of cases (http://amptoons.com/blog/files/Massachusetts_Gender_Bias_Study.htm).
This does not really rule out gender discrimination against men, because the number (over 70%) includes joint custody too. Youd need to compare it to % of women getting custody to uncover the truth, which is written not in the article. Why do a third of men who seek custody not get it?
Anyway, even then it is kind of similar to wage gap because wage gap is also in part due to women choosing not to seek better paying jobs, not any actual discrimination. The same could be true with men in custody battles. So either both are an issue, or neither is.
Also, your source is kind of suspect. It rambles on and on about female issues but there is very little about male issues in there. Even tough sentencing gap or possibly prison rape is one of the most acute ones and lie directly in the area they were supposed to study. It looks biased, as if gender issues = female issues only.
-
I have to agree with 666 on this one. The article is biased, and the mere fact that it prints the 70% number but not the counter value makes me suspect at its motives for doing so. I'd bet that the woman number on that one is 95% +, but if that number was printed then the sexist bias in all of this would be all too apparent.
What Admiral Ralwood is also missing is when he speaks about fathers getting custody when they press it. Well, that is probably merely because fathers only press it when they are absolutely sure they themselves are worthy of this custody (or that the woman is definitely not worth it) and can win the case. This of course creates the perception of a "bias" in these particular cases, where perhaps it's the other way around. When fathers are not this sure, they don't press this, precisely because of the aforementioned perception laid out in the article itself about gender biases in these decisions. I have been first witness of this bias myself several times. Yes, fathers do not press too much, because they know they won't get it, and because they prefer to not waste money in lawyers rather than in their lives (now in shambles) and their children.
Oh and 1990? For ****s sake man, this **** is 24 years old now.
-
It's only a "men's rights issue" according to MRAs.
Again, this is the kind of **** that doesn't fly when a feminist does it. If someone tries to claim that the wage gap is only a "woman's right issue" because of militant feminists people (quite rightly) go up the wall. People (again quite rightly) point out that RadFem isn't what feminism is or should be.
But when someone tries to make the exact same claim about custody rights people try to say that this makes you one of those misogynistic MRA members.
-
That would be because when men ask for custody, they get custody in the majority of cases (http://amptoons.com/blog/files/Massachusetts_Gender_Bias_Study.htm).
This does not really rule out gender discrimination against men, because the number (over 70%) includes joint custody too. Youd need to compare it to % of women getting custody to uncover the truth, which is written not in the article. Why do a third of men who seek custody not get it?
Hey, way to not read the article at all.
The statewide sample of attorneys who responded to the family law survey had collectively represented fathers seeking custody in over 2,100 cases in the last 5 years. n54 They reported that the fathers obtained primary physical custody in 29% of the cases, and joint physical custody in an additional 65% of the cases. Thus, when fathers actively sought physical custody, mothers obtained primary physical custody in only 7% of cases. The attorneys reported that the fathers had been primary caretakers in 29% of the cases in which they had sought custody.
Oh and 1990? For ****s sake man, this **** is 24 years old now.
By all means, provide any evidence to counter it.
-
Hey, way to not read the article at all.
The statewide sample of attorneys who responded to the family law survey had collectively represented fathers seeking custody in over 2,100 cases in the last 5 years. n54 They reported that the fathers obtained primary physical custody in 29% of the cases, and joint physical custody in an additional 65% of the cases. Thus, when fathers actively sought physical custody, mothers obtained primary physical custody in only 7% of cases. The attorneys reported that the fathers had been primary caretakers in 29% of the cases in which they had sought custody.
Again, this fails to address the wider systemic bias that I pointed out above and it is not the answer on the apples to apples comparison when they mention men having in general 70% of custody. Yes, you have demonstrated that in one state inside the US in 1990, when fathers *actively* go after custody they were favored against women until at least 1990. You also demonstrated that in general, *women* have most custodies. The very article itself points out that the perception that women are favoured in these cases played a role against men *actively* seeking custody, which is an inevitable source of bias on the final result.
This was already pointed out by our comments but you decided to ignore them outright.
Oh and 1990? For ****s sake man, this **** is 24 years old now.
By all means, provide any evidence to counter it.
You talk a lot about "evidence". You provided "evidence" of a particular situation in one particular state of a particular country until 1990, and we have demonstrated that even in this picked evidence of yours the stats are not generally favorable to men. You continue to either reject or ignore that there is a systemic bias against men having custody, perhaps due to some unmentioned assumptions on your part, namely that fathers "don't care as much" as women to have the custody of their children, or some other unmentioned assumption. The thing that Karajorma tried to say here was that this is as much a systemic social bias as the feminists claim there is in the jobs market (promotions and so on). I find it suspicious that in one case, a strict view on limited statistics like what you are doing here is the relevant statistic, while in the other it is the general one that is relevant. This is not intellectually honest.
-
You talk a lot about "evidence".
And you have provided a grand total of... wait for it... no evidence to support anything you just said.
-
I'm going to call shenanigans on this one. A search for the term "custody statistics" turned up pretty much ONLY that review and several websites who I consider somewhat dubious refuting it (http://www.breakingthescience.org/SJC_GBC_analysis_intro.php).
Why is this review turning up so often that it is the first result on any search on the subject? Why did the other websites I found who didn't quote the review directly also include that 70% statistic? Why is it so popular that it crowds out any other research?
I really can't think of any reason that isn't inherently sexist in and of itself.
-
Before we go too far down this rabbit hole, can I just point out that it is virtually impossible to do a broad analysis of child custody statistics because the legal code around custody differs significantly from region to region, as do the general demographics that lead to custody disputes? It's quite simply a bad issue to use as an example. Not only is it rarely unified legally by country (in federal systems, family court matters are delegated to the provincial/state authorities), but it's rarely unified procedurally by court region. Moreover, there is no unified reporting system of child custody decisions, so any sample is going to be based on the methods used to procure it, which inevitably WILL lead to selection bias; something you can try to get around with sufficiently large sample size, but which again runs into the problem of varied legal landscapes. It's a minefield for proper research.
The methodology in the article Ralwood listed is flawed on its face:
statewide sample of attorneys who responded to the family law survey
Plus, it's - for all the reasons above - only representative of that state if it is indeed representative of anything at all.
As for the wage gap, once upon a time I have personally read several studies which, even after accounting for personal choices and other complex variables, still found a wage gap for particular skillsets predictable solely by gender. The conclusions, as I recall, were primarily that (at least in first-world democracies) this is not a result of intentional wage scale differences, but rather women often taking on tasks beyond what their position entailed without seeking or receiving appropriate promotion to a wage level for those tasks; men are much better at advocating for themselves to receive raises than women, and women are more frequently perceived as less competent than their male colleagues who perform exactly the same functions with the same outcomes.
I don't have them bookmarked, but I know for a fact they are somewhere in the references section of a couple sociology textbooks buried at the bottom of a massive box in my basement. If anyone wants to come find them they're welcome to do so :)
In the absence of a volunteer archivist / cleaning staff, here's a 9-year-old peer-reviewed meta analysis from the Journal of Economic Surveys (which I have never heard of) that looks decent at first glance: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0950-0804.2005.00256.x/abstract;jsessionid=5BAF94750F2C555E57577B92DDABF9D7.f01t01?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
-
You talk a lot about "evidence".
And you have provided a grand total of... wait for it... no evidence to support anything you just said.
The fact that your evidence is biased and incomplete does not need any more evidence than the link you just put. Your continuous ignoring / dismissal of every single crtiticism we are throwing here is duly noted as well.
-
Before we go too far down this rabbit hole, can I just point out that it is virtually impossible to do a broad analysis of child custody statistics because the legal code around custody differs significantly from region to region, as do the general demographics that lead to custody disputes? It's quite simply a bad issue to use as an example. Not only is it rarely unified legally by country (in federal systems, family court matters are delegated to the provincial/state authorities), but it's rarely unified procedurally by court region. Moreover, there is no unified reporting system of child custody decisions, so any sample is going to be based on the methods used to procure it, which inevitably WILL lead to selection bias; something you can try to get around with sufficiently large sample size, but which again runs into the problem of varied legal landscapes. It's a minefield for proper research.
Yet another reason why I'm so suspicious of the prevalence of the review Ralwood posted.
In the end it comes down to this, is there anyone on this forum who believes that men get sole custody 50% of the time when only one parent gets custody or get joint custody an equal amount to women? If not, how else can you possibly explain the discrepancy except for an inherent, societal bias that leads to men being less willing to push the issue? Is anyone really going to argue that men love their children less?
-
There could also be legit brain differences that would cause men to disproportionately allow women to obtain sole custody (which doesn't mean they don't get visitation rights or anything if I understand correctly). That wouldn't mean they love their kids any less, it would just mean that dudes who were predisposed to impregnate very dedicated women and then hang out on the periphery and pay child support or whatever were evolutionarily successful at some point in the past.
Of course, you can make the same argument in support of the wage gap not being a purely social construct so it's kind of useless but it does go to show that it's hard to pin down any root cause to what ails us societally.
Now if you'll excuse me, I must impregnate your female relations and then pretty much let them handle it from there.
-
I'm going to call shenanigans on this one. A search for the term "custody statistics" turned up pretty much ONLY that review and several websites who I consider somewhat dubious refuting it (http://www.breakingthescience.org/SJC_GBC_analysis_intro.php).
Why is this review turning up so often that it is the first result on any search on the subject? Why did the other websites I found who didn't quote the review directly also include that 70% statistic? Why is it so popular that it crowds out any other research?
I really can't think of any reason that isn't inherently sexist in and of itself.
So, to boil it down, you can't find any evidence to support the contention that men are discriminated against in custody cases. Good to know.
The methodology in the article Ralwood listed is flawed on its face:
statewide sample of attorneys who responded to the family law survey
...Yes, surveys are, by nature, limited to those who respond. You don't seem to be advancing an argument for why those who did not respond would be disproportionately those that would prove a systemic bias against male parents, so... relevance?
You talk a lot about "evidence".
And you have provided a grand total of... wait for it... no evidence to support anything you just said.
The fact that your evidence is biased and incomplete does not need any more evidence than the link you just put.
"I don't need evidence because I say so" is not a good-faith argument.
Your continuous ignoring / dismissal of every single crtiticism we are throwing here is duly noted as well.
Asserting something does not make it so; since you haven't provided any evidence to support your "criticisms", the only assumption I can come to is that you can't be bothered to find any. Why should I waste my time responding when you can't be bothered to actually prove your point?
-
The methodology in the article Ralwood listed is flawed on its face:
statewide sample of attorneys who responded to the family law survey
...Yes, surveys are, by nature, limited to those who respond. You don't seem to be advancing an argument for why those who did not respond would be disproportionately those that would prove a systemic bias against male parents, so... relevance?
I'm advancing an argument that people should drop the child custody issues as an example of sexism at work - in either direction - because it is nigh-impossible to get meaningful data.
Part of that exercise is to point out that the methodology of a study that relies entirely on voluntary responses - particularly of people with an intimate part in the system under study and who stand to benefit from particular conclusions in one way or another - is inherently flawed as it relies on a sample that is inherently biased. You cannot draw broad-based conclusions about any phenomena, nevermind social phenomena, from data with a voluntary sample set from a limited jurisdiction that is not demographically representative of the whole system about which you want to draw conclusions.
I'm not saying that study is meaningless to draw the conclusions you are drawing from it; I'm saying it's meaningless to draw any conclusions from it other than concern the experiences of 2100 lawyers in child custody cases from a single American state that took the time to respond to a voluntary survey. Depending on the number of lawyers that hand child custody cases in that state (unknown at the moment, as it's not looked at in the study) it *might* be representative of the child custody realm in that state, but that's only if it comprises a large or representative sample of those lawyers, which is by no means assured.
And before anyone says "well, you can't prove it's not," allow me to gently remind people that that's not how science - even social science - works. The onus is on the person conducting the analysis and drawing conclusions - in this case the researchers involved - to make a convincing case that their sample is representative and valid. Similarly, if someone wants to use that study to make any kind of broader conclusion, the onus is then on that person to make a convincing case that the sample in the study is therefore representative of the population about which they wish to draw conclusions.
EDIT: Before I'm too harsh, however:
METHODOLOGY
Data were gathered from several sources, using different methodologies. We sent surveys including specific questions about child custody to family law attorneys, to the general attorney sample, and to probate judges. We convened three focus groups of family law attorneys and four of family service officers, in different parts of the state; participants discussed a variety of child custody matters. Two general attorney listening sessions also raised some child custody issues. We organized five regional litigant meetings, three for women and two for men; child custody issues were raised by several participants. We reviewed public hearing testimony and written material submitted to the Study that dealt with child custody. Finally, we examined relevant research and reports done by other individuals and groups both inside and outside Massachusetts.
Given the context in which this report was produced - to examine potential gender bias in the legal system of the state of Massachusetts specifically - this isn't a terrible methodology, and it does seem to attempt to be all-encompassing of the legal issues in that system. However, this further emphasizes my original point - this is not an objective study of the child custody situation in the democratic world about which we can draw conclusions concerning the presence or absence of sexism in the system as a whole. It's a policy piece, with a policy objective, from one particular state. Indeed, the methodology is constructed such that you absolutely cannot use it to draw conclusions outside the system it is studying because it is so specific to that legal community.
TL;DR - Study is useless to make a point outside of the state of Massachusetts circa 1990, prior to a number of systemic legal reforms in that state alone.
-
Isn't the evidence on the wage gap similarly flawed though? I'm not arguing it is, I'm simply asking.
I'm going to call shenanigans on this one. A search for the term "custody statistics" turned up pretty much ONLY that review and several websites who I consider somewhat dubious refuting it (http://www.breakingthescience.org/SJC_GBC_analysis_intro.php).
Why is this review turning up so often that it is the first result on any search on the subject? Why did the other websites I found who didn't quote the review directly also include that 70% statistic? Why is it so popular that it crowds out any other research?
I really can't think of any reason that isn't inherently sexist in and of itself.
So, to boil it down, you can't find any evidence to support the contention that men are discriminated against in custody cases. Good to know.
As MP-Ryan has so eloquently pointed out, you haven't exactly found any evidence that men aren't discriminated against despite what you may think.
I'm advancing an argument that people should drop the child custody issues as an example of sexism at work - in either direction - because it is nigh-impossible to get meaningful data.
Nigh-impossible because no one has collected meaningful data. Which then leads to the question, why has no one collected meaningful data on the subject? It's obviously a matter of some importance.
-
Isn't the evidence on the wage gap similarly flawed though? I'm not arguing it is, I'm simply asking.
I'm going to call shenanigans on this one. A search for the term "custody statistics" turned up pretty much ONLY that review and several websites who I consider somewhat dubious refuting it (http://www.breakingthescience.org/SJC_GBC_analysis_intro.php).
Why is this review turning up so often that it is the first result on any search on the subject? Why did the other websites I found who didn't quote the review directly also include that 70% statistic? Why is it so popular that it crowds out any other research?
I really can't think of any reason that isn't inherently sexist in and of itself.
So, to boil it down, you can't find any evidence to support the contention that men are discriminated against in custody cases. Good to know.
As MP-Ryan has so eloquently pointed out, you haven't exactly found any evidence that men aren't discriminated against despite what you may think.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that it's my responsibility to provide evidence against the unsupported claim you've made. Do you not understand how "burden of proof" works?
-
But even your evidence supports my claim. Not yours.
This fact was explained to you and you then ignored it.
-
But even your evidence supports my claim. Not yours.
This fact was explained to you and you then ignored it.
No, it was asserted without proof, and then ignored because it was unsupported.
-
I think we're done here. There's no point in explaining it to you again.
-
And this, folks, is what happens when two sides just keep shouting "I'm right" at each other, instead of actually discussing things. If there's one thing I've noticed about GD that seems to be different than Gaming Discussion, it's when a topic makes its way up here, people become a lot more focused on winning the argument part of the thread, not necessarily the content part of the thread.
-
Your portrayal is not correct. It would be a lot more helpful if some people here actually read what is being said and discussed viz a viz what is being put on the table (articles linked, etc) rather than making a "victory lap" because the "others" haven't produced "contrary evidence". It's the kind of intellectual dishonesty that really puts me off. If you are going to disagree with my interpretation of the paper, then please do so, open my mind about it, show me where I went wrong with it, I'm here precisely to learn ****. To demand "evidence" of my interpretation of what the article is saying, then boast one is right because I "failed" to do such idiocy is ridiculous and contemptible.
-
This whole line or argument is silly to begin with. The paper doesn't support what either side has claimed it does. Both groups need to find some actual evidence for their claims, otherwise the default assumption (null hypothesis, if you will) is that there's no systemic bias toward either gender. No one has yet made a convincing case for it in this thread.
Along the lines of how Scotty framed the argument sides earlier: everyone is wrong.
Now, someone make a better argument.
-
That is not true. Statistics were laid down. There *is* a genuine wide gender gap in custody of children. Now, we can *say* that this gender bias can be explained by other things than "sexism". That is a discussion worth having and there I agree with you, no evidence was put on the able regarding that, except the detail within the very paper we are discussing where it is discussed that men are "motivated" to leave custody to the women instead of fighting for it.
That the existence of this bias is presented as a bias in the exact other direction is also a noteworthy thing in itself, and I would love for Admiral Ralwood to have presented a better argument on this reversal, but we all know how that turned out.
-
That is not true. Statistics were laid down.
I see a grand total of three links related to this issue; a book from Scotty (which appears to discuss custody in the state of California, at least in the parts of the book any of us are working from in the thread), a legal review from Ma in 1990, and a self-described-as-dubious refutation of the statistics from karajorma.
So no, unless we're talking about just the state of Massachusetts in 1990, or California (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=88327.msg1765031#msg1765031), they really weren't. The book link Scotty posted is the closest thing to a representative study from the abstract of it on Amazon, but since we can't actually see the complete content of the book without a purchase, it's not worth relying on at present
-
Very well, I concede.
-
I asked earlier, why isn't there data on an issue as important as this?
-
I did explain earlier why meaningful broad-application data on issues like this so hard to come by: http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=88327.msg1764936#msg1764936
That said, I haven't done a lit search to look for meta-analysis of child custody. There may well be some out there; just have to look at their methodologies to determine how useful they are for high-level discussion.
-
Oh I understand that it's hard to do in America but you'd have thought that countries with a more unified justice system would have the research. And I don't see why there isn't more meta-analysis.
-
Oh, I totally forgot that I wanted to contribute here .... betrays how much I care about GamDis/GenDis-boards (reason of which I made clear in my earlier post)
Since it is rather late for me to get into the discussion (and I'm rather preooccupied with other stuff at the moment), I just want to drop my two points which I wanted to contribute originally. Full disclosure: I did't read on after my last post, so everything I say might already have been said and/or dismissed. Feel free disregard all I'm saying, I'm just doing this for sake of a completeness I (OCD'ing as I am) feel waranted.
Firstly, the problem with the sexual objectivication in the video game medium is not an extraordinary phenomenon, but a phenotype of the underlying problem the previously mostly patriarchic domincated atlantic-western societies have. Most people, esspecially activists and academics of all spectra, like to think society is more leaning towards their ideas and ahead on some ideas - which is not exaclty true and often a bad case of confirmation bias and/or wishful thinking on their part. Often this is helped along by the people actually thinking ahead of the curve with little perspective - this is most visible once people begin to make their preconceptions explict.
Secondly, the problematic situation with Video Games as a medium is that while its technological development has been going foward across the board, the artistic development has been at least stagnating in recent years: Many popular developers (read: those who get all the nice exposure) appear to have no better use for the improved capacities in the graphics department than to push for Photorealism.
IMO however Photorealism is a problematic direction for any art form to go down, unless like e.g. many forms of theatre they are almost irrevocalbly married to it (often theatre by its very definition(s) cannot leave the set-up with human performers - you can do a lot with scenery, costumes, props and lighting but in the end it comes down to capacities of human performers). Realism is a crutch for those lacking imagintion, those unwilling to ask the audience for a little suspension of disbelief or those who lack the abilites and/or willingness for sublety. A lot of popular media, esspecially on the TV and Video Gaming side, in recent years has shown a remarkable lack of subtlly when trying to get its point across and instead opts to make things more explict that ever needs be IMO.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not one to condem the existence both or either, neither their portrail. They exist, they are part of our reality and part of our very "humanity" (meaning "essence of being human" - quotation marks cause there has been a trend going on to use "humanity" as a stand-in for "civilized", as the word became less and less political correct due to its previous chauvinistic use). The problem with both is if we don't learn how to cope with their existence and our exposure to them - to take a critical stand oneself to what you have just witnessed (or in the case of video games, played). As such open ended critique, even by the so-called layman, laywoman or applicable-term-for-a-person-which-does-not-claim-to-a-degree-of-provicency-in-the-subject, is in order. (the best form to do this is in person, in an interactive setting and with as much channels of communication open as possible - but I repeat myself like a broken record now).
-
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/15/anita-sarkeesian-feminist-games-critic-cancels-talk
Here we go again.
"You have 24 hours to cancel Sarkeesian’s talk … Anita Sarkeesian is everything wrong with the feminist woman, and she is going to die screaming like the craven little whore that she is if you let her come to USU. I will write my manifesto in her spilled blood, and you will all bear witness to what feminist lies and poison have done to the men of America.”
I'm not sure what's more disturbing, the threat or the police response:
“Forced to cancel my talk at USU after receiving death threats because police wouldn’t take steps to prevent concealed firearms at the event,” [Sarkeesian] tweeted. “Requested pat downs or metal detectors after mass shooting threat but because of Utah’s open carry laws police wouldn’t do firearm searches.”
-
I'm surprised you chose that part to quote. That part makes this person look like just another one of those dime a dozen trolls. But this part...
“I have at my disposal a semi-automatic rifle, multiple pistols, and a collection of pipe bombs,” the letter said. “This will be the deadliest school shooting in American history and I’m giving you a chance to stop it.”
Makes this person look like an absolute maniac. Even if it's just bluster, there's grounds there for criminal action surely. I wouldn't be content to just leave this person unsearched for.
-
sent via email, claimed to be a student, hopefully this person left enough of a trail for the FBI to find them.
nb4schoolemailaddress
-
The university also neglected to inform her of the threat before she got on the plane and learned about it via the news after landing.
-
Also, if anyone's still following Gamergate itself, it got kicked off 4chan and moved to 8chan, and it was recently discovered Quinn's doxx had been on the boards for a month without any action by the mods. Since that public revelation an 8chan mod has announced they're refusing to remove her info. It was also recently discovered that a hidden board on 8chan hosts actual child porn. Gamergate everyone!
-
. . . surprisingly Gamergate may have actually revealed a cesspool of corruption. :lol:
-
...
Oh, I thought the next person to talk about GamerGate got banned for 3 days, but if the subject is not off limits again that's absolute horse ****. as a chan, on 8chan only stickys do not auto-purge (get deleted automatically), the only way they could have been there for that amount of time on an active chan site with as much traffic as that site gets is if it was in a sticky, and guess what, it wasn't there. Doxxings occur there but the mods are usually pretty quick to clean it out.
it's right here you don't have to listen to a third party
https://8chan.co/gg/
go on, click the link, post there, you do not need to set up an account, just type something into the box at the top of the page and it's visible for all to see and comment on. make up some realistic looking fake address for one of the literally whos and see how it turns out.
even better if you want to start your own board about literally anything you want go here: https://8chan.co/create.php
8chan is sort of like a hybrid of redit and a traditional chan. It is not about GamerGate, it is about freedom of speech, gg just moved there when moot decided he didn't want them anymore. literally any human on the planet, you, right now, can just set up a board there and become a 'mod'. The admin of the site bans boards that do not follow American federal law as the site's only rule is that you don't break the law with what you post. So way to conflate two issues there in an attempt at guilt by association.
-
If it's off limits then my mistake. Was just giving a status update.
And you're welcome to look in /hebe/, cause I sure as hell won't.
-
neither will I
-
I said I'd ban people if they posted on this thread while the other topic was active. Since it's died down, I don't care if people want to discuss it.
-
it's right here you don't have to listen to a third party
https://8chan.co/gg/
go on, click the link, post there, you do not need to set up an account, just type something into the box at the top of the page and it's visible for all to see and comment on. make up some realistic looking fake address for one of the literally whos and see how it turns out.
Interesting how most of the posts there are not about what gamergate is ostensibly about, but all about how to fight against those who are against gamergate. Or about how Anita Sarkeesian et al are faking threats against them. Hell, they're still going on about that whole Zoe Quinn debacle that started this thing, despite there not being any proof whatsoever for any review-for-sex deals ever actually happening (I mean, sure, that could have happened, but the distinct lack of any reviews, positive or otherwise, by the mentioned journalists kinda tells me that there was no ethics violation there).
Gamergate, in my considered opinion, is a movement of idiots. When your biggest success is to make one sponsor pull out of one website, and most of your PR comes in the form of harassment of women on the internet, your movement is kinda ****ed. Hell, gamergate hasn't even managed to come up with a consistent explanation of what their victory condition even looks like.
-
Just in case (https://twitter.com/srhbutts/status/522644932519927809) you weren't convinced (https://twitter.com/srhbutts/status/522632396139540480).
-
Not to mention:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-29626809
Thing is, the whole situation has got so muddy now that it doesn't even seem to be about sexism in games anymore, there's no real purpose to attacking the actual players in that situation, it's a question of dealing with the game producers, who are also far more receptive to this point of view.
This has boiled down to a spat between two mindsets that are never going to agree because the trolls and nutcases are far too busy making the situation worse and then sitting back and laughing at the chaos they are causing. And the more they influence the situation towards anarchy, the happier they are.
I suppose the way I see it is that the problem with sexism in games is something that can be dealt with without ever having to acknowledge these idiots, they can whine and complain all they like, but it's a simple matter to cut them out of the equation entirely and actually do something productive.
It all boils down to that time-honoured internet guideline, 'Don't feed the trolls'.
-
Mostly, it's the level of mudslinging that astoundes me. And people eat it up. Just look at that Joshua post wherein he links to something alledgedly really nasty without even reading the comments that mock him up.
-
I don't think that slinging mud at a movement founded on mud-slinging is entirely surprising.
EDIT: Here's (http://botherer.org/2014/10/12/a-thing-about-gamergate/#more-3703) a good piece about it by RPS' John Walker, who despite RPS' reputation as a really good PC gaming review and news site that doesn't succumb to industry pressure got singled out by gamergate's supporters as one of the corrupting influences that needs to be silenced.
-
Listening or reading the very media that is under fire and criticism from gamergate is not necessarily the best way to get accurate unbiased information. That's part of the problem, actually. If all the media had been fair in its representation from the get go, this would have been defused right at the start of it. Instead, they thought they could get away with using their megaphones to insult and defame a big chunk of their own audience. And that's where it exploded, not this Quinn stuff. The irony is that most of this gamergate community is actually liberal, and they lost this audience. Absolutely.
What is curious in all of this is how "anti-ggs" are no longer failing to recognize all the harrassment and abuse that ggs themselves are subject to, but that is the product of a few bad apples, trolls and psychopaths. Not the **** that comes "from the other side". No, abuse that goes towards anti-ggs is the product of this gamergate campaign and the whole thing should be prosecuted for it. The double standard is so evident and yet so readily denied it's ghastly. It's like people are shouting that 2 and 2 is 5 and not understanding the looks they are getting.
The most glaring example of this has been the harrassments and threats to Sarkeesian and others. News sites like the verge and so on will publish on how this is about gamergate and not only "about", but "due to", that we should blame this on gg, that these morons are all mysoginists and so on. Evidence for this? Zilch, Zero, Nada. The media interviews 3 gamergate women and the questions pour in like "Will you agree that women should have a place in game design and stem and so on?", and the glaring bigotry is all too apparent. Let's ask people if they agree that blacks can have jobs like we do, just to make sure we are on the same page yeah? And this mudslinging isn't being done on 4chan or 8chan, it's being done on alledgedly respecftul media with journalistic standards. That's what is appalling to me. In a way, all this mudslinging is what is constantly fueling gamergate.
If a lot more media tried to listen, to have a conversation, all of this would die down. The radicals who maintain their positions would be isolated and ignored by the large chunks, the hashtag would be over. Instead, we get articles like yesterday's the Verge one, idiotic hashtags like #StopGamergate2014 whose only effect was skyrocketing the usage of #gamergate itself.
Because why not escalate the war? I mean, if it provides clickbait.
-
Listening or reading the very media that is under fire and criticism from gamergate is not necessarily the best way to get accurate unbiased information. That's part of the problem, actually. If all the media had been fair in its representation from the get go, this would have been defused right at the start of it. Instead, they thought they could get away with using their megaphones to insult and defame a big chunk of their own audience. And that's where it exploded, not this Quinn stuff. The irony is that most of this gamergate community is actually liberal, and they lost this audience. Absolutely.
What exactly are the reasons why RPS, Polygon, Kotaku, Gamasutra et al are under fire? Is it because they are known for shady journalistic practices? For completely abandoning journalistic integrity?
No. It's because these sites dared to publish articles that the people who now make up gamergate disapprove of, namely articles that point out that games, and gaming culture, does have quite a few systemic issues. It's not about integrity or ethics for the people of gamergate, even if they proclaim it loudly. It's about defending something you like and do not want to see change.
You see, there is a point to be made about shady journalistic practices in games media. Gamergate, however, isn't making it. A recent instance of outright bought youtube content didn't draw any ire from them (Or if it did, Shadow of Mordor's sales numbers do not reflect it). But holy ****, as soon as someone is pointing out that gamergate is associated with harassment and idiocy? You bet your ass you'll get to hear from them. In harassing and idiotic ways, no doubt.
-
You're absolutely wrong. It was totalbiscuit (!) who reported on that youtube shadow of mordor stuff, and more to the point, it had nothing to do with "journalism integrity", that was something about the publishers. And yet, it was widely discussed, just not so under the #gamergate hashtag. Even still, you like many others, use this as a talking point. More mudslinging.
Of course you'll hear if you are accusing a group of people to be mysoginists. The adverse would be newsworthy. The **** man, if the newspapers started publishing in droves on how the atheists were msyoginists and racists and rape apologists* you think the whole twitter and the internet wouldn't turn itself into a ****ing ****storm? Of course it would. "Ah you say you are only interested in this god question but the whole harrassment that is going on in the meanwhile all around us proves you're a mysoginist!". Guilt by association and the whole deck of fallacies don't matter anymore, mainstream journalists just use them unashamedly to bash a wide heterogeneous bunch of people. The ****ing tone, so patronizing and despicable. Of course people are going on flames about this. Start treating people like people and this whole ordeal will subside in one ****ing day. Good luck with that.
*by gods, even a guy interviewed by that Escapist series was accused of being a ****ing rape apologist because he dared wrote a blog post on how rape is just as fair to be represented in games as murder or torture or any other thing, it depends on the way you do it - doesn't matter, it's a rape apologist, such BAD BAD people
-
...
it's because when the people who now make up gamergate were demanding that they take on an official code of ethics that would explicitly forbid having close personal and/or financial relationships with the subjects they are writing about those sites responded with a coordinated series of articles calling their entire readership irrelevant (at best).
an example of a site that was in the crosshairs of gg initially but enacted reform and is now considered acceptable by most gg people is the escapist.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/editorials/12224-The-Official-Ethics-Policy-of-The-Escapist
that's all the GG people were asking for. in stead they got told they were, just so passe.
(related article: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/editorials/12223-The-Escapist-Publisher-Issues-Public-Statement-on-Gamergate )
If we are posting news reports about it here is a recent one I liked (huffington post)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtzrUsi6Y1s
-
You're absolutely wrong. It was totalbiscuit (!) who reported on that youtube shadow of mordor stuff, and more to the point, it had nothing to do with "journalism integrity", that was something about the publishers. And yet, it was widely discussed, just not so under the #gamergate hashtag. Even still, you like many others, use this as a talking point. More mudslinging.
Why wasn't it discussed under the hashtag? Why is "journalistic integrity" only an issue when journalists aren't writing consumer reports? Why is it NOT an issue when you have a class of not-quite journalists that is coopted as an extension of a marketing campaign?
What, I ask you, is the point of gamergate? What is its victory condition? What is it that they want to achieve, and how much relation does it bear to what the movement is actually achieving?
it's because when the people who now make up gamergate were demanding that they take on an official code of ethics that would explicitly forbid having close personal and/or financial relationships with the subjects they are writing about those sites responded with a coordinated series of articles calling their entire readership irrelevant (at best).
Because, dear Bobboau, that's a completely stupid and unrealistic demand. Noone in journalism (like, real world political journalism) is taking it seriously. These morons are demanding that people whose job it is to maintain and develop contacts in the games industry do so in strict business terms with no human interaction allowed, and that is just not going to happen.
Basically, if that's the stance you're taking, you should immediately stop reading any political journalism.
-
Listening or reading the very media that is under fire and criticism from gamergate is not necessarily the best way to get accurate unbiased information. That's part of the problem, actually. If all the media had been fair in its representation from the get go, this would have been defused right at the start of it. Instead, they thought they could get away with using their megaphones to insult and defame a big chunk of their own audience. And that's where it exploded, not this Quinn stuff. The irony is that most of this gamergate community is actually liberal, and they lost this audience. Absolutely.
QFT. I did not initially care about GG at all. I was thinking, whatever, the evidence is dubious at best, and even if it was true, who cares, some woman using sex to obtain an advantage is nothing new or particularly bad.. What changed my mind was the subsequent reaction, when both reddit and 4chan(!) banned GG talk and the series of "gamers are dead" articles published in sync by major gaming media - http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2gsslk/is_there_a_list_of_all_the_gamers_are_dead/ . Anyone remembering Sarkeesian, Elevatorgate or Adriagate controversies? The "witchhunt" in those cases was perhaps even more vigorous, but nothing like that has happened, no attempts at censoring the issue on major forum sites. This for me is a far better evidence of nefarious background practices and coordinated political agenda-pushing than any dubious "Five Guys" video. If journalists and forum admins want to be referred to as unbiased, they should at least pretend to be.
-
Because, dear Bobboau, that's a completely stupid and unrealistic demand. Noone in journalism (like, real world political journalism) is taking it seriously. These morons are demanding that people whose job it is to maintain and develop contacts in the games industry do so in strict business terms with no human interaction allowed, and that is just not going to happen.
Basically, if that's the stance you're taking, you should immediately stop reading any political journalism.
1)you are assuming I read any political journalism to begin with
2)if it's so unrealistic how did the escapist (and actually it's whole family of sites) pull it off in a week?
-
1)you are assuming I read any political journalism to begin with
Just saying that these supposed rules you want for games journalism are far outside of what traditional journalists work with.
2)if it's so unrealistic how did the escapist (and actually it's whole family of sites) pull it off in a week?
Did all the journalists working in the games part of Escapist publically renounce any and all personal friendships and relations they have in the games industry? No? Then they didn't pull it off, according to your definition of "it".
EDIT: Also, how ridiculous is this "no patreon" rule? Yeah, that'll show those damn indies and their marketing teams that good coverage can't be gotten that easy! No, you want good reviews, you gotta do what AAA does and fork over cash. Yeah. That's ethical journalism.
-
Why wasn't it discussed under the hashtag? Why is "journalistic integrity" only an issue when journalists aren't writing consumer reports? Why is it NOT an issue when you have a class of not-quite journalists that is coopted as an extension of a marketing campaign?
Because it wasn't an issue with gaming journalism. It was an issue with the publisher trying to do some unethical **** and they were caught doing it... not by the media gg is criticizing, but by totalbiscuit, who is an avowed gamergate sympathizer. It was discussed under another banner. I find these attempts to concern trolling and whatabboutery around what others want from a tag something that quite honestly is annoying.
What, I ask you, is the point of gamergate? What is its victory condition? What is it that they want to achieve, and how much relation does it bear to what the movement is actually achieving?
This is the question. I think GGs are a bit confused over this one. They speak about journalism integrity, and its a core aspect to it, it's like an overarching theme, but I think the bigger part of it is the perception that a particular aggressive ideology paired with favored mediocrity has taken over journalism. People will then say silly things like "I want game reviews to be OBJECTIVE!!" while saying stuff like "Games are about FUN!", well, fun is probably the most subjective stuff out there, so that ain't it. I think "Gamerz" want to go back to a moment in time where games were just for fun. That hardcore literal analysts didn't come to ruin their experience, tell them they are experiencing nasty sexist, racist, violent stuff (like what they learned to hear from their moms their whole life I guess), etc., etc. It doesn't help when half the feminist activists find games like Bayonetta sexist to abhorrent levels, and the other half find it uptlifting, "owning your own sex", positive, etc. Which is it?
I'm at odds with this "endgame". I find quite the opposite, that what lacks in current game journalism is not the disappearance of a particular ideological viewpoint around games, but heterogeneity in these viewpoints and ideologies.
But that's not what is driving gamergate at this point. What is driving it is precisely this awkward relationship with the journalistic establishment that is defaming them to smithereens. I find it amazing that the journalists are talking down to their audience like this, I had never seen anything like it (then again, all this **** about twitter and so on is so novel). All we hear is how Anita or Wu are being harrassed and not one single digital pixel about how ggs are being harrassed. All we hear is how gamergaters are bad. The narrative must hold: Gamergate are the Orcs from Mordor that must be crushed by the shining knights of humanity. The big paradox here is that by being so selective in their sources and stories they tell, the media is further establishing their own corruption in the minds of gamergaters. They have lost objectivity and fairness. It's a battle between news organizations and the very audience, who are in their own way trying to get alternative sources of information.
The big loss here is in journalism. I think in this respect that this #gate is a symptom of two wars going on. The first is the wider journalism crisis, whose industry is collapsing in front of our very own eyes. This must be creating a sort of weariness and a sense of anxiety on reporters, but it's definitly creating all sorts of bad incentives towards clickbait techniques and editorial lapses of ethical standards. The second is a wider culture war between hardcore feminists and the wider "patriarchal" society.
This is why it hasn't faded by now. I even suspect it is possible (albeit far fetched) people around the Verge and so on are fueling this **** on purpose. It could all be absolutely over by tomorrow if all these sites were to suddenly stop the name calling, be fair at their reporting (reporting abuses for all sides, show how women and minorities are actually well represented within gamergate, etc.) and dare ask bigger questions, dare be inclusive and humble, and so on. Tomorrow. But I'm afraid this is not going to happen, because there's a driving force behind this push, it's an ideological force that is whispering in these people's hears "these white cis male basement dweller gamers are mysoginist transphobic scum, we are revolutionizing games and paving the way to a better world, a better society, this is a war and by gods we're gonna win this!".
-
The funny thing is that everyone involved is riding the wagon for every last inch they can get out of it by the looks of things.
There seems to be an attempt in some quarters to make the word 'Gamer' have a negative, derogatory meaning of 'being homophobic, misogynistic and violent', ironically, much like other people tried to create a similar image of 'Feminist', as being a 'man-hating *****'. It'd be ironic if it wasn't tragic.
It also wasn't all that long ago that those same publications were getting furious about comments by politicians trying to push age-restriction laws in some US states that were based on precisely the same 'one-size fits all' definition of those who played the games.
To be honest, I don't give a damn about 'Gamergate' itself, it's pretty inconsequential when you consider the other possibilities for conflicts of interest in gaming sites and reviewers (I believe someone mentioned the new Alien game already), but the way it's been blown up out of all proportion, the way the trolls have been allowed to manipulate the situation, and the way the gaming press have reacted to it are all contributing to a cluster**** of epic proportions.
-
Dias, on a whim I looked at your twitter page and noticed you'd recently retweeted an image being spread by Gamergaters right now, I'd like to call attention to that image:
http://t.co/j5TTxn43zL
For those who don't know, Brianna Wu is an indie developer and the third woman driven from her home with death threats shortlt after she harshly criticised Gamergate. She's now being accused of uttering an autistic slur. Now take a look at twitter username of that alleged post.
@spacekatgal. Notice the s is lowercase. When her twittername is shown in all of her other posts, the s is capitalized. In all of her posts. Always always always. If you're wondering why twitter would allow a fake account with that change, look at the l at the end. It's an old trick when impersonating someone on twitter to replace an l with an uppercase i.
Please stop spreading fabricated evidence created to smear a gamergate critic who was driven from her home by death threats. Please be more careful and check this stuff before you spread it.
-
Sorry to say this, Vega, but @Spacekatgal links to Brianna Wu's twitter account. That isn't an alt account someone created, but an actual thing.
-
There have been lots of really well made twitter fakes recently, and I think Vega may well be on to something here. I also retweeted something that a Salon reporter said about Sam Harris that was blatantly anti-semitic. It was the blatantness of it that made me go waittaminutehere, and indeed it was a fake twitter handle and also a very good one. I instantly deleted it and urged @Gurdur to do the same when he screenshotted a lot of these same tweets.
I will be more careful in the future, yes.
-
Now, there is an issue where Brianna Wu's twitter account apparently got taken over for the time period in which the now-deleted tweet fell. So it could very well be trolling.
-
Sorry to say this, Vega, but @Spacekatgal links to Brianna Wu's twitter account. That isn't an alt account someone created, but an actual thing.
That is her name, and it's always displayed with an uppercase s when she posts. That shot would contain be the only time I've ever seen it with the s lowercase. Add that to the fact that that l could have likely been replaced with uppercase I and I'll bet my life that account is a fake. She may have also been hacked, but this is a straight up framejob.
I informed the original poster and he now claims the post was fabricated "to incite gg and anti-gg against each other." I'm sure he's telling the truth.
-
Isn't the "original poster" a woman? And where did you get this confession? Links?
-
Isn't the "original poster" a woman? And where did you get this confession? Links?
The guy you retweeted, not the creator.
-
Because why not escalate the war? I mean, if it provides clickbait
Just FYI: advertisers don't advertise *per click*. They advertise on a monthly average of your users. This is for two reasons: It prevents them from overspending due to temporary things, and most people who visit a website for one article don't tend to look at the advertisements all that much (they do need to sink in, after all). The only thing "Clickbait" does is put load on one's server infrastructure for no gains (unless there is retention, but "baited" people don't retain)
-
And this mudslinging isn't being done on 4chan or 8chan
Did you really just say that? Did you miss all the 8chan posts calling for Quinn's suicide, or the constant doxxing of her there, or even the post claiming that "Ghandhi became a martyr, but Malcolm X didn't, and we need to take her out before it would make her a martyr"? There was even a thread there about planning to camp out ON HER FRONT LAWN. The volume of it is incredible. Maybe some critics just aren't fans of this? Even Rob Florence has condemned gg in far harsher language than Alexander ever used. That doesn't make you pause?
No, what you're doing is tripping into a fallacy where journalists who have to append their name to what they say can be condemned, but whatever horrible things get said with or without gg tags get to hide behind the veil of anonymity. Whatever a GGer says, the movement doesn't have to own it, but the media is held collectively responsible for every word because they can't hide behind that veil. To pretend you don't have to deal with this fact is garunteed to produce an absurd conclusion.
-
Sorry to say this, Vega, but @Spacekatgal links to Brianna Wu's twitter account. That isn't an alt account someone created, but an actual thing.
That is her name, and it's always displayed with an uppercase s when she posts. That shot would contain be the only time I've ever seen it with the s lowercase. Add that to the fact that that l could have likely been replaced with uppercase I and I'll bet my life that account is a fake. She may have also been hacked, but this is a straight up framejob.
I informed the original poster and he now claims the post was fabricated "to incite gg and anti-gg against each other." I'm sure he's telling the truth.
Huh. You're actually right. My apologies for being gullible.
-
I'm really skeptical to that whole paragraph there Joshua. You make it sound as if "clickbait" is some sort of conspiracy theory that some nutcase just made up. It isn't. The whole internet is filled with it. Now, you can make the case that most of these news sites operate in that alternative fashion, and that's a better state of affairs no doubt about that, but what are really the algorithms in place here? I'd say that if the algorithm in place is a crude "average" of monthly users, then clickbait still stands supreme as a good technique.
But whatever, that is still a minor point. We are still facing a crisis here. Journalists are getting shredded by the economics of their industry (http://"http://priceonomics.com/post/44872460469/can-journalists-get-paid") which is the perfect ground for nasty incentives to come into play, be them clickbait or other unethical practices.
And this mudslinging isn't being done on 4chan or 8chan
Did you really just say that? Did you miss all the 8chan posts calling for Quinn's suicide, or the constant doxxing of her there, or even the post claiming that "Ghandhi became a martyr, but Malcolm X didn't, and we need to take her out before it would make her a martyr"? There was even a thread there about planning to camp out ON HER FRONT LAWN. The volume of it is incredible. Maybe some critics just aren't fans of this? Even Rob Florence has condemned gg in far harsher language than Alexander ever used. That doesn't make you pause?
I'm really sorry if you were unable to read what I said. What I said was that the mudslinging I was speaking of was not the work of sites like 4chan or 8chan, but were actually the product of professional journalists. I did not mention the other gruesome work being done by 4chan et al because... that's what happens in 4chan et al day in day out. There's one reason why I don't even visit those sites, they are a window to the most profound nightmares of our id and I want none of it.
