Yonan wrote: Semantics. She's convincing them to change the product to suit her agenda. We don't want her to do that.
It's not semantics, it's a fundamental difference. Censorship is using government authority to impose change on someone against their will, and that is not what she is doing. Attempting to persuade someone to voluntarily change something, what she is actually doing, is not censorship because it is done voluntarily, not by force. The fact that the change is something you don't want to see is irrelevant. You're just two customers with opposing demands, not censor vs. innocent victim. If you don't want to have those products changed then vote with your wallet.
You do realize that PHBs often make very bad decisions and may think pandering to her will help them increase the female demographic when it's doubtful at best without realising it would seriously cut into their male demographic.
And your point is? That still doesn't make it censorship.
Just like the journalist sites are for-profit businesses but didn't realize that pandering to sarkeezian/quinn/anti-gamer/whatever it is will have a large impact on their profitability by driving away many of their main user base.
The final outcome on their profitability remains to be seen. And this is especially amusing because, if what Sarkeesian is doing is censorship, so is what you're doing here. You want the journalist sites to change their product to suit your agenda, and you're demanding that they do it. So are you going to admit that you're in favor of censorship?
Hey you all, strop trying to censor Peregrine. Because trying to make him change his mind is obviously the same as censorship, right?
Yonan wrote: She's convincing them to change the product to suit her agenda. We don't want her to do that.
I have no idea why you do not want her to do that, I certainly want her to succeed.
Yonan wrote: without realising it would seriously cut into their male demographic.
Are you basically saying that you would not buy a game with a non-sexualized female main character, and without the trope she listed in the video? Because as far as I can tell, that stopped approximately nobody from enjoying Portal.
H.B.M.C. wrote: But, as always, I'm a complete idiot for stepping into the ring with you Peregrine. You never change, never back down, and never ever listen to anything anyone says when they run counter to your cast-iron opinions. You are a wall - a big, strong, impenetrable wall. The good news is that walls are stuck being walls, and everyone can walk away.
*walks away*
So you're saying he is doing exactly what you are doing?
See, you're just missing the obvious explanation her: I never back down because I only post when I already know I'm right. And, in this case, I'm right.
Peregrine wrote: I see nothing in there that suggests that she wants government regulation of game content. And yes, that's what is required for it to be censorship. Simply persuading game developers to voluntarily change their products is not censorship.
Censorship isn't a government only thing. It is also mostly done by governments, but also by media outlets (google in China), educational institutions (book banning), any authorities in essence.
Censoring is 'the act of removing something considered offensive, immoral or harmful.' Such as, in the opinions of some, the Damsel in Distress trope
I read the middle article and I did think it was rather good. - The 'Dixie Kong' video is I think the only one of Anita's I actually watched and when I did, I did find her conclusions a bit off.
It was pretty much this bit.
"Dixie Kong is the feminine variant and love interest of Diddy Kong. Note the ponytail and hair ringlets, pink shirt, pink hat, earrings, and eyelashes all to distinguish her from her predecessor. Essentially Ms. Male Characters are feminized imitations or derivative copies of already established male characters. They exist only because of, and in relationship to, their male counterparts."
I found it particularly odd that she chose not to acknowledge the fact that Diddy Kong himself, is basically a variant of Donkey Kong. You could easily say:
"Diddy Kong is the younger, cooler variant and junior partner of Diddy Kong. Note the baseball cap, smaller body and t-shirt. Essentially Younger, Hipper Characters are imitations or derivative copies of already established older characters. They exist only because of, and in relationship to, their older counterparts."
I'd just chalk that whole thing down to, 'thats how making spin-off characters work.'
Now, on the other hand, when she was talking about the Bowser children. - What was it, something like 7 male kids, of various personalities, then the one token girl that was completely generic? - Plus the whole Smurfs thing.
It looked like she was making a pretty darn good point to me. However, despite these things I find are good points, I ended up coming away from the video feeling grumpy and irritated because of the points which are less good and, if I remember right, the conclusions that in all honesty, just seemed completely out there.
As a result, I came away from the video feeling quite defensive about the video with the sense of. "You're bad and you should feel bad for enjoying these games." So, I'm not going to be inclined to have any support towards her.