No, what you're doing is tripping into a fallacy where journalists who have to append their name to what they say can be condemned, but whatever horrible things get said with or without gg tags get to hide behind the veil of anonymity. Whatever a GGer says, the movement doesn't have to own it, but the media is held collectively responsible for every word because they can't hide behind that veil. To pretend you don't have to deal with this fact is garunteed to produce an absurd conclusion.
I don't ascribe to an anonymous poster at a site like 4chan the same kind of standard that I do apply to an article piece at the Verge, for reasons that should be so gargantually obvious that it shouldn't be needed for anyone to refer to. Perhaps someone is really pissed off and just wants to vent, unaware of the nasty effects of such practices, perhaps someone needs an anger management, perhaps someone is indeed a real psycho and wants these people murdered. These people exist, whether anyone likes it or not. To refer to the nasty of the nasty and claim that all sensible people are condoning these people because they share the same hashtag is adding several logical fallacies on top of each other, quite frankly. And a disgusting typical political practice of silencing manipulation.
Do you support gamergate? Why are you such a mysoginist piece of crap? It's all I've been reading you say, and I think it's a real dumb perspective. Harrassers are not gamergaters, they are harrassers and should be called on it. Doxxers or abusers are doxxers or abusers and should be called on it. Practice this compartimentalization on your confrontations and you'll be in a much better position. You'll even have gamergaters actually paying attention to what you might say!
-
Listening or reading the very media that is under fire and criticism from gamergate is not necessarily the best way to get accurate unbiased information. That's part of the problem, actually. If all the media had been fair in its representation from the get go, this would have been defused right at the start of it. Instead, they thought they could get away with using their megaphones to insult and defame a big chunk of their own audience.
Wait sorry.
Where does, say, Rock Paper Shotgun, insult their audience?
All we hear is how Anita or Wu are being harrassed and not one single digital pixel about how ggs are being harrassed. All we hear is how gamergaters are bad. The narrative must hold: Gamergate are the Orcs from Mordor that must be crushed by the shining knights of humanity. The big paradox here is that by being so selective in their sources and stories they tell, the media is further establishing their own corruption in the minds of gamergaters. They have lost objectivity and fairness. It's a battle between news organizations and the very audience, who are in their own way trying to get alternative sources of information.
Hey, I get slack from GGers as well, as it happens. They talk about "How Zoe Quinn used her connections to publicize her game and shut down 2 game jams!" and how Anita Sarkeesian lied and is not a gamer and how Brianna Wu calls people ****ing aspie's. You know - All of it bull****. Like it or not, this (https://twitter.com/PixieJenni/status/522758203508277248) is (https://twitter.com/EffNOVideoGames/status/522433874320949248) how (https://twitter.com/PixieJenni/status/522486272305410049) gamergate (https://twitter.com/srhbutts/status/522585909804277762) represents (https://twitter.com/Kay_turner/status/522527669288587264) itself (https://twitter.com/Sargon_of_Akkad/status/522433031148421120).
You can moan and whine about how the mainstream media is misrepresenting gamergate. They're not. Gamergate is misrepresenting itself. And untill the reasonable gamergaters can find a solution on this problem, if they indeed actually exist (and aren't here because of some ex boyfriends revenge campaign and all that shizzle), this will continue.
-
There seems to be an attempt in some quarters to make the word 'Gamer' have a negative, derogatory meaning of 'being homophobic, misogynistic and violent'
Sigh. It all comes back to Alexander's article doesn't it? Notice in the title of her article, the word 'gamers' are in quotation marks. There is a reason for this. 'Gamers' in that article, which you will see if you read it all the way through, refers specifically to a generation of males who grew up considering gaming their personal domain in an era of virtually zero diversity completely dominated by AAA. The specific group of males that now feel threatened by the intrusion of indie games they don't understand, writers and fans who call out sexism everywhere in the industry. Going foreward being a gamer won't refer to an isolated obsession with games alone, any more than people obsess over their identity of being movie lovers. Gaming is leaving its ghetto, and they cannot handle this. Why did Alexander call these people 'gamers'? BECAUSE GG IS DECLARED TO BE A GAMER MOVEMENT. She took the specific meaning of the word 'gamer' as used by them (whether they admit it or not), and declared it dead. So no, I don't think she was smearing gamers, by which I mean all of us who have displayed great interest in games and have since childhood. She would be smearing herself if that was the case.
I would much rather discuss her article with you Flipside, than talk about the horrible stuff gg is doing.
-
Mr Vega is correct. The article talks at length about
1) The gamer stereotype
2) How this stereotype does not apply to gamers anymore
3) How the people to who this stereotype actually DOES apply to are now... proving the stereotype and how silly it is.
edit: stuff like this also doesn't help GG just FYI (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=134397896&postcount=12285)
-
If 'Alexanders Article' is the 'Gamers are Dead' one, then, no I wasn't referring specifically to that one, I'm talking about a pervading attitude not a single article, I don't care about the contents of just one article, that doesn't define a trend, however, the manner that a LOT of the press are reporting this is being based on the idea that the problem is people defined as 'Gamers', when they should be defined as 'Assholes', it's the Asshole-ness that makes them behave as they do, not the Gamer-ness.
As I said before, it's like those who define Feminist women as 'Man-haters', whilst it's true that there are feminists out there who also hate men, that is not a defining characteristic of a Feminist, people just try to make it so.
-
If you can't see the smearing of an entire demographic and culture within that article, then I'm afraid we are talking past each other here. Here's her final words:
“Gamer” isn’t just a dated demographic label that most people increasingly prefer not to use. Gamers are over. That’s why they’re so mad.
These obtuse ****slingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers -- they are not my audience. They don’t have to be yours. There is no ‘side’ to be on, there is no ‘debate’ to be had.
Because why not insult your audience like this? What can go wrong with these words? The whole tone is amazing. And no, this has been shown not to have been as a reaction to gamergate, that was just the contingency related to the timing of the article. The agenda behind this idea that the "gamer" notion should be defeated has been part of the feminist agenda for quite some time, going back at least 3 years, and it was even written on academic papers on the subject.
It also makes no sense. Why kill a culture? Why even pretend it is a "dead" culture, when it's obviously at its peak, when modding and discussing and so on were never so easy and so widely done? Why bring about ideas of how stuff like 2048 or Candy Crush is going to smother all the "gamer" culture because oh so many more people play these smaller games? It's ridiculous. The worst that can happen to this culture is that it becomes a less "consumery stuff" and more like a "consume and create" culture as time goes on.
No. The idea was to frame her opposition like the neck bearded cis male mysoginists that they are, and if they self-identify as gamers, so be it, let's drown that word alongside with them. This is a massive cultural attack. Let's destroy and defame an entire identity because it does not conform with our best wishes. Of course there's a backlash against this. Do you think everyone would just go "ah yeah ok if they tell me I'm a mysoginist if I don't conform with their new semantics and such, then yeah I guess I should follow their lead, I mean yeah"? Are you mad? Of course people don't like to be talked down to in this tone of voice.
No, the irony is that there have never been so many gamers in the world, and given the crisis I also talked about, it's the journalists who are dying. They are dead. They are collapsing. Escaping very slowly into irrelevance. The whole rant was projection of the highest order.
-
If 'Alexanders Article' is the 'Gamers are Dead' one, then, no I wasn't referring specifically to that one, I'm talking about a pervading attitude not a single article, I don't care about the contents of just one article, that doesn't define a trend, however, the manner that a LOT of the press are reporting this is being based on the idea that the problem is people defined as 'Gamers', when they should be defined as 'Assholes', it's the Asshole-ness that makes them behave as they do, not the Gamer-ness.
As I said before, it's like those who define Feminist women as 'Man-haters', whilst it's true that there are feminists out there who also hate men, that is not a defining characteristic of a Feminist, people just try to make it so.
And many anti-GG people are lamenting this effect of GG. A few have become so bitter with what's happened they're ok with the language. I can't blame them even if I disagree.
-
If you can't see the smearing of an entire demographic and culture within that article, then I'm afraid we are talking past each other here. Here's her final words:
“Gamer” isn’t just a dated demographic label that most people increasingly prefer not to use. Gamers are over. That’s why they’re so mad.
These obtuse ****slingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers -- they are not my audience. They don’t have to be yours. There is no ‘side’ to be on, there is no ‘debate’ to be had.
Because why not insult your audience like this? What can go wrong with these words? The whole tone is amazing. And no, this has been shown not to have been as a reaction to gamergate, that was just the contingency related to the timing of the article. The agenda behind this idea that the "gamer" notion should be defeated has been part of the feminist agenda for quite some time, going back at least 3 years, and it was even written on academic papers on the subject.
It also makes no sense. Why kill a culture? Why even pretend it is a "dead" culture, when it's obviously at its peak, when modding and discussing and so on were never so easy and so widely done? Why bring about ideas of how stuff like 2048 or Candy Crush is going to smother all the "gamer" culture because oh so many more people play these smaller games? It's ridiculous. The worst that can happen to this culture is that it becomes a less "consumery stuff" and more like a "consume and create" culture as time goes on.
No. The idea was to frame her opposition like the neck bearded cis male mysoginists that they are, and if they self-identify as gamers, so be it, let's drown that word alongside with them. This is a massive cultural attack. Let's destroy and defame an entire identity because it does not conform with our best wishes. Of course there's a backlash against this. Do you think everyone would just go "ah yeah ok if they tell me I'm a mysoginist if I don't conform with their new semantics and such, then yeah I guess I should follow their lead, I mean yeah"? Are you mad? Of course people don't like to be talked down to in this tone of voice.
No, the irony is that there have never been so many gamers in the world, and given the crisis I also talked about, it's the journalists who are dying. They are dead. They are collapsing. Escaping very slowly into irrelevance. The whole rant was projection of the highest order.
Feminist agenda. So she's part of a conspiracy?
Let's avoid the use of the word 'agenda' if you want to be taken seriously.
-
Feminist agenda. So she's part of a conspiracy?
Let's avoid the use of the word 'agenda' if you want to be taken seriously.
The gamers are dead idea came from a tumblr post from Dan Golding (http://dangolding.tumblr.com/post/95985875943/the-end-of-gamers), who in turn links to an Adrienne Shaw's article from 2011 (http://nms.sagepub.com/content/14/1/28.abstract). Every article then linked to this post, either directly or indirectly.
The agenda was academically defined and adopted by the media. We know there was a talking group between journalists, and these articles came in the same day as some kind of blitzkrieg. I don't care how you name it in a "politically correct manner", I'm not even being judgemental when I say the word "agenda". Agendas can be just fine. I have agendas, you have agendas, groups of people have their own agenda. This is not "conspiracy theory" ground, so concern trolling over it is uncalled for.
It was on this day and the days that followed that gamergate exploded. So yes, gamergate is in effect a reaction to the media. Failure to understand this basic point will result in the failure to understand the phenomenon, and failure to tame it, contain it, defuse it. Deny reality at the cost of your agendas.
-
Feminist agenda. So she's part of a conspiracy?
Let's avoid the use of the word 'agenda' if you want to be taken seriously.
The gamers are dead idea came from a tumblr post from Dan Golding (http://dangolding.tumblr.com/post/95985875943/the-end-of-gamers), who in turn links to an Adrienne Shaw's article from 2011 (http://nms.sagepub.com/content/14/1/28.abstract). Every article then linked to this post, either directly or indirectly.
The agenda was academically defined and adopted by the media. We know there was a talking group between journalists, and these articles came in the same day as some kind of blitzkrieg. I don't care how you name it in a "politically correct manner", I'm not even being judgemental when I say the word "agenda". Agendas can be just fine. I have agendas, you have agendas, groups of people have their own agenda. This is not "conspiracy theory" ground, so concern trolling over it is uncalled for.
It was on this day and the days that followed that gamergate exploded. So yes, gamergate is in effect a reaction to the media. Failure to understand this basic point will result in the failure to understand the phenomenon, and failure to tame it, contain it, defuse it. Deny reality at the cost of your agendas.
I'm going to have to meet with my feminist co-conspirators about sapping and impurifying your precious bodily fluids before you become a threat to us.
-
You have no idea of what I just talked about up there, do you? Your wording also makes it clear you do not master the english language very well. You have a particular idea of what one means with an "agenda" that is quite different than the one I'm using here.
If you are a feminist, then you have an agenda. This is not rocket science. Keep up.
-
You have no idea of what I just talked about up there, do you? Your wording also makes it clear you do not master the english language very well. You have a particular idea of what one means with an "agenda" that is quite different than the one I'm using here.
If you are a feminist, then you have an agenda. This is not rocket science. Keep up.
You're going to be horrified when we team up with the Gay Agenda and the Godless Agenda.
The article was a response to GG. That's all it was.
-
Ok, now you're just being silly. You're using the word as if it's something nefarious, in order to make me look a conspiracy theorist or whatever.
It's not. It's a lot simpler. Academia has influence on all movements, and feminism is no exception since there is a lot of material being produced in academia about gender studies. These papers have found their influential path to certain key people in blogging and journalism, who in turn advanced the idea about gamers in a way they saw fit, the way they think the world is like and how it should be.
There is nothing nefarious or "woo" about this. But it exists, it's part of our world. It's how these conversations sometimes develop. The gamer concept has been taken as problematic by the feminist movement for quite a while now, and last months we have seen the frontline soldiers of journalism attacking it, directly linking to these academic sources that painted the concept as problematic.
Again, this is not rocket science, nor like the truther movement. It's right there, black and white. It's what it is, not less, not more, just so. It could even be the right agenda, the ending of this concept. The way it was handled though, was nasty. And still is.
If you're going to derail or deflect once more, I'll ignore you henceforth. I have no more time today to deal with this.
-
You're still accusing a critic whose most passionate work has been several essays on why MGS3 is her favorite game ever of being involved in a movement to destroy the 'gamer'.
-
Reverse Ad hominem much? Look I was serious regarding time, it wasn't snark. I have to work.
-
It's not. It's a lot simpler. Academia has influence on all movements, and feminism is no exception since there is a lot of material being produced in academia about gender studies. These papers have found their influential path to certain key people in blogging and journalism, who in turn advanced the idea about gamers in a way they saw fit, the way they think the world is like and how it should be.
Oh god is this about the digra conspiracy?
-
It's not. It's a lot simpler. Academia has influence on all movements, and feminism is no exception since there is a lot of material being produced in academia about gender studies. These papers have found their influential path to certain key people in blogging and journalism, who in turn advanced the idea about gamers in a way they saw fit, the way they think the world is like and how it should be.
Oh god is this about the digra conspiracy?
(http://www.gonemovies.com/WWW/Drama/Drama/StrangeloveRipper1.jpg)
-
Ok, now you're just being silly. You're using the word as if it's something nefarious, in order to make me look a conspiracy theorist or whatever.
It's not. It's a lot simpler. Academia has influence on all movements, and feminism is no exception since there is a lot of material being produced in academia about gender studies. These papers have found their influential path to certain key people in blogging and journalism, who in turn advanced the idea about gamers in a way they saw fit, the way they think the world is like and how it should be.
Again, this is not rocket science, nor like the truther movement. It's right there, black and white. It's what it is, not less, not more, just so. It could even be the right agenda, the ending of this concept. The way it was handled though, was nasty. And still is.
Right then.
Prove it.
-
And just in case someone still needed evan moar convincing... (https://twitter.com/EffNOVideoGames)
-
And just in case someone still needed evan moar convincing... (https://twitter.com/EffNOVideoGames)
Gjoni admitted he posted his rant for entertainment value. Still think he was telling the truth?
-
And just in case someone still needed evan moar convincing... (https://twitter.com/EffNOVideoGames)
Gjoni admitted he posted his rant for entertainment value. Still think he was telling the truth?
****ing hell. I can't believe you derive that conclusion from what he said there. Read what he's talking about. He's saying that the whole document that he was writing was becoming boring TL DR. He says that he needed a ton of evidence and he put it in, but the problem was that it was becoming a legal kind of document that no one would ever read, which would enable others to dismiss his rant (because, again no one would read it). So he added "entertainment value". This is not a lie, he says he changed the tone so it could become readable for the long rant that it is.
I mean, forget all about this, that comes from a link your twitter friend posted (http://www.donotlink.com/framed?563624):
In the weeks leading up to the publication of “thezoepost,” Gjoni said he consulted with more than a dozen friends and colleagues, mostly men and women in the Boston tech scene, about the content of the article and the potential fallout. One of them, Rachel Martin, is a 25-year-old freelance designer who described herself as a radical feminist. Martin described Gjoni as “gentle and conscientious” and said that she condoned the publication of “thezoepost” because of her own past as a victim of emotional abuse, which she felt Quinn had committed against her friend.
My emphasis. Yeah it really looks like the general sort of thing a liar would do. Asking friends and even his mother (!) for advice to whether if he should publish his story or not.
The overwhelming abuse that ensued (and most of it might have been systemic, not malicious, in the sense of how the internet with its twitter and facebooks and so on are structured in a way that amplified all of this to magnitudes that no one really expected) should not be attributed to that lone sad man. The "Quinnspiracy" might have prompted the people who then surged in #gamergate to high gear, but these are not the same things.
Right then.
Prove it.
I had, in a previous post. Pay attention.
The trail is not that hard to follow, it's quite simple and unspectacular. In this regard I disagree with many gamergaters who think this is a "big feminist conspiracy!" No it's not a "conspiracy". That word implies something nasty was being coordinated in secrecy. It was nothing like that. It was just ideology from academia with an agenda being lifted to prominence by using (mostly) digra sources and conferences to the blogosphere, youtube and news sites. There was nothing nefarious going on. It was just normal people who just tried to change the world to a better place using the knowledge they had from their social degrees and the contacts they had to make them count. They wrote papers discussing issues within gaming and the social structures around it, other people gathered and discussed how they could have an influence on how things are, other people read said sources and conversations and posted their thoughts on the internet, which in turn gave way to be posted by the gaming press as a way to go forward in all this shenanigan.
It doesn't mean however that it isn't an ideological agenda. It is. And that's not even the ****ing problem.
The problem, as I see it, is its total dominance on the gaming media, there are basically no other agendas in play, and whenever people disagree with this one, they either shut up about it (because of any ****storm they encounter) or they get labeled as douchebags. This dictatorial tone has been on stage for months now. It is partly the character of this new feminist wave, but it is also the typical elitistic condescending tone that has been the mark of the gaming media for quite a while now. Remember how they ghastly defamed the ReTake Mass Effect movement as well, who had nothing like today's twitter to defend itself from the shameless drivel that was constantly being thrown at them? Remember how pathetic that mudslinging was, given how that game had hilarious 10/10 reviews all over the place?
-
Remember how they ghastly defamed the ReTake Mass Effect movement as well, who had nothing like today's twitter to defend itself from the shameless drivel that was constantly being thrown at them? Remember how pathetic that mudslinging was, given how that game had hilarious 10/10 reviews all over the place?
No. I have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.
I had, in a previous post. Pay attention.\
You remind me of Nakura when you talk like that 0_o - I AM paying attention.
The trail is not that hard to follow, it's quite simple and unspectacular.
Then prove it! Seriously. All you have posted so far are allegations.
The "Quinnspiracy" might have prompted the people who then surged in #gamergate to high gear, but these are not the same things.
Minor nitpick: The Quinnspiracy predates #gamergate, there's no "surging in". #gamergate at the start simply was a new label for Quinnspiracy.
-
Did he also consult with his mother before advising some slut shaming videos being made by 4channers?
-
I have posted the links, I'm not going to repeat myself over and over until you are satisfied I'm sorry. Read the blog post by Dan Golding. It links to an academic paper that was written by someone on digra on these issues. There are summaries of these conversations in the internet that clinch this connection but those are tl dr shenanigans.
Saying I'm like someone else that you dislike isn't the best approach Joshua, come on.
Did he also consult with his mother before advising some slut shaming videos being made by 4channers?
Why are you asking me this? Why are you pinning me down on this person's poor choices in his life? I don't relate to his post traumatic response at all. But to misinterpret it as a pure invention is not the most correct induction here, I'd argue. That's it.
-
I have posted the links, I'm not going to repeat myself over and over until you are satisfied I'm sorry. Read the blog post by Dan Golding. It links to an academic paper that was written by someone on digra on these issues. There are summaries of these conversations in the internet that clinch this connection but those are tl dr shenanigans.
Ehrm, yeah. The problem is that you are extrapolating this to the entire branch as if it was some co-ordinated effort.
Saying I'm like someone else that you dislike isn't the best approach Joshua, come on.
Hey, my point is that you act like this stuff is and should be taken for granted. You seem to talk down to people who are skeptical about this ****.
I am very skeptical about this **** and feel rather talked down to. Hence.
-
Remember how they ghastly defamed the ReTake Mass Effect movement as well, who had nothing like today's twitter to defend itself from the shameless drivel that was constantly being thrown at them? Remember how pathetic that mudslinging was, given how that game had hilarious 10/10 reviews all over the place?
No. I have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.
I had, in a previous post. Pay attention.\
You remind me of Nakura when you talk like that 0_o - I AM paying attention.
The trail is not that hard to follow, it's quite simple and unspectacular.
Then prove it! Seriously. All you have posted so far are allegations.
The "Quinnspiracy" might have prompted the people who then surged in #gamergate to high gear, but these are not the same things.
Minor nitpick: The Quinnspiracy predates #gamergate, there's no "surging in". #gamergate at the start simply was a new label for Quinnspiracy.
Gamergate began with a tweet by Adam Baldwin (that Adam Baldwin) which contained a link to the Burgers and Fries video. The one accusing her of ****ing 5 journalists for good reviews. Reviews which don't exist.
So there's one statement of yours that is indisputably false.
-
Now here's an incredible article.
http://www.theawl.com/2014/10/the-sad-parents-of-gamergate
-
And 4chan took it up, obviously (https://storify.com/EffNOVideoGames/stopgamergate-it-has-always-been-a-spin). As much as you want to deny involvement with 4chan, Luis, this is *their* movement.
-
I have posted the links, I'm not going to repeat myself over and over until you are satisfied I'm sorry. Read the blog post by Dan Golding. It links to an academic paper that was written by someone on digra on these issues. There are summaries of these conversations in the internet that clinch this connection but those are tl dr shenanigans.
Ehrm, yeah. The problem is that you are extrapolating this to the entire branch as if it was some co-ordinated effort.
What do you mean "entire branch"? Do you deny that these game media sources all posted the same story about how gamers are over in the exact same day? If you look at them, they either point to each other (horizontal reporting, lazy meh) or they point to Dan Golding's own blog post. We know that many of these reporters from different sites have (or had?) a means of communicating between themselves through a mailing list and they have been using it to coordinate things.
Again, that is not a bad thing. In this discussion (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmosgPNXmNc) between totalbiscuit, Greg Tito and Janelle Bonanno, Greg makes a compelling case for its good use. But, again, this is a proof that this coordination exists. Again, it's also not something nefarious (the usual conclusions that these grassroots movements do is to conclude that everything they find is nefarious... sigh), but it did exist.
And 4chan took it up, obviously (https://storify.com/EffNOVideoGames/stopgamergate-it-has-always-been-a-spin). As much as you want to deny involvement with 4chan, Luis, this is *their* movement.
It was everywhere, not 4chan. Most sites just blocked this discussion entirely, 4chan included (!), and deleted tens of thousands of comments entirely.
-
And 4chan took it up, obviously (https://storify.com/EffNOVideoGames/stopgamergate-it-has-always-been-a-spin). As much as you want to deny involvement with 4chan, Luis, this is *their* movement.
And 4chan kicked them out. Their response? They blamed the site admin's (moot's) GIRLFRIEND.
-
What do you mean "entire branch"? Do you deny that these game media sources all posted the same story about how gamers are over in the exact same day? If you look at them, they either point to each other (horizontal reporting, lazy meh) or they point to Dan Golding's own blog post. We know that many of these reporters from different sites have (or had?) a means of communicating between themselves through a mailing list and they have been using it to coordinate things.
Prove *that*.
I don't deny that people posted articles in a short timeframe. I do deny that it actually means anything or that it chimes in to your statement that "this agenda is the only agenda". Rock Paper Shotgun, for example, did not post such articles, and I am sure there are plenty of other sites that did not do that either. Gamesutra itself posted an article that disagreed with Leigh Alexander's article hours later, too.
There's plenty of evidence on this "mailing list" (it's actually a google plus group but whateveR) but all the pictures I have seen on it has... journalists disagreeing with each other! It does not stand up to occam's razor. Heck, for all I know, the journalists that wrote the articles weren't even on the 'mailing list'.
-
Yes, they were disagreeing with each other. That's what happens when you are trying to coordinate stuff. It doesn't even mean that everyone is on board, etc., just that they are at least aware of what others are about to do and so on. I take that your silence about the perfect synchronization on that gamers are dead articles means you agree with me?
I don't deny that people posted articles in a short timeframe. I do deny that it actually means anything or that it chimes in to your statement that "this agenda is the only agenda". Rock Paper Shotgun, for example, did not post such articles, and I am sure there are plenty of other sites that did not do that either. Gamesutra itself posted an article that disagreed with Leigh Alexander's article hours later, too.
They were either ten or fourteen. I can't remember which number was the correct one. Yes, RPS failed to be in that group. So what.
-
I take that your silence about the perfect synchronization on that gamers are dead articles means you agree with me?
No I don't! As it happens it only takes a short time to actually write an article, there is simply no compelling evidence that these articles weren't simply posted in response to eachother. Again: Occam's razor.
Yes, RPS failed to be in that group. So what.
Again, you did make an earlier statement that "This is the only agenda in the media". Lots of outlets don't follow that only agenda. Some outlets posted articles that openly disagreed. Some of these outlets actually posted disagreeing articles whilst they themselves hosted agreeing articles.
That's what happens when you are trying to coordinate stuff.
I would note that you haven't actually posted any evidence of them actually coordinating. Or the actual journos being involved in the group.
-
Please note that I have a tendency to post too early and over-edit. I apologize for the inconvenience.
-
I am not counting the negation of an ideological agenda as an ideological agenda by itself.
Moreover, the articles I've seen countering that idea were mostly by outside news sites to gaming, like Forbes or Slate. What gamasutra article were you referring to? The only thing I encounter is a blog post from a member of the community, it's not the same thing, but I might have missed it.
Please note that I have a tendency to post too early and over-edit. I apologize for the inconvenience.
Don't worry, I feel your pain all too well!
Look, I have no further evidence. I think the sync counts by itself, the existence of the group adds to it. I am not bothered if you prefer to say it's not sufficient evidence. I think it's a good inference but it's not probably going to stand in a courtroom.
e: also, that Slate piece is still oh so relevant now: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/09/gamergate_explodes_gaming_journalists_declare_the_gamers_are_over_but_they.html
I guess it takes one site to be somewhat far off to see the forest and not be confused by the leaves pattern.
-
I am not counting the negation of an ideological agenda as an ideological agenda by itself.
I am, especially if you talk about a total dominance on the gaming media.
The only thing I encounter is a blog post from a member of the community, it's not the same thing, but I might have missed it.
Is a blog post all that different from an opinion piece? Regardless, RPS (which is the only website I usually read unless they link to other sites) did state they didn't agree with it in their article on the whole debalce.
Look, I have no further evidence. I think the sync counts by itself, the existence of the group adds to it. I am not bothered if you prefer to say it's not sufficient evidence. I think it's a good inference but it's not probably going to stand in a courtroom.
And I think that assuming that there's even a sync is wholly stupid and speaks against Gamergate. I think it's terrible inference, and it is definitely not going to stand in a courtroom. Or in a respected newspaper.
-
https://i.imgur.com/6ssdX8x.jpg
The kind of people that oppose GamerGate.
well not all of them of course, but this along with inflammatory idiotic "gamers are over" articles is indicative of a problem in gaming journalism community, which IMHO is just as valid as mysoginy issues are. Maybe even more, because I am going to judge gaming journalists a lot more harshly than I judge some anonymous trolls from 4chan.
-
"Not all of them", come on that's idiotic. That is one man that is a moron. If anything, it proves what we already know: many people on the internet are ****ing assholes. I still think the Slate guy is spot on. When someone buys twitch.tv for one billion dollars, we know that proclaiming gamers to be "dead" is asinine, silly to the extreme. These journos ragequit, pure and simple. And what we have now is the ensuing mud.
-
"Not all of them", come on that's idiotic. That is one man that is a moron. If anything, it proves what we already know: many people on the internet are ****ing assholes. I still think the Slate guy is spot on. When someone buys twitch.tv for one billion dollars, we know that proclaiming gamers to be "dead" is asinine, silly to the extreme. These journos ragequit, pure and simple. And what we have now is the ensuing mud.
Alexander made it very clear what she meant by 'gamers', no matter how many times you insist otherwise. I'm still waiting for evidence she's tied to a feminist academic agenda that clandestinely spread the idea of the dead 'gamer', rather than it being an idea that arose and spread spontaneously, because it was true.
Also, you like a lot of Gamergaters think that death threats are just trolling and shouldn't be taken very seriously, but y'all fly in to a rage at the possibility that you might have been insulted. Might wanna look in the mirror before accusing others of 'ragequitting'.
Also, Gamasutra and Kotaku traffic hasn't dropped off since this started. Kotaku has blown up in particular, and Gamasutra is pulling in the usual numbers for this time if the year. Gamasutra is primarily a dev site anyway, that's what made the Intel lobbying so ridiculous. So there's another false proclamation.
which IMHO is just as valid as mysoginy issues are.
I'd like a list of gamers who've been driven out of their homes by death threats sent by the media. When you give me that, then you can claim it's as big a problem.
-
We're also just going to pretend that gamergate isn't scaring female developers away from the field, which it is.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0F_jKgCUAMOR8F.png)
Someone this despicable is despicable enough to make it all up.
-
Alexander made it very clear what she meant by 'gamers', no matter how many times you insist otherwise. I'm still waiting for evidence she's tied to a feminist academic agenda that clandestinely spread the idea of the dead 'gamer', rather than it being an idea that arose and spread spontaneously, because it was true.
I can only lead you to the water man.
Also, you like a lot of Gamergaters think that death threats are just trolling and shouldn't be taken very seriously, but y'all fly in to a rage at the possibility that you might have been insulted. Might wanna look in the mirror before accusing others of 'ragequitting'.
False equivalency.
Also, Gamasutra and Kotaku traffic hasn't dropped off since this started. Kotaku has blown up in particular, and Gamasutra is pulling in the usual numbers for this time if the year. Gamasutra is primarily a dev site anyway, that's what made the Intel lobbying so ridiculous. So there's another false proclamation.
Yes, indeed you are right. The collapse in their views matches gamergate, but that is probably linked to the summer vacations.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0F_jKgCUAMOR8F.png)
Someone this despicable is despicable enough to make it all up.
The words you are trying desperately to look for are "frustrated and torn apart like ****ing hell, venting mode ON", but keep trying you'll get there. Or perhaps you'll never will until you get cheated by someone you love.
-
Devs will keep making what they want. The consumers will apply selective pressure to ensure nurture of what is desired.
No one must be permitted to metastasize their views into cancers that withhold works of animae because they loathe their hypostasis.
-
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/kotaku.com
Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant when I said "blown up".
The words you are trying desperately to look for are "frustrated and torn apart like ****ing hell, venting mode ON", but keep trying you'll get there. Or perhaps you'll never will until you get cheated by someone you love.
"Men, women, and trans"
I'm sorry you were hurt so badly by a woman that you'd empathize with such a despicable monstrous person as that man, but that doesn't mean Zoe deserves the kind of 'justice' you seem to think she does. I hope you'll be happily married like I am one day and be able to let go of the anger that lets you see things in that way.
But nothing, NOTHING, justifies his actions, and how someone writes about our ****ing entertainment does not justify the hatred, threats, and harassment that have flooded gaming since Gamergate started.
-
https://twitter.com/eron_gj/status/522251455148093440
It's been months.
-
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/kotaku.com
Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant when I said "blown up".
No.
"Men, women, and trans"
Sex positivity isn't an insult. It was also a direct answer to a direct question. Try again.
I'm sorry you were hurt so badly by a woman that you'd empathize with such a despicable monstrous person as that man, but that doesn't mean Zoe deserves the kind of 'justice' you seem to think she does. I hope you'll be happily married like I am one day and be able to let go of the anger that lets you see things in that way.
I was never hurt so badly. I am married and have three kids. I do know people who got hurt in this way, and it's not a pretty sight. People vent badly. It's always a ghastly scene to watch friends finally catching up to a notion wherein they have been cheated and manipulated. They feel like ****, like zeros. They will vent. Badly.
But nothing, NOTHING, justifies his actions, and how someone writes about our ****ing entertainment does not justify the hatred, threats, and harassment that have flooded gaming since Gamergate started.
He posted his misadventures with a person that cheated him. I have seen screenshots of his alledged "nefarious behavior" that were as nefarious as the ones you posted here, that is, not at all. Perhaps he has done other things in 4chan, 8chan or whatever that might be nefarious, I am still waiting for an argument from that angle. Perhaps he's a terrible person. I mean, at the very least we can confirm he has a terrible taste regarding women.
-
I mean, at the very least we can confirm he has a terrible taste regarding women.
Why don't you go inform Zoe of that. I'm sure she hasn't had enough people say that to her lately.
If you haven't been hurt personally then I think I would have preferred that be the case, because I have trouble accepting the words you're using for her otherwise.
-
I never said that to her personally, why would I? And thanks for wishing me ill because I have a negative opinion about a third party that I never interacted with. Makes me think very highly of you.
-
I never said that to her personally, why would I? And thanks for wishing me ill because I have a negative opinion about a third party that I never interacted with. Makes me think very highly of you.
I would rather this hatred be coming from pain. I can accept that. I'm having trouble accepting the alternative.
-
You see hatred where none exists. I'm kinda baffled by your inability to read intentions or emotions from written speech. You've made several mistakes like these already in this page alone. Perhaps before reading emotions where they don't exist, ask if they are there first or if they are some kind of mental delusions on your part.
-
I'm sure all the brilliant women in gaming coding and crafting and managing complex code, art and innovations must be thrilled that this psychopath is their front figure now.
I don't get where these feelings are coming from.
-
You do not seem to understand the difference between having a detailed opinion on a particular subject or person and having an emotional episode. I will not belabor this anymore, if you want to drag that irrelevant angle further on, do it on PMs.
-
On the subject of 8chan and what is allowed on it:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0HVEUsCIAArmdW.png)
-
You do not seem to understand the difference between having a detailed opinion on a particular subject or person and having an emotional episode.
Emotions are, in fact, possible to have outside of "emotional episodes".
-
Really.
-
You do not seem to understand the difference between having a detailed opinion on a particular subject or person and having an emotional episode.
Emotions are, in fact, possible to have outside of "emotional episodes".
I do believe this was his point.
And I also believe that this post is pretty indicative of a huge problem with the thread in general: People chiming in without taking the time to fully read and comprehend what's being said. I tried to count the number of times in the last four pages (also known as the posts since this time yesterday) where this has happened and lost count after about twenty.
So, that said, everybody in this thread needs to take a step back, evaluate what's going on, and then see what the disagreement is to discuss.
(If you argue that you don't need to step back you've totally missed the point)
-
I never said that to her personally, why would I? And thanks for wishing me ill because I have a negative opinion about a third party that I never interacted with. Makes me think very highly of you.
Well, yeah, I do kinda feel bad about you having a negative opinion about a third party, considering that you constructed this opinion entirely thanks to an ex-boyfriend's revenge campaign. You've been calling miss Quinn a terrible woman and a psychopath and all that ****, and I abhorrently disagree. If it wasn't for Depression Quest I'd probably be with slit wrists in a ditch somewhere, so if you are just going around and keep claiming that she is this horrible person, better back that **** up. To me, it seems you are doing the classic victim blaming and finding excuses for someones malicious behaviour here.
-
I never said that to her personally, why would I? And thanks for wishing me ill because I have a negative opinion about a third party that I never interacted with. Makes me think very highly of you.
Well, yeah, I do kinda feel bad about you having a negative opinion about a third party, considering that you constructed this opinion entirely thanks to an ex-boyfriend's revenge campaign. You've been calling miss Quinn a terrible woman and a psychopath and all that ****, and I abhorrently disagree. If it wasn't for Depression Quest I'd probably be with slit wrists in a ditch somewhere, so if you are just going around and keep claiming that she is this horrible person, better back that **** up. To me, it seems you are doing the classic victim blaming and finding excuses for someones malicious behaviour here.
Heh. It was hard for me to play Depression Quest because all of the defense mechanisms for dealing with depression I'd burned into myself during my teenage years came back as I was playing the game. Whenever the guy would start to dwell on how he was depressed I had to fight off an almost compelling voice in my head yelling "GET UP AND LEAVE THE APARTMENT AND DON'T THINK ABOUT HOW YOU'RE FEELING FOR A FEW HOURS!"
-
(http://chainsawsuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/20141015-theperfectcrime.png)
-
which IMHO is just as valid as mysoginy issues are.
I'd like a list of gamers who've been driven out of their homes by death threats sent by the media. When you give me that, then you can claim it's as big a problem.
Indeed, I dont really take internet death threats seriously. You should realize that due to the nature of the net most controversial internet figures recieve threats in a regular manner, and controversial figures complaining of recieving threats = automatic escalation of threatenning, up to death threats. Streissand effect, nothing more. So this is not indicative of any problem in gaming community, it is idicative of a problem in online trolling / 4chan community, which is really nothing out of the ordinary, lol. The fact that media and anti-GG people ramble on about "OMG she is getting death threats!!" points either to their ignorance of darker parts of internet culture or simply trying to paint gaming community as worse than it really is.
So yeah, as I said I have much higher standards for gaming journalists than anonymous trolls.
-
this is hilarious (http://www.newstatesman.com/future-proof/2014/10/ultimate-weapon-against-gamergate-time-wasters-1960s-chat-bot-wastes-their-time)
-
On the subject of 8chan and what is allowed on it:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0HVEUsCIAArmdW.png)
can you link to that post?
I mean it wasn't just some random who got banned five minutes later right?
and it it wasn't on some completely unrelated board that has nothing to do with GG right?
you are not trying to misrepresent facts or the pro-GG people, right?
hmmm... I wonder who those "anti-dox faggots" could have been?
-
can you link to that post?
8chan has hidden boards. You can go there if you know the url. This particular board is dedicated to the doxxing of people.
I am very very reluctant to post any links as I am quite sure that would be illegal.
-
Joshua, it's perfectly fine for me to have an opinion that you disagree with. If you had a fortunate experience with something she wrote then I'm glad that such a thing happened. What's the issue here? I really don't get it. Every time I see that person "doing" something lately, it's not something not something that resonates with me. When the Escapist debacle went on, a huge storify went up on twitter documenting on how all the interviewees were "despicable people". I'm sure they all are despicable mysoginist monsters, harrassers, rape apologists and so on. Wait. What? Rape apologists? Who said this? Well, none other than ms Quinn. How did she reach the conclusion that the particular person is a rape apologist? Because he dared write a blog post with the despicable title In defense of rape (http://talesofgrim.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/in-defence-of-rape/). What kind of monster would write such an article? Let's read a bit of it shall we?
Before engaging in pompous outrage and trolling, first ask yourself if you are genuinely saying that rape can never, ever, ever be a useful, good or well treated story element. Because that is really all this article says. That it should not be removed from the writer’s toolbox.
Whether something is ‘well done’ or not is a subjective argument that can never be settled because tastes and sensitivities vary, but do you really mean that there should never, ever, ever be a story that includes rape, ever again? Can you honestly not tell the difference between fiction and reality? The difference between the advocacy of freedom of expression and advocacy of assault?
(...)
If you agree that rape (and murder, and drugs, and torture and indeed anything else) can be used in stories, games and other materials successfully and should be judged on its merit, rather than its content, then you agree with me. The trick is to read further than the title.
Nah, won't do. The guy's clearly a rape apologist. I mean, a guy wrote an article about how rape is something you can use in fiction, it's absolutely just to hate this dude and defame him for all to see how a scumbad he is. But don't worry if you think that her defamation of this guy seems as bit as unfair as my own take on Quinn. After all, the guy has defended the worst crime imaginable in the history of mankind: writing about rape. Compared with actual feats of manipulation, lying, cheating, sabotage, and now defamation, I mean, can we even compare? Let that guy rot in hell for all I care.
/S
-
can you link to that post?
8chan has hidden boards. You can go there if you know the url. This particular board is dedicated to the doxxing of people.
I am very very reluctant to post any links as I am quite sure that would be illegal.
that is very convenient. there is evidence but I cannot show it to you.
furthermore, ah, so it is on an unrelated board started by some random and not part of /gg/
-
Hey Bobboau:
(http://chainsawsuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/20141015-theperfectcrime.png)
-
So, that said, everybody in this thread needs to take a step back, evaluate what's going on, and then see what the disagreement is to discuss.
I'm going to back that up and point out that if people can't have a civilised discussion on the subject without ignoring or misrepresenting each other's arguments, I'll just close the thread and be done with it.
-
ok, so if some unrelated group of people started firebombing police departments in st.louis then that would invalidate the people protesting there?
that seems like a very easy way to just shut down a group. if someone started sending out emails threatening to kill all men would that discredit all feminists?
literally what can /gg/ possibly do about this? is it even actually happening? a URL would answer the question. hell just the name of the board would answer the question.
-
"I am very very reluctant to post any links as I am quite sure that would be illegal."
No it would not be, post away.
-
as you wish (https://8chan.co/war/res/5040.html).
Geuss who's doxx is posted there *sigh*.
-
And, of course, in the thread with Zoe Quinn's personal info: https://www.dropbox.com/s/6le26eqhbgc8n92/ogodwhy.png?dl=0
-
I mean, a guy wrote an article about how rape is something you can use in fiction, it's absolutely just to hate this dude and defame him for all to see how a scumbad he is. But don't worry if you think that her defamation of this guy seems as bit as unfair as my own take on Quinn. After all, the guy has defended the worst crime imaginable in the history of mankind: writing about rape. Compared with actual feats of manipulation, lying, cheating, sabotage, and now defamation, I mean, can we even compare? Let that guy rot in hell for all I care.
Once again, you are providing an unsourced argument to add on another pile of unsourced arguments. You only fortify my opinion that gamergate is not a talk about ethics in game journalism but rather just another witch hunt.
-
And, of course, in the thread with Zoe Quinn's personal info: https://www.dropbox.com/s/6le26eqhbgc8n92/ogodwhy.png?dl=0
OMG drop box, my company uses dropbox, my company supports harassment campaigns!
-
That's a screenshot I made myself and uploaded to my own dropbox.
-
my point was, this war board is a separate board that the people running /gg/ have absolutely no power or control over. it can just as easily be construde as an attack on /gg/ because it's now being used as a weapon against them in attempts at guilt by association.
-
here let me put it to you this way
https://8chan.co/hlp/
anyone who wants to be a mod on 8chan ask and I'll give you the keys to the kingdom via PM.
-
Yeah, that's kinda the problem with amorphous movements like gamergate and cultures like 4chan. People point towards the bad parts and say "That's your movement too!", and people in the movement will, with complete honesty, say "No, those are just trolls!". As long as those trolls are still the center of the discussion, nothing productive can come of it (not that there was ever much chance of it in the first place).
Also, "the people running gg"? For all I know, it's the trolls running the show. The complete ineffectiveness of gamergate in making any real change in games journalism certainly makes it seem like it's just a smokescreen for some assholes to bully and harass people.
Bob, my point here is that anyone who associates with gamergate does also associate with all the negative bits in some way. There is no way to purge those elements now, and any attempt by gamergaters to get back to the core message (ill-defined as it is) is immediately undermined by the fact that anyone can adopt gamergate and use it as he or she wants. There is no organization here that is actually able to make demands.
-
I said the people running /gg/ I meant specifically the board on 8chan.
-
Which I assume you have personally vetted and found to be good and upstanding members of internet society.
-
no idea, doesn't make any difference to the point you were making, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't misunderstood.
-
Let's get back to another question about gamergate. Has anyone who believes in and supports its cause ever compiled a list of actual infractions that happened? Actual, real ethics violations? And I do mean actual instances of corruption, not just "this reviewer has promoted a game I don't like, therefore he must be corrupt"-style allegations.
-
Yeah, that's kinda the problem with amorphous movements like gamergate and cultures like 4chan. People point towards the bad parts and say "That's your movement too!", and people in the movement will, with complete honesty, say "No, those are just trolls!". As long as those trolls are still the center of the discussion, nothing productive can come of it (not that there was ever much chance of it in the first place).
Also, "the people running gg"? For all I know, it's the trolls running the show. The complete ineffectiveness of gamergate in making any real change in games journalism certainly makes it seem like it's just a smokescreen for some assholes to bully and harass people.
Bob, my point here is that anyone who associates with gamergate does also associate with all the negative bits in some way. There is no way to purge those elements now, and any attempt by gamergaters to get back to the core message (ill-defined as it is) is immediately undermined by the fact that anyone can adopt gamergate and use it as he or she wants. There is no organization here that is actually able to make demands.
The amazing thing is they could just ditch the hashtag for another, but they've decided the name is more important than any of the issues they claim it stands for. The refusal of GG 'moderates' to even consider abandoning the name and its connotations is pretty damning evidence against the actual existence of any real moderates in GG.
Compared with actual feats of manipulation, lying, cheating, sabotage, and now defamation
Don't try to put out the claim she doxxed TFYC. They confessed that she did nothing other than criticize them.
And afterword went back to claiming she was responsible.
-
feminism has been poisoned by the extremists. moderate feminists should abandon the label and go with something else, like gender egalitarian.
-
Let's get back to another question about gamergate. Has anyone who believes in and supports its cause ever compiled a list of actual infractions that happened? Actual, real ethics violations? And I do mean actual instances of corruption, not just "this reviewer has promoted a game I don't like, therefore he must be corrupt"-style allegations.
Oh look, the hated Leigh Alexander did just that. (http://leighalexander.net/list-of-ethical-concerns-in-video-games-partial)
-
I know about that list, but I was wondering what gamergate's perspective was. Surely, with a movement that big, someone must have come up with something more substantial than "That Journalist that Zoe Quinn slept with mentioned her in a few articles".
-
Here is an excellent overview of the early history of GG and its corruption claims, for Dias' benefit since he can't seem to get his timeline right. (http://theflounce.com/gamergate-seem-understand-ethics-nearly-well-thinks/)
-
Once again, you are providing an unsourced argument to add on another pile of unsourced arguments. You only fortify my opinion that gamergate is not a talk about ethics in game journalism but rather just another witch hunt.
https://twitter.com/TheQuinnspiracy/status/520712625152614400
Oh good one of the other people in @TheEscapistMag's article is a rape apologist https://twitter.com/HandsofaDream/status/520688001899573248 …
Here is an excellent overview of the early history of GG and its corruption claims, for Dias' benefit since he can't seem to get his timeline right. (http://theflounce.com/gamergate-seem-understand-ethics-nearly-well-thinks/)
Twitter stats show gamergate exploded after the gamers are dead articles, not before.
-
QUUUUUIIIIIINNNNN
So... Someone calling someone else a rape apologist because he wrote about how "rape is a ****ing awesome plot element", someone who asks "Can love emerge from a violent encounter?" and "Well, depending which study you read somewhere between thirty and fifty percent of women have rape fantasies." is somehow... an argument against Quinn.
Right. So now your argument is sourced! Now it's a baseless argument thrown upon a pile of unsourced arguments. After all, there's still:
Compared with actual feats of manipulation, lying, cheating, sabotage, and now defamation, I mean, can we even compare?
What has this woman done that half of gamergate keeps ranting about her?
-
Here is my list of ethical infractions:
- a wave of offensive and idiotic "gamers are dead" articles
- inability to separate gaming culture from trolling/4chan/anti-feminist culture and unfairly associating the two
- https://i.imgur.com/2o6lNXc.jpg <-- this ****ing picture showing certain people from big tech/gaming media to be major assholes
- political/social ideology or favoritism being pushed into gaming news (this one is a bit debatable, but it is certainly a valid concern)
Also rape is usualy OK as a plot element in fiction and stating so is not rape-apology.
-
@Joshua, You were up in flames because I dared express my dislike of Zoe Quinn, a person who had no qualms of defaming someone as a rape apologist on twitter for thousands of her followers (and storifies and so on) with no more evidence than an article she clearly didn't read past the title.
This is evidence of two things: your ridiculous double standards and confirmation that Zoe is not the best person in the planet.
What has this woman done that half of gamergate keeps ranting about her?
I have a feeling they are ranting about her because for many, she's a symbol of the mediocrity level that is the end result of the feminist revolution in games. Personally, I don't care about her. At most, I just hope none of these people actually get harmed in any way, both for themselves and for the obvious escalation of warfare that would entail.
-
@Joshua, You were up in flames because I dared express my dislike of Zoe Quinn, a person who had no qualms of defaming someone as a rape apologist on twitter for thousands of her followers (and storifies and so on) with no more evidence than an article she clearly didn't read past the title.
And apparently you didn't read this part of his post:
QUUUUUIIIIIINNNNN
So... Someone calling someone else a rape apologist because he wrote about how "rape is a ****ing awesome plot element", someone who asks "Can love emerge from a violent encounter?" and "Well, depending which study you read somewhere between thirty and fifty percent of women have rape fantasies." is somehow... an argument against Quinn.
Right.
-
There's some extreme cherry picking going on with those quotes. Context really matters here, and I suggest anyone who is interested in this part of the conversation should read the whole thing:
http://talesofgrim.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/in-defence-of-rape/
It's also an interesting read purely on its own merits. He asks you a lot of questions. I suppose we'll all have different answers to those questions.
-
actual feats of manipulation, lying, cheating, sabotage,
Even after repeated inquires, these claims stand baseless. I am sorry Luis, but since you have repeatedly tried to redirect away from this, I have no further reason to engage with you.
-
I read it and it was so asinine, so shamelessly selective that I tried to be generous in ignoring it as a lapse of mind on his part. The kind of witch hunt with a microscope to see if someone suffers some kind of thought crime or whatever is appalling, downright totalitarian, and one of the biggest things that are driving people up the wall regarding this new feminist wave.
I repeat again, the writer of that post was defending the usage of rape as a fiction tool. Even if this ideology has wretched your sense of generosity and good faith towards this writer to its usual psychopathic standards, even if you can bring yourself to be righteously indignated for this post, to go ahead and defend its portrayal as rape apologism is beyond the pale. For all the moral righteousness that people are so adamantly trying to uphold around here, this failure of basic common sense is duly noted.
Even after repeated inquires, these claims stand baseless. I am sorry Luis, but since you have repeatedly tried to redirect away from this, I have no further reason to engage with you.
And people still defend this ideology of hatred and division, even though its effects are all here for everyone to see them.
The most ghastly part of that last comment is of course that I have been generously expressing myself for the course of the last pages and this is the **** I get from you. No, you're right, you should go the **** away, I don't have anything more to say to you.
-
And people still defend this ideology of hatred and division,
wait what? What ideology?
-
Here is my list of ethical infractions:
- a wave of offensive and idiotic "gamers are dead" articles
Not an actual ethics violation. Writing opinion pieces you disagree with has been a staple of journalism for a very long time.
- inability to separate gaming culture from trolling/4chan/anti-feminist culture and unfairly associating the two
Not an actual ethics violation. Just an opinion that can be held by reasonable people.
- https://i.imgur.com/2o6lNXc.jpg <-- this ****ing picture showing certain people from big tech/gaming media to be major assholes
Still not an ethics violation.
- political/social ideology or favoritism being pushed into gaming news (this one is a bit debatable, but it is certainly a valid concern)
Having opinions is not an ethics violation.
Seriously, what do you people think "journalistic ethics" means? Here's a hint: It does not mean that journalists are forbidden from writing pieces a portion of their audience disagrees with.
-
Stop talking to me Joshua.
-
Seriously, what do you people think "journalistic ethics" means? Here's a hint: It does not mean that journalists are forbidden from writing pieces a portion of their audience disagrees with.
Regarding my last point, pushing political / social opinions / favoritism into your articles is a journalistic ethics violation. I dont consider people who do it journalists, just glorified blog writers. Journalism should strive to be objective and unbiased. Label your opinion pieces clearly and then you can vent there. Also if you write an especially dumb opinion piece you can still be liable.
The rest arent violations of journalistic ethics, but violations of ethics, professionalism, basic research and good manners in general. I do believe that the original specific claims behind gamergate (i.e. Zoey Quinn being unfairly favored) do not seem to be substantiated by actual hard evidence, and if it ended there then I would be more on the anti-GG side. Not so with the stupid reaction of gaming press that followed.
-
Regarding my last point, pushing political / social opinions / favoritism into your articles is a journalistic ethics violation. I dont consider people who do it journalists, just glorified blog writers. Journalism should strive to be objective and unbiased. Label your opinion pieces clearly and then you can vent there. Also if you write an especially dumb opinion piece you can still be liable.
You do know that you've just said that no journalist working today would be "ethical" according to your definition, right?
The rest arent violations of journalistic ethics, but violations of ethics, professionalism, basic research and good manners in general.
No, the rest are opinions you disagree with. Learn the difference.
-
I read it and it was so asinine, so shamelessly selective that I tried to be generous in ignoring it as a lapse of mind on his part. The kind of witch hunt with a microscope to see if someone suffers some kind of thought crime or whatever is appalling, downright totalitarian, and one of the biggest things that are driving people up the wall regarding this new feminist wave.
"Shamelessly selective"? You are capable of reading, yes?
As to rape?
Rape or attempted rape is a ****ing awesome plot element, one of many.
Rape can place a character in jeopardy where the readers’ care about what happens, without necessarily taking the character out of the story. It’s a threat with implications, but not as final as death.
Rape can have interesting knock-on effects on a character’s relationships and their relationships with each other. If it does happen how does the character’s lover react? If their lover was the rapist, how do things change? Can you use this as a springboard to explore abusive relationships? Can love emerge from a violent encounter?
What if a pregnancy occurs from the rape? How hard is it for the character to endure that? What’s the effect on the father? The child? Nature or nature? Bad seed? Does the mother resent the child? Are they given up? Do they mistreat them through seeing the rapist whenever they look at them?
How does the event change the people involved? Is the rapist remorseful? Does the victim hate themselves or grow stronger? Does it change how they’re perceived? Can we use it as a springboard to examine the sexual culture in the story? Think about the differences in cultural reactions between, say, Arab/Muslim and Caucasian/Secular societies to rape even today. (Links added because someone played the racism card).
If we’re writing erotica? Well, depending which study you read somewhere between thirty and fifty percent of women have rape fantasies. I’ve no idea what the figure is for men and studies are probably wildly off due to the danger of saying so. Forced sex, rough sex, transgressive sex? These things are all wildly popular though – as fantasy. Much more popular than they are to perpetrate ‘for reals’.
I'll give you and Lorric a hint: those statements are still offensive in context. You can make an argument that rape is a useful storytelling tool without being offensive. Criticizing this particular way rape was defended is not saying that rape is off-limits to all writers in perpetuity.
I repeat again, the writer of that post was defending the usage of rape as a fiction tool. Even if this ideology has wretched your sense of generosity and good faith towards this writer to its usual psychopathic standards, even if you can bring yourself to be righteously indignated for this post, to go ahead and defend its portrayal as rape apologism is beyond the pale. For all the moral righteousness that people are so adamantly trying to uphold around here, this failure of basic common sense is duly noted.
"Criticizing someone I agree with is beyond the pale!" This failure of basic common sense is duly noted.
And people still defend this ideology of hatred and division, even though its effects are all here for everyone to see them.
"Wouldn't it be nice if our fiction was more diverse, and catered to a wider range of audiences?"
"Why are you so DIVISIVE and FULL OF HATRED?"
Sorry, not seeing the connection.
The most ghastly part of that last comment is of course that I have been generously expressing myself for the course of the last pages and this is the **** I get from you. No, you're right, you should go the **** away, I don't have anything more to say to you.
"Generously expressing myself" != "providing evidence to back up my claims". But then, you're not real big on "evidence", are you?
-
Regarding my last point, pushing political / social opinions / favoritism into your articles is a journalistic ethics violation. I dont consider people who do it journalists, just glorified blog writers. Journalism should strive to be objective and unbiased. Label your opinion pieces clearly and then you can vent there. Also if you write an especially dumb opinion piece you can still be liable.
You do know that you've just said that no journalist working today would be "ethical" according to your definition, right?
The rest arent violations of journalistic ethics, but violations of ethics, professionalism, basic research and good manners in general.
No, the rest are opinions you disagree with. Learn the difference.
Not true, journalists should write in an objective manner and failure to do so is a failure of journalistic ethics. Whether it happened in gaming journalism is an open (and important) question, tough. It is generally ok to be subjective in opinion pieces.
Yeah, it is my opinion that anyone who advocates bullying in tweets and anyone who retweets/likes it is a moron of the highest order, should not be in gaming press, and deserves the full wrath of gamergate-associated hate machine and then some. It is also my opinion that journalists who write idiotic inflammatory opinion pieces about "gamers are dead" should be looked at with suspicion by the broader gaming community, to put it lightly. Those journalists who go out of their way to paint gaming culture as deeply misogynistic and hateful (based only on a few death threats literally anyone could send and 100% will send when you paint yourself a juicy target) are either very misinformed or purposefuly write clickbait. It is also my opinion that calling someone a rape-apologist for thousands of your followers is not ethical (in a normal, not journalistic sense) when the article in question was maybe a bit controversial for feminists to swallow but no rape apology, and even posed some thoughtful questions.
-
Luis wasn't talking to you AdmiralRalwood. He was talking to -Joshua-, who was saying he (article writer) was a rape apologist because of those quotes.
If you don't think he's a rape apologist then there's no problem with you. At least as far as I'm concerned anyway.
-
Luis wasn't talking to you AdmiralRalwood. He was talking to -Joshua-, who was saying he (article writer) was a rape apologist because of those quotes.
I did not say that, specifically. I said that in the context of those quotes, calling someone a rape apologist is understandable and not such a henious crime as
actual feats of manipulation, lying, cheating, sabotage,
And I fail to see how the above tweet is any evidence towards those claims.
-
I'll give you and Lorric a hint: those statements are still offensive in context. You can make an argument that rape is a useful storytelling tool without being offensive. Criticizing this particular way rape was defended is not saying that rape is off-limits to all writers in perpetuity.
Though you have of course argued for exactly that in past discussions.
-
Rape or attempted rape is a ****ing awesome plot element, one of many.
Being so emotionally charged and with lots of implications to explore, yes it is. And compared to lets say, assault or murder it is quite underutilised in the media, games included.
Can love emerge from a violent encounter?
IMHO the situation of someone being raped by someone they love and all the situations and coping stemming from that is almost a goldmine for storytelling. So it is certainly an interesting question.
If we’re writing erotica? Well, depending which study you read somewhere between thirty and fifty percent of women have rape fantasies.
Rape being quite highly popular sexual fantasy and in erotica implies that it could be an interesting topic in games, too. I agree with that.
So as I said, this "in defense of rape" article is maybe hard for hardcore feminists to swallow but there is not really any actual rape apology in there, and IMHO stuff like that is needed to counteract the view that rape is not OK to depict almost never.
-
Luis wasn't talking to you AdmiralRalwood. He was talking to -Joshua-, who was saying he (article writer) was a rape apologist because of those quotes.
I did not say that, specifically. I said that in the context of those quotes, calling someone a rape apologist is understandable and not such a henious crime as
actual feats of manipulation, lying, cheating, sabotage,
And I fail to see how the above tweet is any evidence towards those claims.
Oh, okay.
Does that mean you yourself don't think he is a rape apologist?
-
Not true, journalists should write in an objective manner and failure to do so is a failure of journalistic ethics. Whether it happened in gaming journalism is an open (and important) question, tough. It is generally ok to be subjective in opinion pieces.
How do you write an "objective" review of a game? A book? A music album? Subjectivity is always a factor here, and if a writer thinks certain aspects of a work are problematic, he or she has the right to write about them. Whether or not you agree with the writer is up to you, but voicing an opinion in the context of a review or an opinion piece is not an ethics violation.
-
Jesus ****ing Christ people. This thread is now closed for a period of 24 hours so people can chill the **** out about it. Everyone in this thread will take a moment to start over when the thread re-opens. Anyone who immediately leaps back into this He Said, She Said bull**** will immediately be given formal warnings for the first infraction, and a warning level high enough to warrant moderated posting for the second.
God damn.
-
Thread provisionally reopened. Warnings will be handed out for failure to heed the warning in the previous post.
-
As this thread now involves gamergate, here's some links on it, all from the same website:
Gamergate's achievements (http://pixietalksgamergate.wordpress.com/gamergates-achievements-thus-far/)
Common Gamergate misconceptions (http://pixietalksgamergate.wordpress.com/gamergates-misconceptions-thus-far/)
"Gamers are dead" article analysis (http://pixietalksgamergate.wordpress.com/gamers-are-dead-article-analysis/)
In addition to that, both Polygon (http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/17/6996601/on-gamergate-a-letter-from-the-editor) and Eurogamer (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-10-17-we-cannot-let-this-become-gaming-culture) have denounced Gamergate in between this topic's closing and re-opening.
-
There's an immense amount of links here:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.860762-GamerGate-Discussion-Debate-and-Resources
Particularly in the second post.
-
As this thread now involves gamergate, here's some links on it, all from the same website:
Gamergate's achievements (http://pixietalksgamergate.wordpress.com/gamergates-achievements-thus-far/)
Common Gamergate misconceptions (http://pixietalksgamergate.wordpress.com/gamergates-misconceptions-thus-far/)
"Gamers are dead" article analysis (http://pixietalksgamergate.wordpress.com/gamers-are-dead-article-analysis/)
In addition to that, both Polygon (http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/17/6996601/on-gamergate-a-letter-from-the-editor) and Eurogamer (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-10-17-we-cannot-let-this-become-gaming-culture) have denounced Gamergate in between this topic's closing and re-opening.
Prominent persons in the industry who have condemned Gamergate:
Tim Schafer
Peter Molyneux
Greg Kasavin
Niel Druckmann
Phil Fish (duh)
Hideki Kamiya (Bayonetta/Okami)
Ron Gilbert
Anna Anthropy
Jeff Gerstmann (Fired from Gamespot for giving a negative review to Kane and Lynch after its publisher had plastered the site with ads for the game. He has been targeted for harassing phone calls after criticizing GG. But I'm sure that's totally a coincidence!)
Rob Florence (resigned from Eurogamer after the site was forced to amend his article decrying the shameless participation of certain game journalists in PR-related social media contests and the chummy relationships between the PR wings of publishers and journalists in general, after one of the said journalists mentioned in the article filed a libel suit against him in a European court)
Jim Sterling (they are now actually harassing him on Twitter)
And that's just scratching the surface.
Of the people I've listed, the probably the harshest words for GG have been spoken by Rob Florence, who might be the single biggest victim of actual corruption in gaming to date:
https://twitter.com/robertflorence/status/520741694858612736
https://twitter.com/robertflorence/status/523477685029572608
And finally, here is Gamergate's boycott list:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0QsMCLIcAAxC_w.png:large
Clearly the anti-GG movement is a tiny minority lashing out against its own impending extinction!
*slow clap*
-
Okay, where to start with lorric's thing.
Note when I state "They always are" I specifically mean "Rock Paper Shotgun" and on the offhand some other sites I happen to read trough their links. However, since "Rock Paper Shotgun" is included on the "unethical" list, I assume that it may be a standard.
First of all, something which immeaditily stood out is:
Truth and fact must be treated with the respect they deserve. This means, at a minimum:
Opinions are not to be stated as universal truths
Hearsay is not to be reported as factual without corroborating evidence
Assumptions and speculation are not to be reported as fact
Intentionally misleading or inflammatory wording is not ever to be used, in headlines or elsewhere
When in doubt, stick only to information that would hold up under examination in a court of law
To which my replies are:
1. They never are!
2. Which is why the ZQ stuff was never reported - see also that common misconception post from above.
3. ^^
4. Okay that one seems fair
5. See 2 and 3
Editorials and other opinion pieces are to be kept separate from News pieces. Bias and opinion will always color a writer's work, but they should strive for as much objectivity as reasonably possible in the News. If they wish to share their opinion on the piece, something that should be encouraged, it should be done in a distinct space.
... They always are!
All journalists must be required to behave professionally within the public space. This includes but is by no means limited to:
No irrational, emotionally-driven rants
No insults, threats, or any of the other assorted childishness
Engage the audience calmly, reasonably, and without rancor, or do not engage them at all
Be aware when one is within the public space, especially any and all social media.
Do not treat one's audience as an enemy
I have seen emotionally driven stuff on RPS - but all the other stuff? Nah.
Journalists must strive to be objective. No human can be truly impartial, but journalists must strive to the best of their ability to be above external bias, and to inform their readers when they cannot. Put simply, this means they must, at minimum:
Recuse themselves from reporting news regarding subjects that they have a personal or financial link to
Disclose any personal or financial connections to subjects they are giving opinion pieces on (Editorials, Op-Eds, Reviews, etc)
Engage in honest and fair coverage. Consistency and the interest of/relevance to the audience must be the deciding factor in the decision to run a story.
I would note that "Objectivity" and "honesty" can be mutually exclusive. It's impossible for an article not to be painted by the writer's personal biases (even if only when deciding what information to include and what information gives undue weights to certain viewpoints). I think the "personal and financial" link thing is silly in an industry which is very small (esp when it ocmes to the indie space) - if we would strictly enforce that, we'd run out of journalists very quickly.
GamerGate simply wants gaming media websites to adopt some variation on these policies, much like the Escapist has, and actively work to adhere to them. Nothing more and nothing less.
And here's the problem: Lotsa websites (like say RPS) already have some variation on those policies. To me, it seems more that gaters are outraged because the result of these policies is not what they would like to see.
Over the last five years, the gaming media has grown increasingly politicized, all with the same political stance and agenda.
Ehrm... No? If this was teh case, why do I see so much different articles with different opinions on subjects? Politicized? hmm. Sure, RPS has problems with misogony and sexism (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/04/06/misogyny-sexism-and-why-rps-isnt-shutting-up/) - but they have always been honest about that. I prefer that honesty over this nebolous aim of objectivity.
Regardless, someone did some research into this claim (https://storify.com/MorganRamsay/how-often-do-video-game-journalists-write-about-fe).
Widespread censorship
I'd like to note that the censorship over the ZQ stuff was rather unique since there was an awfull lot of doxxing involved. reddit felt required to setup an automoderator to deal with the problem (http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/2dzrlv/on_zoe_quinn_censorship_doxxing_and_general/) as Reddit does not want to be implicated in doing illegal stuff (which doxxing is).
Major industry figures confirmed that these issues existed and insisted that they were not a problem. Then on August 28/29, 11 gaming news sites (Gamasutra, DailyDot, Kotaku, Polygon, and several others) published articles declaring some variation of 'Gamers are Dead' and that any and all calls for better journalism were made only as cover for 'neckbearded misogynerds' to harass women. This incensed a large portion of their audience and even reached well known actor Adam Baldwin, who coined the Twitter hashtag #gamergate upon his getting involved, which the movement has since adopted as its moniker.
This is not correct - First of all, see above (the gamers are dead article analysis) - it should also be noted that Adam Baldwin (you know, the guy from firefly) did not post #gamergate in response to those articles about gamers are dead - he reposted the Internet Aristocrat films on Zoe Quinn (who the GG community now calls "Literally Who" because this is not about her - or something). I do not recommend you watch those.
Side note: Joss Whedon is pro feminist frequency - Baldwin is not the only firefly-er involved :P
As for the second post - That stuff is just WAAAY to much for me to go trough. We can pull out a few to discuss, obviously. Just point me towards one (just one please).
-
This is not correct - First of all, see above (the gamers are dead article analysis) - it should also be noted that Adam Baldwin (you know, the guy from firefly) did not post #gamergate in response to those articles about gamers are dead - he reposted the Internet Aristocrat films on Zoe Quinn (who the GG community now calls "Literally Who" because this is not about her - or something). I do not recommend you watch those.
The video was called "The Five Guys Saga", the five guys being the ones ZQ allegedly ****ed. That is the first time the #Gamergate tag was ever used. The first GG thread on HLP began with the posting of this video. There seem to be some very short memories on this forum.
-
I wouldn't call that down to "very short memories". Not everyone was involved in that, and at that point in time it was not called #gamergate yet IIRC.
-
I wouldn't call that down to "very short memories". Not everyone was involved in that, and at that point in time it was not called #gamergate yet IIRC.
It was very shortly afterword, as the thread was ongoing.
-
The thing is, the bit that really has me confused, is who are GamerGate getting angry for?
The only people that would be affected by the proclaimed lack of impartiality in game-advert sponsored sites (which, to me, is far more an indicator of concern) are people who don't do much research before they buy a game. It's kind of like buying a game from reading the packaging.
Now, I've picked up some awesome games by reading the packaging, Freespace 2 and Homeworld were both impulse purchases, but I've bought a hell of a lot more garbage using the same method. I might feel a bit of irritation, roll my eyes and hope the next one is another Homeworld, but I wouldn't get angry about it.
As far as censorship is concerned, I think it's a 'damned if you do...' situation, and the final decision was based on the fact that, if people were truly unhappy with the way the site was run, they were as free to leave as they were to arrive.
GG, had it grown from a different seed, might have been a positive thing, promoting impartial reviewers, raising public awareness in a non-confrontational manner, and possibly even having a positive impact on the quality of games themselves. But this became about personalities.
-
The thing is, the bit that really has me confused, is who are GamerGate getting angry for?
The only people that would be affected by the proclaimed lack of impartiality in game-advert sponsored sites (which, to me, is far more an indicator of concern) are people who don't do much research before they buy a game. It's kind of like buying a game from reading the packaging.
Now, I've picked up some awesome games by reading the packaging, Freespace 2 and Homeworld were both impulse purchases, but I've bought a hell of a lot more garbage using the same method. I might feel a bit of irritation, roll my eyes and hope the next one is another Homeworld, but I wouldn't get angry about it.
As far as censorship is concerned, I think it's a 'damned if you do...' situation, and the final decision was based on the fact that, if people were truly unhappy with the way the site was run, they were as free to leave as they were to arrive.
GG, had it grown from a different seed, might have been a positive thing, promoting impartial reviewers, raising public awareness in a non-confrontational manner, and possibly even having a positive impact on the quality of games themselves. But this became about personalities.
And it would have been led by people like Rob Florence and Jim Sterling instead of 4chan.
-
Some people are trying to use Keyhole to give an estimate on the actual numbers of GGers on twitter, but it turns out the info Keyhole spews out is wildly different depending on when you try it. Ignore this post.
-
I vanish for a bit to IRL stuff... and now GamerGate in this thread.
I've actually worked my disdain for the entire cluster**** out of my system and related Twitter antics. Don't engage in attempted "civilized" discussion on Twitter, it doesn't work. Only thing I still do is refuse to accept Anita Sarkesian as a true "academic" until she starts to build better academic work to support claims that have little, skewed or no data supporting them. (And yay varily I support Feminists like Dita Von Tease because why? Good ol' way to cause the Prudish hens to cluck, down with Prudes!). Beyond that, GamerGate is a flaming train that's been out of control for quite some time. In retrospect, from my own little childish spats and screams, no one wins from current mess.
What does happen is that the relationship between Games "Media" and game consumers has been permanently poisoned. Many gamers feel frustrated that they're being told they're "children and misogynists..." which is not going to produce very good results. Combine that with a group of hardened (not experienced, but obviously callous) personalities in the Media attempting to redefine the notion of "Gamer."
Issues of Feminism and even harassment no longer matter: it's a mass of rage that's hard to control from both sides.
I've put my distance with GamerGate because I got my RAEG and garbage out of my system (and I actually live and deal with real conspiratorial nutcases). Plus the conspiratorial stuff rubs me the wrong way. As for the anti-GG crowd? They live in a "Progressive" dream that flew off the rails of reality a long time ago. When you piss off your customers, abuse them and hand out accusations, something will snap. And frankly the surrounding idiocy hasn't made it better. It's no longer a culture war, it's simply a mess. Anti-GGers magically think they're "doing" the right thing, but the right thing was lost when they attempted to change the definition of Gamer in a brewing sea of discontent. Something finally gave and now we have the monstrosity called GamerGate. Call those "gamers" ISIS? Yep, that's chucking oil into the fire.
I do bid my hats to attempts at bridging the gaps though: GG and Anti-GG only have one thing in common and they both condemn harassment and threats to women (both sides are trying to end it). Everything else? Don't bother. If any of you try to paint GG as the "enemy" I do actually follow them, and to be honest, they're human and frustrated (I do read the Escapist thread to measure the frustration). To the journalists who helped to foment this mess? Try leaving the ivory tower and engage in civil discussion with their fellow gamers.
-
To the journalists who helped to foment this mess? Try leaving the ivory tower and engage in civil discussion with their fellow gamers.
Sure, when the Escapist stops insisting on "equal time" to individuals on 8chan publicly involved in harassment and doxxing schemes.
They live in a "Progressive" dream that flew off the rails of reality a long time ago. When you piss off your customers, abuse them and hand out accusations, something will snap.
Our dream is that female developers and journalists won't have a bullseye painted on their back the moment they enter the industry. That they can make whatever game they want and talk about whatever the **** they want. That's our ****ing dream. This **** has been going on long before a crazy ex decided to appeal to the internet's cesspool in a desperate attempt to make himself feel better. This is just the moment when everyone has had to pull their head of out the sand. We can't pretend it's not waaaay more prevalent than we want to admit it is anymore. If it's a pipe dream for a parent to not be scared when their daughter shows interest is making games (a sentiment I've noticed a lot since GG started), then gaming culture needs to be burned to the ground and replanted anew from the ashes. Or it needs to just be burnt the **** down. If that's not a pipe dream, if that's actually a ****ing reasonable thing to want, we're happy to have a conversation in good faith for anyone who's skeptical of us.
Combine that with a group of hardened (not experienced, but obviously callous) personalities in the Media attempting to redefine the notion of "Gamer."
I'd love to debate the substance of Leigh Alexander's article with you, if we're going to make an effort to actually listen to what the other is saying. To put it simply, if you don't think the bloom of experimental indie titles are destroying gaming, if you can handle a few female (and male) critics wanting to point out what they see as stuff in games that's cliched, stupid, pointlessly offensive, and alienating towards a large portion of your expanding audience, if you can tell the difference between an attempt at persuasion and an attempt at censorship, if you don't see these people as hostile invaders trying to take over an industry that is yours by right, if you don't think "ethics" are more important than whether or not someone can sleep in their own ****ing home at night, she wasn't talking about you and you should calm the **** down. I'm perfectly happy to refer to myself as a gamer to anyone who asks, and I enthusiastically supported an article containing the quote "'Gamers' are dead". If you really want a "civil discussion", stop assuming I'm a moronic ideologue, and think about how I am reconciling those two statements and why.
-
To the journalists who helped to foment this mess? Try leaving the ivory tower and engage in civil discussion with their fellow gamers.
Sure, when the Escapist stops insisting on "equal time" to individuals on 8chan publicly involved in harassment and doxxing schemes.
They live in a "Progressive" dream that flew off the rails of reality a long time ago. When you piss off your customers, abuse them and hand out accusations, something will snap.
Our dream is that female developers and journalists won't have a bullseye painted on their back the moment they enter the industry. That they can make whatever game they want and talk about whatever the **** they want. That's our ****ing dream. This **** has been going on long before a crazy ex decided to appeal to the internet's cesspool in a desperate attempt to make himself feel better. This is just the moment when everyone has had to pull their head of out the sand. We can't pretend it's not waaaay more prevalent than we want to admit it is anymore. If it's a pipe dream for a parent to not be scared when their daughter shows interest is making games, then gaming culture needs to be burned to the ground and replanted anew from the ashes. Or it needs to just be burnt the **** down. If that's not a pipe dream, if that's actually a ****ing reasonable thing to want, we're happy to have a conversation in good faith for anyone who's skeptical of us.
Combine that with a group of hardened (not experienced, but obviously callous) personalities in the Media attempting to redefine the notion of "Gamer."
I'd love to debate the substance of Leigh Alexander's article with you, if we're going to make an effort to actually listen to what the other is saying. To put it simply, if you don't think the bloom of experimental indie titles are destroying gaming, if you can handle a few female (and male) critics wanting to point out what they see as stupid stuff in games that's cliched, stupid, pointlessly offensive, and alienating towards a large portion of your expanding audience, if you can tell the difference between an attempt at persuasion and an attempt at censorship, if you don't see these people as hostile invaders trying to take over the industry that is yours by right, if you don't think "ethics" are more important than whether or not someone can sleep in their own ****ing home, she wasn't talking about you. I'm perfectly happy to refer to myself as a gamer when asked, and I enthusiastically supported an article containing the quote "'Gamers' are dead". If you really want a "civil discussion", stop assuming I'm a moron, and think about how I am reconciling those two statements and why.
Simply put, you carry out persuasion to gamers by example, not useless rhetoric or condemnation. To say gaming has to be destroyed in its current iteration? That's making as much sense as to burning down a dockyard in order to build ships. I've seen enough idiocy on both sides that I hope they destroy each other, it's more sanity for the rest of us. The bar-holds-none attitude begets only more stupidity on both sides. Jim Sterling tried to stay neutral, and he got **** from both sides over it.
But I'm going to very blunt and establish the "Gamers are Dead" articles as a reminder of "doing it wrong!" For many gamers on the fence, being labeled and targeted for something they had nothing to do with or conspire was the final straw. I believe in progress, but I know better than to kick a frothing animal. I used to joke about Gamers "being idiots and morons enmasse..." but now I'm recusing myself, the point is they hit a nerve and a number of them organized and began to take out aggression on the perceived abusers.
Boogie2988, a truly compassionate man as well as a Youtuber, was axed from NeoGaf for "not supporting women enough..." while he was in fact promoting both sides to an understanding between each other. The fact of the matter is that after several hits on both sides, I came to the conclusion the conflict is for naught. GG and Anti-GG are fools who maintain such levels of "with or against us" that everyone involved is harmed.
The dialogue I hope to seek is that we stop trying to kill and slander each other and focus on making games that are inclusive (and hopefully less saber rattling and people crying wolf over boobies and less politically correct bull****). The problem, as I see it, is that the games media is out of touch. That's where citizen Youtuber fits in: they are the new media, and occupy both a role of "consumer and reviewer" outside the traditional model. And some of the wonderful snippets from the GameJournoPros about Totalbiscuit, gave me a glimpse of some of the disconnect.
The very fact that I can get more factual understanding from Totalbiscuit, than, let's say Kyle Orland, about GamerGate should be a damn warning flag to the disconnect. And it was stupid comments comparing gamers to ISIS that drove Totalbiscuit, who was previously neutral, towards a sympathetic ear to GG. TB made it clear that if both sides wanted a decent grounds of communication, they'd need to starve the extremist idiots of oxygen. But that isn't happening for both, and idiocy prevails.
-
If it's a pipe dream for a parent to not be scared when their daughter shows interest is making games (a sentiment I've noticed a lot since GG started), then gaming culture needs to be burned to the ground and replanted anew from the ashes. Or it needs to just be burnt the **** down. If that's not a pipe dream, if that's actually a ****ing reasonable thing to want, we're happy to have a conversation in good faith for anyone who's skeptical of us.
Simply put, you carry out persuasion to gamers by example, not useless rhetoric or condemnation. To say gaming has to be destroyed in its current iteration? That's making as much sense as to burning down a dockyard in order to build ships. I've seen enough idiocy on both sides that I hope they destroy each other, it's more sanity for the rest of us. The bar-holds-none attitude begets only more stupidity on both sides. Jim Sterling tried to stay neutral, and he got **** from both sides over it.
See, this is where our anger is coming from. I just stated that the anti-GG crowd is worried about whether the games industry is a livable environment for women. Your problem is that what we said offended you and some other self-identified gamers. I want you to say with a straight face these two issues are equal in importance. They are not. We have legitimate grievances about things that affect the safety and quality of life of individuals in the real world, and all you can talk about is that you thought we said some really mean things about you. If you want to know why we responded as harshly as we did, that's why.
How do you have a reasonable discussion with someone with priorities that mixed up? At some point, your answer is "**** it, we've got things that actually matter to deal with." And that's exactly what happened.
-
Simply put, you carry out persuasion to gamers by example, not useless rhetoric or condemnation. To say gaming has to be destroyed in its current iteration? That's making as much sense as to burning down a dockyard in order to build ships. I've seen enough idiocy on both sides that I hope they destroy each other, it's more sanity for the rest of us. The bar-holds-none attitude begets only more stupidity on both sides. Jim Sterling tried to stay neutral, and he got **** from both sides over it.
See, this is where our anger is coming from. I just stated that the anti-GG crowd is worried about whether the games industry is a livable environment for women. Your problem is that what we said offended you and some other self-identified games. I want you to say with a straight face these two issues are equal in importance. They are not. We have legitimate grievances about things that affect the safety and quality of life of individuals in the real world, and all you can talk about is that you thought we said some really mean things about you. If you want to know why we responded as harshly as we did, that's why.
How do you have a reasonable discussion with someone with priorities that mixed up? At some point, your answer is "**** it, we've got things that actually matter to deal with."
Well, the problem is who are the trolls?
In fact GG groups have been working together to flush out, hunt down, or quash harassment, doxxers, and other idiots who would harass women. The nature of trolls is a sad one. Trolls don't care who they harm, as long as they get a thrill or fulfill some petty personal desire. Who or what those trolls are is challenge, combined with anonymity on the Internet. I feel like linking to Gabe's Internet ****wad Theory, but the gist is that a small group of morons gets their thrills from **** like this. The point is that most of GG has effectively come out against harassment and are taking steps to try and cull it. A few anti-GG members are trying to do the same, but my problem is that the Anti-GGers seem quite oblivious to this. In fact, it's a willful ignorance that has me scratching me head.
Brianna Wu magically thinks that by throwing away Anonymity we can solve things. But as a stout Civil Libertarian, no. We're not doing that. There's reasons why anonymous outputs are needed, and importantly they actually have a role and place. But we're also seeing the much more terrible side with the harassment and trolling against many female devs. It ain't cool, but the clear majority of GGers have made it clear they don't tolerate that **** and try to quash it.
With anonymous systems comes a dual-edged responsibility. By granting people freedom to post anonymously you also take a risk with bad eggs. But yelling "fire!" in a theater is still a crime, and not free speech.
And yes, I'm saying it was a dumb and impractical idea to call gamers "White cismale neckbeards living in the basement." And guess what, there's more GG members who aren't white or men. Also, a lot of gamers aren't men. And guess what? Both sexes tend to play different game types. Gaming isn't the problem: it's people and chronic miscommunication. It's easy to label GG as a hate group, it's harder to sleep in the same bed with them and ask why they're jimmies have been rustled.
Declaring Gamers are dead was a clear, and stupid, move on attempting to change the definition of Gamer: i.e. a person who plays games. I bet you most of those Editors and Journalists have never dipped into linguistic theory or studied concepts of meaning from a philosophical standpoint. As a half-asian, I find it amusing that gamer supposedly means white person. Well, guess I'm only 50% there. And while I have some sympathies towards GG, I'm no friend to it.
-
Brianna Wu magically thinks that by throwing away Anonymity we can solve things. But as a stout Civil Libertarian, no. We're not doing that. There's reasons why anonymous outputs are needed, and importantly they actually have a role and place. But we're also seeing the much more terrible side with the harassment and trolling against many female devs. It ain't cool, but the clear majority of GGers have made it clear they don't tolerate that **** and try to quash it.
Guess what - I'm a civil libertarian too! I also think that all this wonderful freedom is going to be useless if certain individuals can't ****ing use the internet without being harassed or threatened incessantly. Brianna Wu is not anonymous. Only the trolls are. People are quite happy to surrender some of their anonymity if the ability of private citizens to be free to destroy their lives with impunity is their biggest fear when going on the internet. I love freedom and democracy, but if we actually have these things, it's our responsibility not to **** them up. When we misuse the rights we have been given we invite them to be taken from us again.
In fact GG groups have been working together to flush out, hunt down, or quash harassment, doxxers, and other idiots who would harass women. The nature of trolls is a sad one. Trolls don't care who they harm, as long as they get a thrill or fulfill some petty personal desire. Who or what those trolls are is challenge, combined with anonymity on the Internet. I feel like linking to Gabe's Internet ****wad Theory, but the gist is that a small group of morons gets their thrills from **** like this. The point is that most of GG has effectively come out against harassment and are taking steps to try and cull it. A few anti-GG members are trying to do the same, but my problem is that the Anti-GGers seem quite oblivious to this. In fact, it's a willful ignorance that has me scratching me head.
Atomic, I don't know what to tell you other than the fact that Gamergate was born as a harassment movement against a single woman, that it progressed to a harassment campaign against anyone who criticized it in broad daylight in front of everyone to see, that it was kicked off of 4chan for being too extreme, that its main home is now on 8chan where doxxing is explicitly allowed, that the targets of supposedly legitimate GGers that don't endorse what 8chan is doing just happen to be whoever is being discussed on 8chan at the time, that twitter users have been caught posing as minorities for #notyourshield (http://imgur.com/zqEC8We), that there is a Gamergate guide called "Twitter Flooding Instructions," in which posters were advised to pose as reasonable individuals new to Gamergate, "Like an indian cab driver who can't read traffic signs." (http://imgur.com/GC6S6Wy) that GG's favorite journalist has been Milo Yiannopoulos (http://imgur.com/o631n7I) who has referred to trans people as "it", that I personally saw entire GG threads filled with rants about "ANITA SARJEWIAN", that I caught them spreading fabricated images of a women who had been driven out of her home by death threats uttering an anti-autistic slur, that Zoe Quinn released IRC logs of members of GG directing the harassment campaign behind the scenes that were called fakes until badly redacted versions were released that still contained much of the incriminating evidence Quinn had revealed, that the incriminating or otherwise disgusting evidence is still being stockpiled (http://imgur.com/HgH4flH), that the people targeted for death threats have all received them shortly after criticizing gamergate, that the people who claim to just want to talk about corruption WON'T USE ANOTHER NAME DESPITE EVERYTHING I JUST MENTIONED. I don't know what else to tell you. It's willful ignorance that has me scratching my head.
-
Not true, journalists should write in an objective manner and failure to do so is a failure of journalistic ethics. Whether it happened in gaming journalism is an open (and important) question, tough. It is generally ok to be subjective in opinion pieces.
How do you write an "objective" review of a game? A book? A music album? Subjectivity is always a factor here, and if a writer thinks certain aspects of a work are problematic, he or she has the right to write about them. Whether or not you agree with the writer is up to you, but voicing an opinion in the context of a review or an opinion piece is not an ethics violation.
I am not talking about subjective review of a game, but objective information about events that happened IRL - gamergate. If gaming journalists sticked to reviewing games, the controversy would be over in a matter of days.
-
Also, reviews like this are the last thing we need:
https://www.polygon.com/2014/10/13/6957677/bayonetta-2-review-wii-u
It is fine to mention a feminist perspective here and there. It is not OK to push it almost everywhere and to top it all off even give games negative reviews because it doesnt happen to share your political opinions or concerns. And this is not an opinion article even. There is a difference between normal, tasteful political sections in an article and "social justice warrior" bull****, and nowadays certain gaming media have a tendency to push the second one. Maybe because it attracts clicks or they are that delusional that they dont even realize it, but I dont take kindly to it. Game reviews should be about games themselves, not about how it portrays women or if it is aimed at "mysoginists" (in quotations), because *gasp* they are just as valid segment of gaming market as games like depression quest are.
Having games that dont sexualize women = totally OK and a positive thing
Shaming games that choose an art direction which sexualizes things, and lowering their scores = totally out of place pushing of your ideology
Diversity is good in games too. Dont like that? Give the game to review to someone who is not hung up about it and can appreciate such games too.
-
Brianna Wu magically thinks that by throwing away Anonymity we can solve things. But as a stout Civil Libertarian, no. We're not doing that. There's reasons why anonymous outputs are needed, and importantly they actually have a role and place. But we're also seeing the much more terrible side with the harassment and trolling against many female devs. It ain't cool, but the clear majority of GGers have made it clear they don't tolerate that **** and try to quash it.
Guess what - I'm a civil libertarian too! I also think that all this wonderful freedom is going to be useless if certain individuals can't ****ing use the internet without being harassed or threatened incessantly. Brianna Wu is not anonymous. Only the trolls are. People are quite happy to surrender some of their anonymity if the ability of private citizens free to destroy their lives with impunity is their biggest fear when going on the internet. I love freedom and democracy, but if we actually have these things, it's our responsibility not to **** them up. When we misuse the rights we have been given we invite them to be taken from us again.
In fact GG groups have been working together to flush out, hunt down, or quash harassment, doxxers, and other idiots who would harass women. The nature of trolls is a sad one. Trolls don't care who they harm, as long as they get a thrill or fulfill some petty personal desire. Who or what those trolls are is challenge, combined with anonymity on the Internet. I feel like linking to Gabe's Internet ****wad Theory, but the gist is that a small group of morons gets their thrills from **** like this. The point is that most of GG has effectively come out against harassment and are taking steps to try and cull it. A few anti-GG members are trying to do the same, but my problem is that the Anti-GGers seem quite oblivious to this. In fact, it's a willful ignorance that has me scratching me head.