As for the journalism aspect. - That entire thing is just pants and although it seems that there genuinely was overlap with the Feminism in Gaming angle at say, maybe the first, I dunno, 4 hours after the story broke? I don't know the timeline that well. It's now certainly a completely parallel topic, that many Journalists seem to be talking about, in response to the Corruption Topic. - I believe the term in politics is 'Cross Talking?'
And it, also, is really pants.
However, it's working to at least some extent, as I've just posted, contributing to the discussion about Anita's videos.
"Dixie Kong is the feminine variant and love interest of Diddy Kong. Note the ponytail and hair ringlets, pink shirt, pink hat, earrings, and eyelashes all to distinguish her from her predecessor. Essentially Ms. Male Characters are feminized imitations or derivative copies of already established male characters. They exist only because of, and in relationship to, their male counterparts."
I found it particularly odd that she chose not to acknowledge the fact that Diddy Kong himself, is basically a variant of Donkey Kong. You could easily say:
"Diddy Kong is the younger, cooler variant and junior partner of Diddy Kong. Note the baseball cap, smaller body and t-shirt. Essentially Younger, Hipper Characters are imitations or derivative copies of already established older characters. They exist only because of, and in relationship to, their older counterparts."
The thing is, the “Miss male character” stuff is much more frequent than the “Young older character” one. One was a common trend (not that much anymore), the other is pretty rare.
Well, there are much more examples in the video game section of the second link than of the first link. Have you checked them?
(BANG! Counter-attack! Now you get to be the one stuck there )
See, you're just missing the obvious explanation her: I never back down because I only post when I already know I'm right. And, in this case, I'm right.
/v/ The Musical: I'll make a Journalist out of you!
Spoiler:
AS a singer it bugs me that he messed up certain pitches and rhythms but at the same time I see that all the time, and I agree with his assertion onto the subject.
TB putting out a call for a discussion on this stuff:
Aight so, last few weeks I've been attempting to put together a round table podcast where industry folks could hash out what I believe are the core issues behind the controversy of late. Unfortunately the Brietbart email leak resulted in all my panelists backing out, so I'm back to square one. Now I could sit here sniping on Twitter at what I view as some of the ridiculous actions of the gaming press over the past few weeks but, similar to how Youtubers were willing to discuss their ethics when we came under fire for advertorial content, rather than circle our wagons and stick our fingers in our ears, I'd like to have a proper discussion and make some real progress. So I'm putting this out as a general call. If you are part of games media and would like to join a roundtable discussion that I can promise will be fair and equitable, email my PR guy with confirmed of who you are and what you do. I'm looking for people who are considered part of the "traditional" games press, I already have the Youtube side covered. His email address can be found on this page and his name is Cristian - http://bit.ly/1urAKlB - You are doing everyone a service by participating. Fail to do so and I cannot promise that I will not burst into song and nobody wants that. Nobody.
Aight so, last few weeks I've been attempting to put together a round table podcast where industry folks could hash out what I believe are the core issues behind the controversy of late. Unfortunately the Brietbart email leak resulted in all my panelists backing out, so I'm back to square one. Now I could sit here sniping on Twitter at what I view as some of the ridiculous actions of the gaming press over the past few weeks but, similar to how Youtubers were willing to discuss their ethics when we came under fire for advertorial content, rather than circle our wagons and stick our fingers in our ears, I'd like to have a proper discussion and make some real progress. So I'm putting this out as a general call. If you are part of games media and would like to join a roundtable discussion that I can promise will be fair and equitable, email my PR guy with confirmed of who you are and what you do. I'm looking for people who are considered part of the "traditional" games press, I already have the Youtube side covered. His email address can be found on this page and his name is Cristian - http://bit.ly/1urAKlB - You are doing everyone a service by participating. Fail to do so and I cannot promise that I will not burst into song and nobody wants that. Nobody.
Really people pulled out because of the brietbart thing?
Slarg232 wrote: They are either incredibly dense or incredibly desperate, or both at this point.
Seriously, what the hell are they thinking?
I don't know who did it. It is not anonomyous they would of left a call sigh. A reasonable hacker would of left a call sign that is. That is kind of their M.O.