Atomic, I don't know what to tell you other than the fact that Gamergate was born as a harassment movement against a single woman, that it progressed to a harassment campaign against anyone who criticized it in broad daylight in front of everyone to see, that it was kicked off of 4chan for being too extreme, that its main home is now on 8chan where doxxing is explicitly allowed, that the targets of supposedly legitimate GGers that don't endorse what 8chan is doing just happen to be whoever is being discussed on 8chan, that twitter users have been caught posing as minorities for #notyourshield (https://i.imgur.com/zqEC8We.jpg), That there is a Gamergate guide called "Twitter Flooding Instructions," in which posters were advised to pose as reasonable individuals new to Gamergate, "Like an indian cab driver who can't read traffic signs." (https://i.imgur.com/zqEC8We.jpg) that GG's favorite journalist has been Milo Yiannopoulos (https://i.imgur.com/o631n7I.png) who has referred to trans people as "it", that I personally saw entire GG threads filled with rants about "ANITA SARJEWIAN", that I caught them spreading fabricated images of a women who had been driven out of her home by death threats speaking an anti-autistic slur, that Zoe Quinn released IRC logs of members of GG directing the harassment campaign behind the scenes that were called fakes until badly redacted versions were released that still contained much of the incriminating evidence Quinn had revealed, that the incriminating evidence is still being stockpiled (https://i.imgur.com/HgH4flH.png), that the people targeted for death threats have all receiving them shortly after criticizing gamergate, that the people who claim to just want to talk about corruption WON'T USE ANOTHER TAG DESPITE EVERYTHING I JUST MENTIONED. I don't know what else to tell you. It's willful ignorance that has me scratching my head.
My definition of GamerGate is a stupid internet drama born of idiots kicking a frothing animal and expecting it to heel on command. Several events lead to its explosion, and were now dealing with the aftermath. If you expect the movement to somehow grow a central nervous system, good luck. It's a leaderless, but still very fearsome beast.
Now I will admit I've spent a long time "dwelling" with many of the GamerGaters on the Escapist, but that's because I was sincerely interested in knowing why they we fed up. And 8chan moderators moved to eliminate those stupid doxxing messes after users notified them (apparently a few were actually sleeping). It's quite the different take on the Escapist where I get to witness the Anti-GG crowd engaged in the same antics you describe. Milo has shown himself and Breitbart to be on the nutcase side of things, but he still received a syringe. And I found that both amusing and not too surprising.
And you're talking with someone who mentally snapped after trying to talk sense with people over the issues that lead up to GG. I find that I can't reason with both anymore, but I can certainly watch the madness unfold and fireworks ensue. An event I like to refer to this "madness" is how a Call of Duty developer received death threats over a balancing patch. While you can continually "promote" a livable environment in the games industry for women, its the consumers, the gamers, that make that possible.
Consumers are your bottom line. Problem is your biting the hand that helps to feed you. And I think one step would be willing to drop the pretenses and work against alienating them.
How many of those consumers actually sent death threats to women? How many actively tried to harass people? How many of those consumers feel about being called Sexist Pigs, Misogynists, and other stupid things?
Alienation is the worst thing that can happen. And sad thing is, I really do want games made by women. I threw money at the The Fine Young Capitalists for that very reason and I want to see more initiatives to get women into the industry. But for my 20 odd years in retail, the last thing you do is piss off the customer. They'll take their business, or in this case, ensue a revolt that can have actual effects.
-
Declaring Gamers are dead was a clear, and stupid, move on attempting to change the definition of Gamer: i.e. a person who plays games. I bet you most of those Editors and Journalists have never dipped into linguistic theory or studied concepts of meaning from a philosophical standpoint. As a half-asian, I find it amusing that gamer supposedly means white person. Well, guess I'm only 50% there. And while I have some sympathies towards GG, I'm no friend to it.
I'm perfectly happy to refer to myself as a gamer to anyone who asks, and I enthusiastically supported an article containing the quote "'Gamers' are dead". If you really want a "civil discussion", stop assuming I'm a moronic ideologue, and think about how I am reconciling those two statements and why.
So I take it that you have no interest in listening to me then? Just be honest so I'm not wasting my time.
-
Also, reviews like this are the last thing we need:
https://www.polygon.com/2014/10/13/6957677/bayonetta-2-review-wii-u
It is fine to mention a feminist perspective here and there. It is not OK to push it almost everywhere and to top it all off even give games negative reviews because it doesnt happen to share your political opinions or concerns. And this is not an opinion article even. There is a difference between normal, tasteful political sections in an article and "social justice warrior" bull****, and nowadays certain gaming media have a tendency to push the second one. Maybe because it attracts clicks or they are that delusional that they dont even realize it, but I dont take kindly to it. Game reviews should be about games themselves, not about how it portrays women or if it is aimed at "mysoginists" (in quotations), because *gasp* they are just as valid segment of gaming market as games like depression quest are.
So what you're saying is game reviews shouldn't be like this?
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/blue-velvet-1986
Sorry, all you're doing is declaring war on the idea of games as art. You don't like how they've approached the game? Too bad. Don't read it. Find another reviewer who will do what you want them to do. I like that stuff. Why are you trying to take my choices away from me? What right do you have to tell me what kind of reviews I want? Because I'm a SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR, and thus don't belong? On what grounds do you claim the right to judge, to censor, to tell ME what I should be reading?
All Anita and others has done is point things out, and state that perhaps we don't need this **** in games. It takes a special kind of entitlement to call that censorship. And a more special kind to pronounce yourself arbiter of what a review should be.
-
"So what you're saying is game reviews shouldn't be like this?
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/blue-velvet-1986"
False analogy, that review is very different.
Look, an art review, including games, should criticise art, not politics. What that means is that it is OK to say "sexual parts of the movie clash with other parts". But it is not OK to say "hurr durr the game has boobs, therefore mysogyny durr and that is baad mkay", because now you are no longer criticising a game, you are criticising a genre, a type of expression itself, not how good/bad it is done. Boobs and asses have its place in media, particularly in games like Bayonetta it is not against the spirit of the game to include them, quite the contrary. Stop trying to censor games, but give the game to review to someone who can appreciate the style. So yeah, the polygon review is a blatant moralisation and pushing of political ideology where it doesnt belong (and what is worse, it is chock full of it, almost doesnt leave place for anything else), and if you want such BS then I wont stop you but I will voice my opinion on it and stick to gaming media that can inform me about the actual pluses and minuses of the game instead of pushing my daily dose of feminazi propaganda on me.
-
Declaring Gamers are dead was a clear, and stupid, move on attempting to change the definition of Gamer: i.e. a person who plays games. I bet you most of those Editors and Journalists have never dipped into linguistic theory or studied concepts of meaning from a philosophical standpoint. As a half-asian, I find it amusing that gamer supposedly means white person. Well, guess I'm only 50% there. And while I have some sympathies towards GG, I'm no friend to it.
I'm perfectly happy to refer to myself as a gamer to anyone who asks, and I enthusiastically supported an article containing the quote "'Gamers' are dead". If you really want a "civil discussion", stop assuming I'm a moronic ideologue, and think about how I am reconciling those two statements and why.
So I take it that you have no interest in listening to me then? Just be honest so I'm not wasting my time.
No, because the problem is you're demanding GamerGate listen to you. And the first step to building a better relationship is listening. That's something they'd be hard pressed to accept as well.
The greatest thing I was told by women was needing to listen more. And I think that is solid Feminine advice the Anti-GG side could do with.
You won't fix the problem by demanding the other side to change, that change has to be an internal force, external forces usually beget fear, angers, and mistrust. Continuing to demand that each side change rather than changing itself is a problem. I think GamerGate would implode if people on the Anti-GG side pulled their heads out of the sand, stopped accusing gamers of being worse than ISIS, and agree to open a dialogue with them instead of trying to destroy them. Anti-GG, trying to be reasonable like you claim gamers and GG are not.
And the problem is lack of internal self-introspection within each faction. Go ahead, accuse me of being an Idealogue, but it's this lack of self-criticism about both sides that has me worried.
Both are fixated on being right, and therein lies the problem. Game devs and game journalists cannot exist without gamers who pay for games, but neither can gamers without their games and media circles. The reason I vehemently attack the "Gamers are Dead" stance is because the relationship between the gamers and journalists essentially collapsed, with devs stuck in the middle. The Journalists failed to connect with their audience, so the cracks turned into a rift.
-
"So what you're saying is game reviews shouldn't be like this?
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/blue-velvet-1986"
False analogy, that review is very different.
Look, an art review, including games, should criticise art, not politics. What that means is that it is OK to say "sexual parts of the movie clash with other parts". But it is not OK to say "hurr durr the game has boobs, therefore mysogyny durr and that is baad mkay", because now you are no longer criticising a game, you are criticising a genre, a type of expression itself, not how good/bad it is done. Boobs and asses have its place in media, particularly in games like Bayonetta it is not against the spirit of the game to include them, quite the contrary. Stop trying to censor games, but give the game to review to someone who can appreciate the style. So yeah, the polygon review is a blatant moralisation and pushing of political ideology where it doesnt belong (and what is worse, it is chock full of it, almost doesnt leave place for anything else), and if you want such BS then I wont stop you but I will voice my opinion on it and stick to gaming media that can inform me about the actual pluses and minuses of the game instead of pushing my daily dose of feminazi propaganda on me.
So you only want reviews that are completely positive about a game and do not mention things that the reviewer finds problematic and uncomfortable because they fall in some category you deem to be "political"? Some "objectiveness" that is.
For all the cries of censorship you put out, you sure are in favour of it.
-
feminazi
You just lost the argument. Good day sir.
-
a big part about what is meant by being objective is that it should be based on the game and not the fact that the developer is a friend of yours.
-
That's not what maslo is on about though. And if you think that that sort of relationship is a big factor, I do implore you to find reviews that excibit that particular failure. Not in just one publication or site, but across a significant number of pulications; after all, it's not like we have just one place where reviews are posted.
-
Declaring Gamers are dead was a clear, and stupid, move on attempting to change the definition of Gamer: i.e. a person who plays games. I bet you most of those Editors and Journalists have never dipped into linguistic theory or studied concepts of meaning from a philosophical standpoint. As a half-asian, I find it amusing that gamer supposedly means white person. Well, guess I'm only 50% there. And while I have some sympathies towards GG, I'm no friend to it.
I'm perfectly happy to refer to myself as a gamer to anyone who asks, and I enthusiastically supported an article containing the quote "'Gamers' are dead". If you really want a "civil discussion", stop assuming I'm a moronic ideologue, and think about how I am reconciling those two statements and why.
So I take it that you have no interest in listening to me then? Just be honest so I'm not wasting my time.
No, because the problem is you're demanding GamerGate listen to you. And the first step to building a better relationship is listening. That's something they'd be hard pressed to accept as well.
The greatest thing I was told by women was needing to listen more. And I think that is solid Feminine advice the Anti-GG side could do with.
You won't fix the problem by demanding the other side to change, that change has to be an internal force, external forces usually beget fear, angers, and mistrust. Continuing to demand that each side change rather than changing itself is a problem. I think GamerGate would implode if people on the Anti-GG side pulled their heads out of the sand, stopped accusing gamers of being worse than ISIS, and agree to open a dialogue with them instead of trying to destroy them. Anti-GG, trying to be reasonable like you claim gamers and GG are not.
And the problem is lack of internal self-introspection within each faction. Go ahead, accuse me of being an Idealogue, but it's this lack of self-criticism about both sides that has me worried.
Both are fixated on being right, and therein lies the problem. Game devs and game journalists cannot exist without gamers who pay for games, but neither can gamers without their games and media circles. The reason I vehemently attack the "Gamers are Dead" stance is because the relationship between the gamers and journalists essentially collapsed, with devs stuck in the middle. The Journalists failed to connect with their audience, so the cracks turned into a rift.
I'd like Zoe to be able to live in her own house again. I can worry about the other stuff later. You'll get over thinking you were insulted. If you didn't fall into any of the categories I listed earlier, you weren't.
-
"So you only want reviews that are completely positive about a game and do not mention things that the reviewer finds problematic and uncomfortable because they fall in some category you deem to be "political"?"
No, I want reviewers to stop blatantly pushing a political propaganda on me. Here is a review of that game done right:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/editorials/reviews/12462-Bayonetta-2-Review.2
First, it dedicates around two paragraphs out of two page review to feminazi issues, not the entire review. It also doesnt fail to mention the entirely obvious fact that while some may not like it, it does fit with the style of the game so it is there intentionally and some people do like that kind of thing. Thats how you do it. And if you cannot see the night and day difference between these approaches then I dont know what to say. If you like obvious propaganda having pushed on you then read on but dont label those who have issues with it as mysigynist assholes who are dead.
-
feminazi issues
E, there's no point. We're feminazis.
-
Declaring Gamers are dead was a clear, and stupid, move on attempting to change the definition of Gamer: i.e. a person who plays games. I bet you most of those Editors and Journalists have never dipped into linguistic theory or studied concepts of meaning from a philosophical standpoint. As a half-asian, I find it amusing that gamer supposedly means white person. Well, guess I'm only 50% there. And while I have some sympathies towards GG, I'm no friend to it.
I'm perfectly happy to refer to myself as a gamer to anyone who asks, and I enthusiastically supported an article containing the quote "'Gamers' are dead". If you really want a "civil discussion", stop assuming I'm a moronic ideologue, and think about how I am reconciling those two statements and why.
So I take it that you have no interest in listening to me then? Just be honest so I'm not wasting my time.
No, because the problem is you're demanding GamerGate listen to you. And the first step to building a better relationship is listening. That's something they'd be hard pressed to accept as well.
The greatest thing I was told by women was needing to listen more. And I think that is solid Feminine advice the Anti-GG side could do with.
You won't fix the problem by demanding the other side to change, that change has to be an internal force, external forces usually beget fear, angers, and mistrust. Continuing to demand that each side change rather than changing itself is a problem. I think GamerGate would implode if people on the Anti-GG side pulled their heads out of the sand, stopped accusing gamers of being worse than ISIS, and agree to open a dialogue with them instead of trying to destroy them. Anti-GG, trying to be reasonable like you claim gamers and GG are not.
And the problem is lack of internal self-introspection within each faction. Go ahead, accuse me of being an Idealogue, but it's this lack of self-criticism about both sides that has me worried.
Both are fixated on being right, and therein lies the problem. Game devs and game journalists cannot exist without gamers who pay for games, but neither can gamers without their games and media circles. The reason I vehemently attack the "Gamers are Dead" stance is because the relationship between the gamers and journalists essentially collapsed, with devs stuck in the middle. The Journalists failed to connect with their audience, so the cracks turned into a rift.
I'd like Zoe to be able to live in her own house again. I can worry about the other stuff later. You'll get over thinking you were insulted. If you didn't fall into any of the categories I listed earlier, you weren't.
Except the apology for failing to meet the audience falls on the Journalists. They only helped to stir the ****storm, and neither are they free to walk away from its effects. Deny that as hard as you can, but I think it stands out as glaring reminder to the breach of trust. You can continually say "La La La La!" But when you see that rampaging mob on Twitter? Don't blame me for reminding you.
-
"So you only want reviews that are completely positive about a game and do not mention things that the reviewer finds problematic and uncomfortable because they fall in some category you deem to be "political"?"
No, I want reviewers to stop blatantly pushing a political propaganda on me. Here is a review of that game done right:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/editorials/reviews/12462-Bayonetta-2-Review.2
First, it dedicates around two paragraphs out of two page review to feminazi issues, not the entire review. It also doesnt fail to mention the entirely obvious fact that while some may not like it, it does fit with the style of the game so it is there intentionally and some people do like that kind of thing. Thats how you do it. And if you cannot see the night and day difference between these approaches then I dont know what to say. If you like obvious propaganda having pushed on you then read on but dont label those who have issues with it as mysigynist assholes who are dead.
You are still failing to provide a good, rational reason why one style of review is OK and the other isn't beyond "I don't agree with this viewpoint". It's fine, you're allowed to do that, but what you do not get to do is to declare the style you do not like to be unethical, or call for it to be removed from the discussion.
Disagree with a reviewer all you want, but don't think that that disagreement means that that reviewer is doing it wrong and needs to shut up.
-
Declaring Gamers are dead was a clear, and stupid, move on attempting to change the definition of Gamer: i.e. a person who plays games. I bet you most of those Editors and Journalists have never dipped into linguistic theory or studied concepts of meaning from a philosophical standpoint. As a half-asian, I find it amusing that gamer supposedly means white person. Well, guess I'm only 50% there. And while I have some sympathies towards GG, I'm no friend to it.
I'm perfectly happy to refer to myself as a gamer to anyone who asks, and I enthusiastically supported an article containing the quote "'Gamers' are dead". If you really want a "civil discussion", stop assuming I'm a moronic ideologue, and think about how I am reconciling those two statements and why.
So I take it that you have no interest in listening to me then? Just be honest so I'm not wasting my time.
No, because the problem is you're demanding GamerGate listen to you. And the first step to building a better relationship is listening. That's something they'd be hard pressed to accept as well.
The greatest thing I was told by women was needing to listen more. And I think that is solid Feminine advice the Anti-GG side could do with.
You won't fix the problem by demanding the other side to change, that change has to be an internal force, external forces usually beget fear, angers, and mistrust. Continuing to demand that each side change rather than changing itself is a problem. I think GamerGate would implode if people on the Anti-GG side pulled their heads out of the sand, stopped accusing gamers of being worse than ISIS, and agree to open a dialogue with them instead of trying to destroy them. Anti-GG, trying to be reasonable like you claim gamers and GG are not.
And the problem is lack of internal self-introspection within each faction. Go ahead, accuse me of being an Idealogue, but it's this lack of self-criticism about both sides that has me worried.
Both are fixated on being right, and therein lies the problem. Game devs and game journalists cannot exist without gamers who pay for games, but neither can gamers without their games and media circles. The reason I vehemently attack the "Gamers are Dead" stance is because the relationship between the gamers and journalists essentially collapsed, with devs stuck in the middle. The Journalists failed to connect with their audience, so the cracks turned into a rift.
I'd like Zoe to be able to live in her own house again. I can worry about the other stuff later. You'll get over thinking you were insulted. If you didn't fall into any of the categories I listed earlier, you weren't.
Except the apology for failing to meet the audience falls on the Journalists. They only helped to stir the ****storm, and neither are they free to walk away from its effects. Deny that as hard as you can, but I think it stands out as glaring reminder to the breach of trust. You can continually say "La La La La!" But when you see that rampaging mob on Twitter? Don't blame me for reminding you.
Your accusation is that they didn't respond well to a movement that was founded to harass a single woman. Maybe they just had morals and called it like they saw it. Shocking, I know.
The "moderates" had all the chances in the world to disown the name and use a new one free of the connotations GG had deservedly built up. They didn't. That's their loss.
-
"E, there's no point. We're feminazis."
nah, I just use the word in a tongue in cheek manner to annoy them SJWs, I wont actually think you are feminazis, are you
but when an almost entire review rambles on about how the game is mysogynystyc, then we are kind of approaching feminazi territory.. thats what irks me
of course feminist issues have their place in gaming discussion and reviews, its just that often those bringing them up dont know when to stop, to put it lightly
-
"E, there's no point. We're feminazis."
nah, I just use the word in a tongue in cheek manner to annoy them SJWs, I wont actually think you are feminazis, are you
but when an almost entire review rambles on about how the game is mysogynystyc, then we are kind of approaching feminazi territory.. thats what irks me
K, just don't expect anyone to ever take you seriously.
-
Declaring Gamers are dead was a clear, and stupid, move on attempting to change the definition of Gamer: i.e. a person who plays games. I bet you most of those Editors and Journalists have never dipped into linguistic theory or studied concepts of meaning from a philosophical standpoint. As a half-asian, I find it amusing that gamer supposedly means white person. Well, guess I'm only 50% there. And while I have some sympathies towards GG, I'm no friend to it.
I'm perfectly happy to refer to myself as a gamer to anyone who asks, and I enthusiastically supported an article containing the quote "'Gamers' are dead". If you really want a "civil discussion", stop assuming I'm a moronic ideologue, and think about how I am reconciling those two statements and why.
So I take it that you have no interest in listening to me then? Just be honest so I'm not wasting my time.
No, because the problem is you're demanding GamerGate listen to you. And the first step to building a better relationship is listening. That's something they'd be hard pressed to accept as well.
The greatest thing I was told by women was needing to listen more. And I think that is solid Feminine advice the Anti-GG side could do with.
You won't fix the problem by demanding the other side to change, that change has to be an internal force, external forces usually beget fear, angers, and mistrust. Continuing to demand that each side change rather than changing itself is a problem. I think GamerGate would implode if people on the Anti-GG side pulled their heads out of the sand, stopped accusing gamers of being worse than ISIS, and agree to open a dialogue with them instead of trying to destroy them. Anti-GG, trying to be reasonable like you claim gamers and GG are not.
And the problem is lack of internal self-introspection within each faction. Go ahead, accuse me of being an Idealogue, but it's this lack of self-criticism about both sides that has me worried.
Both are fixated on being right, and therein lies the problem. Game devs and game journalists cannot exist without gamers who pay for games, but neither can gamers without their games and media circles. The reason I vehemently attack the "Gamers are Dead" stance is because the relationship between the gamers and journalists essentially collapsed, with devs stuck in the middle. The Journalists failed to connect with their audience, so the cracks turned into a rift.
I'd like Zoe to be able to live in her own house again. I can worry about the other stuff later. You'll get over thinking you were insulted. If you didn't fall into any of the categories I listed earlier, you weren't.
Except the apology for failing to meet the audience falls on the Journalists. They only helped to stir the ****storm, and neither are they free to walk away from its effects. Deny that as hard as you can, but I think it stands out as glaring reminder to the breach of trust. You can continually say "La La La La!" But when you see that rampaging mob on Twitter? Don't blame me for reminding you.
Your accusation is that they didn't respond well to a movement that was founded to harass a single woman. Maybe they just had morals and called it like they saw it. Shocking, I know.
Morals? Ha. They handled it with absolutely terrible audacity and it exploded in their faces. And it wasn't just one woman. The pressure was building up for a time, and it finally came together as one ugly crockpot. Zoe is a minor footnote by now. The damage done by the Journalists? We're still going to be counting for a while about it.
As for Zoe? Surprisingly I have little to say about her. My beef lies firmly with the Journalists and Editors.
-
"I'd like Zoe to be able to live in her own house again."
Take it up with hardcore online trolls, then, not gamergate. Death threats are even less characteristic of pro-gamergate people as "lets bully the nerds" tweets are for anti-gg people. And are you all just a bunch of bullies? I dont think so.
-
Declaring Gamers are dead was a clear, and stupid, move on attempting to change the definition of Gamer: i.e. a person who plays games. I bet you most of those Editors and Journalists have never dipped into linguistic theory or studied concepts of meaning from a philosophical standpoint. As a half-asian, I find it amusing that gamer supposedly means white person. Well, guess I'm only 50% there. And while I have some sympathies towards GG, I'm no friend to it.
I'm perfectly happy to refer to myself as a gamer to anyone who asks, and I enthusiastically supported an article containing the quote "'Gamers' are dead". If you really want a "civil discussion", stop assuming I'm a moronic ideologue, and think about how I am reconciling those two statements and why.
So I take it that you have no interest in listening to me then? Just be honest so I'm not wasting my time.
No, because the problem is you're demanding GamerGate listen to you. And the first step to building a better relationship is listening. That's something they'd be hard pressed to accept as well.
The greatest thing I was told by women was needing to listen more. And I think that is solid Feminine advice the Anti-GG side could do with.
You won't fix the problem by demanding the other side to change, that change has to be an internal force, external forces usually beget fear, angers, and mistrust. Continuing to demand that each side change rather than changing itself is a problem. I think GamerGate would implode if people on the Anti-GG side pulled their heads out of the sand, stopped accusing gamers of being worse than ISIS, and agree to open a dialogue with them instead of trying to destroy them. Anti-GG, trying to be reasonable like you claim gamers and GG are not.
And the problem is lack of internal self-introspection within each faction. Go ahead, accuse me of being an Idealogue, but it's this lack of self-criticism about both sides that has me worried.
Both are fixated on being right, and therein lies the problem. Game devs and game journalists cannot exist without gamers who pay for games, but neither can gamers without their games and media circles. The reason I vehemently attack the "Gamers are Dead" stance is because the relationship between the gamers and journalists essentially collapsed, with devs stuck in the middle. The Journalists failed to connect with their audience, so the cracks turned into a rift.
I'd like Zoe to be able to live in her own house again. I can worry about the other stuff later. You'll get over thinking you were insulted. If you didn't fall into any of the categories I listed earlier, you weren't.
Except the apology for failing to meet the audience falls on the Journalists. They only helped to stir the ****storm, and neither are they free to walk away from its effects. Deny that as hard as you can, but I think it stands out as glaring reminder to the breach of trust. You can continually say "La La La La!" But when you see that rampaging mob on Twitter? Don't blame me for reminding you.
Your accusation is that they didn't respond well to a movement that was founded to harass a single woman. Maybe they just had morals and called it like they saw it. Shocking, I know.
And it wasn't just one woman. Zoe is a minor footnote by now.
"I'd like Zoe to be able to live in her own house again."
Take it up with hardcore online trolls, then, not gamergate. Death threats are even less characteristic of pro-gamergate people as "lets bully the nerds" tweets are for anti-gg people. And are you all just a bunch of bullies? I dont think so.
Then those who claim to care about corruption shouldn't use a name of a movement created to attack her. It kinda gives away what they're really about when they won't.
-
Well, for the Bayonetta2 review on Polygon?
The reviewer is entitled to his opinions about it, though Bayonetta is a series liberally built on weaponizing sex and sex appeal, for the lack of better way of putting it. I could spend hours trying to dissect it, but I'll let MovieBob: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnkoLGiF1K8 do it for me (technically a SJW according to GG, but screw'em).
@Vega: Well, you proved my point about anti-GG. It's so prideful and stubborn that they can't address Joe and Jane Gamer in an earnest conversation. As you said, there can be no more dialogue between us. At least I can count on GamerGate to give me funny looks and conspiracy theories on how SJW's are out to ruin games and I can stare back at the them with the knowledge, crazies still exist on Twitter.
Correction: Looks like I was wrong about the initial claim, turns out the video was edited and revised after being pan fried first time around, so my bad there.
-
Keep in mind, even Anita Sarkesian's initial videos about Bayonetta were actually derided to the point she had to remove it because even Feminists were criticizing her.
Yes I'm sure that's exactly what happened
-
"Then those who claim to care about corruption shouldn't use a name of a movement created to attack her. It kinda gives away what they're really about when they won't."
So is it only semantics that bothers you? I agree that Zoey is a minor footnote now and it is not what GG is about anymore.
-
And for the record, gamergate name is used merely because it exploded in popularity and I would not mind if it was replaced by something else with less controversial past. Its not the name but the ideas that are important.
-
"Then those who claim to care about corruption shouldn't use a name of a movement created to attack her. It kinda gives away what they're really about when they won't."
So is it only semantics that bothers you? I agree that Zoey is a minor footnote now and it is not what GG is about anymore.
And yet the doxxing on 8chan continues.
-
Hold on, I've got another article for you guys to not read, on the claims you've made on all the "gamers are dead" articles vs reality:
http://pixietalksgamergate.wordpress.com/gamers-are-dead-article-analysis/
-
"And yet the doxxing on 8chan continues."
And it will continue indefinitely. What do you want to do, censor 8chan, a site that was founded on the very idea of being against censorship? Thats out of the question and you know it.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the official 8chan gamergate board does not condone or allow doxxing or death threats. It is only other boards, on a place where literally anyone can make a board, that do it. And they are much less active than gamergate board. So even going by what happens on 8chan, gamergate does not stand for doxxing and harrasment.
-
Hold on, I've got another article for you guys to not read, on the claims you've made on all the "gamers are dead" articles vs reality:
http://pixietalksgamergate.wordpress.com/gamers-are-dead-article-analysis/
No, I've seen this before. Too damn cynical at this point to care.
-
Hold on, I've got another article for you guys to not read, on the claims you've made on all the "gamers are dead" articles vs reality:
http://pixietalksgamergate.wordpress.com/gamers-are-dead-article-analysis/
No, I've seen this before. Too damn cynical at this point to care.
Too cynical for facts?
-
Hold on, I've got another article for you guys to not read, on the claims you've made on all the "gamers are dead" articles vs reality:
http://pixietalksgamergate.wordpress.com/gamers-are-dead-article-analysis/
No, I've seen this before. Too damn cynical at this point to care.
Too cynical for facts?
That each side hangs on to their facts like pathetic rags of dignity. I've seen enough from both I don't care. Games journalist will continue to live in happy little clouds and gamers fume. Both refuse to resolve the issue, so I'm content to watch both burn themselves into oblivion. I've seen enough crap about "evidence" I don't give a damn anymore. You can have your Social-Make-Yourself-Feel-Better-Warrior all you want, doesn't change the fact that no one wins.
-
*Puts moderator hat on*
If you want to discuss issues, discuss.
Speaking as someone completely neutral to the entire issue, what I've seen for the last page is pretty much AtomicClucker trying desperately to maintain some kind of middle ground while Mr Vega and 666maslo666 talk past any point made and spout party line bull**** about how the other side is feminazis or how the entire GG movement is based around harassing women and therefore can't say anything that is a valid point. This is not a discussion. And as such if I don't see a discussion on here in the next few posts I'm going to close the thread and issue warnings to certain people to never discuss Gamergate again unless they can do it in a sensible fashion.
*takes off moderator hat*
As an outsider, I think the entire situation is idiotic. Both sides can best be characterised as believing that "The ends justify the means" in that it doesn't matter what is said, done or how it will be perceived by the other side as long as it advances their goals. It doesn't matter that the other side may have some good points to make, what matters is proving that you were right so that you can get what you wanted. The entire situation would go away for both sides if anyone was remotely willing to compromise.
-
Hold on, I've got another article for you guys to not read, on the claims you've made on all the "gamers are dead" articles vs reality:
http://pixietalksgamergate.wordpress.com/gamers-are-dead-article-analysis/
No, I've seen this before. Too damn cynical at this point to care.
Too cynical for facts?
That each side hangs on to their facts like pathetic rags of dignity. I've seen enough from both I don't care. Games journalist will continue to live in happy little clouds and gamers fume. Both refuse to resolve the issue, so I'm content to watch both burn themselves into oblivion. I've seen enough crap about "evidence" I don't give a damn anymore. You can have your Social-Make-Yourself-Feel-Better-Warrior all you want, doesn't change the fact that no one wins.
I disagree with this reading of "Both sides" - have you even read the article and that website? Being critical of GG does not mean you immeaditily join this opposite side. It just means you are critical of GG. Dismissing something straight out of hand as extremist bull**** of the other side will not help any argument - esp. since that is a website from a person who opposes doing exactly that! Pixiejenni actively takes suggestions from Gamergaters in an attempt to document the whole thing.
I disagree in general with the both sides thing, actually. Gamergate is an actual faction with organization, spokesmen (aristocrat, sargon of akkad, Milo Youliponilious (I am quite sure I spelled that wrong), King of Pol, that sorta thing), forums, etc.
"Anti-GG" has none of that. There's not this "Anti-GG" side that is a political faction with their own idead of how things should be done. There's just people who dislike GG for whatever reason.
-
"Gamergate is an actual faction with organization, spokesmen (aristocrat, sargon of akkad, Milo Youliponilious (I am quite sure I spelled that wrong), King of Pol, that sorta thing), forums, etc."
Nope, both sides are similar in this. Those people are not any more of a spokesmen for gg than Anita or Zoey are spokesmen for anti-gg. And there is no organisation. There is a forum on 8chan thats heavily pro-gg (altough nobody will ban you if you go against the party line) but thats about it. Both sides are just a loose conglomerations of people with similar ideas.
-
It needs to be said that the moment a protagonist displays a behaviour that is intended to 'represent' one subset of people, intentionally or not, it is almost certainly offending or annoying someone.
I suppose the way I see it is, imagine a game with an LGBT main character, you are left in one of two positions, you can either just state that and have the character act just like a normal human being, which is the 'realistic' method, or you can leave 'indicators' in the game such as mannerisms and dress. The advantage of number 2 is that it leaves the player no choice but to accept who that character is, the negative side is that, in order to make the situation clear in the simplest manner, the cliche toolbox is often used.
Someone who, after a battle, says in a camp voice 'Ohh, weren't you a tough one!' to indicate their sexuality, might get the message across, but does it do so in a way that is healthy? I know many people who have slightly camp voices but are not members of the LGBT community, A does not, in any sense, mean B, it's just a story-telling tool that is past its sell-by date. In this respect, FF are bang on the mark.
The problem is the fact that patriarchalism and misogyny are being identified as the source of the problem when they are in a way as much a part of the symptoms of it.
We've ended up with a situation where there are a lot of people getting annoyed at the mis-representation or stereotyping of women in games, and quite rightly so, and then pulling out comments about 'Mothers basements' and 'Neck beards' that mean they are reaching into precisely the same toolbox.
Everyone wants a nice easy target, Feminists, Girlfriends, 'Gamers' etc but it doesn't work like that, and every step where we identify 'traits' of those we stand against, we are just as guilty of building a model based on our own perceptions as those who think that women 'belong in the kitchen'.
-
"And yet the doxxing on 8chan continues."
And it will continue indefinitely. What do you want to do, censor 8chan, a site that was founded on the very idea of being against censorship? Thats out of the question and you know it.
In most countries, unlawful disclosure of personal data is considered a major offence, and technically not covered by freedom of speech. Same goes for hate speech : you can publicly criticise people for what they do, not what they are. Most of these laws are worded to protect categories of people who have been consistently attacked throughout history (Jewish, Black and Arab people, homosexuals, women...). Hate speech creates a climate that can lead to physical acts of violence, as some people directly or indirectly linked with hate groups will feel entitled to acting out.
Literal interpretation of freedom of speech (as in : "I can say/write anything anywhere") is wrong : it was never meant to make hate speech and harassment easier. And that's why a project like 8chan is wrong : their only grief against 4chan (what they call "censorship") is this board is starting to enforce a better moderation policy (still not "strict", but compliant with most countries' personal data protection laws).
Some good article about GamerGate :
http://deadspin.com/the-future-of-the-culture-wars-is-here-and-its-gamerga-1646145844
(and, to me, that article explains precisely why there can't be a middle ground with GamerGate)
-
Regarding the Bayonetta thing, I think we could take that hint and perhaps go back to the original premises of this thread and try to analyse this game regarding its objectification or not. I think it's a great example because it is an ambiguous, controversial one even amongst feminists. Anita Sarkeesian said she is going to do a video about how it is such a dire example of "Fighting **** Toy" for men's gaze, while I also happen to know that Leigh Alexander was pretty much stating the exact opposite, that it portrayed her sexy appeal as a weapon of a sorts, as an empowering thing, not an objectifyiing thing.
I think this complete polarization is a symptom of a wider problem in this manner of analyzing games. If the same methodology produces two amazingly different results, then the method is extremely unreliable. However, the methods or the kind of analysis might differ. We might be watching two different strains of feminism, one much more Victorian, "prude", the other much more "Sex positive", libertarian. I will watch AtomicClucker's video link later on because I am actually interested in disentangling this particular question, to further understand where Anita or Leigh both come from. Perhaps we could discuss these things instead of debating if a rage movement mob in twitter is behaving mob-like and with rage?
-
Thing is, there is an aspect of deliberate defamation in a lot of the Media I've read about Gamergate, a lot of shouting about the bad stuff and not enough taking the root complaint of the group seriously. This may be because they are taking advantage of the fact that whilst the complaints of impartiality do actually carry weight, the reason they carry weight was completely mis-judged by GG.
This has led to a situation where the Media can use that mistake to divert focus from the original question of 'Can we be certain that things like reviews in these places are impartial' and instead made it about a huge, meaningless drama. Gamergate is no more made up solely of Trolls and Misogynists than Feminism is made of Man-haters and shrews. In other words, look only at the extremes and you'll only develop extreme opinions.
There is a certain feeling of 'distraction technique' being used, the truth is, that minority has probably made it harder for genuine concerns about impartiality to be raised, I don't think that was entirely without design in the manner it has been reported.
I'm not saying that GG are 'right' or 'wrong', all I'm saying is that the Media acting like wide-eyed innocents in all of this is not indicative of the whole story.
-
Thanks Flipside, you've summed up a lot of what I was thinking is going on in this whole mess.
@Luis, I'm not sure if people want to carry on with GamerGate or move on to discussion of Bayonetta etc. So what I'm going to do is I'll relax the rules on double posting on this thread for the time being. If you want to post on both topics post in separate threads. That way if both subjects interest people we can split the thread more easily.
-
Thing is, there is an aspect of deliberate defamation in a lot of the Media I've read about Gamergate, a lot of shouting about the bad stuff and not enough taking the root complaint of the group seriously.
The problem is that if you take a look at the roots of gamergate, you get to these videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5-51PfwI3M&html5=1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKmy5OKg6lo&html5=1
You can state that the movement has since "moved on", but it doesn't help that this stuff actually gets brought up rather often - and that, quite simply, gamergate started here. A lot of people who work in the games industry know this, and they will always associate gamergate with this (since this is how it kicked off). It also does not help that a lot of the complaints that get thrown about are based on misconceptions (http://pixietalksgamergate.wordpress.com/gamergates-misconceptions-thus-far/comment-page-1/).
Furthermore, even after two months, I still can't tell wether the movement is about ethics, about the increase of feminism in gaming, about being a fan of a gaming webstore or about being anti-SJW. It doesn't help that each gamergater seems to have their own ideas on what the whole thing is about either (http://pixietalksgamergate.wordpress.com/category/answers-2/).
tl;dr: Gamergate has a massive PR problem.
This may be because they are taking advantage of the fact that whilst the complaints of impartiality do actually carry weight, the reason they carry weight was completely mis-judged by GG.
Hmm. What is it about the complaints of impartiality that carry weigth? And how have they been misjudged?
-
Literal interpretation of freedom of speech (as in : "I can say/write anything anywhere") is wrong : it was never meant to make hate speech and harassment easier.
I am more of a libertarian in this area so that is more or less what freedom of speech means to me. My country has hate speech laws on paper too, thankfully never enforced.
Anyway, that wasnt my point, my point was that there is nothing GamerGate can do about harrassment or doxxing, except to nicely ask people to stop (which doesnt seem very effective against the real whackos or trolls anyway). Therefore it is not representative of the whole thing.
-
Well, that's the thing, GG has become a bandwagon that anyone with a complaint jumps on, mostly because it made itself about people rather than policy, and when they did get involved with Policies, they got the wrong end of the stick and thought it was about how Journalists/Developers behave as people, rather than publications/software houses behave as organizations.
The question of impartiality is more centered around where sites get their funding and promotional material, not who is sleeping with whom. As I've said before, reading a review on a site that carries income-generating adverts for computer games, whether it be the same computer game or even different ones, will generate a question of impartiality. Developers offering special deals for reviews that cast the game in a good light will generate a question of impartiality. These are the situations that people should be raising flags about, not passing judgement on the mating habits of developers and journalists, even if it were true (which it isn't), it would be a drop in the ocean compared to the possibility of institutionalized bias that is inherent with this kind of conflict of interest.
That doesn't automatically follow that this is what is happening, but the question deserves to be asked, and answered, but Gamergate are no longer the group to do it.
-
The question of impartiality is more centered around where sites get their funding and promotional material, not who is sleeping with whom. As I've said before, reading a review on a site that carries income-generating adverts for computer games, whether it be the same computer game or even different ones, will generate a question of impartiality.
This is an interesting question. Rock Paper Shotgun, for example, uses an independent add-aggegrator run via Eurogamer and one run by outbrain, so they have hardly any control over the advertisements that are displayed (unless it's silly, so they can have one removed). It *has* created questions in the past (people disliked them for positively reviewing Crysis 2 and linking it to the advertisements), but RPS and various advertisers simply don't talk to each other.
Anyway, that wasnt my point, my point was that there is nothing GamerGate can do about harrassment or doxxing, except to nicely ask people to stop (which doesnt seem very effective against the real whackos or trolls anyway). Therefore it is not representative of the whole thing.
The roots of gamergate lie in harassment and doxxing (as a result of the above vids). As long as there are people who feel that the harassment and doxxing are means that are justified by the ends, it will continue. I think the only thing that can be done is to stop giving legitimacy to these nutjobs and reboot the movement with a clear structure (so you can keep the trolls out) under a new name.
-
*Puts moderator hat on*
If you want to discuss issues, discuss.
Speaking as someone completely neutral to the entire issue, what I've seen for the last page is pretty much AtomicClucker trying desperately to maintain some kind of middle ground while Mr Vega and 666maslo666 talk past any point made and spout party line bull**** about how the other side is feminazis or how the entire GG movement is based around harassing women and therefore can't say anything that is a valid point. This is not a discussion. And as such if I don't see a discussion on here in the next few posts I'm going to close the thread and issue warnings to certain people to never discuss Gamergate again unless they can do it in a sensible fashion.
*takes off moderator hat*
As an outsider, I think the entire situation is idiotic. Both sides can best be characterised as believing that "The ends justify the means" in that it doesn't matter what is said, done or how it will be perceived by the other side as long as it advances their goals. It doesn't matter that the other side may have some good points to make, what matters is proving that you were right so that you can get what you wanted. The entire situation would go away for both sides if anyone was remotely willing to compromise.
I attempted to start a discussion on Alexander's article and whether or not the media is really engaging in the vicious attack he claims it is, and he made it very clear he had no interest in hearing it.
As for what GG is really about, I'm stating my opinion based on what i've witnessed, which is pretty extensive. Maybe I have good reasons for believing as I do. What more do you want me to do? I just haven't seen more than a tiny fraction of gg as having the properties he claims it does. What I have seen is an awful lot of harassment using the name against the same targets that the movement was supposed to have 'moved on' from. Does it not bother you that a lot of the voices you would expect to rally around an anti-corruption movement have instead condemned Gamergate? I think what Alexander said was completely misunderstood and completely justified and that journalists have very good reasons for speaking out against GG. The vibe I'm getting here is that because "both parties" are at fault, I can't say that if there's going to be a civil conversation. I'm sorry, I think it's true! What do you want me to say?!
If someone wants to talk about corruption, yay! But GG is a name birthed in harassment and still being run in its main part as a harassment movement out of 4/8chan. If you get a new name, one without all the history and connotations gg has picked up, you'll be able to get out from the shadow of everything in gg that isn't about corruption. You won't have to say that you're a 'moderate' that doesn't like doxxing and death threats. You'll be able to focus on what actually matters to you, for real. As for us anti-GGers, it would really help if the reasonable ones would separate yourself from the 8channers so we could talk to you without waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Again, we're asking them to drop a name. If they say the name doesn't matter to them, why won't they ditch it if it's so toxic to so many people? I'd like to see actions line up with words, that's all I'm asking.
-
Thing is, I'm a big fan of Zero Punctuation reviews, even when he's hated a game that I've enjoyed, he never raises a complaint that I feel is unjustified, it just has a different impact on his gaming experience to me, which is fine, different strokes as it were. He appears on the Escapist, which is one of the sites that I have concerns about their advertising policies.
It doesn't always follow that the possibility for bias must therefore mean that bias is present, but I understand completely if someone were to say that alarm bells ring when they read a review surrounded by game adverts.
But yes, I'll agree that Gamergate, in its current incarnation was born in flame, lives in flame and will die in flame, it took the wrong end of the stick and ran with it, anyone with a genuine concern about the relationship between game-publications and game-publishers would do well to distance themselves from it, I just hope it doesn't impair the ability to have a serious discussion over those same concerns.
-
If someone wants to talk about corruption, yay! But GG is a name birthed in harassment and still being run in its main part as a harassment movement out of 4/8chan. If you get a new name, one without all the history and connotations gg has picked up, you'll be able to get out from the shadow of everything in gg that isn't about corruption. You won't have to say that you're a 'moderate' that doesn't like doxxing and death threats. You'll be able to focus on what actually matters to you, for real. As for us anti-GGers, it would really help if the reasonable ones would separate yourself from the 8channers so we could talk to you without waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Again, we're asking them to drop a name. If they say the name doesn't matter to them, why won't they ditch it if it's so toxic to so many people? I'd like to see actions line up with words, that's all I'm asking.
You could say something similar about Feminism though. While I'm no particular fan of the people who say it, it's quite clear that there are quite a few people who view feminism as basically being RadFem. Rebranding under a name such as equalism or some such would help with that. There would be no need to explain that you're a moderate feminist and not one of those RadFem nutcases. It would help if the reasonable ones would separate themselves from the idiots who believe that only lesbians can truly be feminists or the other nonsense I've heard from RadFem.
Hell, you could say much the same thing about almost any group which has extremists in it. Why don't Muslims rebrand so that everyone knows they aren't connected to ISIS?
Or Christians?
Or Bronies?
Rebranding may make it much easier for the people on the outside to box up people and decide who really is the enemy but is it really a sensible choice for the people in that group? If so, why hasn't anti-GG come up with their own classifications so that everyone knows who are the people that think gamers are neckbeards living in their mother's basements?
Whether or not Gamergate initially started out as a bunch of absolute tossers involved in hacking and trolling, that might not be all it is now. At the moment there are probably a lot of reasonable people in the GG movement who think it easier to take over the existing movement and make it into a useful tool for changing the way the gaming companies deal with the press than it ever would be to start from scratch. Engaging with them is a far more reasonable thing to do than to assume that everyone in the group must be a sexist arsehole simply because they won't change their name. I'm not saying that they shouldn't distance themselves from the name, just that I can see good reasons why they aren't willing to do so.
In the end, I'm fairly neutral on the whole picking sides thing because to be honest, I think both sides are claiming to have goals I support. I just wish they'd both put the energy they're putting into misunderstanding each other and arguing the same stupid talking points into something productive.
-
On the subject of online trolling and abuse, this might be of interest:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29678989
They're trying to change the laws in Britain on this, including quadrupling the maximum jail sentence from 6 months to 2 years.
-
As for impartiality, really all websites can (and should) do outside of basics like "don't take a bribe for a good review" is ensure that ads for the exact product being reviewed don't surround the review itself. I'm sure that's the most coveted spot to advertise in and therefore where the best money is at, but sharing the stage/screen like that turns the review into an explicit extension of the ad IMO, even if the reader knows that the critic has no control over what ads run. Outside of that, it's up to consumers to understand that critics are basically advocates for the media they discuss and that their livelihood depends on how good a job they can do of advocating for them. That's just a conflict that comes with the territory.
Speaking of critics, here's Sarkeesian working her star power at Rolling Stone (https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/anita-sarkeesian-gamergate-interview-20141017). Normally comments are horrible, but in this case the interview is like the perfect setup and bait for her haters to come immediately annihilate their own their credibility in the comment section. Moths to the flame :(
-
If someone wants to talk about corruption, yay! But GG is a name birthed in harassment and still being run in its main part as a harassment movement out of 4/8chan. If you get a new name, one without all the history and connotations gg has picked up, you'll be able to get out from the shadow of everything in gg that isn't about corruption. You won't have to say that you're a 'moderate' that doesn't like doxxing and death threats. You'll be able to focus on what actually matters to you, for real. As for us anti-GGers, it would really help if the reasonable ones would separate yourself from the 8channers so we could talk to you without waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Again, we're asking them to drop a name. If they say the name doesn't matter to them, why won't they ditch it if it's so toxic to so many people? I'd like to see actions line up with words, that's all I'm asking.
You could say something similar about Feminism though. While I'm no particular fan of the people who say it, it's quite clear that there are quite a few people who view feminism as basically being RadFem. Rebranding under a name such as equalism or some such would help with that. There would be no need to explain that you're a moderate feminist and not one of those RadFem nutcases. It would help if the reasonable ones would separate themselves from the idiots who believe that only lesbians can truly be feminists or the other nonsense I've heard from RadFem.
Hell, you could say much the same thing about almost any group which has extremists in it. Why don't Muslims rebrand so that everyone knows they aren't connected to ISIS?
Or Christians?
Or Bronies?
Rebranding may make it much easier for the people on the outside to box up people and decide who really is the enemy but is it really a sensible choice for the people in that group? If so, why hasn't anti-GG come up with their own classifications so that everyone knows who are the people that think gamers are neckbeards living in their mother's basements?
Whether or not Gamergate initially started out as a bunch of absolute tossers involved in hacking and trolling, that might not be all it is now. At the moment there are probably a lot of reasonable people in the GG movement who think it easier to take over the existing movement and make it into a useful tool for changing the way the gaming companies deal with the press than it ever would be to start from scratch. Engaging with them is a far more reasonable thing to do than to assume that everyone in the group must be a sexist arsehole simply because they won't change their name. I'm not saying that they shouldn't distance themselves from the name, just that I can see good reasons why they aren't willing to do so.
In the end, I'm fairly neutral on the whole picking sides thing because to be honest, I think both sides are claiming to have goals I support. I just wish they'd both put the energy they're putting into misunderstanding each other and arguing the same stupid talking points into something productive.
What is the threshold between "it may have started out bad but it has potential" and "it's hopelessly infested with misogynistic scumbags"? What would have to happen for you to consider the latter to be the case?
-
If someone wants to talk about corruption, yay! But GG is a name birthed in harassment and still being run in its main part as a harassment movement out of 4/8chan. If you get a new name, one without all the history and connotations gg has picked up, you'll be able to get out from the shadow of everything in gg that isn't about corruption. You won't have to say that you're a 'moderate' that doesn't like doxxing and death threats. You'll be able to focus on what actually matters to you, for real. As for us anti-GGers, it would really help if the reasonable ones would separate yourself from the 8channers so we could talk to you without waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Again, we're asking them to drop a name. If they say the name doesn't matter to them, why won't they ditch it if it's so toxic to so many people? I'd like to see actions line up with words, that's all I'm asking.
You could say something similar about Feminism though.
You could say it, but it would be stupid and have no basis in the real world and be a logical fallacy to boot.
-
Feminism didn't start with... well what I posted above. That being said, "Feminism" is a broad ideology - Gamergate is *not* an ideology, it's a campaign, similar to how "Yes All Women" and "He for She" are campaigns.
Anyway, I came here to post this interesting storify on Gater's wishes for objective reviews (https://storify.com/Zennistrad/gamergate-s-inconsistent-capitalist-apologia).
-
Saying something is invalid because a fallacy was made and thus all other points are invalid is also a fallacy.
Let me ask you, shouldn't communists and socialists drop their names for non-politically charged ones due to the history with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?
-
Saying something is invalid because a fallacy was made and thus all other points are invalid is also a fallacy.
Let me ask you, shouldn't communists and socialists drop their names for non-politically charged ones due to the history with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?
You're making a comparison between gamergate and the entire socialist tradition?
-
Saying something is invalid because a fallacy was made and thus all other points are invalid is also a fallacy.
And amazingly enough, nobody made that argument. Did you know that demonstrating that something that someone never said is fallacious is also a fallacy?
-
As for impartiality, really all websites can (and should) do outside of basics like "don't take a bribe for a good review" is ensure that ads for the exact product being reviewed don't surround the review itself. I'm sure that's the most coveted spot to advertise in and therefore where the best money is at, but sharing the stage/screen like that turns the review into an explicit extension of the ad IMO, even if the reader knows that the critic has no control over what ads run. Outside of that, it's up to consumers to understand that critics are basically advocates for the media they discuss and that their livelihood depends on how good a job they can do of advocating for them. That's just a conflict that comes with the territory.
Speaking of critics, here's Sarkeesian working her star power at Rolling Stone (https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/anita-sarkeesian-gamergate-interview-20141017). Normally comments are horrible, but in this case the interview is like the perfect setup and bait for her haters to come immediately annihilate their own their credibility in the comment section. Moths to the flame :(
Well, if her recent videos are any consideration, Anita has gotten a lot more "perceived" acumen under her belt. But I'm still amused she finds it "dire" that Bayonetta is being lauded as a "powerful" character. I'm waiting for the point where Anita outs herself as a prude, or decides she can attempt a moral crusade against Pr0n... and dash her reputation and credibility like Don Quixote charging windmills. I've said a number of times that Anita likes to talk tough, but when it comes to "dividing" issues, such as self-sexual expression and Bayonetta, that she falls back on old formulaic opinions that came from Second Wave. I'm sincerely interested on her stances of self-sexual expression, but that's a defining feature of 3rd wave Feminism and an issue that bitterly divides Feminists circles.
Frankly, that's why I tend to call her a "Prude," because she seems more interested in repressing or confining female sexuality (outside of her normal criticism of Male Gaze, objectification, etc which do have grounding, surprise) when it comes to women looking at it. Some Feminists are finding Bayonetta "dangerous" because sexuality is turned into a literal weapon, while others find it liberating, or breaking new territory. Bayonetta was designed as a sexual message, I'll argue what's groundbreaking about her is that Bayonetta is "Sex: I'm gonna stab you my way, my time, my schedule."
We haven't encountered a character quite like her.
@Karajorma: Problem is both sides are prideful and stubborn, as I said, I'm burnt out on both sides to an extent because they quickly push information and claims, facts, websites, that it does take a toll to try and deal with all of it. Though as a few others point out, GG has developed from a "mob" into an organized faction, but I still argue that despite the talking heads, it lacks a firm central figure or authority but is driven by a common sentiment fueled by frustration and anger. As for Anti-GG, it's like a collection of hens strutting together before going back the henhouse. They refuse to step down or "dirty" themselves, and I find it stupid that the Journalists, while trying to condemn and reshape "Gamers" into their image, failed to notice that quite a few gamers are actually aware our audience and market has expanded.
As for the doxxing and harassing? That's a big problem, and this is where I disagree with Vega firmly, but GG/Anti-GG can't control the Trolls, and frankly after GG decided to start compiling info on some of ZQs and Anita's harassers, I think it was a big step towards trying to clear up the flak. Many members of GamerGate have been harassed and doxxed in turn, and I don't see Anti-GG bashing an eye to that.
-
Feminism was actually viewed as a kind of 'Terrorism' during the time of the suffragettes etc, the common view was that they were women who had a taste of 'entitlement' and were now throwing a hissy fit because they 'had to deal with the reality' of men returning from War and going back into the workplace.
We all know that was complete rubbish now, but that was how they were largely portrayed at the time as well.
For a more extreme example, take the IRA in Northern Ireland back in the late 20th Century, I would never, ever condone their methods for pushing their point of view, but that did not mean that, eventually, the UK had to accept that the heart of the complaint itself had merit, even if the methods used did not. Disclaimer, I'm not comparing either side to Terrorists before anyone starts, I'm trying to explain how genuine concerns can give birth to methods that are totally at odds at what is trying to be achieved. Remember the suffragettes were considered 'Terrorists' themselves at the time.
Another example might be the Luddites, people with a genuine concern about their jobs and their futures who managed to address that concern in the silliest way possible, by physically attacking the machinery that they perceived as that source of their concern, many were motivated for the wrong reasons, having been told horror stories that weren't actually true, the similarities are many, but at the core of Luddite behaviour was a real concern that is still being addressed today.
This doesn't justify the way that members of GG have behaved over this, their reaction to the problem was wholly and unconditionally wrong, and there lay the heart of the problem, impartiality in gaming publications has nothing to do with Feminism in any form, and should not have been made into such, in fact, there were opportunities for the two sides to work together, since that bias in reporting also, at times, includes the attitudes of these reviews towards women characters in those games.
Gamergate is silly, but the core issue being raised by those who aren't busy making threats and hurling insults is something that is worthy of consideration, because the ones that actually care aren't involved with the part of the debate that is making the news, problem is, they are being drowned out by all the noise.
-
Gamergate is silly, but the core issue being raised by those who aren't busy making threats and hurling insults is something that is worthy of consideration, because the ones that actually care aren't involved with the part of the debate that is making the news, problem is, they are being drowned out by all the noise.
Yeah, and its very frustrating. Outsiders and neutral parties that are willing to look can find that message.
But there's way too much **** and vitriol to find it. Common ground is minimal, and the majority of GG/Anti-GG are too blind and rabid to actively pick up on it.
Vega constantly harps about threats to women, and I find it both funny and entertaining that's pretty much ALL he does. It's a one trick pony. I've repeatedly stated that it is a major problem in the issue, but at the same time, it's also a distraction because we're quite not sure who's controlling it. But I give a little credit to GG for actually beginning to help oust the stupid trolls, and that's one major concession that Anti-GG isn't willing to see: doing so would deprive them of their precious hobby horse. Diplomacy is the art of making gestures and concessions to reach common and sensible ground.
-
Gamergate is silly, but the core issue being raised by those who aren't busy making threats and hurling insults is something that is worthy of consideration, because the ones that actually care aren't involved with the part of the debate that is making the news, problem is, they are being drowned out by all the noise.
The problem is that the "moderate" GamerGaters aren't complaining about the major, obvious ethics violations that are actually a problem; they complain about reviews not being "objective" and that game journalism is "pushing a feminist agenda" (just look at 666maslo666 in this very thread), when the first claim is patent nonsense and the second claim is equally laughable when a study of how often the subject actually comes up is performed (as demonstrated here (https://storify.com/MorganRamsay/how-often-do-video-game-journalists-write-about-fe), for example, linked earlier in the thread by -Joshua- (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=88327.msg1766417#msg1766417)).
The "core issue" here is that GamerGate was organized by misogynists as a campaign of harassment using the fig leaf of justification that corruption exists. Yes, corruption exists. GamerGaters aren't doing anything about it, however; instead, they're insulting and slandering people (women and men, but mostly women) in the tech industry for either disagreeing with them or daring to be female and unapologetic of that fact.
But I give a little credit to GG for actually beginning to help oust the stupid trolls, and that's one major concession that Anti-GG isn't willing to see: doing so would deprive them of their precious hobby horse. Diplomacy is the art of making gestures and concessions to reach common and sensible ground.
"#GamerGate does't tolerate harassment (https://twitter.com/Bendilin/status/523276042749095936)", says the creator of Beat Up Anita Sarkeesian (http://torontostandard.com/industry/toronto-tweeter-causes-twitter-uproar-over-violent-beat-up-anita-sarkeesian-game/). In fact, why don't you just read this whole thing (https://storify.com/a_man_in_black/gamergate-is-a-misogy) for all the examples of bigotry at the heart of GamerGate you could possibly want? GamerGaters may be scapegoating some individual trolls, but it doesn't change the fact that the people at the heart of the movement, who aren't being "ousted" in any way, are misogynists.
-
Let's stop the strawmanning and actually discuss what we think the GGers are concerned about. All I know about them is the threats they made because that's all that has been reported in the media. Reading through this thread has not helped me in understanding the concern at all, unless it boils down to:
Anita Sarkeesian is not qualified to do anything.
Anita Sarkeesian wants to repress sexuality.
So what is the issue that GamerGate wants to address?
-
Gamergate is silly, but the core issue being raised by those who aren't busy making threats and hurling insults is something that is worthy of consideration, because the ones that actually care aren't involved with the part of the debate that is making the news, problem is, they are being drowned out by all the noise.
Yeah, and its very frustrating. Outsiders and neutral parties that are willing to look can find that message.
But there's way too much **** and vitriol to find it. Common ground is minimal, and the majority of GG/Anti-GG are too blind and rabid to actively pick up on it.
And the likes of this:
Speaking of critics, here's Sarkeesian working her star power at Rolling Stone (https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/anita-sarkeesian-gamergate-interview-20141017). Normally comments are horrible, but in this case the interview is like the perfect setup and bait for her haters to come immediately annihilate their own their credibility in the comment section. Moths to the flame :(
That opens up with How a video game fan weathered a misogynist backlash to become pop culture's most valuable critic
bigging her up like some sort of messiah, and then proceeds to give Anita a platform to basically dismiss all opposition as misogynists and trolls while pushing her own agenda.
The thing is, we're all gamers here. But take a step back and think how that looks to the outsider who isn't steeped in this like we are. It makes gamers look like really scary people. And Anita gets column inches on a lot of non-gaming publications.
-
But none of this tells me what GamerGate is actually concerned about. If Anita Sarkeesian plopped out of existence, what is GamerGate's agenda?
-
Gamergate is silly, but the core issue being raised by those who aren't busy making threats and hurling insults is something that is worthy of consideration, because the ones that actually care aren't involved with the part of the debate that is making the news, problem is, they are being drowned out by all the noise.
The problem is that the "moderate" GamerGaters aren't complaining about the major, obvious ethics violations that are actually a problem; they complain about reviews not being "objective" and that game journalism is "pushing a feminist agenda" (just look at 666maslo666 in this very thread), when the first claim is patent nonsense and the second claim is equally laughable when a study of how often the subject actually comes up is performed (as demonstrated here (https://storify.com/MorganRamsay/how-often-do-video-game-journalists-write-about-fe), for example, linked earlier in the thread by -Joshua- (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=88327.msg1766417#msg1766417)).
The "core issue" here is that GamerGate was organized by misogynists as a campaign of harassment using the fig leaf of justification that corruption exists. Yes, corruption exists. GamerGaters aren't doing anything about it, however; instead, they're insulting and slandering people (women and men, but mostly women) in the tech industry for either disagreeing with them or daring to be female and unapologetic of that fact.
But I give a little credit to GG for actually beginning to help oust the stupid trolls, and that's one major concession that Anti-GG isn't willing to see: doing so would deprive them of their precious hobby horse. Diplomacy is the art of making gestures and concessions to reach common and sensible ground.
"#GamerGate does't tolerate harassment (https://twitter.com/Bendilin/status/523276042749095936)", says the creator of Beat Up Anita Sarkeesian (http://torontostandard.com/industry/toronto-tweeter-causes-twitter-uproar-over-violent-beat-up-anita-sarkeesian-game/). In fact, why don't you just read this whole thing (https://storify.com/a_man_in_black/gamergate-is-a-misogy) for all the examples of bigotry at the heart of GamerGate you could possibly want? GamerGaters may be scapegoating some individual trolls, but it doesn't change the fact that the people at the heart of the movement, who aren't being "ousted" in any way, are misogynists.
Well this is why I do distance myself with the movement: it was founded by a coalition of strange bedfellows. From Adam Baldwin, Breitbard, to individual users, it carries a very loaded message. The fact they haven't imploded in the last three months is a strange story of somehow co-existing with so many crazies in a single cult following.
Edit: Anita Sarkeesian is not qualified to do anything.
Anita Sarkeesian wants to repress sexuality.
Now, it's just me, but I vigorously protest Anita (and my erstwhile opinions) is that we deserve a better, more cultured commenter. A lot of her points have been brought up about various critics, but... without the nuance. I feel she is a "cause celebre," that actually has little to add to the conversation now and her last set of videos is emboldened by an agenda and less an honest attempt at a cultural critique. My two problems are: she's isn't of an artistic background and she doesn't seem to know her art history too well. We've alot of people arguing that games are now art, somehow mature and now ripe for cultural criticism. My argument is that most of the "cultural critique" is without the actual artistic merits and hobnobbing.
I've dished out lots of harsh critique in my time, but even now I still wonder how much is actually justified. One problem is that many critics ignore "over-criticism" and "constructive" and charge after a single point instead of trying to assemble a wholesome and earnest attempt at it. I can easily point out most of the critiques in Tropes vs Women (and most of us agree lazy writing and pandering are too blame). One problem as a critic is to measure the constructive elements, and I'm glad people like Totalbiscuit have acknowledged that as a problem in cultural criticism... which is something I've yet to see Anita and other self-espoused Feminists do.
We need to rebuild our tools we use to critique, measure, and judge games in an artistic medium. Because it combines several forms in one and is, at its heart, an interactive medium.
-
The thing is, we're all gamers here. But take a step back and think how that looks to the outsider who isn't steeped in this like we are. It makes gamers look like really scary people. And Anita gets column inches on a lot of non-gaming publications.
No, it doesn't make gamers look like really scary people. It makes "a reactionary community of hardcore gamers" look like... a reactionary community of hardcore gamers full of misogynists. It doesn't make "everyone who plays games" look bad because of the very point that the much-maligned-but-apparently-not-very-well-read "'Gamers' are Dead" articles were trying to make: lots of people play video games nowadays. An ever-increasing percentage of the general population plays games in the same way that a large percentage of the general population watches moves, and we don't call them "filmers" and they don't self-identify as "moviegoers"; they're just "people who happen to watch movies". If "a reactionary community of hardcore cinephiles" started harassing a movie critic for, shock and amazement, criticizing the content of movies, nobody would be worried that it "makes moviegoers look bad to outsiders". And you shouldn't be worried about how this makes "people who play video games" look to outsiders for exactly the same reasons.
-
The problem is that Gamergate jumped the rails. There is an air of concern that has been simmering since the Kane and Lynch controversy on Gamespot, about the links between developers and gaming publications, but Gamergate, as the world sees it, didn't start there, it started later over a pointless post by a bitter ex-boyfriend who decided to wash his dirty laundry in public for some reason.
Forget 'Gamergate', there never was one, it's just a home for people who want something to shout about, but for those who do have concerns about the links between publisher and publication, this mustn't be allowed to prevent them from voicing that concern.
-
Forget 'Gamergate', there never was one, it's just a home for people who want something to shout about, but for those who do have concerns about the links between publisher and publication, this mustn't be allowed to prevent them from voicing that concern.
And the people who actually have those concerns are generally the most annoyed with GamerGate, for distracting public attention.
-
But none of this tells me what GamerGate is actually concerned about. If Anita Sarkeesian plopped out of existence, what is GamerGate's agenda?
For me personally I think treating Gamergate as any kind of organised movement with clear goals is a mistake. At least right now. It might become one later, but for now it's clearly disorganised. Maybe it will evolve. Maybe it will burn out. Maybe it will tear itself apart. It might even get brought down by the opposition taking advantage of this disarray. I don't know. Me, I'm content to watch and wait. Ask different people tweeting the #, and I expect you'll get different answers. Like AtomicClucker said, it lacks a firm central figure or authority but is driven by a common sentiment fueled by frustration and anger. Would anyone even know where to go to get the "authentic" version of what Gamergate is supposed to be, right now?
Maybe some person or group of people will come along and unite the Gamergate masses, and then there'll be a real tangible movement with clear objectives and standards. Right now anyone can post under the hashtag because nobody asks anything of them. They don't have to meet any requirements. Anyone can jump on the bandwagon and no one can kick them off. Anyone can use it as a vehicle to push their own agenda. If a true movement got started, that would change.
-
Well this is why I do distance myself with the movement: it was founded by a coalition of strange bedfellows. From Adam Baldwin, Breitbard, to individual users, it carries a very loaded message. The fact they haven't imploded in the last three months is a strange story of somehow co-existing with so many crazies in a single cult following.
Causing the opposers to cast rather... whoa pieces like this The He-Man #gamergate-rs Club (https://storify.com/a_man_in_black/gamergate-is-a-misogy). Whatever message some gaters had, the whole movement has been co opted by anti feminists from the start. I agree with your "strange bedfellows" thing: If one is shown pieces like this, it is very hard not to draw the conclusion that Gamergate is actually an anti-feminist campaign as opposed to an "ethical journalism" one. It doesn't help that the people mentioned in that storify are all people that Lorric's first gamergate link (the posts on Eurogamer) link to.
-
The thing is, we're all gamers here. But take a step back and think how that looks to the outsider who isn't steeped in this like we are. It makes gamers look like really scary people. And Anita gets column inches on a lot of non-gaming publications.
No, it doesn't make gamers look like really scary people. It makes "a reactionary community of hardcore gamers" look like... a reactionary community of hardcore gamers full of misogynists. It doesn't make "everyone who plays games" look bad because of the very point that the much-maligned-but-apparently-not-very-well-read "'Gamers' are Dead" articles were trying to make: lots of people play video games nowadays. An ever-increasing percentage of the general population plays games in the same way that a large percentage of the general population watches moves, and we don't call them "filmers" and they don't self-identify as "moviegoers"; they're just "people who happen to watch movies". If "a reactionary community of hardcore cinephiles" started harassing a movie critic for, shock and amazement, criticizing the content of movies, nobody would be worried that it "makes moviegoers look bad to outsiders". And you shouldn't be worried about how this makes "people who play video games" look to outsiders for exactly the same reasons.
This is basically what I got from the attempted explanations that were given regarding GamerGate. Is anyone for GamerGate as it stands in the media? Is there something else that GamerGate means to you?
I get that people have concerns, but GamerGate doesn't seem to be addressing any of that, and that's why it's so hard for me to even attempt to sympathize with them. Let's face it, there is a lot of misogyny going on with that hashtag.
This reminds me of the Tea Party and Occupy movements.
-
As for the doxxing and harassing? That's a big problem, and this is where I disagree with Vega firmly, but GG/Anti-GG can't control the Trolls, and frankly after GG decided to start compiling info on some of ZQs and Anita's harassers, I think it was a big step towards trying to clear up the flak. Many members of GamerGate have been harassed and doxxed in turn, and I don't see Anti-GG bashing an eye to that.
I've seen no evidence of doxxing on our side besides claims made by GGers who have also been involved in actual harrassment, but ZQ and others have strenuously told everyone opposed to Gamergate not to accuse others of false flagging without evidence and I'm going to honor that request (astroturfing is another matter because we have quite a bit of proof on that). Now, if you can find an equivalent on the anti-gg side of entire threads devoting to doxxing people, I'd love to see it, not that GGers wouldn't be howling to us by now if there were any actual examples of that sort.
Better yet, you can point out a Gamergate supporter who has been driven from their home and your false equivalency will be less false.
-
Well this is why I do distance myself with the movement: it was founded by a coalition of strange bedfellows. From Adam Baldwin, Breitbard, to individual users, it carries a very loaded message. The fact they haven't imploded in the last three months is a strange story of somehow co-existing with so many crazies in a single cult following.
Causing the opposers to cast rather... whoa pieces like this The He-Man #gamergate-rs Club (https://storify.com/a_man_in_black/gamergate-is-a-misogy). Whatever message some gaters had, the whole movement has been co opted by anti feminists from the start. I agree with your "strange bedfellows" thing: If one is shown pieces like this, it is very hard not to draw the conclusion that Gamergate is actually an anti-feminist campaign as opposed to an "ethical journalism" one. It doesn't help that the people mentioned in that storify are all people that Lorric's first gamergate link (the posts on Eurogamer) link to.
Yes, it's anti-Feminist as it is anti-Authoritarian. Many GGers feel like they're being dictated as "What gamers should and will be." Also, many echo an anti-Feminist jingo because people feel like PC bull**** was dumped on them without concern or nary a strand of realization from the media.
I do feel angry at the attempt to "Feminize" the culture, but my argument goes that trying to send a top-down message will mostly backfire (and many stupid Feminists have tried and failed to do so). Gamers of all varying sorts have revolted at the attempt. I earnestly believe we need to introduce Feministic (that is bringing down Feminism to a Gamer level) games and culture at the bottom most level: start with gamers and end with gamers.
Gamers should not fear Feminism: they should be educated into knowing what it is and how it benefits them. Carrying out such a task isn't easy, but I argue it is doable on the common level. Problem is that gaming media seems to be stuck in a mindset that I can dictate to the populace what the culture should be. The problem is "should" is an individual basis, and as a result, takes actual decision making powers out of the populace's hands.
And if the media hasn't figured out, they do deal with a rabid animal that will snap and what it perceives as an outside threat.
Better yet, you can point out a Gamergate supporter who has been driven from their home and your false equivalency will be less false.
Here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.860762-GamerGate-Discussion-Debate-and-Resources
Jump into its heart and follow what the hell is going on. You continually say "gimme examples" now I'm telling you to go sort out your own damn mess. The onus, the burden on you is to abandon your tower and sludge it out the cesspool. Stuck in the trenches you shell get your answer. Only by getting dirty, and directly read what they say, can you figure it out.
Until then, I bid my hat to you. Remaining in that tower only feeds the fire.
-
Yes, it's anti-Feminist as it is anti-Authoritarian. Many GGers feel like they're being dictated as "What gamers should and will be." Also, many echo an anti-Feminist jingo because people feel like PC bull**** was dumped on them without concern or nary a strand of realization from the media.
If they do feel that way, they certainly don't seem to be saying so; they seem to be saying that feminist criticism of games is censorship and/or unethical journalism.
I do feel angry at the attempt to "Feminize" the culture
What attempt to "Feminize" the culture?
-
On the subject of damage being inflicted on the other side, the person who wrote that In Defence of Rape article is very distressed.
http://talesofgrim.wordpress.com/2014/10/17/gamergate-ok-but-not-ok/
-
Gamers of all varying sorts have revolted at the attempt.
I'm glad you speak for everyone. Including me, my RL friends who I play games with, people on this forum who disagree with you, all the gamer developers and game journalists I've previously mentioned, and tons of people I've run into on the internet who have openly expressed support for Anita and Leigh Alexander. Dude, maybe we're not your shield. Who the **** do you think funded Anita's Kickstarter? If you think this is Feminist outsiders vs Gamers, you are just totally delusional. There is a much stronger bottom-up component to this than you want to admit.
And if the media hasn't figured out, they do deal with a rabid animal that will snap and what it perceives as an outside threat.
They send a barrage of rape and death threats?
The violent metaphors are not helping you.
-
Yes, it's anti-Feminist as it is anti-Authoritarian. Many GGers feel like they're being dictated as "What gamers should and will be." Also, many echo an anti-Feminist jingo because people feel like PC bull**** was dumped on them without concern or nary a strand of realization from the media.
If they do feel that way, they certainly don't seem to be saying so; they seem to be saying that feminist criticism of games is censorship and/or unethical journalism.
I do feel angry at the attempt to "Feminize" the culture
What attempt to "Feminize" the culture?
Well, the cultural attempt at "Feminizing" was lead by Anita with her criticism, and the body readily spat it back out with vitriol than even shocked me. Anita was the first to push the boulder down, and many followed in her wake. The problem is that the Gamers, already stuck on their own rut, felt quite defensive about it and some decided they could harass and threaten Anita to silence her. Was she in the right to criticize? I think she has plenty of room to do so. But the quality of that criticism? That's where I drew my personal line and opinions.
Since then, we've been in a continual circle of vehement threats, anger and rage over "criticism" but I felt the actual criticism could have been handled better on the parts of many of the critics. In typical Feminist fashion, many critics just threw out criticism (and fewer actually tried to contextualize it) to the point most gamers treated it as a threat to their existence. Rather than trying to study, understand, and comprehend why many gamers were antagonized, the line was towed that "Gamers are misogynists and have to be told what's right and wrong..."
The fact that toxic gamers have made it worse is a no-brainer. They took the criticism as "censorship" in the wrong ways.
Ultimately, I feel the "criticism" has to evolve with the medium and culture, and the criticism, has in a certain way, failed to do so. I get more of my game reviews, cultural outings, and other tidbits from Youtube personalities than I do the gaming media. The gaming media, especially with the entire bruhaha, has steadily retreated while other outlets have taken up that slack. Do Youtubers pander to GamerGate? Actually alot of them don't. But since they are in more general contact with gamers, many seem quite sympathetic because they are in steady contact and dialogue with their audience.
Anita has little or no contact with the audience (and she is perceived as an outsider), and her reception has been utterly horrible. But on the other hand, she didn't seem to study her audience first before making statements. I think what has happened with "Critics" is the notion that we need to know our audience has vanished. And as a principle, I think its high-time that the notion be reintroduced.
And before you tell me "You're censoring the critics!" it's actually recusing my own views that half of criticism is knowing your enemy.
-
Anita has little or no contact with the audience (and she is perceived as an outsider), and her reception has been utterly horrible.
Maybe in your circles, but not in mine. You're going to have to call me, Ralwood, Tim Schafer (https://twitter.com/TimOfLegend/status/504095132220526592), and everyone else who's spoken positively of Anita outsiders for this to work.
-
Anita has little or no contact with the audience (and she is perceived as an outsider), and her reception has been utterly horrible.
Maybe in your circles, but not in mine. You're going to have to call me, Ralwood, Tim Schafer (https://twitter.com/TimOfLegend/status/504095132220526592), and everyone else who's spoken positively of Anita outsiders for this to work.
Well, I could reason with you all I want. But as I said, trying to get you to leave your castle is nigh impossible. I'm just leaving the invitation for you to get dirty.
Getting back to critics, is it necessary for them to have an Art History degree? No. But I feel it would help from a rational basis on contextualization.
-
Well, I could reason with you all I want. But as I said, trying to get you to leave your castle is nigh impossible. I'm just leaving the invitation for you to get dirty.
If it's an a priori fact that I'm the one in the castle then we need to stop discussing this, because I'm by definition incapable of saying anything that you would listen to.
Moving on,
If someone wants to talk about corruption, yay! But GG is a name birthed in harassment and still being run in its main part as a harassment movement out of 4/8chan. If you get a new name, one without all the history and connotations gg has picked up, you'll be able to get out from the shadow of everything in gg that isn't about corruption. You won't have to say that you're a 'moderate' that doesn't like doxxing and death threats. You'll be able to focus on what actually matters to you, for real. As for us anti-GGers, it would really help if the reasonable ones would separate yourself from the 8channers so we could talk to you without waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Again, we're asking them to drop a name. If they say the name doesn't matter to them, why won't they ditch it if it's so toxic to so many people? I'd like to see actions line up with words, that's all I'm asking.
You could say something similar about Feminism though. While I'm no particular fan of the people who say it, it's quite clear that there are quite a few people who view feminism as basically being RadFem. Rebranding under a name such as equalism or some such would help with that. There would be no need to explain that you're a moderate feminist and not one of those RadFem nutcases. It would help if the reasonable ones would separate themselves from the idiots who believe that only lesbians can truly be feminists or the other nonsense I've heard from RadFem.
Hell, you could say much the same thing about almost any group which has extremists in it. Why don't Muslims rebrand so that everyone knows they aren't connected to ISIS?
Or Christians?
Or Bronies?
Rebranding may make it much easier for the people on the outside to box up people and decide who really is the enemy but is it really a sensible choice for the people in that group? If so, why hasn't anti-GG come up with their own classifications so that everyone knows who are the people that think gamers are neckbeards living in their mother's basements?
Whether or not Gamergate initially started out as a bunch of absolute tossers involved in hacking and trolling, that might not be all it is now. At the moment there are probably a lot of reasonable people in the GG movement who think it easier to take over the existing movement and make it into a useful tool for changing the way the gaming companies deal with the press than it ever would be to start from scratch. Engaging with them is a far more reasonable thing to do than to assume that everyone in the group must be a sexist arsehole simply because they won't change their name. I'm not saying that they shouldn't distance themselves from the name, just that I can see good reasons why they aren't willing to do so.
In the end, I'm fairly neutral on the whole picking sides thing because to be honest, I think both sides are claiming to have goals I support. I just wish they'd both put the energy they're putting into misunderstanding each other and arguing the same stupid talking points into something productive.
Are we going to compare Gamergate to feminism, Islam, the entire tradition of socialism and anarchism, or Darwinist theory? Do you think it deserves the same consideration the aforementioned received when bunch of morons some of whom started the whole damn thing do something terrible in their name?
It's hate movement that matured into an incredibly incompetent reaction against corruption in Video Games Journalism that somehow still wined and dined everyone from the earlier hate stuff so that noone could tell where one ended and the other began. What exactly is being lost when it dies?
-
I will say that sometimes there is misconception in some of the arguments about Discrimination and Objectification in games.
What I mean by that is, take something like the 'Damsel in Distress' meme. The question as to whether it is belittling to women is a little more complex than it is made out to be, because it doesn't take into account the fact that stories tend to need a motivation and, in the toolbox of storytelling, rescuing the woman you love is kind of like the Hammer.
The meme does not exist to attack women in general, though FF raises some very good points about how it objectifies them, but there has been a natural drop in those kinds of storylines anyway for two reasons, firstly, because as the number of female gamers increases, that need to fulfill the male requirement to protect and be admired for such has reduced, and secondly because people are far more demanding in the way of storyline in games anyway.
That need in men has probably existed since we existed in Hunter/Gatherer groups and used to raid each other for resources (which, at that stage of our development, often included women).
Fixing that problem is going to require going far deeper into the male psyche than simply telling them it is 'wrong', it's hard-coded into us genetically and I can understand why men feel it is a threat to their masculinity as easily as I can see what is wrong perpetuating the meme that women exist to be rescued by men. It's lizard-brain stuff, and it's going to take a heck of a lot of work to untangle it properly.
-
Well, I could reason with you all I want. But as I said, trying to get you to leave your castle is nigh impossible. I'm just leaving the invitation for you to get dirty.
If that I'm the one in the castle is an a priori fact to you then we need to stop discussing this, because I'm by definition incapable of saying anything that you would listen to.
You could say something similar about Feminism though. While I'm no particular fan of the people who say it, it's quite clear that there are quite a few people who view feminism as basically being RadFem. Rebranding under a name such as equalism or some such would help with that. There would be no need to explain that you're a moderate feminist and not one of those RadFem nutcases. It would help if the reasonable ones would separate themselves from the idiots who believe that only lesbians can truly be feminists or the other nonsense I've heard from RadFem.
Hell, you could say much the same thing about almost any group which has extremists in it. Why don't Muslims rebrand so that everyone knows they aren't connected to ISIS?
Are we going to compare Gamergate to feminism, Islam, the entire tradition of socialism and anarchism, or Darwinism? Do you think it deserves the same consideration the aforementioned received when some moron does something terrible in their name?
It's hate movement that matured into an incredibly incompetent reaction against corruption in Video Games Journalism that somehow still wined and dined everyone from the earlier hate stuff so that noone could tell where one ended and the other began. What exactly is being lost when it dies?
It takes two to dance to a party. I feel it helps to analyze and discuss what lead to these events and why the atmosphere is so toxic. The Anti-GG side is quite vehement to it, and your insistence on moral high ground is exactly why we continue to have this problem. GG has declared they're not going to die until its mutual exhaustion. I think its important that we place GamerGate under scrutiny and understand its motivations. Hell, it's why I don't associate myself with the movement. They got lots of things I disagree with.
You can be "right," but that doesn't preclude you from engaging the other side in discussion. I'm insisting the moral high-ground has been destroyed by both factions.
-
Fixing that problem is going to require going far deeper into the male psyche than simply telling them it is 'wrong', it's hard-coded into us genetically and I can understand why men feel it is a threat to their masculinity as easily as I can see what is wrong perpetuating the meme that women exist to be rescued by men. It's lizard-brain stuff, and it's going to take a heck of a lot of work to untangle it properly.
Even if it's not true that you're overreacting in thinking male anxiety towards women is hardcoded based upon the transient problems we're facing now, the moment we mastered language the lizard brain stuff didn't matter to us as much. Culture is by its very nature not just based upon our genetic heritage. The same genes can produce wildly different social organizations and hierarchies, thought patterns, gender and age roles. We've already violated whatever how we were "programmed" to behave a billion times. Why stop now? What's so special about gender inequality?
-
Well, I could reason with you all I want. But as I said, trying to get you to leave your castle is nigh impossible. I'm just leaving the invitation for you to get dirty.
If that I'm the one in the castle is an a priori fact to you then we need to stop discussing this, because I'm by definition incapable of saying anything that you would listen to.
You could say something similar about Feminism though. While I'm no particular fan of the people who say it, it's quite clear that there are quite a few people who view feminism as basically being RadFem. Rebranding under a name such as equalism or some such would help with that. There would be no need to explain that you're a moderate feminist and not one of those RadFem nutcases. It would help if the reasonable ones would separate themselves from the idiots who believe that only lesbians can truly be feminists or the other nonsense I've heard from RadFem.
Hell, you could say much the same thing about almost any group which has extremists in it. Why don't Muslims rebrand so that everyone knows they aren't connected to ISIS?
Are we going to compare Gamergate to feminism, Islam, the entire tradition of socialism and anarchism, or Darwinism? Do you think it deserves the same consideration the aforementioned received when some moron does something terrible in their name?
It's hate movement that matured into an incredibly incompetent reaction against corruption in Video Games Journalism that somehow still wined and dined everyone from the earlier hate stuff so that noone could tell where one ended and the other began. What exactly is being lost when it dies?
It takes two to dance to a party. I feel it helps to analyze and discuss what lead to these events and why the atmosphere is so toxic. The Anti-GG side is quite vehement to it, and your insistence on moral high ground is exactly why we continue to have this problem. GG has declared they're not going to die until its mutual exhaustion. I think its important that we place GamerGate under scrutiny and understand its motivations. Hell, it's why I don't associate myself with the movement. They got lots of things I disagree with.
You can be "right," but that doesn't preclude you from engaging the other side in discussion. I'm insisting the moral high-ground has been destroyed by both factions.
AtomicClucker: All Gamers have been offended by this!
Mr. Vega: Allow me to give counter examples, starting with myself. Am I not a gamer?
AtomicClucker: You're in your castle with the other people who criticize Gamers, I can't debate with you.
Mr. Vega: That's your choice to decide I'm in a "castle".
AtomicClucker: You're not willing to engage with the other side!
Mr. Vega: I'm going to ignore the hypocrisy in your last statement and ask you again. So does this mean you don't think I'm a gamer? Let's forget everything that's been said up to this point. You claim that Gamers (with a capital G!) have all condemned Anita's feminist criticism. I don't. Do you get to decide who gets to be called Gamer and outsider? Better yet, why does the distinction matter so goddamn much to you?
-
Well, I could reason with you all I want. But as I said, trying to get you to leave your castle is nigh impossible. I'm just leaving the invitation for you to get dirty.
If that I'm the one in the castle is an a priori fact to you then we need to stop discussing this, because I'm by definition incapable of saying anything that you would listen to.
You could say something similar about Feminism though. While I'm no particular fan of the people who say it, it's quite clear that there are quite a few people who view feminism as basically being RadFem. Rebranding under a name such as equalism or some such would help with that. There would be no need to explain that you're a moderate feminist and not one of those RadFem nutcases. It would help if the reasonable ones would separate themselves from the idiots who believe that only lesbians can truly be feminists or the other nonsense I've heard from RadFem.
Hell, you could say much the same thing about almost any group which has extremists in it. Why don't Muslims rebrand so that everyone knows they aren't connected to ISIS?
Are we going to compare Gamergate to feminism, Islam, the entire tradition of socialism and anarchism, or Darwinism? Do you think it deserves the same consideration the aforementioned received when some moron does something terrible in their name?
It's hate movement that matured into an incredibly incompetent reaction against corruption in Video Games Journalism that somehow still wined and dined everyone from the earlier hate stuff so that noone could tell where one ended and the other began. What exactly is being lost when it dies?
It takes two to dance to a party. I feel it helps to analyze and discuss what lead to these events and why the atmosphere is so toxic. The Anti-GG side is quite vehement to it, and your insistence on moral high ground is exactly why we continue to have this problem. GG has declared they're not going to die until its mutual exhaustion. I think its important that we place GamerGate under scrutiny and understand its motivations. Hell, it's why I don't associate myself with the movement. They got lots of things I disagree with.
You can be "right," but that doesn't preclude you from engaging the other side in discussion. I'm insisting the moral high-ground has been destroyed by both factions.
AtomicClucker: All Gamers have been offended by this!
Mr. Vega: Allow me to give counter examples, starting with myself. Am I not a gamer?
AtomicClucker: You're in your castle with the other people who don't agree with Gamers, I can't debate with you.
Mr. Vega: That's your choice to decide I'm in a "castle".
AtomicClucker: You're not willing to engage with the other side!
Mr. Vega: So does this mean you don't think I'm a gamer? Let's forget everything that's been said up to this point. You claim that Gamers (with a capital G!) have all condemned Anita feminist criticism. I don't. Do you get to decide who gets to be called Gamer and outsider? Better yet, why the the distinction matter so goddamn much to you?
That's not how I've interpreted this interaction at all. He's talking about a bunch of people, not everyone.
On you being "in your castle", it also doesn't help you to be going around with I think #gamergate is the most embarrassed I've ever felt about being a "gamer". A movement? A BOWEL movement.
-Rob Florence
in your sig.
-
Gamergate: a movement supposedly about corruption in games journalism being harshly condemned by a man who actually left his job in disgust when he was censored for reporting on corruption. He was used as evidence of GG's rightness. Why then is he trashing them when you'd expect him to treat them like the cavalry coming to the rescue? Why is HE (and Jeff Gerstmann) anti-GG? Think about it. That's why I have the quote there.
C'mon, I dare you to brand Rob freaking Florence a close minded SJW.
-
Well, I could reason with you all I want. But as I said, trying to get you to leave your castle is nigh impossible. I'm just leaving the invitation for you to get dirty.
If that I'm the one in the castle is an a priori fact to you then we need to stop discussing this, because I'm by definition incapable of saying anything that you would listen to.
You could say something similar about Feminism though. While I'm no particular fan of the people who say it, it's quite clear that there are quite a few people who view feminism as basically being RadFem. Rebranding under a name such as equalism or some such would help with that. There would be no need to explain that you're a moderate feminist and not one of those RadFem nutcases. It would help if the reasonable ones would separate themselves from the idiots who believe that only lesbians can truly be feminists or the other nonsense I've heard from RadFem.
Hell, you could say much the same thing about almost any group which has extremists in it. Why don't Muslims rebrand so that everyone knows they aren't connected to ISIS?
Are we going to compare Gamergate to feminism, Islam, the entire tradition of socialism and anarchism, or Darwinism? Do you think it deserves the same consideration the aforementioned received when some moron does something terrible in their name?
It's hate movement that matured into an incredibly incompetent reaction against corruption in Video Games Journalism that somehow still wined and dined everyone from the earlier hate stuff so that noone could tell where one ended and the other began. What exactly is being lost when it dies?
It takes two to dance to a party. I feel it helps to analyze and discuss what lead to these events and why the atmosphere is so toxic. The Anti-GG side is quite vehement to it, and your insistence on moral high ground is exactly why we continue to have this problem. GG has declared they're not going to die until its mutual exhaustion. I think its important that we place GamerGate under scrutiny and understand its motivations. Hell, it's why I don't associate myself with the movement. They got lots of things I disagree with.
You can be "right," but that doesn't preclude you from engaging the other side in discussion. I'm insisting the moral high-ground has been destroyed by both factions.
AtomicClucker: All Gamers have been offended by this!
Mr. Vega: Allow me to give counter examples, starting with myself. Am I not a gamer?
AtomicClucker: You're in your castle with the other people who criticize Gamers, I can't debate with you.
Mr. Vega: That's your choice to decide I'm in a "castle".
AtomicClucker: You're not willing to engage with the other side!
Mr. Vega: I'm going to ignore the hypocrisy in your last statement and ask you again. So does this mean you don't think I'm a gamer? Let's forget everything that's been said up to this point. You claim that Gamers (with a capital G!) have all condemned Anita's feminist criticism. I don't. Do you get to decide who gets to be called Gamer and outsider? Better yet, why does the distinction matter so goddamn much to you?