So yeah. I doubt it was a gamer gater. Or a radical feminist. Well...... Maybe a rad femy seeing how they attack people.
There are several different people who could have done this:
1) Journalists; we cannot deny they have been mass censoring websites what with even 4Chan and Reddit being in the censoring crosshairs. Obviously I think they are the ones responsible.
2) Gamer Gater; with how many of them there are, it is fully possible (Though not probable) that someone thought to "Martyr" the Escapist.
3) Some group of donkey caves who just want to watch the world burn.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The Factual Feminist on youtube has been pwning Zoe and Anita on a regular basis for months now.
You mean the right-wing nutcase with the "I don't play games or know anything about them, but let me tell you all about how feminists want to destroy them to punish men" video that was posted previously? That wasn't a "pwning", it was an embarrassing attempt to exploit the gaming community to support her anti-feminist crusade.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I hope she doesn't rely on a Twitter account then, after what happened to Thunderf00t.
Is the gaming community really that desperate for people to join their cause that they'll defend Thunderf00t? Or are you just not familiar with his behavior in the atheist community?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: The Factual Feminist on youtube has been pwning Zoe and Anita on a regular basis for months now.
You mean the right-wing nutcase with the "I don't play games or know anything them, but let me tell you all about how feminists want to destroy them to punish men" video that was posted previously? That wasn't a "pwning", it was an embarrassing attempt to exploit the gaming community to support her anti-feminist crusade.
She had tons of credible sources. Antia did not. She has brought in a credible source. And you ignore it. You know what. If you really think you are so oh intelligent disprove everything she has. Make a seperate thread, but stop coming back here.
She is a feminist. She is more feminist than the 'feminists' under Antia.
Peregrine wrote: Is the gaming community really that desperate for people to join their cause that they'll defend Thunderf00t? Or are you just not familiar with his behavior in the atheist community?
Oh, I want to hear the story!
Asherian Command wrote: I don't know who did it. It is not anonomyous they would of left a call sigh. A reasonable hacker would of left a call sign that is. That is kind of their M.O.
What the hell are you talking about? This is a DDoS, not a defacing.
Asherian Command wrote: She is a feminist. She is more feminist than the 'feminists' under Antia.
Well, she certainly is saying what you want to hear .
Yonan wrote: Totalbiscuit finished his wasteland 2 stream this morning (evening US time) with some commentary on the situation. He likened the recent "youtubers accepting money for promotional content" discussion recently to the "corruption in games journalism" we have here. The youtubers had an open discussion about it and many quickly started being more open about it. The games journalists did the opposite, they closed ranks and attacked the gamers instead.
This has been uploaded to youtube here for anyone that missed it, 4 minutes.
Peregrine wrote: Is the gaming community really that desperate for people to join their cause that they'll defend Thunderf00t? Or are you just not familiar with his behavior in the atheist community?
Oh, I want to hear the story!
It's been a while so I might be wrong on the details, but the general summary is that some members/leaders of the atheist community decided that spending all their time screaming "CHRISTIANS ARE IDIOTS" wasn't really enough, and we should consider how we fit into other progressive movements (feminism, anti-racism, etc). This really annoyed the "libertarian" atheists who really don't like those things, and Thunderf00t took their side. He ragequit the blog network he had briefly been invited to, kept his access to the private mailing list (through a software bug) and posted private information, started making videos attacking feminism and complaining about how it ruins everything and atheists shouldn't say anything besides "there is no god", all the "liberal" atheists want to censor everything, etc. TBH even if I agreed with what he had to say I wouldn't want him representing my side.
So, this is why I have to wonder about his motivations here. Does he really care about gaming, or is this just another opportunity to yell a lot about his anti-feminist crusade?
Asherian Command wrote: If you really think you are so oh intelligent disprove everything she has.
Why? I don't waste my time refuting every single "argument" 9/11 conspiracy theorists propose, so why should I do the same with someone whose entire argument consists of "I don't play games, but let me tell you how feminists want to destroy them to hurt men"?
Make a seperate thread, but stop coming back here.
I don't think you understand how public forums work. You don't get to just tell me to get out of a thread because you don't like what I posted. And no, don't bother complaining again about how I'm derailing the thread, that post was in response to someone on "your" side who brought up the video again.