Well, like my conversations with GGers, I'm done attempting to host a dialogue with you because, simply, you've closed the gates. GameGate is no mere hate or slander movement, it's the nexus of a toxicity that's very hard to examine and decipher. Your stubborness to change opinions or examine the circumstances is what leads me to ask, Wut happened?
Edit: @mods, I'll refrain from engaging Vega further, it's been a merry-go-round for a while.
-
Gamergate: a movement supposedly about corruption in games journalism being harshly condemned by a man who actually left his job in disgust when he was censored for reporting on corruption. He was used as evidence of GG's rightness. Why then is he trashing them when you'd expect him to treat them like the cavalry coming to the rescue? Why is HE (and Jeff Gerstmann) anti-GG? Think about it. That's why I have the quote there.
C'mon, I dare you to brand Rob freaking Florence a close minded SJW.
You're missing the point.
If you're going to have a reasonable and open minded discussion with someone about Gamergate, what kind of message do you think that sig is going to send before you even get started?
-
Drop the Gamers vs outsiders rhetoric and I'll listen. Gamers are not a monolith.
Dropping the formal noun and putting gamers in lowercase would also be appreciated.
-
Fixing that problem is going to require going far deeper into the male psyche than simply telling them it is 'wrong', it's hard-coded into us genetically and I can understand why men feel it is a threat to their masculinity as easily as I can see what is wrong perpetuating the meme that women exist to be rescued by men. It's lizard-brain stuff, and it's going to take a heck of a lot of work to untangle it properly.
Even if it's not true that you're overreacting in thinking male anxiety towards women is hardcoded based upon the transient problems we're facing now, the moment we mastered language the lizard brain stuff didn't matter to us as much. Culture is by its very nature not just based upon our genetic heritage. The same genes can produce wildly different social organizations and hierarchies, thought patterns, gender and age roles. We've already violated whatever how we were "programmed" to behave a billion times. Why stop now? What's so special about gender inequality?
The whole point about Lizard Brain stuff is that it doesn't involve talking, or even much thinking, they are largely automatic responses that are beyond our control. We don't violate that base programming, we simply alter society to approach it in a different way. The simple fact that in thousands of years of development it is only relatively recently that most (though far from all) of the world has come to terms with the concept of Feminism and what it is attempting to achieve.
Remember, a vast chunk of the world still doesn't even let women vote or participate in society on an equal basis, and still places them very much in a subservient role in relationships. That's why there WILL be a response to people pointing out these problems that equates with feeling challenged, overcoming the problem requires a little more than shouting at them until they change, that much has been made more than obvious in the several threads on the subject.
Edit, oh, and you are correct it is not true that I'm 'over-reacting' purely because I said something that you don't agree with, which is kind of my point, automatic defensiveness of our perceptions is built into all of us, not just the 'bad guys'. Every time you read a comment you don't agree with and think 'I'll start this reply with an attack on the posters motives or ability to understand the problem', you're listening to the Lizard Brain.
-
I wasn't actually accusing you of overreacting in that way. There's always something about our current place and time that we believe is rooted in "human nature". Absolutely everyone does it and it just something we have to deal with. What I meant was that it's not outside the bounds of possibility, but for the remainder of this discussion let's just assume you're right. My point is that human nature is in reality is an incredibly amorphous thing due to the peculiarities of our intelligence and social nature, so be wary of what our current situation suggests about what's actually possible. It's just another variation on nature vs nuture, and in this I'm in the nuture camp.
-
Personally I think it comes down to this: We are OK slaughtering people by the millions in ever more gruesome and heartless ways in video games. Games by their nature are fantasy and myself and many other people are OK with it. We know its not reality. Neither are movies. They are fantasy worlds where impossible things happen and things that nobody would do in the real world. I dont see a problem with portraying men or women in any way in these things. I can see where this whole thing is coming from but it is what it is. People will make what sells, and sex sells to the male brain.
-
you know what's real funny about this whole situation, I cannot tell you how many times I've stumbled halfway into a conversation between two groups of people and I can tell it's about GG, and I can tell the two sides are on opposite ends of it, but I cannot for the life of me tell which side is pro and which side is anti. I can go pages and pages, weeks into the history of the argument, see insults and threats and allegations, and it still won't be clear what either side is actually fighting for other than the destruction of the other side.
-
you know what's real funny about this whole situation, I cannot tell you how many times I've stumbled halfway into a conversation between two groups of people and I can tell it's about GG, and I can tell the two sides are on opposite ends of it, but I cannot for the life of me tell which side is pro and which side is anti. I can go pages and pages, weeks into the history of the argument, see insults and threats and allegations, and it still won't be clear what either side is actually fighting for other than the destruction of the other side.
Thank you for putting words to my thoughts!
-
This is going nowhere, so I'm going to post a very well written statement of a Boston Globe reporter in the gg subreddit subreddit (http://np.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2h36ue/another_poorlyresearched_hitpiece_from_the_boston/cldrqeu) on what GG is and isn't and call it a day.
-
I've never bothered paying much attention to the GG/Anti-GG nonsense but I don't doubt it Bob.
You could say it, but it would be stupid and have no basis in the real world and be a logical fallacy to boot.
That's exactly the kind of response that ensures this nonsense will go round and round. Don't bother looking at the argument anyone not on your side makes, just try to defeat it. Let's just dissect why the analogy isn't perfect. Just try to prove you're right to ignore it. There's no possibility you could actually learn something from examining viewpoints that are different to yours.
What is the threshold between "it may have started out bad but it has potential" and "it's hopelessly infested with misogynistic scumbags"? What would have to happen for you to consider the latter to be the case?
Proof that it's hopelessly infested. So far you've just asserted that and assumed that because you can point to what is basically anecdotal evidence of large numbers of scumbags and expect everyone to accept that means you can safely ignore everyone connected to the movement. Once again I could point at ISIS and say it proved bad things about Muslims everywhere. It wouldn't make it true though.
-
What is the threshold between "it may have started out bad but it has potential" and "it's hopelessly infested with misogynistic scumbags"? What would have to happen for you to consider the latter to be the case?
Proof that it's hopelessly infested. So far you've just asserted that and assumed that because you can point to what is basically anecdotal evidence of large numbers of scumbags and expect everyone to accept that means you can safely ignore everyone connected to the movement. Once again I could point at ISIS and say it proved bad things about Muslims everywhere. It wouldn't make it true though.
I don't think that's a fair comparison. Vega is saying that ISIS are assholes and Muslims as a whole aren't monolithic followers that believe in the same things as ISIS. He specifically mentions that he and some members on HLP agree with Anita Sarkeesian.
To clarify my analogy.
ISIS = Gamergaters
Muslims = gamers
-
Vega loves to point out that not all gamers are pro-gg but then gets uncomfortable when people point out that not all pro-gg are harrassers and mysogynists (which is even more true, the proportion of harrasers among pro-gg is far less than proportion of anti-gg among gamers). Thats hypocritical.
Also, while lots of personalities have condemned gamergate, a lot of it can be attributed to the fact that they are condemning the strawman of gamergate, because gaming journalists being biased as usual almost totaly ignore the pro-gg side and unfairly paint the movement as hate movement. If that was all I knew Id condemn it too. Most people are quite sensible, which means they will happily condemn a percieved hate movement but at the same time if you showed them certain articles from our beloved gaming media they will promptly send you back to tumblr as a rabid SJW for pushing their toxic ideology where it doesnt belong. Truth is in the middle.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/
One thing we want is less Kotaku and Gawker and more Escapist. We are not against discussing feminist issues in gaming in general, in fact Escapist used to be one of the more active outlets in that area.
Also, Gamer = gaming enthusiast. A lot of people play games from time to time but they are not Gamers, neither do they tend to follow gaming media much.
-
To clarify my analogy.
ISIS = Gamergaters
Muslims = gamers
Nope.
Religious people = Gamers
Christians = anti-gg
Muslims = pro-gg
ISIS = gamergate associated harrassers
-
Also, Gamer = gaming enthusiast. A lot of people play games from time to time but they are not Gamers, neither do they tend to follow gaming media much.
Mwah. Is there also a Bookwurm and Moviegoer club?
-
Yes, there is. Haven't you ever heard the term movie-buff? Haven't you ever noticed magazines devoted to movies and movie reviews like Empire (http://www.empireonline.com/). While almost everyone watches movies there are comparatively much fewer people who self-identify as movie-buffs.
Gamer is the same thing to games as movie-buff is to movies. What makes someone a gamer is not that they play games, but that games are a major part of their identity, A major part of what makes them who they are. To characterise that as only being neckbearded basement-dwellers is very insulting to those who call themselves gamers. It's also especially insulting to female gamers as they are basically being insulted by people who claim they are standing up against sexism.
-
Point taken.
EDIT: Must say that, even though gaming is a rather large part of my life, I don't consider myself a Gamer. That capitilization makes it seem like some sort of... something more then even a religion, which seems weird. I just play games, and I do find it rather odd to connect to people who feel their identity is being attacked.
Vega loves to point out that not all gamers are pro-gg but then gets uncomfortable when people point out that not all pro-gg are harrassers and mysogynists (which is even more true, the proportion of harrasers among pro-gg is far less than proportion of anti-gg among gamers). Thats hypocritical.
"Not all pro-gg are harrassers and mysogynists" <- That statement sounded a lot more awfull then you actually intended :P. That being said, there is a saying about "a few bad apples spoils the whole bunch". I have to repeat: Untill gamergate can find an effective way to deal with harassment within their ranks (and that is going to be hard considering the group's origins), they are going to leave awfull impressions on the mainstream media (http://np.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2h36ue/another_poorlyresearched_hitpiece_from_the_boston/cldrqeu).
And I have to say, for all this talk about GG being anti-harassment, there's still quite a few people who claim that people are "doxxing themselves to get more attention". Stories like this won't help either (https://storify.com/ShadowTodd/why-i-do-not-believe-that-gamergate-actually-conde).
-
But that's why I mentioned other groups with extremists in them. Or do you think Christians and Muslims deserve to be blamed for the actions of ISIS or Westbro Baptist?
-
There are also people who claimed that the women and minorities in #notyourshield were sockpuppets, thus absolutely ignoring and silencing actual women and minorities' voices and experiences. Suddenly, the Sarkeesian code of "believe when women share their experiences" no longer applies.
Again, it is too self-serving an issue. Believe and don't dare ask for ulterior intents, accept or be condemned for hyper-skepticism, share these stories or be guilty of maintaining the patriarchal status quo. Except when the speakers at hand are not feminists at all, and are actually quite fed up with it and happen to share their own bad experiences with it. At that moment we see white cis male feminists doxxing, harrassing, denying their voice or existence, starting hashtags that attack the #notyourshield tag, etc.
-
There are also people who claimed that the women and minorities in #notyourshield were sockpuppets, thus absolutely ignoring and silencing actual women and minorities' voices and experiences. Suddenly, the Sarkeesian code of "believe when women share their experiences" no longer applies.
And even if they were sockpuppets it is only believable because there most likely are women and other minorities that share that opinion.
-
It also depends on where you place your focus of interest. Most people will focus on articles that support their own position, and boy do some people get angry when they read stuff that doesn't. And that's from both sides.
Whilst I'll agree that the worst behaviour seems to be centered mostly on the part of those harassing people like Anita Sarkeesian, when I read some of the ignorance that follows Grim's article on rape as a plot device, accusing him of being a closet sex-offender who wants to watch women being raped, I start to think to myself that there are people on both sides of the debate who are doing little more than embarrassing the very cause they claim to be representing.
-
There are also people who claimed that the women and minorities in #notyourshield were sockpuppets, thus absolutely ignoring and silencing actual women and minorities' voices and experiences. Suddenly, the Sarkeesian code of "believe when women share their experiences" no longer applies.
And even if they were sockpuppets it is only believable because there most likely are women and other minorities that share that opinion.
http://m.imgur.com/zqEC8We
One can only speculate how many are sockpuppets.
-
But once again you've decided that they all must be.
-
But once again you've decided that they all must be.
This is always the problem when you adopt an extremist position, you'll be hard pressed to defend the very impossible all-encompassing arguments.
I'm much more inclined to understand where this rage coms from rather than swipe it all away in my head as "mysoginist rednecks coming out of their mom's basement to tell us how wymen r here to oppress them".
-
But once again you've decided that they all must be.
Nope, I never said that about notyourshield. I have proof that some were faked, and there are IRC logs where ongoing astroturfing was being discussed. How large the percentage of astroturfers is, I can't say. But it's not exactly hard to do on twitter.
-
Which, when both sides are frantically accusing the other of astroturfing, doesn't really say much one way or the other.
-
Which, when both sides are frantically accusing the other of astroturfing, doesn't really say much one way or the other.
What do you actually think is going on? I'm not talking about the arguments here, I'm talking about the issues themselves.
-
Except it's a bit awkward whenever certain gamergaters are accused of being mysoginists and then they reply with a selfie of them portraying themselves accurately as, for instance, black women, etc. It becomes especially awkward when the accusers are the usual white cis male righteous moral teachers of the internet.
-
But that's why I mentioned other groups with extremists in them. Or do you think Christians and Muslims deserve to be blamed for the actions of ISIS or Westbro Baptist?
No. I would say that that is not the reading I got out of that "'gamers' are over" article.
It becomes especially awkward when the accusers are the usual white cis male righteous moral teachers of the internet.
It is perhaps not the best of ideas to accuse one side of broadstroking too much and then immeaditily afterwards go and broadstroke.
I agree with the overal sentiment though. Although there has been some proven astroturfing, this does not immeaditily discount the point of notyourshield. Denying that, say, women exist in gamergate would be denying that women exist - which feminists happen to dislike, and with good reason.
Which, when both sides are frantically accusing the other of astroturfing, doesn't really say much one way or the other.
Hmm. I do wonder: How can anti-gg astoturf exactly? They don't have anything like #notyourshield that requires people to post their identities en masse, for example.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRaAJBKmi5I&t=105
-
... mysoginy ...
... mysoginy ...
... mysoginy ...
... mysoginy ...
... mysoginy ...
When one sees the word written correctly as frequently as anyone partaking in this thread does, I'd expect that to have rubbed off on them by now. :mad:
-
But that's why I mentioned other groups with extremists in them. Or do you think Christians and Muslims deserve to be blamed for the actions of ISIS or Westbro Baptist?
No. I would say that that is not the reading I got out of that "'gamers' are over" article.
Who says I was talking about that particular example? You only need to look at this thread to see example after example of people claiming that because there are extremists in Gamergate you can write off the entire movement.
My basic issue is that both sides are full of complete idiots who refuse to listen to anyone else's point of view while simultaneously claiming the high ground. The entire situation would be far more quickly resolved if we gagged both sides and had a reasonable discussion without them. But since that isn't going to happen, what needs to be done is for people to start slagging off both of them at the same time so that they realise they've BOTH lost and that no one is interested in what either of them have to say because they've completely lost sight of the issues in favour of arguing with each other.
When a movement supposedly based on ethical behaviour often ignores the behaviour of those who feel the need to harass people or a movement based on women's rights feels the need to denigrate anyone who opposes their point of view whether or not they are a woman then it is clear that both movements have lost their way.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRaAJBKmi5I&t=105
Can you explain what that video is about? Sargon of Akkad is someone who claims that DiGRA is using their research to push a feminist agenda in gaming, using Anita Sarkeesian as a proxy (heck, he now has a video called "The War on Men Hits the Mainstream Media"). Not sure if I want to watch a video by someone like that.
-
Why? Afraid to get a different perspective on things? I find that kind of self-censorship bizarre, to be frank. I watched many femfreq videos and have read and listened to most of the feminist most aggressive writings, always taking them seriously, trying to get the gist of what they are saying in good faith.
I actually enjoy listening to some less... ahhh... middle-ground voices, those who stick out of the gaussian curve of things. You never know, they might have some curve balls for you. And Sargon strikes me as a slightly paranoid guy (thus the conspiracies and so on), but he's really fun and well-meaning, good-spirited english chap. He has a very bad opinion on Anita, etc.
As for that video, it's about a request that Sargon made on twitter if women on #gamergate could give him some selfies of themselves to prove they are not sockpuppets. He lists a few dozens that replied to him in a matter of a few minutes. Kinda gives you pause whenever someone still tries to make the idiotic point that these are all sockpuppets. Fortunately, it seems that this accusation has died off recently. And well it should.
-
@Kara
I do understand exactly what you are saying here with regards to Gamergate's goals over the gaming media, I even agree with those.
The problem is, to my mind the act of 'Gamergate' didn't happen, there was no huge conspiracy no embarrassing revelations for the either the gaming industry or the game reporting industry.
The ironic part is that 'Gerstmanngate' did happen, he even openly admitted that he was sacked because his review of Kane and Lynch didn't sit well with the marketing department at Gamespot, who had done a deal with the Kane and Lynch producers for advertising.
It's that which sits so uncomfortably with me, there is a problem with media, but the whole word 'Gamergate' just serves as an unpleasant reminder of this whole atrocious, and pretty much unrelated mess.
As I've said before, I think that is why the Media is focussing so hard on the actions of these people, because the more people talk about Brianna Wu and Anita Sarkeesian, who are nothing to do with the problems in game publications, the less they are talking about the real problems, which suits their marketing departments fine.
-
Why? Afraid to get a different perspective on things?
No.
I find that kind of self-censorship bizarre, to be frank. I watched many femfreq videos and have read and listened to most of the feminist most aggressive writings, always taking them seriously, trying to get the gist of what they are saying in good faith.
I actually enjoy listening to some less... ahhh... middle-ground voices, those who stick out of the gaussian curve of things. You never know, they might have some curve balls for you. And Sargon strikes me as a slightly paranoid guy (thus the conspiracies and so on), but he's really fun and well-meaning, good-spirited english chap.
You have got to explain to me what you mean with "self-censorship".
I listened to the debate between Sargon of Akkad and PixieJenni on Gamergate (Sargon now calls it a baitfest, for some reason)... However, I completely disagree with your assessment of Sargon of Akkad - attacking someone because she happens to be asexual does not seem all that well adjusted to me, hence me not liking to watch more videos.
As for that video, it's about a request that Sargon made on twitter if women on #gamergate could give him some selfies of themselves to prove they are not sockpuppets. He lists a few dozens that replied to him in a matter of a few minutes. Kinda gives you pause whenever someone still tries to make the idiotic point that these are all sockpuppets. Fortunately, it seems that this accusation has died off recently. And well it should.
Oh, I never considered the whole sockpuppet thing. As you wish, I shall watch the video in due course (currently can't since my internet connection is really wonky)
EDIT: Edits removed since somebody else already posted and I don't want to break stuff.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRaAJBKmi5I&t=105
Can you explain what that video is about? Sargon of Akkad is someone who claims that DiGRA is using their research to push a feminist agenda in gaming, using Anita Sarkeesian as a proxy (heck, he now has a video called "The War on Men Hits the Mainstream Media"). Not sure if I want to watch a video by someone like that.
Yeah, it's the Conspiracy about Feminists infiltrating the various organizations to spread Feminism! Yeah a lot of the crap that Sargon and a few others spout leaves my weary. Considering for a few hours of day at home, I have to listen to Alex Jones flailing his cheeks like a walrus. It's this sorta "woo" stuff that makes it so I can't take some of the spokespeople for the movement seriously.
My basic issue is that both sides are full of complete idiots who refuse to listen to anyone else's point of view while simultaneously claiming the high ground. The entire situation would be far more quickly resolved if we gagged both sides and had a reasonable discussion without them. But since that isn't going to happen, what needs to be done is for people to start slagging off both of them at the same time so that they realise they've BOTH lost and that no one is interested in what either of them have to say because they've completely lost sight of the issues in favour of arguing with each other.
Amen. Problem is both sides are engaged in professional self-victimhood and denial. Anti-GG professes a moral superiority that reminds me the Leftists Champions in Britain and Conservative Blowhards in Britain who pushed for the stupid Porn filter on all ISPs, and smaller branch movements that made possessing drawings a crime, seeks to remove all porn mags from stores and push the country back into a Victorian era of prudish paradise. (Note Sarcasm). GG is just honest about being dumb, flatulent, and willing to tell everyone evil Feminists are hiding under their beds.
But aside from sarcasm, it's the "For the Children" mindset that really boggles me about the Anti-GG faction. The point is their belief in "protecting" women supposedly makes them immune to any and all criticism, where as GG comes off as a chaotic spasm attack of various ideologies and conspiracy theories.
-
I keep seeing the phrase "both sides" tossed around; some people need to read up on false balance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance).
-
RE, that video.
I don't like it. It goes on to talk about how Zoe Quinn slept with her boss (even though she's self employed), and it goes on about how the main point MSNBC makes (that Zoe Quinn never got any positive reviews) doesn't matter because her actions against TFYC are indefensible. It ghen goes on to talk about how people dogpiled TFYC by her command. Hmm. Alright. there's another side to this story (http://imgur.com/a/KEtcp).
It also claims that the entire gaming press colluded with Zoe Quinn for her benefit - not going to swallow that one - and then it goes on to say how ZQ is not relevant.
Particularely noteworthy: "I have not seen any proof that Zoe Quinn needed to go into hiding".
That's just an awfull comment.
It states that Milo Younnapilous of Breitbart has displayed no lack of integrity (breitbart 0_o)
It states that Brienna Wu was *lying about the threats made against her*.
And at that point it goes on to compare stuff like "Suck my dick, choke on it" to Brianna wu's original retweets and goes on to claim how "You insulted them first!" and "You have to prove that gamergate threatened you!" and...
Yeah.
Okay. Not a nice vid. Not really a good idea to claim "LIES!" when someone is being threatened. Also not a good idea to connect 'Your actions in the video game industry!" (Posting a few tweets) to someone having to flee their house.
And then, when Brienna Wu talks about people being threatened and leaving their jobs, Sargon of Akkad goes on about how these people are manhaters and deserved it.
I do *not* consider this to be a well meaning chap. Stopped watching at around 13 minutes in.
I do encourage everyone else to watch it just to get an idea about what this is all about.
-
I keep seeing the phrase "both sides" tossed around; some people need to read up on false balance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance).
Well how would you term it? People wouldn't be fighting if there weren't two sides. Unless you're talking about the fact it's not so clear cut as two distinct sides with distinct goals.
-
In a way, the situation has become a rehash of my own pet political hate of claiming one party deserves a vote because the other one doesn't.
The whole situation seems to revolve around attacking the other side, rather than promoting the agenda of your own, and this is speaking for both sides, it's not really a question of false balance, it's a question of no balance whatsoever because everyone is so busy attacking the other view, rather than representing their own.
The more vocal section of Gamergate is far too obsessed with the actions of a few individuals, and many of the people attacking them are the same, using up so much time and energy disproving people who are clearly obsessed with one tiny incident that really didn't matter, and I'm certain that energy could be better spent talking to people who are prepared to listen in the first place.
There are no magic words, there's nothing either side can say that will suddenly produce a revelation that makes the other side suddenly 'see the light', and yet tens of hours and thousands of words are being wasted searching for this Holy Grail of arguments.
So it's all boiled down to a battle of public perception, one which is being won by the Feminists, and that is a good thing in one way, and a bad thing in another. It's a good thing because, to put it bluntly, most of the people who attacked them were morons who deserved to be humiliated, it's a bad thing because it has dragged a lot of people into the 'neckbeard' stereotype who were genuinely concerned about the Media and mistakenly signed onboard with Gamergate before it got this reputation.
As Mr. Vega has stated before, this is largely why independents get annoyed at the Gamergate trolls, because they took something that could have been a genuinely positive movement and created a stereotype of them that the Media happily perpetuates, and this makes it much harder to make actual progress.
Will admit though, I did find it confusing to find publications using stereotypes to describe people in order to defend a group that is fighting desperately against the fact that stereotypes are constantly used to describe them...
-
Kay, I'm going to make one last attempt to restate our position and see if I don't get the point across better this time. GamerGate is a movement founded on harassment and still attracts a significant number of individuals who are in it to harrass and attack prominent women in the industry. Among the members interviewed by the Escapist for "their side" was RogueStar, who is pretty much a professional troll and doxxer (his interview was pulled when his history was brought to the attention of the E's editors). Mixed in with these cretins are, to what extent we can't tell because we don't know the extent of the astroturfing, some people who are genuinely concerned about ethical issues in the press. Now GG hasn't exposed much of anything real, but undoubtedly some were sincerely attracted to that platform. Maybe they're a small minority amidst the hate mob, maybe they're a more substantial component, I'm not sure.
But we have to deal right now with the class of individuals who are using the tag with the specific intent of hurting people. The death threats to GG critics haven't been tied directly to GG yet (unconfirmed report one of several threats to Anita in Utah mentioned Gamergate- unconfirmed!), but given the open doxxing and spreading of nude photos of Quinn on 4chan and 8chan, and the horrific language being that's been used on those boards, it isn't much of a stretch to think the threats are coming from individuals who have found a home there, and regardless there's enough horrible **** being done in GG's name above ground to begin with. We need to call out these people publicly for what they are doing and deny them any pretense at legitimacy. The Huffington Post tried to ambush Quinn by asking her to do a live interview for them, only for her to discover on the GG subreddit she was actually going to be on a 'panel' with members of GG on 8chan, including some who had openly doxxed her. That **** it is completely unacceptable, and every effort must be made to make it very clear to the media that you don't entertain the actual crazies of GG. To do so is to legitimize harrassment.
The problem: the crazies and the supposedly reasonable people use the same umbrella. We can hold off on condemning GG and give legitimacy to people who are using it to actually try to push prominent women out of the industry, or we can condemn them and bring down the wrath of public opinion upon them, but in doing so possibly alienate the poorly informed but decently-adjusted people who'd walked into their tent. As our first priority was to protect people, we decided to go with the burn-it-to-the-ground strategy. And well, it worked. Took a while for the gaming press to grow a pair, but it worked. Yeah, we pissed some people off, but noone's going to give the likes of RogueStar a chance to use the Escapist to slander Quinn again. Not with the public giving the whole thing the stinkeye. We can extend the olive branch once the noncrazies have left their umbrella and Quinn and Wu can go home again.
Oh look, the branch is being extended already. (https://mobile.twitter.com/TheQuinnspiracy/status/524264698607575040)
-
RE, that video.
I don't like it. It goes on to talk about how Zoe Quinn slept with her boss (even though she's self employed), and it goes on about how the main point MSNBC makes (that Zoe Quinn never got any positive reviews) doesn't matter because her actions against TFYC are indefensible. It ghen goes on to talk about how people dogpiled TFYC by her command. Hmm. Alright. there's another side to this story (http://imgur.com/a/KEtcp).
It also claims that the entire gaming press colluded with Zoe Quinn for her benefit - not going to swallow that one - and then it goes on to say how ZQ is not relevant.
Particularely noteworthy: "I have not seen any proof that Zoe Quinn needed to go into hiding".
That's just an awfull comment.
It states that Milo Younnapilous of Breitbart has displayed no lack of integrity (breitbart 0_o)
It states that Brienna Wu was *lying about the threats made against her*.
And at that point it goes on to compare stuff like "Suck my dick, choke on it" to Brianna wu's original retweets and goes on to claim how "You insulted them first!" and "You have to prove that gamergate threatened you!" and...
Yeah.
Okay. Not a nice vid. Not really a good idea to claim "LIES!" when someone is being threatened. Also not a good idea to connect 'Your actions in the video game industry!" (Posting a few tweets) to someone having to flee their house.
And then, when Brienna Wu talks about people being threatened and leaving their jobs, Sargon of Akkad goes on about how these people are manhaters and deserved it.
I do *not* consider this to be a well meaning chap. Stopped watching at around 13 minutes in.
I do encourage everyone else to watch it just to get an idea about what this is all about.
Those are the crazies we're trying to strip of any pretense of legitimacy. Because they're encouraging the hate mob. If we erred, if we got too aggressive, we did so to protect others from real threats. Are we going to compare that to a vague concern for 'ethics' or not offending people who were quite frankly insecure and looking to be offended?
-
The whole situation seems to revolve around attacking the other side, rather than promoting the agenda of your own, and this is speaking for both sides
The whole *point* of Anti-GG is to attack the other side. That's why it is called "anti-GG". GG has particular goals and particular methods, and "anti-gg" are those who don't like those particular goals or particular methods (or both). Your point of a battle of public perception is spot on.
However, I disagree with your branding of the sides. Anti-GG is not the "feminist" side - sure, GGs most prominent targets happen to be feminists - but a lot of anti-ggers are not feminists persé. On the flipside, there are some within GG who are feminists.
One thing though: Gamergate *always* had a bad rep: It's roots in the Quinnspiracy bull**** ( as shown and discussed in The great Zoe Quinn Firestorm thread down below) have never really gone away. It *never* could have been a genuinely positive movement.
All that being said, there's plenty of people within GG who can make such a genuinely positive movement - but this particular bunch has just too many rotten apples.
-
You can't rebrand GG because the scum that joined at the start aren't going to leave. You can't put that toothpaste back into the tube.
-
All that being said, there's plenty of people within GG who can make such a genuinely positive movement - but this particular bunch has just too many rotten apples.
Or to put that another way, "There may be ethical, honest people involved in #GamerGate. But a few good apples won’t magically make a rotten barrel edible. And #GamerGate is rotten to the core. (https://medium.com/@poopsockholmes/the-bad-apples-of-gamergate-ba39f8fd485)"
-
What puts me into a rage are the number of women and girls who have either left or been scared away from the industry because of this stuff. I've seen multiple designers post that they want to make a game of their own but are afraid of the attention they'd attract. As far as I'm concerned everything else is a minor issue by comparison.
-
The whole situation seems to revolve around attacking the other side, rather than promoting the agenda of your own, and this is speaking for both sides, it's not really a question of false balance, it's a question of no balance whatsoever because everyone is so busy attacking the other view, rather than representing their own.
That is what I'm seeing here too. Nobody has discussed the issues and concerns relating to Gamergate. The discussion gets reframed to the same circle jerk.
I'll admit that I agree with Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu, et al, and I find the misogyny disturbing.
Apparently at some point, gamers became an exclusive club of people. I guess I'm no longer a part of it.
-
All that being said, there's plenty of people within GG who can make such a genuinely positive movement - but this particular bunch has just too many rotten apples.
Or to put that another way, "There may be ethical, honest people involved in #GamerGate. But a few good apples won’t magically make a rotten barrel edible. And #GamerGate is rotten to the core. (https://medium.com/@poopsockholmes/the-bad-apples-of-gamergate-ba39f8fd485)"
So all you need is to find 20 people to prove that a whole Worldwide movement is rotten to the core. I wonder how you'd feel about a list of 20 feminists and a claim that that proves most feminists and organised feminism is rotten to the core.
-
So all you need is to find 20 people to prove that a whole Worldwide movement is rotten to the core. I wonder how you'd feel about a list of 20 feminists and a claim that that proves most feminists and organised feminism is rotten to the core.
These aren't just people plucked at random, you know.
-
Note to self: don't ever state a conclusion without posting every scrap of evidence I've ever posted previously that goes with it, because Lorric will get mad I didn't.
-
So all you need is to find 20 people to prove that a whole Worldwide movement is rotten to the core. I wonder how you'd feel about a list of 20 feminists and a claim that that proves most feminists and organised feminism is rotten to the core.
These aren't just people plucked at random, you know.
I know. It's still nowhere near enough for the claim you're making. Just as I would think 20 equivalent feminists wouldn't be enough to prove the claim in reverse.
Note to self: don't ever state a conclusion without posting every scrap of evidence I've ever posted previously that goes with it, because Lorric will get mad I didn't.
Poor form.
-
Lorric, you've been reading our stuff. You can remember what we've posted earlier.
-
Lorric, you've been reading our stuff. You can remember what we've posted earlier.
Yes, I have.
Mixed in with these cretins are, to what extent we can't tell because we don't know the extent of the astroturfing, some people who are genuinely concerned about ethical issues in the press. Now GG hasn't exposed much of anything real, but undoubtedly some were sincerely attracted to that platform. Maybe they're a small minority amidst the hate mob, maybe they're a more substantial component, I'm not sure.
Even you aren't taking that strong of a view.
-
Sorry, I don't see the disagreement between his statement and mine in its totality.
-
Game Informer (http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2014/10/20/game-informer-on-gamergate.aspx) denounces GamerGate.
[...]If journalistic ethics was all GamerGate was about, then it would be a movement worth discussing.
However, from the moment of its inception, GamerGate has been associated with harassment of women in the games industry, and has since repeated that pattern with Brianna Wu and Anita Sarkeesian (both of whom have endured being driven from their homes due to death threats). While the harassment may only be from a minority, it is harassment nonetheless and unacceptable at any and all levels when people fear for their safety.
Game Informer's stance on the issues is clear. The term GamerGate however is mired in confusion and is one that we reject. We have not covered the movement at Game Informer up to this point because we feel that the moniker misrepresents the issues. The GamerGate hashtag hides the true meaning of the speaker, muddying the water and giving defenses to the indefensible.
[...]
We implore all involved to let "GamerGate" go, because GamerGate is not an issue. It is a nebulous term that has served no master, but has been misused by those who wish to divert us from the real issues that the game industry faces as it evolves from its humble beginnings to a place where gamers of all types are accepted. All it has done is furthered stereotypes of violence and misogyny that have set the video game industry back further than any other issue this century, and has once again created an environment where the fanatics have marred the image of gamers everywhere.
-
Here's the main thing for me: if GG is really concerned about "ethical issues," then someone explain to me...what are those issues exactly? Where's the evidence for them? In this entire massive cluster****, I've yet to see anyone on that supposed "side" bringing up any legitimate problems in gaming journalism. There's been a ****load of self-righteous "well that's not what the movement's REALLY about!" going on, but precious little (if any) concrete details on what it actually IS about. I mean, the fact that the person on the receiving end of the most egregious corruption example in gaming news has been actively vilified by the movement purportedly fighting against said corruption really tells me all I need to know.
-
So, to put this topic on track.
Ethics. Yep, that little and stupid word.
One reason GamerGate got started was the bruhahaha over the Quinnspiracy. However, despite the entire debacle (and I won't go into for obvious reasons because I think its a cluster**** into itself) and some revelations about the shenanigans between varying journalists behind the scenes as espoused by the GameJournalistPros e-mail, how much of a "Code of Ethics" do we actually expect from our media and publications?
If one thing I stand with Jim Sterling on is that too often, journalists, publishers and devs get a little too cozy, and there's quite a difference between meeting friends in the industry at the bar for a drink and attempting to coerce others into towing a "party line." While I find Breitbart stupid as hell and chalk full of stuff that's conspiratorial or downright dismissive, some of the **** coming out of the leaks was, well to put it, unnerving.
I'm not opposed to games journalists supporting causes, developers, or movements, as long as a clear statement and objective distance is established and those endorsements or ties are disclosed to the audience and they do try to "keep" an aspect of distance between the subject and themselves. I constantly cite Totalbiscuit and Boogie2988 as good examples: they admit either they are fans or not, and disclose to us if their content was paid promotion or they had any ties to it.
A number of publications changed their ethics code as a result, but does these measures go enough, and should we expect more punitive measures to journalists/bloggers/youtubers who cross ethical lines?
Edit: Linking to Breitbart Article: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/17/Exposed-the-secret-mailing-list-of-the-gaming-journalism-elite and http://www.brightsideofnews.com/2014/09/19/inside-the-secret-world-of-games-journalism/
-
So all you need is to find 20 people to prove that a whole Worldwide movement is rotten to the core. I wonder how you'd feel about a list of 20 feminists and a claim that that proves most feminists and organised feminism is rotten to the core.
I can't believe this keeps getting brought up. "Gamergate" is notan ideology. it's a very specific campaign steered by several people. The whole Zoe Quinn debacle wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for Internet Aristocrat's videos.
An (obviously rather extreme) analogy: Stalin is not an example of socialism being rotten to the core - it is, however, an example of the USSR being rotten to the core.
some revelations about the shenanigans between varying journalists behind the scenes as espoused by the GameJournalistPros e-mail,
I doubt this actually. For all it's talk about "the leaked gamergate email list that has journalists colluding to control the narrative!", and claims that people were "attempting to reshape the gamer identity in their own image" and ... well.
The lists were leaked. From the screenshots, it is obvious that people had full acces to that. They could see posts and everything.
Yet they haven't been able to screenshot any posts that showed exactly that happening. The only pictures that they have shown actually shows... people discussing and disagreeing with each other.
Like we do on this forum.
-
The only pictures that they have shown actually shows... people discussing and disagreeing with each other.
Like we do on this forum.
Yo Josh, is the meeting to control the media tonight or tomorrow? I'm the one bringing blood for the ritual sacrifice this time.
-
Here's the main thing for me: if GG is really concerned about "ethical issues," then someone explain to me...what are those issues exactly? Where's the evidence for them? In this entire massive cluster****, I've yet to see anyone on that supposed "side" bringing up any legitimate problems in gaming journalism. There's been a ****load of self-righteous "well that's not what the movement's REALLY about!" going on, but precious little (if any) concrete details on what it actually IS about. I mean, the fact that the person on the receiving end of the most egregious corruption example in gaming news has been actively vilified by the movement purportedly fighting against said corruption really tells me all I need to know.
I keep bringing up that same point! It's like I'm not even here.
-
The last 20 hours of Gamergate tweets, plotted by the month the account was created:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0bTDXyCcAAys3_.png)
-
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+DavidHillJr/posts/dBBUpZFtchW
https://8chan.co/gg/res/206389.html#206419
Do you not understand why we've opted for the just-kill-it strategy? If someone wants to talk about ethics, they can leave these monsters' tent and start their own one.
-
https://8chan.co/gg/res/206389.html#206419
404s.
-
Looks like it got deleted. About a "lawyer" in gamergate trying to subpoena the courts to obtain personal info on Gamergate critics.
-
I saw a thread like you describe, it started with the guy just bringing out a bunch of legal points, then he made a "doxx doxx doxx" tweat and everyone seemed to just pause and go "aw crap" didn't see what happened after that. the doxings in question were IIRC specifically to be levied against people who were to be charged with harassment for what it's worth. the lawyer in question is not the primary counsel of Eron Gonji but he is apparently somehow in contact with him, maybe providing advice. my guess is the tweats he made are still on his twitter (unless he changed his mind), I'll see if I can find his account.
-
it was this guy:
https://twitter.com/PlayDangerously
I don't see the dox comment, either he deleted it, or it was fake.
[edit] looking at some of his recent posts he deleted it[/edit]
-
Oh yes, that guy (http://boingboing.net/2014/10/20/vultures-circle-gamergate.html).
-
wow that article really is something one can Listen to and Believe™
-
All that damn quoting.
-
The Gaurdian on why this is not a "two side" discussion (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/13/gamergate-right-wing-no-neutral-stance?CMP=twt_gu)
But even leaving aside the fact that Gamergate’s “argument” is an irreconcilable mess of trembly fingered accusations, vendettas and uncertain nods to complex problems, the fact remains that there is only one “side” to be discussed, and that is Gamergate itself. As much as it would like to nominate as its opponent a power-axis of leftist games critics, mainstream journalists, developers, activists and academics, this axis doesn’t exist.
Nor do Gamergate’s critics mass beneath any banner, or rally together to punish individual targets the way Gamergate does. The misdemeanours alluded to are many and various because this “other side” is simply people from all walks of life, gamers and non-gamers alike, reacting (or not reacting, as the case may be) to Gamergate.
-
side A) "you bunch of corrupt journalists!"
side B) "you aren't even a side! see this journalist says so"
can't help but find that amusing.
and all the while they gain ground, I heard that they managed to get Mercedes and BMW to pull adds from Gawker, the parent company of most of the sites that published the gamers are dead articles. for a side with no side they sure are proving damned effective. I suppose in
the end it doesn't really mater if you or I believe GG has a point, what really maters is if the advertisers for these sites believe they have a point.
actually interesting interview I just stubled uppon somewhat related to the subject: http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/gamergate-in-the-media/54356bd178c90acf2a000a0a
-
side A) "you bunch of corrupt journalists!"
side B) "we aren't even a side! see this journalist says so"
Fixed. A bit.
-
ok, doesn't look that different to me.
-
side A) "you bunch of corrupt journalists!"
side B) "we aren't even a side! see this journalist says so"
Fixed. A bit.
I'm not sure that's really relevant, there's no denying other people are members of Anti-GG and that isn't used to imply anything, because we already accept a bias towards a persons own opinion, so why should the same truth in the opposite direction be relevant either?
-
Pro Gamergate and Anti Gamergate interview:
http://mangotron.com/pro-vs-anti-gamergate-two-interviews/
For the moment, the really cool side effect that this skirmish has had is the total meltdown of Gawker media personalities. What a pathetic bunch those guys are, jesus ****ing christ.
e: can't help but read Vega's manifesto on what "they" were up to and what "they" are going to do next and for what reasons. I guess it's a kind of a collective like the Borg. Irrespectively of what "their" burn-everything strategies are, it's obvious it's not working out, and if anything it's creating huge divisions between the audiences, further adding to the fuel.
And for all my attempts at trying to figure it out, no one has managed to explain to me why that "grimachu" piece was "offensive" at all, let alone deserving of slandering its author of being a rape apologist. The reason why I am harping on this one is several fold, but here's just one. The reason why I am driven a bit angry at this is because I've seen this **** before in the Atheist circles, and it not only shattered the movement, not only it divided it in two, the sliming cowardly false accusations that started from that point on, slandering everyone who didn't toe the party line as a "raep apologist!", was such a wave of horrifying proportions that I for one will never forget it. The most common perpretators of it were labeled "FTBullies" for their HQ was (and still is) FreeThoughtBlogs and from time to time they still manage to sling **** towards the mainstream arenas of discussion.
Don't let that poison destroy gaming.
-
Don't let that poison destroy gaming.
There's many poisons in gaming. None of them will destroy it, even though there are quite a few that are far more potent then the opinion of an indie dev on a person whose opinion was redacted from the escapist because
We have removed the testimony of James Desborough, after we've received evidence that he has harassed some contributors to The Escapist. Due to our strong policy against all harassment and abuse, Desborough's opinions will no longer be presented alongside those of his colleagues.
-
for a side with no side they sure are proving damned effective. I suppose in
the end it doesn't really mater if you or I believe GG has a point, what really maters is if the advertisers for these sites believe they have a point.
Oh, yes, getting PR departments who operate very conservatively to withdraw from a potentially problematic area, that's a GREAT SUCCESS! Surely this will serve to put an end to problematic and unethical behaviour, yes sir.
God, this is pathetic. So instead of figuring out what ethics means, gamergate would rather put pressure on sites so that they start to implement censorship to appeal to gamergate sensibilities. It appears to me that gamergate's problem isn't that gaming media is controlled by a shadowy cabal, it's that it's controlled by the wrong shadowy cabal.
-
It seems to me that this is the only method available to the audiences if the very media that should listen to them are occupied in slandering them and their hashtags.
Boycotts and these kinds of pressures are all the tools available for them. And you wonder why they are being used.
You kinda get the sense of insanity when you learn with all these discussions on the media (that boing boing article above as example) that being a "right wing" is now an insult. An insult.
-
It seems to me that this is the only method available to the audiences if the very media that should listen to them are occupied in slandering them and their hashtags.
Why should the media listen to people who, in your own words, "[are a] rage movement mob in twitter [which] is behaving mob-like and with rage"?
Boycotts and these kinds of pressures are all the tools available for them. And you wonder why they are being used.
It isn't. It's simply the only option this mob *thinks* it has. Gamergate is many things - "Uncompromising" is one of them, but becoming open to compromises and negotiation is not a method that has come out of that collective as of yet - and that would help a great deal. Like I said before, as long as Gamergate is a revamped edition of the quinnspiracy, it will never succeed.
-
I've seen this **** before in the Atheist circles,
This, ****ing A+ broke the atheist community, and killed it's momentum.
nice job breaking it hero.
-
it will never succeed.
except it's totally succeeding at bringing down the sites that it thinks are corrupt. it thinks sites like RPS, Kotaku, Gamasutra, etc are unwilling to change, it got that impression from the 'gamers are dead' articles. so if they will not change then they will be brought down, and they are totally succeeding at that. these sites have war chests in the millions it'll probably take months to years or so before they start shuting down, but the damage is done.
-
It seems to me that this is the only method available to the audiences if the very media that should listen to them are occupied in slandering them and their hashtags.
Why should the media listen to people who, in your own words, "[are a] rage movement mob in twitter [which] is behaving mob-like and with rage"?
Because they caused that very rage.
It isn't. It's simply the only option this mob *thinks* it has. Gamergate is many things - "Uncompromising" is one of them, but becoming open to compromises and negotiation is not a method that has come out of that collective as of yet - and that would help a great deal. Like I said before, as long as Gamergate is a revamped edition of the quinnspiracy, it will never succeed.
It's been fun to watch media people and their fains proclaiming that #gamergate is over and so on for the past two months. Sad too but hey.
-
it thinks sites like RPS, Kotaku, Gamasutra, etc are unwilling to change, it got that impression from the 'gamers are dead' articles.
RPS never even posted a gamers are dead article 0_o.
-
It should be noted that there is also the experience gap to consider.
Getting advertisers to withdraw support for something a publication has said or done is not an unknown tactic, it's been used before and will be used again and can be an effective way to promote change in an advertising-led media format. This has been a technique used in the past by several groups, including Women's Rights' groups.
However, there is a lack of experience of how to approach these problems that is evident, and displays itself as a scattergun approach to the problem, coupled with an inability to have any influence over the worst aspects of the community (not that such a thing is possible) doesn't help.
I will say this, if these were paid-for publications, I think I'd be more annoyed, but this is a situation where 'voting with your feet' would probably have had more impact. Nobody is forced to read these publications or base their spending habits upon them. I'm assuming that every member of Gamergate uses these publications to get information etc, so if they cannot be trusted, go somewhere else, once those mainstream sites see their hit-count reducing and therefore affecting their advertising power, they will soon start looking for the cause.
A campaign to boycott Gawker Media products and to explain to the public why people are choosing to do so based on organizational policy, rather than people, would probably have been far more successful and made it much more difficult to demonize its members without looking like it was a matter of self-interest for the Media to do so.
-
RPS never even posted a gamers are dead article 0_o.
you have a real talent for missing the point.
-
And your definition of "bringing down" needs to be revised.
Also, why do you think that bringing these sites down is the right answer? Even if that endeavour were to succeed (highly unlikely), all you'd end up with is a bunch of journalists looking (and, in short order) finding a new home somewhere else. It's not going to change anyone's opinion, and it will certainly not put an end to all those articles about gender issues in gaming that you people seem to dislike so much.
If your answer to supposed censorship is to impose actual censorship, I think you're kinda missing the point.
-
I think there's more than 2 sides to this debate, this isn't a 'With us or against us' situation.
I, for example, do not agree with even the initial starting point of Gamergate, I don't think the actions of individuals is indicative of overall policy on either side, and I certainly don't consider this to be a 'gate' situation, but then I also don't think there would have been nearly the outcry if a male developer had slept with a female reviewer. That's not really about computer games, it's about the old 'Man = player, Woman = slut' debate at its heart.
Personally, I don't associate myself with Gamergate, but that doesn't mean I am not concerned about the concept that mainstream publications have close liaisons with developers, not sexual liaisons, but business ones. A certain amount of crossover is to be expected, but, as the Gerrstmann debacle showed, there are still issues to address on how much say the publications marketing practices have over their portrayal of information.
-
The reason why I am driven a bit angry at this is because I've seen this **** before in the Atheist circles
If by "this ****" you mean "actual misogyny", then yes, you have seen this **** in Atheist circles before. Of course, the rest of your post reveals that your actual problem is with people complaining about misogyny, so that whistling sound is probably the point flying over your head at high speed.
Since nobody's posted it publicly yet, the definition of "apologism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics).
Personally, I don't associate myself with Gamergate, but that doesn't mean I am not concerned about the concept that mainstream publications have close liaisons with developers, not sexual liaisons, but business ones. A certain amount of crossover is to be expected, but, as the Gerrstmann debacle showed, there are still issues to address on how much say the publications marketing practices have over their portrayal of information.
And yet GamerGate seems to be advocating for game reviews to be more like advertisements, not less. Consider the complaint about the earlier-mentioned Bayonetta 2 review. How dare you treat this game like a cultural artifact instead of a toy! If they were just saying they disagreed with the review, that would be fine; instead, they're saying that it is unethical. They don't want to see reviews like it, anywhere. They want, it seems, corporate press releases. Yes, how objective; what useful reviews. :|
-
And yet GamerGate seems to be advocating for game reviews to be more like advertisements, not less. Consider the complaint about the earlier-mentioned Bayonetta 2 review. How dare you treat this game like a cultural artifact instead of a toy! If they were just saying they disagreed with the review, that would be fine; instead, they're saying that it is unethical. They don't want to see reviews like it, anywhere. They want, it seems, corporate press releases. Yes, how objective; what useful reviews. :|
Oh, please. The Bayonetta review in question was chock full of nothing else than complaints about supposed gender issues from feminist perspectives. It was a political propaganda piece, and the complete antithesis to useful review. Cultural artifact? lol, that doesnt even mean anything.
You can give gender issues the treatment they deserve (see The Escapist Bayonetta review I posted for comparison which does mention them), or you can go all feminazi on your audience and then such reviews do deserve criticism and indeed, are borderline unethical because there comes a point where pushing politics into game reviews gets so over the top that it is not a good review anymore.
You are right, I dont want "reviews" like that in any self-respecting medium, it should be contained in some Gawker BS clickbait site and laughed at by the rest of the gaming community.
Gamergate is advocating for more objective reviews. Not press releases but neither radfem propaganda pieces.
-
And yet GamerGate seems to be advocating for game reviews to be more like advertisements, not less. Consider the complaint about the earlier-mentioned Bayonetta 2 review. How dare you treat this game like a cultural artifact instead of a toy! If they were just saying they disagreed with the review, that would be fine; instead, they're saying that it is unethical. They don't want to see reviews like it, anywhere. They want, it seems, corporate press releases. Yes, how objective; what useful reviews. :|
You really don't do your cause any services by arguing about a strawman of what they want.
It's pretty obvious that what much of GamerGate want is for a game review to be about the game itself, how it plays, whether the graphics are good, whether it's enjoyable. And not about political issues about the game. If you feel that the review can be mostly about political issues, argue about that.
You can give gender issues the treatment they deserve (see The Escapist Bayonetta review I posted for comparison which does mention them), or you can go all feminazi on your audience and then such reviews do deserve criticism and indeed, are borderline unethical because there comes a point where pushing politics into game reviews gets so over the top that it is not a good review anymore.
You really don't do your cause any services by bandying stupid quasi-Godwin terms like feminazi around.
Since you are basically the only person in this discussion who hasn't distanced themselves from GameGate, you're going to be held up as an example of what a GamerGate member is like. If you make yourself sound like you are against women's rights by labelling any discussion of feminism in a game review as feminazim, you're only going to succeed in persuading anti-GG that they're absolutely right about what GG want.
-
The reason why I am driven a bit angry at this is because I've seen this **** before in the Atheist circles
If by "this ****" you mean "actual misogyny", then yes, you have seen this **** in Atheist circles before. Of course, the rest of your post reveals that your actual problem is with people complaining about misogyny, so that whistling sound is probably the point flying over your head at high speed.
Except it very much was a non-problem until hacks of third level grade started trying to smear well established faces of atheism apologism for being either rapists, rape apologists, mysoginists or sexists or whatever the hell they could stick. PZ Myers comes to mind in all this brouhaha, peddling narcissistic wannabes that never wrote anything remotely interesting about anything, but never failed trying to police the atheist movement into their own progressive agendas. Atheism plus, the end result, was such a failure of such magnifying proportions that its only legacy is a funny as hell twitter parody account.
Since nobody's posted it publicly yet, the definition of "apologism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics).
I'm still waiting for you to respond where anything remotely like "rape apology" is found on Grimachu's blog post, rather than ellude the question then calling me obtuse or telling me to **** off. For someone so keen at trying to educate people on such difficult concepts as "apologism", you don't seem to get the hang of them at all.
And yet GamerGate seems to be advocating for game reviews to be more like advertisements, not less. Consider the complaint about the earlier-mentioned Bayonetta 2 review. How dare you treat this game like a cultural artifact instead of a toy! If they were just saying they disagreed with the review, that would be fine; instead, they're saying that it is unethical. They don't want to see reviews like it, anywhere. They want, it seems, corporate press releases. Yes, how objective; what useful reviews. :|
I'm at odds with Bay2. Is it empowering (http://leighalexander.net/bayonetta-two/) or so pernicious (https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/521788400538370048). Really, I have no clue if I am allowed to indulge in such a great feminist game or if I should be guilty in indulging a fighting **** toy mysoginistic game. Someone HELP me!
-
Oh, please. The Bayonetta review in question was chock full of nothing else than complaints about supposed gender issues from feminist perspectives. It was a political propaganda piece, and the complete antithesis to useful review. Cultural artifact? lol, that doesnt even mean anything.
So I read that article. Did you know what I saw? There are 6 paragraphs in the opening that deal with the sexualization of that character, and how the reviewer felt that this was distracting from the otherwise high quality of the rest of the game. There are 6 further paragraphs describing the systems of the game, the difficulty curve, all the nuts and bolts of a game review stuff. The whole thing is then capped off with a wrap up, in which the reviewer once more reiterates that it's a really good action game, but that he found the sexualization to distract from that.
Now, I said that there were 6 paragraphs devoted to discussing the sexualization thing, right? But, did you know how the word count breaks down between discussing that, and discussing the rest of the game? 705 words are spent on actual gameplay, 433 on the other stuff you find so objectionable. In other words, 61% of the review's text are dedicated to addressing the gameplay.
Now we come to your issue here. You want even more space dedicated to the gameplay, which I can understand. But, as the reviewer for Polygon points out, he was kicked out of enjoying the game by the sexy. If a reviewer's job is to write an honest assessment of a game, then it must follow that he or she has to be able to voice those concerns. Whether or not you disagree with that assessment is up to you, of course; but what the **** makes this specific review such a bete noire? Why is it that a review which spends quite a few words on praising the game for its good gameplay is vilified, only because the reviewer was not able or willing to overlook aspects of the game which were problematic to him?
I implore you, maslo, to be honest with yourself. You are not fighting against censorship, you are fighting for it. There are voices in the games industry you wish to see silenced, for no other reason than you disagreeing with them. There is a grand battle for journalistic freedom here, and you are on the side that wants to reduce it.
-
I'm at odds with Bay2. Is it empowering or so pernicious. Really, I have no clue if I am allowed to indulge in such a great feminist game or if I should be guilty in indulging a fighting **** toy mysoginistic game. Someone HELP me!
Oh my god! Feminists disagree with each other sometimes! And yet somehow still manage to get along!
Never played either game, but after reading I'm leaning toward the empowering camp. I also gave money to Anita (and Zoe). And the universe hasn't collapsed from the contradiction! Incredible!
-
I implore you, maslo, to be honest with yourself. You are not fighting against censorship, you are fighting for it. There are voices in the games industry you wish to see silenced, for no other reason than you disagreeing with them. There is a grand battle for journalistic freedom here, and you are on the side that wants to reduce it.
That is a good point. I don't think it's about suppressing voices, though, or at least that's the less generous interpretation of what is going on. What I think is that many many people are tired of this righteous semi-propaganda pieces. Perhaps what gamers in #gamergate are furious at is at the perception that their games are at the forefront of a massive ideological scrutiny over feminist concerns, when what they wanted was that "games" be this genuinely naive and "innocent" activity where politics was something of a taboo word, for politics ended where games started. It was this massive place where people came together despite their political differences, and the perspective of losing this amazing feature (not a bug!), people are really really angry.
One can already foresee people having different games according to their own political leanings, and games will become, as all other forms of culture, another "artifacts" that are used to distinguish and balkanize people into their own political backgrounds and ideas. I believe, and it's only an intuitive insight that might well be wrong here, that this reaction, this fervent desire to block this foresseable future of political divide in gaming itself is at the core of #gamergate. And that may well be a lost war by now. Lefties are already calling #gamergaters all sorts of names and insults, throwing "right wing" among them. Right wing people are caching in perhaps opportunistically because they smell the lefties have angered a lot of people with this take over attempt.
This might mean, just like the Polygon article mentioned the other day, that there's probably a need for right wing gaming media outlets (http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/17/6996601/on-gamergate-a-letter-from-the-editor):
If GamerGate simply wants a conservative counter to what they consider a left-leaning gaming press, I think that's great! That's healthy! You don't have to like the way we or any other outlet cover video games. If you truly believe there's an army of people who reject "progressive" voices and outlets like Polygon and Kotaku, or who would prefer coverage "just about the games," then I'd encourage you to start a new site for those readers. There's no easier or better time to do it.
And you know, even Milo had stated two months ago that he would be willing to help start some kind of project like that, so you know there's a demand for that kind of thing, and so on and so on. This is the End of Games as a Non-Political Landscape. This is it. And this is why there's so much emotion here. Perhaps it is "about time" that politics enters games, it's a sign that games are maturing, growing, becoming adult, etc., but is there no end to this "politicization" process? Are there any landscapes left wherein we can escape from these "real world" concerns at all?
-
There's no escape from politics when the "neutral" point of view is whatever the posters beliefs are. Best you can do is make it about the actual beliefs as opposed to factionalism for factionalism's sake, in everything in life including games.
What are you protesting against? The expansion of games' subject matter into potentially political areas? That's where you wanna dig the trench? Spare me the lamentations that serious games are being made and have critics to accompany them. There'll always be a market for the Serious Sams of the industry for you. You don't have to read or play **** you don't like.
We were never about censorship. We're about calling it like we see it. As long as noone gets hurt, or driven out of their house.
-
RPS never even posted a gamers are dead article 0_o.
you have a real talent for missing the point.
Then please explain to me the reason why these people are going after RPS. Corruption? What are they basing that on?
---
I feel that this video is relevant. It was made two years ago after people demanded a reviewer from gamespot got fired because she mentioned GTA V's troubling representation of women and gave it a 9 instead of the 10 people wanted it to have (not neccisarely for that reason) - It's suprisingly relevant today:
-
karajorma: While I don't agree with how you framed everything in this thread, I want to applaud you for calling out maslo and this statement in particular:
Since you are basically the only person in this discussion who hasn't distanced themselves from GameGate, you're going to be held up as an example of what a GamerGate member is like. If you make yourself sound like you are against women's rights by labelling any discussion of feminism in a game review as feminazim, you're only going to succeed in persuading anti-GG that they're absolutely right about what GG want.
-
karajorma: While I don't agree with how you framed everything in this thread, I want to applaud you for calling out maslo and this statement in particular:
Since you are basically the only person in this discussion who hasn't distanced themselves from GameGate, you're going to be held up as an example of what a GamerGate member is like. If you make yourself sound like you are against women's rights by labelling any discussion of feminism in a game review as feminazim, you're only going to succeed in persuading anti-GG that they're absolutely right about what GG want.
I think a lot us chose to distance ourselves from either the vitriol, juvenile, or down right conspiratorial bent flying in GamerGate circles.
As for the jilted Polygon review? The guy is entitled to his Victorian-style leaning on how women should remain chaste, in the company of a male overseer, and need a male member of the family to go outside... (yeah, more sarcasm). In all reality, a prude is a prude. And I've spouted enough the radFem pro-sex shlock I adhere to, henceforth my enmity with folks like Anita, whom my definition of Feminism regards as a Prudish bore trying to repress female sexuality rather than take control of it.
He does cover in details why the game is great, even though he bemoans the "sexualization" like a Parisien debutante bemoaning fries with ketchup. The clear majority of sites have given the game higher ratings, and they certainly don't seem in collusion to bring a "Feminist" revolution to games. They're united in criticizing GamerGate and condemning harassment.
Feminazi? No. Prude, Yes.
-
Lol, you missed the favorable feminist reviews of Bayonetta mentioned on this page? Leigh Alexander praised both games.
Maddy Myers also spoke well of Bayonetta and actually had to explain to GGers that feminists are allowed to disagree with each other. Do I have to explain it to you too?
-
Lol, you missed the favorable feminist reviews of Bayonetta mentioned on this page? Leigh Alexander praised both games.
Hint: Sarcasm in noted post above. But yeah, Leigh Alexander liked it. Anita on the other hand began to ruffle feathers and cluck wildly while flapping her wings in astonishment that people like Bayonetta (and Anita tried to smear Bayonetta for its marketing, but succeeded in in editing a video so she didn't get caught up in a tirade).
It should be a pretty good sign that not everyone is a prudish Victorian hold out.
-
You've already been warned by Kara.
-
You really don't do your cause any services by arguing about a strawman of what they want.
It's pretty obvious that what much of GamerGate want is for a game review to be about the game itself, how it plays, whether the graphics are good, whether it's enjoyable. And not about political issues about the game. If you feel that the review can be mostly about political issues, argue about that.
The content of the game is not "the game itself"? Some people disagree with the reviewer; that's fine. To say that the reviewer shouldn't be allowed to reduce the rating of the game because of their opinion on its content is both an accurate description of what people who align themselves with GamerGate claim to want and completely moronic.
-
You really don't do your cause any services by arguing about a strawman of what they want.
It's pretty obvious that what much of GamerGate want is for a game review to be about the game itself, how it plays, whether the graphics are good, whether it's enjoyable. And not about political issues about the game. If you feel that the review can be mostly about political issues, argue about that.
The content of the game is not "the game itself"? Some people disagree with the reviewer; that's fine. To say that the reviewer shouldn't be allowed to reduce the rating of the game because of their opinion on its content is both an accurate description of what people who align themselves with GamerGate claim to want and completely moronic.
I think you're talking past each other, at this point. I don't see anywhere Kara is saying that articles shouldn't be allowed to have that sort of thing. Rather, he's describing what many of the (non-idiotic, non-misogynistic) GG masses want: game reviews that are free of political bias, whether it be gender politics or what have you. That's not a moronic ideal, and frankly I'm concerned that the vitriol with which you disagreed (italics and everything) indicates that this matter is more charged than it needs to be, and that (much like the situation we find ourselves discussing) imagined slight is everywhere.
-
Me personally I think that is exactly what a reviewer should be doing. Grading the game based on their honest opinion. With no external influences.
For a hypothetical, if I saw a review where someone dropped the score of the game because it failed the Bechdel test, while I personally think if a game passes the Bechdel test is irrelevant, some people would have a different view. A reviewer taking the time to check if a game passed the Bechdel test and not just docking points for failure, but adding points depending on how strongly the game passed the test would find a niche with certain people who would appreciate that reviewer's take on games.
Me, there are lots of other reviewers out there I can look at who wouldn't do that. I would know that particular reviewer was not focused on what is important to me in a game and that they were of no use to me. I have read the "bad" Bayonetta 2 review in question, and it doesn't bother me. If that was simply that persons untainted experience, I have no problem with them grading it in that fashion. I'm sure they're not the only players who would feel that way playing the game and any such players would find that review useful. Heck, other people might find the review useful in that despite that, it still received a respectable 7.5 rating. A 7.5 is still a good game, and they'd know they could boost the score substantially if the complaints are not complaints they would have. I like to read the highest and lowest review scores for games to see the different perspectives.
The problem would start if the hypothetical reviewer was being pressured from an external source to adjust the rating of the games they reviewed based on Bechdel test performance. There would be a far larger problem if all reviewers were being pressured by an external source to do so. Then the review would no longer be the untainted opinion of a single reviewer. Games are highly subjective, and a variety of different opinions on them is important to find a review which resonates with what is important to you as a gamer, which is focused on and describing those aspects of games that matter to you. If an outside external pressure is put on game reviewers, that balance is destroyed.
-
I don't see anywhere Kara is saying that articles shouldn't be allowed to have that sort of thing.
He said I was arguing with a straw man; I pointed out that I was, in fact, arguing against what GGers actually argue for.
Rather, he's describing what many of the (non-idiotic, non-misogynistic) GG masses want: game reviews that are free of political bias, whether it be gender politics or what have you.
Choosing not to mention gender politics is a political bias.
That's not a moronic ideal
Yes it is! It's both stupid and undesirable.
-
Now hold on just a moment there. Electing to not engage in politics may be a political decision, but it is not in and of itself a bias. Moreover, desiring a game review where the benefits and negatives of a given game without added political commentary is not "stupid and moronic". Frankly, I find the idea that such things must be discussed to be almost as disagreeable as you seem to think the reverse.
Meanwhile:
frankly I'm concerned that the vitriol with which you disagreed (italics and everything) indicates that this matter is more charged than it needs to be, and that (much like the situation we find ourselves discussing) imagined slight is everywhere.
Even if you can't agree, can we at least drop the harsh tones?
-
Now hold on just a moment there. Electing to not engage in politics may be a political decision, but it is not in and of itself a bias.
If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.
If you're still confused as to how this works, you should watch this video -Joshua- embedded earlier:
Moreover, desiring a game review where the benefits and negatives of a given game without added political commentary is not "stupid and moronic". Frankly, I find the idea that such things must be discussed to be almost as disagreeable as you seem to think the reverse.
I didn't say they must be discussed! I said that you cannot avoid bias in reviews. You can want to read reviews that don't mention gender politics; there is nothing wrong with this. What you cannot do is say that no reviews can mention gender politics, or that to do so is unethical. This is, in effect, arguing for censorship of anybody who disagrees with a particular set of political opinions.
-
If that's what you're arguing against, it's absolutely a straw man. And if that's the view you seriously think that the non-scum portion of GG hold (granted I can't speak for all of them, nor do I want to) then no wonder there's a miscommunication going on. The impression I've gotten from all this (and it's generally the only concrete impression I've gotten from this thread, you'd think there were eight or nine different sides just by reading it) is that there currently isn't an outlet for reviews that remain apolitical. I don't agree with the idea that game review sites need to be taken down, or that game reviews can't be political, but the idea that there should be a place to go for reviews that aren't is not a stupid or moronic one.
That may very well be the only thing somewhere deep down in the seething, filthy mess of GG that I agree with, but I do.
-
If that's what you're arguing against, it's absolutely a straw man.
It's an actual view spouted by actual people who actually call themselves GamerGaters. If that's a "straw man", then I'm not sure what definition of "straw man" you're using.
And if that's the view you seriously think that the non-scum portion of GG hold (granted I can't speak for all of them, nor do I want to) then no wonder there's a miscommunication going on. The impression I've gotten from all this (and it's generally the only concrete impression I've gotten from this thread, you'd think there were eight or nine different sides just by reading it) is that there currently isn't an outlet for reviews that remain apolitical.
There is no such thing as an "apolitical" review. You clearly did not read (and/or understand) my previous post at all.
the idea that there should be a place to go for reviews that aren't is not a stupid or moronic one.
It's also... not, as far as I've seen, the goal of anyone identifying themselves as a GamerGater. Feel free to link to GamerGaters actually advancing that argument, though.
-
I read and understood your previous post just fine. Reading and understanding does not necessitate agreement, however. To not include political dialogue may be a political statement on behalf of the reviewer, but such a bias does not reflect on the article. If a review discusses the characters, story, controls, and gameplay of a game and does not form the reviewer's collected experiences and feelings into an interpretation of the game's message, the resultant review does not magically become political. If you disagree, so be it, but you're fishing for Truth (tm) where none exists. That's the core issue here. Everyone in this cluster**** of an argument is so concerned with finding the Truth (tm) that any concept of mutual agreeability and civil discourse goes right out the window, and you get this bastard ****fest of a thread. Even just now, after I suggest something that attempts to reframe the discussion into something we can have a discussion about, instead of an argument, the very first thing you do is demand that I rephrase it with the Truth (tm).
I refuse.
This, right here, is the problem with General Discussion. Everyone wants to win. Everyone wants their edition of the Truth (tm) to get the spotlight and the victor's circle. Stop it. Discuss the underlying issue. If Gamergate is such a cesspool of human filth, liberate what beneficial ideals you can from the muck and talk about those instead of diving right into it with everyone else.
-
game reviews that are free of political bias
Then they can go find some. They are the vast majority. When half the amount of people in a room are women, men see this as skewed (actual study). When gamers with vaguely reactionary beliefs find a few reviews where the (less reactionary) beliefs of the critic are in evidence, suddenly games journalism is flooded with bias. What they take offense at is exactly what Alexander accused them of taking offense at, the idea of a world that doesn't cater to them. If Alexander's article was so offensive, then they should WRITE A GODDAMN REBUTTAL. It's what real people do in the real world.
-
You really don't do your cause any services by arguing about a strawman of what they want.
It's pretty obvious that what much of GamerGate want is for a game review to be about the game itself, how it plays, whether the graphics are good, whether it's enjoyable. And not about political issues about the game. If you feel that the review can be mostly about political issues, argue about that.
The content of the game is not "the game itself"? Some people disagree with the reviewer; that's fine. To say that the reviewer shouldn't be allowed to reduce the rating of the game because of their opinion on its content is both an accurate description of what people who align themselves with GamerGate claim to want and completely moronic.
You argued that Gamergate want reviews to be reduced to an advert for the game. This is quite obviously a strawman argument and it does you no service to make it. I'm not going to argue that the content of the game is the game itself. I summed up the GG argument, I didn't say I subscribed to it myself. But if you want to argue GG is wrong, you need to actually argue about the things they are actually saying. Making a strawman (GG want reviews to be little more than adverts) and then attacking it is a silly argument which undermines your credibility. Especially given that it's the obvious antithesis of what GamerGate actually want (reviews that are more objective and less like advertisments).
If you really feel that reviews can hinge largely on the politics of the game, argue that point, you'll probably find a lot of people agree with you. Hell, I watch Zero Punctuation every week and he's basically written off an entire genre of games as spunkgargleweewee based largely on their politics. But if you argue strawman points, you'll only encourage people to tune you out.
You've already been warned by Kara.
No he/she hasn't.
At least not about anything I saw in that last post.
-
You argued that Gamergate want reviews to be reduced to an advert for the game. This is quite obviously a strawman argument and it does you no service to make it. I'm not going to argue that the content of the game is the game itself. I summed up the GG argument, I didn't say I subscribed to it myself. But if you want to argue GG is wrong, you need to actually argue about the things they are actually saying.
What they claim and what they actually describe as a good review ain't the same. They sure seem to long for the quick reviews with a 10 point score at the top of 15 years ago that were quite frankly crap and full of PR bull****. It's actually much harder to BS your way through the newer style of good-movie-critic-like reviews-your writing has to be much more involved.
So no, he ain't strawmanning what they say they want. Just what you see they really want when you read between the lines.
-
You argued that Gamergate want reviews to be reduced to an advert for the game. This is quite obviously a strawman argument and it does you no service to make it. I'm not going to argue that the content of the game is the game itself. I summed up the GG argument, I didn't say I subscribed to it myself. But if you want to argue GG is wrong, you need to actually argue about the things they are actually saying. Making a strawman (GG want reviews to be little more than adverts) and then attacking it is a silly argument which undermines your credibility. Especially given that it's the obvious antithesis of what GamerGate actually want (reviews that are more objective and less like advertisments).
The "actual argument" is that the reviewer should not have taken points off for finding the game offensive. If the reviewer is not to take points off of a game as a result of their opinions of its content, then what, exactly, is the difference between a review and an advertisement?
I read and understood your previous post just fine. Reading and understanding does not necessitate agreement, however. To not include political dialogue may be a political statement on behalf of the reviewer, but such a bias does not reflect on the article. If a review discusses the characters, story, controls, and gameplay of a game and does not form the reviewer's collected experiences and feelings into an interpretation of the game's message, the resultant review does not magically become political.
The choice of what not to mention is still a choice. To take the historical example (from the wikipedia article on false balance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance)) of coverage of lynching, and how they didn't mention "that African-Americans were being terrorized across the nation"... were these stories "apolitical" because they didn't mention race politics?
That said, I absolutely agree that people don't need to be toxic with each other just because they disagree. I certainly hope that some good eventually does result from this "cesspool of human filth", and I think we can all agree that there are, in fact, ethics problems in the gaming world.
-
The basic idea here Ralwood is that only the mechanics, the "game" part, should be discussed. Which is to say, GG wants the kill the idea of games being art, because that might allow unwanted political opinions into their entertainment.
You can't say what a game review should be about without also saying what a game should be about.
-
Mr. Vega, while what 'GG wants' is not something I'm prepared to discuss at any great depth, I think there's something to be said about the concept of a game review that does not give into politically charged discussion on the game under review. With some games, this is highly impractical (Bayonetta, Tomb Raider, Duke Nukem). For others, that political commentary automatically predisposes people who agree/disagree with those political views to dislike the game - whether or not the reviewer's conclusions are correct or even relevant.
This is also not to say that opinion must be removed from game reviews (which is the other sort of annoying argument going around here). A reviewer describing a control system as difficult or unhelpfully mapped out is still subjective, but it's not politically charged. Describing how the game does a good job with the story to make you care about the main character is still subjective, but it's not politically charged. Saying that the game was obviously made by rape fetishists because of what can happen to the main character (Tomb Raider) is subjective, and holy **** is it politically charged. Obviously this is an exaggeration for effect, and it's still possible to remark about that quality of the game as a negative without firing the proverbial warning shots. A game critic that describes that she was disappointed or upset with the method and frequency of bad things that can happen to the main character still gets the point across and is maybe ticking all the way up to a 1.5 on the politically charged scale.
A truly, objectively, vacuum-proof apolitical game review may very well be not possible (I'm not convinced, but that's not the idea right now), but it's certainly possible to do better.
The first person who tells me that "That's not what GamerGate says" is getting a warning, because I'm not talking about ****ing Gamergate. I'm trying to rescue this ****fest of a topic and God help whoever gets in the way.
-
I would agree that it is possible to write a review that is not politically charged. I don't think all reviews should avoid anything politically charged (for reasons I should hope I have already made clear by now), but I certainly support the view that there should be a wide variety of different reviews written from different perspectives.
-
Including socio-political commentaries in reviews is a good thing because it treats games as a mature/respectable medium. The people who argue for gaming to be taken seriously has to accept games as something more than entertainment. If games are to be on the same level as movies, operas, dances, poetry, music, or photography; people have to take it into account of cultural influences. External influences shape culture, and for games influence culture regardless of what gamers think.
If gamers do not want games to be taken seriously, then certain places like Kotaku are not for them and they should consider going to sites that cater to their taste. Attempting to aggressively shut down Kotaku is childish. But it's hypocritical to think that games can be treated as a respectable media without including social/political critiques.
-
Politicizing reviews I think is a good thing because it treats gaming as a mature/respectable medium. The people who argue for gaming to be taken seriously has to accept games as something more than entertainment. If games are to be on the same level as movies, operas, dances, poetry, music, or photography; people have to take it into account of cultural influences. External influences shape culture, and for games influence culture regardless of what gamers think.
If gamers do not want games to be taken seriously, then certain places like Kotaku are not for them and they should consider going to sites that cater to their taste. Attempting to aggressively shut down Kotaku is childish. But it's hypocritical to think that games can be treated as a respectable media without including social/political critiques.
What if you don't care about any of that and you just care about having fun with a hobby?
I'm not going to stop someone reviewing a game however they want to. But I don't care about any of that stuff. All I care about is if I am going to like the game, and first and foremost to that is gameplay.
I do not care if the World views gaming as a respectable or mature medium. That has zero impact on my enjoyment of a game. And may negatively impact on my enjoyment of future games, due to people caring about such things instead of simply making a game which is fun to play and letting their creativity run loose unfettered by such considerations.
-
What if you don't care about any of that and you just care about having fun with a hobby?
Then go find a different ****ing review that doesn't include it. If you don't care about commentaries in a movie, go find a reviewer that doesn't give a crap about commentaries. Don't treat a single review as a microcosm of gaming reviews. And avoid all literary analyses and modern retellings of Shakespeare and plays.
I do not care if the World views gaming as a respectable or mature medium. That has zero impact on my enjoyment of a game. And may negatively impact on my enjoyment of future games, due to people caring about such things instead of simply making a game which is fun to play and letting their creativity run loose unfettered by such considerations.
First, you shouldn't let a review stopping you from having fun. Second, you might want to avoid General Discussion or the Gaming Board on Hard Light because that's what we do. I will not apologize for ruining your games.
What I find ironic is that you assume games become less creative when they take social concerns into account. I believe that a game developer who cares about the writing of its games and takes into account of current socio-political perspectives would develop a better game than one that rehashes tried-and-true formulas and caricatures.
-
:wtf:
Why are you biting my head off...?
I thought I might be able to have a nice conversation with you. I thought wrong. Good luck with the thread Scotty, you'll need it. People with their hair trigger reactions and total misreadings. Don't treat a single review as a microcosm of gaming reviews.
When I made a big post earlier on celebrating diversity of reviews and calling for it.
I'm outta here.
-
I'm just responding to what you asked. If you want to treat games as a hobby as it is, then there's a whole world out there to discover!
I didn't see your earlier post, but if you did; then you already knew the answer to what you asked. If you want something different, check something else out. If you don't like what you're reading, stop going there.
My frustration was that you didn't contribute to the discussion. And apparently you answered your own question earlier!
-
If the reviewer is not to take points off of a game as a result of their opinions of its content, then what, exactly, is the difference between a review and an advertisement?
When was the last time you saw an advertisement that said "This film is ****. You shouldn't go watch it"?
The difference between an advert and a review is pretty clear. A review examines the problems with a game and tells you whether or not its worth your time and money. An advert does not. It simply says you should buy it.
For the third time, if you want to argue that political context is an important part of whether a game has or doesn't have problems, argue that. But trying to make a silly claim that without that it is simply an advert even though there are other factors that are hugely important in a good game review doesn't help your cause at all. It simply makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about.
-
No, don't argue. Discuss. We've been arguing for pages and pages and pages and it's disgusting how useless it's been except to piss people off. This quibbling about definitions is significantly less than helpful in contributing to a good discussion. We've managed (for a few posts, at least) to successfully move the topic to something less desultory. Now can we please successfully move the tone to something less combative?
-
Politicizing reviews I think is a good thing because it treats gaming as a mature/respectable medium. The people who argue for gaming to be taken seriously has to accept games as something more than entertainment. If games are to be on the same level as movies, operas, dances, poetry, music, or photography; people have to take it into account of cultural influences. External influences shape culture, and for games influence culture regardless of what gamers think.
If gamers do not want games to be taken seriously, then certain places like Kotaku are not for them and they should consider going to sites that cater to their taste. Attempting to aggressively shut down Kotaku is childish. But it's hypocritical to think that games can be treated as a respectable media without including social/political critiques.
What if you don't care about any of that and you just care about having fun with a hobby?
I'm not going to stop someone reviewing a game however they want to. But I don't care about any of that stuff. All I care about is if I am going to like the game, and first and foremost to that is gameplay.
Would TotalBiscuit's "WTF is..." series be a good measure of what gaming reviews should be like?
I do not care if the World views gaming as a respectable or mature medium. That has zero impact on my enjoyment of a game. And may negatively impact on my enjoyment of future games, due to people caring about such things instead of simply making a game which is fun to play and letting their creativity run loose unfettered by such considerations.
I don't really see how gaming being seen as a creative medium can limit creativity. I'd think that having to listen to your publisher's wims has far more impact on your creative freedoms then anything else.
-
Sorry the derail, but I am even more confounded now.
When I made a big post earlier on celebrating diversity of reviews and calling for it.
So I felt bad about my outburst earlier and decided to read your "celebration on diversity of reviews", but if
Me personally I think that is exactly what a reviewer should be doing. Grading the game based on their honest opinion. With no external influences.
... If an outside external pressure is put on game reviewers, that balance is destroyed.
is what you call celebrating a "diversity of reviews" and not treating a single site as a microcosm of video game review sites, then we have already failed to meet before we even began.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I am reading, you think that a single that when a single review includes social commentaries that it will have a domino effect on all other gaming review sites and thus will affect all games? If I'm misreading, please enlighten me.
-
No, don't argue. Discuss. We've been arguing for pages and pages and pages and it's disgusting how useless it's been except to piss people off. This quibbling about definitions is significantly less than helpful in contributing to a good discussion. We've managed (for a few posts, at least) to successfully move the topic to something less desultory. Now can we please successfully move the tone to something less combative?
I couldn't agree more. I meant argue as in argue your point, not as in start an argument. :)
-
What are you protesting against? The expansion of games' subject matter into potentially political areas? That's where you wanna dig the trench? Spare me the lamentations that serious games are being made and have critics to accompany them. There'll always be a market for the Serious Sams of the industry for you. You don't have to read or play **** you don't like.
You understood me wrong. I agree with Errant Signal's video completely (big fan of his youtube work btw, seen them all). I was just describing what I feel is the reaction to the increasing political awareness in games. Errant is absolutely right in the sense that if anyone believes these things were ever "neutral" or never had "politics" in them they are amazingly naive or just been abhorrently blind to what has been going on in games for the past, IDK, two decades? I think that people who actually think these influences should be "out of games" are, in a sense, naive. But not completely, but I'll get back to this point below.
Meanwhile, the thing is, it's getting more and more balkanizing by the moment. If until now we could obviously read some game's "political" messages, if at least they were just messages of a kind of metal rock expression like DooM, or literally political treatises like BioShock, it was rarely the case that games got chastised for their choices in this respect. I think that this righteousness that is dividing games between "good ones" and "bad ones", in other words moralizing game mechanic choices according to a particular set of ideologies is the more recent trend. Suddenly we are not just becoming aware of all these cultural expressions with different political leanings, we are also morally judging them as Good or Evil from the standards raised by a few. This is balkanizing the game landscape.
Again, don't take me wrong. This is perhaps for the best in the long run, because as Errant says "with great power comes great responsibility", and if games are to be these amazing cultural artifacts, then they are to be held to everyone's higher standards. But there's something lost in this "awareness and moral judgement" activism phase. To go back to the point I said I was going to get back to, there's something novel in putting these concerns into the "superego" of the society where they were not until now. Until now, we could all pretend games were "just about fun". That was the prevailing ideology, under which we could then discuss and express our politics, our social ideas, our utopias or prejudices but without the gaze of this Big Other One (the superego) judging us from above, because all that he "knew" was that "games are just about fun". Now, this superego knows that games are much more than this, "games are about politics", and now no one is innocent. Everyone and every game is under this new gaze of awareness, and thus their own honesty and expression are somewhat lost, tarred, "politcally corrected" in some sense.
Not only "games are about politics" now, and this is what is most jarring, "Games are another Tool of the Patriarchal White Supremacist Oppression" is the attempted notion of the new Superego. And people are fighting about this superego notion of Games. This is the notion that is under a Culture War, and the source of all this drama. Just take Admiral Ralwood quoting Desmond Tutu about the correlation between "neutrality" and "complicity of oppression". Yes people, you got it right, Games are oppressing women and minorities just like the Apartheid, and if you dare be "neutral" in this, you're no better than the white supremacist oppressive anti-feminist rape apologist mysoginistic cabal.
Why do you wonder there's rage over this bizarre morality that is getting their ways into the mainstream? "Gamers are mysoginists" is a trope now that is reaching kids ears nowadays. Think about that fact for a moment. What crazy world are you creating in the name of the Blissful Utopia?
-
Now, if you have an hour to spare, make sure you listen to this interview by Sargon of Akkad to the Young Capitalists. Throw away your prejudices about who's who in this, I'm pretty sure everyone in this forum will actually like what is being said and approve of pretty much everything the young capitalists guy is saying. More to the point, he speaks extremely well and about things that I had little knowledge about, not the petty drama details, but the wider discussion, why they are doing what they are doing and how. He seems to be extremely well aware of all the issues involved here, and if that guy isn't a feminist, I don't know what he can be.
The kind of discussion he is bringing to the table is such a good thing, and it might bring some lights why this fight is occurring in the first place. Nevermind my words here, still listening and parsing after all. Go listen to it, and if anyone replies with a "but isn't that Sargon guy the same guy that..." then just go away I don't care about what you have to say. That kind of attitude will get nowhere really fast with me.
-
Aren't TFYC the peope who decided to lie about ZQ to advance their own monetary position? (https://storify.com/TheQuinnspiracy/tfyc-truth-finally-comes-out) Because this video propogates those blatant lies the first 30 seconds in. EDIT: I do not wish to partake in a discussion with these people - for the sake of making this discussion non-combatative.
-
There's no evidence whatsoever they ever lied about this at all, we only have Zoe Quinn "saying stuff". But that wasn't the point of the video at all and in that vein, thanks for doing exactly what I asked you not to. This is not going anywhere if you deny reading what you perceive as your "enemies". If you can't come out of the ivory tower you built up around your position you will learn nothing with this exchange.
Well, then again, why do I bother? It's your ****ing loss, not mine. Savor your ignorance and simple minded bunkerized opinions for all I care.
EDIT: I do not wish to partake in a discussion with these people - for the sake of making this discussion non-combatative.
.... aaaaand there you go. A certain picture of a monkey with their ears closed comes to mind. Isn't it great to not listen to people that might disagree with your perspectives? Am I the only one who has problems with this attitude? The video, unlike Joshua's sleazy accusation, is not lying at all in the first 30 seconds in. It is a ****ing fact that Zoe Quinn did attack TYFC's campaign on twitter ranting how it was such a blatant exploitation and how it was transphobic and so on, leading to a twitter kerfuffle on the whole thing. So those 30 second words are nowhere near lying material. But hey if it makes you sleep better.
-
So I felt bad about my outburst earlier and decided to read your "celebration on diversity of reviews", but if
Well, that's different. Maybe we can talk. But I don't want you to jump down my throat again, so please, can we keep this civil if we keep talking?
is what you call celebrating a "diversity of reviews" and not treating a single site as a microcosm of video game review sites, then we have already failed to meet before we even began.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I am reading, you think that a single that when a single review includes social commentaries that it will have a domino effect on all other gaming review sites and thus will affect all games? If I'm misreading, please enlighten me.
But I am puzzled by this. I don't think a single review will domino onto other reviews. I wouldn't even be too bothered if political reviews became the norm as long as there was still a healthy fringe of reviews about just the game only.
Now from your post, the impression I got is you think people who want games to be taken seriously want reviews to be political. And if you don't, then that means you don't want games to be taken seriously. I didn't like that. So I posted about what if that doesn't matter to you? I chose this hobby because it suits me. I don't care what the rest of the World thinks, that has no impact on whether I enjoy a game or not, whether the World decides to think gaming is super cool and the best thing since sliced bread, or whether the World goes back to me growing up, when gaming was seen as "uncool" and having idiots in my face telling me gaming is for nerds, throwing out the classic negative stereotypes, and telling me to get a "real" hobby, that doesn't change what is right for me.
I also don't think games have to be political to be taken seriously or viewed as art. And that games can be taken seriously and seen as art without any political aspect, or even regardless of political aspect. An example of an apolitical but serious game series would be Gran Turismo. An example of art purely on its own merits would be imo from my Massive Cities thread in the Gaming section. Go check out the video I posted of a tour of Divinity's Reach. Or anything from Ni No Kuni:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ni+no+kuni&num=30&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=-9VHVK6YAovd7QaY_oDoCw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAg&biw=1024&bih=653
-
You should really watch that Errant Signal's video, Lorric, because you seem to have missed the point.
-
You should really watch that Errant Signal's video, Lorric, because you seem to have missed the point.
Thank you Luis. That was very interesting.
“Already regrets the conversation taking place in the comments below this video: Chris Franklin” :D
That video I largely agree with. And yeah, I see a lot better where SypheDMar is coming from now I think.
-
This is the last warning to cut that he-said she-said bull**** out of this thread. I don't care if I agree wholeheartedly with the message, the next person to try to rebut a position based on who said what to whom as if that matters to the salient point in the slightest is getting a formal warning.
I'm not sure how to make this more clear.
-
I think there are very few people in the whole affair who haven't said something objectionable by this point. So I'm going to agree with Scotty on this one and say that if you're going to use "They said x...." as a reason to ignore someone I suggest you ignore GG / Anti-GG completely or at the very least leave the thread voluntarily before we have to kick you out.
-
The most saddening part is how in that TYFC interview, I was so pleasantly surprised on how knowledgeable the interviewee is about feminism, how he is such a defendent of it, how interesting his conversation about all these activisms surrounding games and so on actually are, etc. To watch this source of wisdom being so flippantly ignored in such a way really angered me. Sorry about that.
-
Since the video revolves around a lot of recent events and anecdotes, I am not sure how to even engage with it without resorting to the same "he said she said bs" that we have been specifically warned about. The video involves quite a bit of anecdotes of TFYC being attacked by people, and their telling of the events is something I don't neccisarely agree with - unforunately, both me and the video are then resorting to the "he said she said BS". Hence my statement that I would not engage with in order to make this thread less combatative. I pondered on removing the original comment, but I decided to let it stand after I fussed about it a bit too long and it was likely that people read it anyway - and it seemed dishonest to remove it.
I did actually watch parts of it. Despite your recurring claims (which I do not appreciate), I actually *AM* interested in people with other perspectives - I wouldn't be in Gendisc, posting threads or discussing points, otherwise. I currently do not have the time for a full 2 hour vid, and I must say that the vid did not interest me up to a point where I wanted to watch two hours of it. I don't feel the need to discuss it since the bits that I watched don't seem to make points which I can discuss in the context of this thread (either points that involve gamergate, or points that I don't disagree with). If you have any particular points you wish to discuss, I will. But please point me to *which* particular points those are.
What are you protesting against? The expansion of games' subject matter into potentially political areas? That's where you wanna dig the trench? Spare me the lamentations that serious games are being made and have critics to accompany them. There'll always be a market for the Serious Sams of the industry for you. You don't have to read or play **** you don't like.
You understood me wrong. I agree with Errant Signal's video completely (big fan of his youtube work btw, seen them all). I was just describing what I feel is the reaction to the increasing political awareness in games. Errant is absolutely right in the sense that if anyone believes these things were ever "neutral" or never had "politics" in them they are amazingly naive or just been abhorrently blind to what has been going on in games for the past, IDK, two decades? I think that people who actually think these influences should be "out of games" are, in a sense, naive. But not completely, but I'll get back to this point below.
Meanwhile, the thing is, it's getting more and more balkanizing by the moment. If until now we could obviously read some game's "political" messages, if at least they were just messages of a kind of metal rock expression like DooM, or literally political treatises like BioShock, it was rarely the case that games got chastised for their choices in this respect. I think that this righteousness that is dividing games between "good ones" and "bad ones", in other words moralizing game mechanic choices according to a particular set of ideologies is the more recent trend. Suddenly we are not just becoming aware of all these cultural expressions with different political leanings, we are also morally judging them as Good or Evil from the standards raised by a few. This is balkanizing the game landscape.
Again, don't take me wrong. This is perhaps for the best in the long run, because as Errant says "with great power comes great responsibility", and if games are to be these amazing cultural artifacts, then they are to be held to everyone's higher standards. But there's something lost in this "awareness and moral judgement" activism phase. To go back to the point I said I was going to get back to, there's something novel in putting these concerns into the "superego" of the society where they were not until now. Until now, we could all pretend games were "just about fun". That was the prevailing ideology, under which we could then discuss and express our politics, our social ideas, our utopias or prejudices but without the gaze of this Big Other One (the superego) judging us from above, because all that he "knew" was that "games are just about fun". Now, this superego knows that games are much more than this, "games are about politics", and now no one is innocent. Everyone and every game is under this new gaze of awareness, and thus their own honesty and expression are somewhat lost, tarred, "politcally corrected" in some sense.
I am suddenly reminded of this new video game trailer coming out. The one about "Hatred" - that video game where the whole point of the game is to shoot innocent civilians. It was specifically created to make a game which was not politically correct, because the game creator's felt that games were getting too politically correct.
I think that is silly. This is a world where the best selling game ever is GTAV, which is basically the south park of video games, up to and including a torture scene which involves electrifying people's balls. This is a world where the best selling game genre involves walking up to middle eastern people and stabbing them in the throat. If "politicall correctness" is now the new effect of the "Superego", I am not seeing any of it's effects.
And finally, I do not think that someone's honesty and expression is lost when it is viewed by more people. If anything, more people should allow someone's expression and honesty to truly shine: When somebody makes potentionally unpopular statements in front of a large audience, it means that one truly means this and is willing to take responsibility for what he claims. Without this "superego", these statements ultimately become as meaningless as the random things you say to yourself.
Not only "games are about politics" now, and this is what is most jarring, "Games are another Tool of the Patriarchal White Supremacist Oppression" is the attempted notion of the new Superego. And people are fighting about this superego notion of Games. This is the notion that is under a Culture War, and the source of all this drama. Just take Admiral Ralwood quoting Desmond Tutu about the correlation between "neutrality" and "complicity of oppression". Yes people, you got it right, Games are oppressing women and minorities just like the Apartheid, and if you dare be "neutral" in this, you're no better than the white supremacist oppressive anti-feminist rape apologist mysoginistic cabal.
Why do you wonder there's rage over this bizarre morality that is getting their ways into the mainstream? "Gamers are mysoginists" is a trope now that is reaching kids ears nowadays. Think about that fact for a moment. What crazy world are you creating in the name of the Blissful Utopia?
I find this massive hyperbole to be... hyperbolic. Also a strawman argument. If you are going to claim that people are claiming "that games are opressing women and minorities just like the Apartheid", I'd rather see some rather concrete examples of where this is happening in this thread. I do wonder why there's rage over this bizarre morality that is getting their ways into the mainstream - as I simply have not seen this bizarre morality enter the mainstream at all!
-
Since the video revolves around a lot of recent events and anecdotes, I am not sure how to even engage with it without resorting to the same "he said she said bs" that we have been specifically warned about. The video involves quite a bit of anecdotes of TFYC being attacked by people, and their telling of the events is something I don't neccisarely agree with - unforunately, both me and the video are then resorting to the "he said she said BS". Hence my statement that I would not engage with in order to make this thread less combatative. I pondered on removing the original comment, but I decided to let it stand after I fussed about it a bit too long and it was likely that people read it anyway - and it seemed dishonest to remove it.
This belies a fundamental way of thinking at odds with discussion aimed at being civil - and I'm willing to bet it's not on purpose, or even a conscious effort. The guidelines, much as I curse the sky at the day they became a thing (for reasons I'll enumerate later), state fairly plainly: Address the argument, not the person. I'm going to (provisionally) say that the same holds true for articles and evidence. Address the point being made, not the person making it. It's okay to disagree. It's okay to say you disagree. Your disagreement should not be based on who is speaking, but rather what is being said. If you resort to painting the speaker as the problem with the viewpoint, you will be given a warning and a couple days off, so sayeth the mod.
And now I'm going to explain why the forum guidelines are fundamentally flawed, and why any attempt at formally regulated moderation is fundamentally flawed. HLP is full of intelligent, creative people, and those intelligent, creative people use their intelligence and creativity to skirt as close to breaking the guidelines as they possibly can with distressing regularity. I'm firmly convinced that this effort is ultimately unintentional, but consider one of the good pieces of advice offered here since the discussion of the guidelines: Be prepared to present evidence to support factual points. This is a reasonable point. HLP has utterly twisted this into some bastard form of: Be prepared to present evidence to support your personal opinion, when evidence is neither helpful nor necessary. I'm going to use this thread as a fantastic example of that, especially in the last few pages before I tried to lay down the law.
My first attempt to steer the discussion back toward a Good Topic (tm) was based on finding a beneficial (or at least non-harmful) ideal within the morass of GG. Instead of actually addressing the point, the immediate response was to pick at the single part of my point that mattered the least (that GG could possibly agree on a good thing) and attack it. GG wasn't the point, and yet it was immediately the subject of discussion because someone thought my perception of events was wrong and needed correction despite the actual events not mattering in the slightest. I switched the direction of my attempt, and was rewarded with another rebuttal relating to what GG does and does not say - the substance of the issue was completely ignored in favor of this. You all saw my frustrated response.
That frustration was not aimed at the fact that someone was disagreeing with me, it was aimed at the fact that someone was disagreeing with me based on who did or did not say something, not because the point itself was disagreeable. That's what generated the declaration that arguing the person rather than the point is an actionable offense. The important thing to note is that the person disagreeing did not even realize there was a problem, and strictly according to the guidelines, there wasn't. This despite the evidence that such disagreement and discussion tactics directly contributed to the degeneration of this thread despite the intentions of all involved.
The crux of the issue is this: Posters on HLP (and GenDisc in particular), consciously or unconsciously, deliberately or incidentally, are heavily inclined to subvert the intent of the forum guidelines while adhering to the letter. The exact method differs, and the "civility" of responses differs, but this is what I've noticed over the course of several of this threads as they degenerate into ****fests. Therefore, until someone stops me I will moderate discussion in a fashion that adheres to the forum guidelines' intent of facilitating civil discussion, but I will be disregarding the letter of the guidelines. HLP is far too good at being just civil enough to avoid inviting serious action to continue on the previous course of action.
-
That's kind of how SA works, or did work, was that the mods are competent people and they're allowed to ban people subjectively for being ****heads.
-
The 'did work' qualifier there speaks volumes.
-
Felicia Day spoke out against Gamergate and was doxxed within an hour of posting. I'm sure it's a coincidence.
-
The first person who tells me that "That's not what GamerGate says" is getting a warning, because I'm not talking about ****ing Gamergate. I'm trying to rescue this ****fest of a topic and God help whoever gets in the way.
I seriously want to know what part of the idea "Stop bringing up GamerGate" is so ****ing hard.
-
I thought it was news worth posting. Wasn't trying to start an argument specifically about gg.
-
The first person who tells me that "That's not what GamerGate says" is getting a warning, because I'm not talking about ****ing Gamergate. I'm trying to rescue this ****fest of a topic and God help whoever gets in the way.
I seriously want to know what part of the idea "Stop bringing up GamerGate" is so ****ing hard.
You were not that clear about your intentions regarding this thread, Scotty. I am a bit confused now. Is GamerGate now out of the discussion? Because your previous wording merely stated that you specifically weren't speaking about GamerGate, not that the thread was now forbidden to talk about it. When I tried to bring back the discussion towards the initial purpose of it and brought Bayonetta as an example where ambiguities regarding objectification was probably worth discussing, Karajorma told me not to do so, that if I was that interested in doing so that I should start a new thread (at least that's what I understood). So could you enlighten what are we supposed to do from now on?
Because Joshua made a response to my comment that I would like to respond back, since there was some interesting content in them that are worth discussing.
As an aside, speaking of "doxxing" someone who is widely publicly known is ridiculous. That's not what "doxxing" means FYI. (Not saying that whatever it was done was ethical or with good intentions, it most surely wasn't but let's not rape the language we use while we are at this).
-
As an aside, speaking of "doxxing" someone who is widely publicly known is ridiculous. That's not what "doxxing" means FYI. (Not saying that whatever it was done was ethical or with good intentions, it most surely wasn't but let's not rape the language we use while we are at this).
If your home address, private phone number etc are widely known, then yes, spreading them would not be doxxing. If, on the other hand, you made an effort to keep this information private and it is spread regardless of your wishes, then that is doxxing. Even famous people have a right to and expectation of privacy.
-
I stand corrected.
-
I suspect that Scotty is basically getting sick of the "Person X in Gamergate said X therefore I can ignore every single thing that comes from that person or Gamergate itself" bull****. I'm also sick of it. It has very little to do with the subject matter of this discussion and it's basically no longer being allowed.
Basically the way I see it is that if someone quotes an opinion post you can't simply say "He's a wanker, so his opinion can be ignored" Even people who are absolute scum can have an opinion that actually makes sense. If the opinion doesn't make sense then you can discuss why you feel that is so. But you can't simply discount the opinion based on who said it. There's been way too much of that on this thread and it's the main reason why it's such a ****fest.
Please note that this is not the same as "He's a proven liar, therefore I refuse to accept what he says is a fact." That one is still perfectly reasonable. It's not like we're asking you to accept The Daily Mail as proof of anything other than that you can print on toilet paper. :p
When I tried to bring back the discussion towards the initial purpose of it and brought Bayonetta as an example where ambiguities regarding objectification was probably worth discussing, Karajorma told me not to do so, that if I was that interested in doing so that I should start a new thread (at least that's what I understood). So could you enlighten what are we supposed to do from now on?
Actually I said that people could discuss both issues on this thread and I would later split them if both topics proved popular. But no one really replied much to your post so I didn't split them out.
-
Ah so now I understand what you meant by "lax on double posting rule", thanks :yes:.
I will get back to what Scotty said then, because his comment touches on key points and advances the discussion to interesting (to me at least) places.
-
I implore you, maslo, to be honest with yourself. You are not fighting against censorship, you are fighting for it. There are voices in the games industry you wish to see silenced, for no other reason than you disagreeing with them. There is a grand battle for journalistic freedom here, and you are on the side that wants to reduce it.
Battle for journalistic freedom? Where? Its not about journalistic freedom. It is about journalistic ethics, quality of journalism, politisation of journalism, bias in journalism. I dont see governments censoring any gaming articles anywhere.
I do think that while every journalist should have a right to write whatever they want, gaming community also has a right to shame those who write ****ty reviews or push politics everywhere. And make no mistake, half of review being about gender stuff, from a very one sided perspective, especially for a game like Bayonetta where a child could tell you that social commentary is not its main aim (hint: shooting stuff up is), is obvious radfem propaganda, and it should be marginalized by the gaming community. You call that censorship, I call it feedback from your audience and keeping quality standards high. And it does not matter if its a game, movie, book or any other medium, a review like this is unacceptable in all of art.
Gaming reviews should be politically neutral, so either dont mention this stuff, or mention it in small amounts and try to represent both viewpoints. Or at least try to keep some pretense of a game review not being your personal political blog. Not when you are writing it for general audience instead of your political comrades.
-
Battle for journalistic freedom? Where? Its not about journalistic freedom. It is about journalistic ethics, quality of journalism, politisation of journalism, bias in journalism. I dont see governments censoring any gaming articles anywhere.
It's about journalists being free to write what they want to write (and what they believe their audience wants to read) without being shackled by some weird notion of objectivity or "unbiased reporting".
I do think that while every journalist should have a right to write whatever they want
No. You don't.
, gaming community also has a right to shame those who write ****ty reviews or push politics everywhere.
Why? If you dislike an article, or the editorial direction of a given news outlet, why is it imperative to shame them? Why can't you just say "You know, that site doesn't post anything I find useful, I'll just ignore it"? I ask you: If a reviewer reviews a game, and comes to the verdict that because of some reason that you have deemed to be "political" the game isn't as enjoyable as it could be, why should he or she play down that factor in his or her review? You may be uncomfortable with the intrusion of politics into the gaming industry. I am not. Many others aren't, either. Stop pretending that your view is the only correct one, or even a majority one, and find your own places that you trust. Noone forces you to read or agree with Kotaku, Polygon, RPS et al. Stop trying to remove voices and perspectives from the gaming journalism scene. There's enough room for everyone here.
I don't know about you, but I read game (and movie, and book) reviews to get the perspective of the reviewer. Not to get an "objective" assessment of the thing, but a personalized, subjective view from a person whose judgement I trust. I can only trust reviewers if they are up front with their biases; If I wanted to read a non-political, positive blurb about a game, I'd have stuck with the publisher's PR material.
And make no mistake, half of review being about gender stuff, from a very one sided perspective, especially for a game like Bayonetta where a child could tell you that social commentary is not its main aim (hint: shooting stuff up is), is obvious radfem propaganda, and it should be marginalized by the gaming community. You call that censorship, I call it feedback from your audience and keeping quality standards high. And it does not matter if its a game, movie, book or any other medium, a review like this is unacceptable in all of art.
Look, I know this is hard to accept, but games do not exist in a vacuum. Whether they are intended to or not, every game exists in the context of an ongoing dialogue between game developers and the audience, and one of games journalism's tasks is to document that dialogue. Bayonetta, by her very nature as a character, is a reaction to and commentary on female characters in videogames, whether or not that was the stated intent of the developer is irrelevant.
Now, if a reviewer finds that depiction problematic (and I will note that in the Polygon review, the tone is more "Yeah, I get it, she's a free sexy woman, can I get back to the cool parts of the game now please?" rather than "OMG they totally make her a pin up for gamers to jerk off to"), why shouldn't he be free to say so in the review? If what you call the "radfem propaganda" part of the review had been shortened, but the verdict and score had been the same, I can guarantee you that we'd still be having the same discussion, simply because you cannot stand the fact that people may have a different opinion from you regarding what a game review can cover and what it can't.
Basically, you have your quality standards. I have mine. Why are your quality standards so much more relevant than mine that you are part of a movement whose stated core goal is to bring the entirety of games journalism in line with what you want? What makes it so difficult for you to just ignore reviews you find disagreeable?
-
I am not going to ignore them because gaming world would not ignore them. They are major sites. Its unrealistic to expect it. They have influence.
Tell me, what positives can come from this politization for gaming? How will it improve gaming? I think it wont, the opposite will be true.
This very thread is a microcosm of what will happen in gaming if certain outlets continue to bring politics in. People disagree about politics a lot, and often very passionately. This fosters disagreements, which lead to arguments and conflicts. And this is inevitable as long as you let the political cat out of the bag - people are NOT going to shut up if someone is pushing a political ideology they disagree with in a previously apolitical environment.
More than a year ago, this hit the tech industry in full, resulting in the infamous Adriagate, which damaged both sides and poisoned the atmosphere in tech for months. I dont think you can expect different result in gaming, and indeed, Gamergate is a proof of that.
If leftist politics enters gaming, we can certainly expect conservative backslash and a lot of infighting. Perhaps we will see a split in gaming media along political lines, similarly like we have in news media. Perhaps the whole gaming culture will split along political lines, neither side wanting to back down. It certainly wont be pretty, and it certainly wont be good for gaming. Any energy and time spent on political bull**** wont be spent developing games. Any partnership killed by political disagreements which would otherwise happen will be a negative. One example out of many to come (https://np.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/2i3y4x/kernel_developer_matthew_garrett_will_no_longer/).
Perhaps this politization is inevitable sooner or later, but I am not going to stand by not speaking up against the media which seems eager to accelerate it.
-
I am not going to ignore them because gaming world would not ignore them. They are major sites. Its unrealistic to expect it. They have influence.
Tell me, what positives can come from this politization for gaming? How will it improve gaming? I think it wont, the opposite will be true.[/quote]
Yeah, I cannot for the life of me see anything at all in gaming that can be made better by making it more inclusive, or by examining it in terms beyond "is this fun". I mean, we all saw that film criticism and scholarly discussions about film didn't improve it at all; if anything, classics like "Train coming at the audience" have already shown the peak of what the medium is capable of.
In case you missed it, that was sarcasm. Yes, there is a lot to be gained by examining games under feminist (or other "politicized") views. Examinations of games as part of a metacultural dialogue are vital to making sure that games continue to be relevant in the future. Nothing can be gained by forcibly silencing a subset of the culture just because you happen to disagree with them.
Games can only become better if we are allowed to discuss them under a variety of viewpoints. That includes those you find distasteful. Learn to live with it.
This politization of games you so despise? It was directly responsible for some of the best games of the past couple years. Without it, games like the new Tomb Raider, The Last Of Us, Spec Ops: The Line, Saints Row 3 and 4, even Bayonetta would not exist. Now, it's perfectly allright if none of those appeal to you. That's fine. But don't assume that that opinion is universally shared.
This very thread is a microcosm of what will happen in gaming if certain outlets continue to bring politics in. People disagree about politics a lot, and often very passionately. This fosters disagreements, which lead to arguments and conflicts. And this is inevitable as long as you let the political cat out of the bag - people are NOT going to shut up if someone is pushing a political ideology they disagree with in a previously apolitical environment.
People also disagree about games a lot, even without any politics involved. Remember how Mass Effect 3's ending was the greatest scandal in gaming or just a bit disappointing or quite alright depending on who you asked? Remember all the heated arguments, threats of class action lawsuits and other silliness happened?
Also, yeah, you're right, games weren't that big a deal before. Guess what, they are now. Games are a big ****ing deal, given how many gamers there are these days. With that audience comes a certain diversification of viewpoints and interests, and all those viewpoints and interests have an equal right to be heard. Having been a gamer when it was still underground does not give you permission to impose your viewpoint on others.
If leftist politics enters gaming, we can certainly expect conservative backslash and a lot of infighting. Perhaps we will see a split in gaming media along political lines, similarly like we have in news media. Perhaps the whole gaming culture will split along political lines, neither side wanting to back down. It certainly wont be pretty, and it certainly wont be good for gaming. Any energy and time spent on political bull**** wont be spent developing games. Any partnership killed by political disagreements which would otherwise happen will be a negative.
We all want to see better games. That means that we have to be able to express things we find problematic in games. That means that if someone feels that a game is being really tone-deaf, or plain offensive in some regard, that someone has to be able to express that concern without fear of disproportionate retribution by the internet masses. Right now, you are fighting hard for that freedom of expression to be curtailed. You said, and I quote again:
I do think that while every journalist should have a right to write whatever they want
Why are you disproving that statement? Why do you act as if the direct opposite is true? How do you reconcile that statement with your desire to punish and shame journalists and publications for not catering to your preferences?
Perhaps this politization is inevitable sooner or later, but I am not going to stand by not speaking up against the media which seems eager to accelerate it.
Wake up and smell the coffee. Games are the biggest entertainment industry on the planet by now, and this politization of games has been going on for a few years. It was only when it was pointed out, in the calm and measured tones of academic critique, that certain aspects may be worthy of improvement, that people like you started screaming about it.
-
I am not going to ignore them because gaming world would not ignore them. They are major sites. Its unrealistic to expect it. They have influence.
Tell me, what positives can come from this politization for gaming? How will it improve gaming? I think it wont, the opposite will be true.
I think that what recent events have shown us is that the gaming world already is enormously polarized. When people start a petition to have someone fired from gamespot because she dared mention GTAV's troubling presentation of minorities in a review - that's quite polarized!
This very thread is a microcosm of what will happen in gaming if certain outlets continue to bring politics in. People disagree about politics a lot, and often very passionately. This fosters disagreements, which lead to arguments and conflicts. And this is inevitable as long as you let the political cat out of the bag - people are NOT going to shut up if someone is pushing a political ideology they disagree with in a previously apolitical environment.
To remain with that previous GTAV example: Politics are not being brought into games.
Politics have always been part of games. GTAV comments on politics and society almost constantly, south-park style. Saint's Row later installments constantly question the MTV-gangster mentality which their earlier games had. DEFCON's anti nuclear war stance is very, very obvious when you play it. Call of Duty 4's marines die in the thousands without actually having achieved anything of value. Bioshock comments on objectivism, collectivism, and american exceptionalism.
And even if a game does not specifically try to be political, it always still makes points, like any other form of art does. Even though it can be very simple (Need for Speed's message is basically "Car (chases) are cool"), and in a game, the developer's intents often shine trough. Consider Faith's portrayal in Mirror's Edge. Consider the statements Deus Ex makes about society. Consider Freespace 2's statements on war. Consider Escape from Monkey Island's feminism. Consider Civilization's aim at turning your civ into 'Murica.
Games always have been political.
More than a year ago, this hit the tech industry in full, resulting in the infamous Adriagate, which damaged both sides and poisoned the atmosphere in tech for months. I dont think you can expect different result in gaming, and indeed, Gamergate is a proof of that.
You are going to have to explain to me what Adriagate is. When I google it I hit travel agent's websites.
If leftist politics enters gaming, we can certainly expect conservative backslash and a lot of infighting. Perhaps we will see a split in gaming media along political lines, similarly like we have in news media. Perhaps the whole gaming culture will split along political lines, neither side wanting to back down. It certainly wont be pretty, and it certainly wont be good for gaming. Any energy and time spent on political bull**** wont be spent developing games. Any partnership killed by political disagreements which would otherwise happen will be a negative. One example out of many to come (https://np.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/2i3y4x/kernel_developer_matthew_garrett_will_no_longer/).
Perhaps this politization is inevitable sooner or later, but I am not going to stand by not speaking up against the media which seems eager to accelerate it.
I think you are making a mistake by assuming a binary representation of politics. Although this binary divide between left and right may work in, say, the States, games have a global audience. There are many, many, many more things going on then just this "leftist vs conservative" thing you want to portray here.
And if there is a conservative backlash, it is because the games industry actually has been rather conservative at this point. And... it is! Just look at the prevailing business policies, preferring sequels and already tried things over radically different things. Personally, I welcome new political views in gaming, as this will make games more varied and interesting. People are interesting!
-
I'm guessing Adriagate is about the Donglegate affair.
-
Hey Luis, regarding Errant's video: I can't watch the whole thing not because I don't want to but because I don't have two hour blocks of good internet. Is there a particular chunk of the video that I should pay attention to?
-
Hey Luis, regarding Errant's video: I can't watch the whole thing not because I don't want to but because I don't have two hour blocks of good internet. Is there a particular chunk of the video that I should pay attention to?
If you mean the TFYC video, I'd like to know this as well.
If you actually mean Errant Signal's video (the keep your politics out of my games one) it's only 10 minutes - if you absolutely have no time to spare, start halfway down.
-
Sorry, I meant TFYC. I don't need to hear Errant's video.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/I5heBSr.png)
Demands have been issued.
-
FINALLY. The rules are we can't prep the airstrike till the demands come in.
-
I remain convinced that this GamerGate fiasco and the group attacking it in turn has alienated by far the majority of people who play games who are tuning out the whole affair except for periodic shouts about the new lows in online harassment being set by people on both 'sides' of the debate on a regular basis.
If any group thinks they'll win this thing, they're deluded.
-
Hey Luis, regarding Errant's video: I can't watch the whole thing not because I don't want to but because I don't have two hour blocks of good internet. Is there a particular chunk of the video that I should pay attention to?
I usually listen to these while I work, and I don't particularly pay attention to the time stamps of the bits that are more interesting. The problem I have in answering these questions from you and Joshua is because I would have to listen to it again with that "editing" in mind. Regarding the tone of the video, it's 95% about what TYFC is doing and where they came from, the ideas that originated it, the wider feminist discussion regarding videogames and the role of women in making them and what exactly was TYFC's answer to that problem in comparison to many of their critics' own ideas. Perhaps 5% is about Zoe Quinn and it never comes about how she doxxed them and so on. More in the tone of explaining the kinds of conversations that were happening and the twitterstorm that she created against them. They almost dropped the project at that moment. Fortunately those mysoginists at 4chan decided to push it and that helped them go with the project, which already has a winner and a game concept. They are going to build the game now, and "she" (the winner) will have the rights to the game and royalties, etc.
AFAIR, the whole conversation gains full steam right at the first few minutes, the interviewee is a fast talker, and so you can decide if you like what you are hearing to continue to do so.
-
I remain convinced that this GamerGate fiasco and the group attacking it in turn has alienated by far the majority of people who play games who are tuning out the whole affair except for periodic shouts about the new lows in online harassment being set by people on both 'sides' of the debate on a regular basis.
If any group thinks they'll win this thing, they're deluded.
It's a conflict of mutually assured exhaustion. Both sides are firmly engaged in both a PR and, well, level of e-penis one-upping.
It means when the dust settles, there will still be gamers. As with my conversation with others who have leaning sympathies to one group or another, trying to get them to have a sane conversation is impossible. Or even trying to communicate. Hah. Both sides firmly believe in "Death before Dishonor!"
-
I remain convinced that this GamerGate fiasco and the group attacking it in turn has alienated by far the majority of people who play games who are tuning out the whole affair except for periodic shouts about the new lows in online harassment being set by people on both 'sides' of the debate on a regular basis.
If any group thinks they'll win this thing, they're deluded.
It's a conflict of mutually assured exhaustion. Both sides are firmly engaged in both a PR and, well, level of e-penis one-upping.
It means when the dust settles, there will still be gamers. As with my conversation with others who have leaning sympathies to one group or another, trying to get them to have a sane conversation is impossible. Or even trying to communicate. Hah. Both sides firmly believe in "Death before Dishonor!"
I think you're creating a false equivalence here. Gamers are the ones who, along with their hobby, are being vilified as autistic, depressed, woman-hating monsters, and when they hit back, the professional victims pushing this narrative use the minority response of harassment as yet another brush to paint the entire community with. It's brilliant what these people are doing, really; Anita Sarkeesian produces videos, refuses to address criticism or admit mistakes, and just waits for the few trolls who are gonna target her, and boom, instant media coverage; "Gamers harass feminist critic". These people really are professional victims. They're not in this for dialogue or discussion, they're there to push a narrative and crowbar their toxic, quasi-religious ideology into whatever subject they come in contact with, and it just so happens that this year they came in contact with gaming. They get discussion banned from gaming websites, and then they act like the poor damsel when the only thing they get as a result is hate and vitriol.
This is not some equal, two-part fight, it's a sub-culture being attacked by ideologues who have powerful media connections that they use to censor and further vilify their victims.
-
So "better representation of non-white non-male people in gaming" is "toxic, quasi-religious ideology" now?
-
So "better representation of non-white non-male people in gaming" is "toxic, quasi-religious ideology" now?
If we're going by Anita and Zoey Quinn's way of implementing it, yes. You don't get more inclusiveness in sub-cultures through bullying, lying, manipulation and misrepresentation. You just get backlash.
-
So the use of bullying, lying, manipulation and misrepresentation by the people who disagree with the ideal of better representation for everyone can be justified?
-
professional victims
People being forced to leave their home due to detailed death-threats is flamebaiting now?
-
So the use of bullying, lying, manipulation and misrepresentation by the people who disagree with the ideal of better representation for everyone can be justified?
Nope, the actions of trolls are just that; the actions of trolls. With 4chan and other imageboards involved in this, turning these accusations around on the victim is problematic because these constitute a third party that does not give a **** about the subject, civility, or propriety and is only out for laughs. This works in the feminists' favor as I explained above because they ignore legitimate attempts at discourse and instead refer to the harassment that does get through as evidence that they're right.
-
instead use the harassment to further their victimhood
You talk as if speaking up about harassment is a bad thing. I don't care who does it, the fact that people decided to harass someone just because she makes videos is abhorrent. It should be brought to light, adressed, and hammered out.
-
instead use the harassment to further their victimhood
You talk as if speaking up about harassment is a bad thing. I don't care who does it, the fact that people decided to harass someone just because she makes videos is abhorrent. It should be brought to light, adressed, and hammered out.
I agree, but that's not a given in light of the media coverage (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/224400/Gamers_dont_have_to_be_your_audience_Gamers_are_over.php). How is this an equal fight again?
-
Sorry, how is an article discussing the death of the 'gamer' stereotype in any way comparable to being driven from your home?
And how does it relate to Zoe Quinn's games or Anita Sarkeesian's videos?
-
Sorry, how is an article discussing the death of the 'gamer' stereotype in any way comparable to being driven from your home?
And how does it relate to Zoe Quinn's games or Anita Sarkeesian's videos?
Please read the article. It's not about discussing the death of any stereotype, it's an attempt to project said stereotype on the community in light of the GamerGate incident. Big difference. It relates to Zoe and Anita because these people have been successful in selling their victimhood to these news outlets, be they gaming sites or mainstream media. Throw into the mix this "Game Journo Pros" group shared by prominent game journalists, and you have the epitome of an uneven fight.
I'm not gonna concern myself with Anita's videos - she's shown how shoddy her research is already. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuRSaLZidWI#t=2m11s)
-
Sorry, how is an article discussing the death of the 'gamer' stereotype in any way comparable to being driven from your home?
And how does it relate to Zoe Quinn's games or Anita Sarkeesian's videos?
Please read the article. It's not about discussing the death of any stereotype, it's an attempt to project said stereotype on the community in light of the GamerGate incident.
Inability to accurately describe the content of an article you just linked is not helping move the discussion forward in any way.
-
I think you're creating a false equivalence here. Gamers are the ones who, along with their hobby, are being vilified as autistic, depressed, woman-hating monsters, and when they hit back, the professional victims pushing this narrative use the minority response of harassment as yet another brush to paint the entire community with.
Ok, Nemesis.
How many times have you been driven out of your home by death threats?
How many times have you had your father threatened as he was recovering from a heart attack (actually happened to ZQ!)
How many times have you been labeled a professional victim after you and your family was doxxed and threatened?
How many times have you been blamed because had the gall to respond angrily to the most vile kind of slander?
Here's my next question; did it ever occur to you, or has anyone ever pointed out to you, that comments like this may be the main reason 'gamers' get vilified? That that's the absolute best way to persuade others that you have no empathy or humanity, that you think a few pot shots fired in response to death threats and relentless harassment turns them into the real villains?
"Professional victims" can't be harmed. They just harvest all the suffering others try to inflict on them. You can't actually scare them or make them cry in a corner. Thus it's ok to do anything you want to them. It's a form that allows you to wave your responsibility to be a human being.
-
Right, let’s say it’s a vocal minority that’s not representative of most people. Most people, from indies to industry leaders, are mortified, furious, disheartened at the direction industry conversation has taken in the past few weeks. It’s not like there are reputable outlets publishing rational articles in favor of the trolls’ ‘side’. Don’t give press to the harassers. Don’t blame an entire industry for a few bad apples.
Yet disclaiming liability is clearly no help. Game websites with huge community hubs whose fans are often associated with blunt Twitter hate mobs sort of shrug, they say things like ‘we delete the really bad stuff, what else can we do’ and ‘those people don’t represent our community’ -- but actually, those people do represent your community. That’s what your community is known for, whether you like it or not.
When you decline to create or to curate a culture in your spaces, you’re responsible for what spawns in the vacuum. That’s what’s been happening to games.
It's really not about the 'gaming community' at all (if it is indeed "a community" and not an enormous amount of different communities which all take place behind a screen and involve a controller)
It relates to Zoe and Anita because these people have been successful in selling their victimhood to these news outlets, be they gaming sites or mainstream media.
Zoe Quinna and Anita Sarkeesian have not been "selling their victimhood". The harassers have by making them victims.
-
And in TFYC's case, making ****loads of money by slandering ZQ.
-
Right, let’s say it’s a vocal minority that’s not representative of most people. Most people, from indies to industry leaders, are mortified, furious, disheartened at the direction industry conversation has taken in the past few weeks. It’s not like there are reputable outlets publishing rational articles in favor of the trolls’ ‘side’. Don’t give press to the harassers. Don’t blame an entire industry for a few bad apples.
Yet disclaiming liability is clearly no help. Game websites with huge community hubs whose fans are often associated with blunt Twitter hate mobs sort of shrug, they say things like ‘we delete the really bad stuff, what else can we do’ and ‘those people don’t represent our community’ -- but actually, those people do represent your community. That’s what your community is known for, whether you like it or not.
When you decline to create or to curate a culture in your spaces, you’re responsible for what spawns in the vacuum. That’s what’s been happening to games.
It's really not about the 'gaming community' at all (if it is indeed "a community" and not an enormous amount of different communities which all take place behind a screen and involve a controller)
It relates to Zoe and Anita because these people have been successful in selling their victimhood to these news outlets, be they gaming sites or mainstream media.
Zoe Quinna and Anita Sarkeesian have not been "selling their victimhood". The harassers have by making them victims.
Here's my point: These people get to represent the community when you actively censor and shun the rational, majority part, which is exactly what Anita has done. By ignoring all but them, she gets to cherry-pick examples and project these untrue stereotypes unto the majority as if they were the norm, and strengthen the people that send them these heinous threats, and my guess, based on how effective she's been at it, is that she does so deliberately in order to sell this narrative. This is why I use the term "professional victims". By focusing on these people, they get to evade criticism of their own nonsensical claims like what I linked you to. I'm also curious as to who -- apart from Phil Fish -- these game developers are who are "mortified, furious, disheartened at the direction industry conversation has taken in the past few weeks". See, there's that loose, vague rhetoric that's just to be assumed correct -- ALL DEVS are mortified, SHOCKED at what these evil gamers have done.
-
Right, let’s say it’s a vocal minority that’s not representative of most people. Most people, from indies to industry leaders, are mortified, furious, disheartened at the direction industry conversation has taken in the past few weeks. It’s not like there are reputable outlets publishing rational articles in favor of the trolls’ ‘side’. Don’t give press to the harassers. Don’t blame an entire industry for a few bad apples.
Yet disclaiming liability is clearly no help. Game websites with huge community hubs whose fans are often associated with blunt Twitter hate mobs sort of shrug, they say things like ‘we delete the really bad stuff, what else can we do’ and ‘those people don’t represent our community’ -- but actually, those people do represent your community. That’s what your community is known for, whether you like it or not.
When you decline to create or to curate a culture in your spaces, you’re responsible for what spawns in the vacuum. That’s what’s been happening to games.
It's really not about the 'gaming community' at all (if it is indeed "a community" and not an enormous amount of different communities which all take place behind a screen and involve a controller)
It relates to Zoe and Anita because these people have been successful in selling their victimhood to these news outlets, be they gaming sites or mainstream media.
Zoe Quinna and Anita Sarkeesian have not been "selling their victimhood". The harassers have by making them victims.
Here's my point: These people get to represent the community when you actively censor and shun the rational, majority part, which is exactly what Anita has done. By ignoring all but them, she gets to cherry-pick examples and project these untrue stereotypes unto the majority as if they were the norm, and strengthen the people that send them these heinous threats, and my guess, based on how effective she's been at it, is that she does so deliberately in order to sell this narrative. This is why I use the term "professional victims". By focusing on these people, they get to evade criticism of their own nonsensical claims like what I linked you to. I'm also curious as to who -- apart from Phil Fish -- these game developers are who are "mortified, furious, disheartened at the direction industry conversation has taken in the past few weeks". See, there's that loose, vague rhetoric that's just to be assumed correct -- EVERYONE is mortified, SHOCKED at what these evil gamers have done.
Tim Schafer (openly endorsed Anita)
Peter Molyneux
Greg Kasavin
Niel Druckmann
Hideki Kamiya (Bayonetta/Okami)
Ron Gilbert
Anna Anthropy
So nobody. You're not well read on this are you?
-
Here's my point: These people get to represent the community when you actively censor and shun the rational, majority part, which is exactly what Anita has done.
How has Anita managed to censor entire communties?
By ignoring all but them, she gets to cherry-pick examples and project these untrue stereotypes unto the majority as if they were the norm,
Where does she claim these are the norm?
and strengthen the people that send them these heinous threats, and my guess, based on how effective she's been at it, is that she does so deliberately in order to sell this narrative.
Pray tell how Zoe Quinn being driven from her home is "selling a narrative". Pray tell how bomb threats aimed at Anita are "selling a narrative"
This is why I use the term "professional victims". By focusing on these people, they get to evade criticism of their own nonsensical claims like what I linked you to.
As it happens, Leigh Alexander is an entirely different person from Sarkeesian and Quinn, so I fail to see how Leigh Alexander's piece helps Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian evade criticism of her own nonsensical claims.
Heck, I don't even know what these claims are.
-
Peter Molyneux
Greg Kasavin
Niel Druckmann
Hideki Kamiya (Bayonetta/Okami)
Ron Gilbert
Anna Anthropy
So nobody. You're not well read on this are you?
Well that was underwhelming.
-
Here's my point: These people get to represent the community when you actively censor and shun the rational, majority part, which is exactly what Anita has done.
How has Anita managed to censor entire communties?
By ignoring all but them, she gets to cherry-pick examples and project these untrue stereotypes unto the majority as if they were the norm,
Where does she claim these are the norm?
and strengthen the people that send them these heinous threats, and my guess, based on how effective she's been at it, is that she does so deliberately in order to sell this narrative.
Pray tell how Zoe Quinn being driven from her home is "selling a narrative". Pray tell how bomb threats aimed at Anita are "selling a narrative"
This is why I use the term "professional victims". By focusing on these people, they get to evade criticism of their own nonsensical claims like what I linked you to.
As it happens, Leigh Alexander is an entirely different person from Sarkeesian and Quinn, so I fail to see how Leigh Alexander's piece helps Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian evade criticism of her own nonsensical claims.
Heck, I don't even know what these claims are.
The very first thing that people noticed about Anita Sarkeesian was that the comments on her youtube videos were disabled due to what she claimed was harassment. Likewise, by making the only real interaction with the community her Ted-talk shtick about how she's a victim of online harassment, she has created a narrative where the debate is no longer about her horse**** arguments, but about her victimhood. So here the censorship is indirect, in contrast to Zoe Quinn's DMCA'ing youtube user MundaneMatt's videos critical of her game, talking to reddit moderators to get stuff removed, and m00t attending Anita's talks, which led to 4chan banning any and all debate about Gamergate.
Most of it is is indirect; Anita doesn't need to say these are the norm, all she has to do is focus on just that and contact the media about it, and they will do a variety of things such as get the story wrong, disproportionally cover her side, etc, and the end result is the same; Gamers are dead, and gamergate is all a giant 4chan conspiracy: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/09/new-chat-logs-show-how-4chan-users-pushed-gamergate-into-the-national-spotlight/
The argument was never about Anita or Zoe, but about the lies they spewed and their shady behavior. Now, with the media involved, it's about their damselhood. And just like here, we are left to defend ourselves from this both indirect and direct accusation that we're all horrible people who support the threats against them. They've manipulated this entire situation for their own gain, and it's ****ing brilliant on their part. Wrong, but brilliant.
-
You really are unaware of the actual sequence of events, aren't you.
-
And now we're back to what I told people to get over a couple pages ago. This thread sure has short memory. It has six posts to correct that, or it's getting locked for good.
-
You really are unaware of the actual sequence of events, aren't you.
If you have something to say, say it instead of being passive aggressive. I mean what do you really gain from doing that?
-
And just like here, we are left to defend ourselves from this both indirect and direct accusation that we're all horrible people who support the threats against them.
Harassment is not just about directly attacking that person. It's about isolating that person from others. Making them feel alone as they keep getting hammered. By telling people that "these "victims" don't deserve your help" you are allowing the harassment to happen, you are allowing it to continue, and you are creating an enviroment in which it can happen.
So when you talk about these people as "professional victims", you actually *ARE* a horrible person supporting the threats made against them.
-
The argument was never about Anita or Zoe, but about the lies they spewed and their shady behavior.
So it's not about Zoe, but it's about Zoe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnbNY1oFZ3o
-
This is how you rationally respond to internet hate mail, not by running away from your house:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP2sWm9rx0w
If you are a controversial person with strong political opinions on the internet, receiving hate mail is a normal and unavoidable phenomenon - and there is simply no way how to change this without curtailing essential internet freedoms. So yes, constantly crying about it on Twitter and in media is an overreaction, and reveals your inexperience with the internet at best, and ulterior motives (pushing for internet censorship) at worst.
So, for those who dont see any problem with it, tell me, what exactly is she aiming to achieve with such behavior? Is she just genuinely unaware that anonymity + freedom = inevitable trolling and harassment, or is she aware of this, and trying to push against internet anonymity and internet freedom?
news.yahoo.com/britain-threatens-internet-trolls-two-years-jail-110001348.html
^^ This is what behavior like that ultimately leads to.. :( She has some influence, she should know better than to supply wannabe internet censors with arguments by playing damsel in distress. Internet trolling and harassment is not a problem to be solved (except by pushing the ignore button), because any solution involved curtailing of necessary internet freedoms, or is ineffective. And this is why everything expect laughing about it like AA is doing is bad.
-
This is how you rationally respond to internet hate mail, not by running away from your house:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP2sWm9rx0w
If you are a controversial person with strong political opinions on the internet, receiving hate mail is a normal and unavoidable phenomenon - and there is simply no way how to change this without curtailing essential internet freedoms. So yes, constantly crying about it on Twitter and in media is an overreaction, and reveals your inexperience with the internet at best, and ulterior motives (pushing for internet censorship) at worst.
So, for those who dont see any problem with it, tell me, what exactly is she aiming to achieve with such behavior? Is she just genuinely unaware that anonymity + freedom = inevitable trolling and harassment, or is she aware of this, and trying to push against internet anonymity and internet freedom?
news.yahoo.com/britain-threatens-internet-trolls-two-years-jail-110001348.html
^^ This is what behavior like that ultimately leads to.. :( She has some influence, she should know better than to supply wannabe internet censors with arguments by playing damsel in distress. Internet trolling and harassment is not a problem to be solved (except by pushing the ignore button), because any solution involves curtailing of necessary internet freedoms, or is ineffective. And this is why everything expect maybe laughing about it like AA is doing is bad.
-
This is how you rationally respond to internet hate mail, not by running away from your house:
There is a significant difference between hate mail and getting death threats *WITH YOUR ADRESS IN IT*
So, for those who dont see any problem with it, tell me, what exactly is she aiming to achieve with such behavior? Is she just genuinely unaware that anonymity + freedom = inevitable trolling and harassment, or is she aware of this, and trying to push against internet anonymity and internet freedom?
No, she is pushing against the "inevitable trolling and harassment". Demanding that people on the internet are subjected to the same consequences as they are anywhere else is NOT "limiting internet freedom". If antyhing, it enables it (because people should be able to make statements without being subjected to doxxing)
Internet trolling and harassment is not a problem to be solved (except by pushing the ignore button), because any solution involves curtailing of necessary internet freedoms,
First of all, I don't see how being held accountable for your trolling will curtail internet freedom. And if it wil, I don't see why this supposed internet freedom shouldn't be curtailed! You simply should not be free to harass people via the internet, just like you are not free to harass someone anywhere else. Harassing itself is a method to limit's someone's freedom, and if we are going to limit freedoms, I'd rather see those of trolls limited rather then those of whoever the harassers don't like this month.
-
Now this thread has shot memory and ignores moderator suggestions. Locked.
-
A clarification, now that I'm home from work and don't have to type via phone.
This thread is a marvelous indictment of everything that is wrong with General Discussion. Even after a detailed breakdown of what was wrong with discussion going on in here, a lock to let everybody cool down, and no less than two "hints" to keep things civil, it still went to ****. The kind of arguing that has gone on for the last few pages is an exemplary display of how GD is such a nasty place. Passive aggressive sniping, an immediate return to "<x> person commented on <y> which means <z>". As interesting as it may be for someone watching on the outside to see everyone in this thread become a microcosm of the issues surrounding Gamergate, this is not good discussion. Even if no single person has acted unreasonably, the conversation as a whole is obviously divisive, unhelpful, and inflammatory.
The worst part, however, is that there was actually good discussion going on for a page or so. You know what happened after that? People started arguing about the people making the points and not the points themselves, and here we are again acting like a no character-limit version of twitter. Stop it. I do not care if Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn are in the right, wrong, obtuse, or inverted sides of what is correct on this one, you people are obviously not capable of discussing this kind of issue appropriately, and until you demonstrate that you're capable of holding a reasonable discussion that may influence bits of your daily lives or come close to however you identify, that sort of thing will continue to be shut down.
I don't care if I have to drag General Discussion into something resembling civility kicking and screaming, but I'm going to do it.
-
I don't care if I have to drag General Discussion into something resembling civility kicking and screaming, but I'm going to do it.
You won't be doing it alone.
I'm not fond of waking up this morning to find this nonsense is back again.