She is a feminist. She is more feminist than the 'feminists' under Antia.
She's a feminist in name only. She's the result of even conservatives finally realizing that saying "I hate feminism" isn't a very good plan for winning elections. So they've created a ridiculous division between "equality" feminism which only discusses nice safe uncontroversial issues like having the right to vote, and "gender" feminism which mentions all those uncomfortable things that conservatives really don't want to talk about. It would be like if racists decided to start calling themselves anti-racists because they oppose lynchings, while simultaneously spending most of their time complaining about how "bad" anti-racists hate white people.
Can we go back to talking about the gamergate issue and less about what people think a feminist should or shouldn't be. Also, seriously, we need to stop being so worked up about the same people in this thread who keep posting the same denials over and over again lest we get this thread locked again.
Yep, I'd decided to do the same. I've been slowly getting through the material on the KotakuInAction subreddit. There's more going on than I thought... the guy who created the #notyourshield campaign pressured out of his job, 4chan banning discussion, an exodus to 8chan, escapist actually listening to criticism and doing the right thing eventually, being banned on twitter for disagreeing with "them" and so on. The Viral Global News article was a really good, balanced summary of what's been happening. A good starting point to link people to interested in the issue(s) here.
Why? I don't waste my time refuting every single "argument" 9/11 conspiracy theorists propose, so why should I do the same with someone whose entire argument consists of "I don't play games, but let me tell you how feminists want to destroy them to hurt men"?
"She is wrong."
"Why?"
"SHE. IS. WRONG."
Classic.
Anyone who ever worked with, is interested in or actually knows something about feminism knows that Zoe knows nothing about it and hides under false pretense and positive sexism and Anita is just cashing out. The latter's scheme is found with a lot of topics and tons of people get fooled by it. Anita was a very vocal pro-woman speaker in the past. She made videos that were supposed to be viewed and liked by two groups: naive radicals and feel-good slacktivists. Right now, she's hired for a lot of conventions and even studios - and people seem to think that this is because everyone's suddenly interested in the topic. It's not. It happens with all popular topics. You "invite" someone who speaks out to a group you do not already have under your wing to represent said group and pretend showing interest in whereas in truth, you don't want any changes at all. It's a perfect deal for all sides - the speaker can cash out on the deal and the listeners are confirmed in their beliefs. The very same thing happens all over the internet and, very obviously, in this thread as well: people are willing to buy anything from anyone if it fits their very personal ideas. There is no need for reflecting or even thinking twice about what you see - if it fits, it sits.
If anything good came out of this mess, then it's that you can clearly draw a line between people you should listen to and should not listen to, solely based on the side they take.
Does anyone know what happened with Mighty No. 9? Apparently everyone is in a huff about that on the Twitter Gamergate page.
Edit: Ah.
The Community Manager for Mighty No. 9 has been blocking people from the page if they support the #GamerGate movement. Apparently she is being undiscriminating and even banning Backers. So the people who payed for and made the game possible can't even give feedback for it because they have tweets about Gamergate.
Slarg232 wrote: Does anyone know what happened with Mighty No. 9? Apparently everyone is in a huff about that on the Twitter Gamergate page.
Edit: Ah.
The Community Manager for Mighty No. 9 has been blocking people from the page if they support the #GamerGate movement. Apparently she is being undiscriminating and even banning Backers. So the people who payed for and made the game possible can't even give feedback for it because they have tweets about Gamergate.
Mighty No. 9?
Would this be the Indie spiritual successor to Mega Man that was funded through KickStarter or some other crowd funding site?
And would this be the notorious Community Manager who got the job causing an outcry in the Community over comments she'd made previously about her radical feminist views and desire to make changes to the game (making the protagonist female for one).
I recall hearing about this scandal about a year ago. Given that she was a known radical its hardly surprising that shes abusing her power in this way.
On the one hand, the Dina Disaster is another example for nepotism.
On the other hand, I think the entire issue was overblown and based around a single (arguably poor) image of an altered protagonist's image with a gender-swap.
Peregrine wrote: It's been a while so I might be wrong on the details, but the general summary is that some members/leaders of the atheist community decided that spending all their time screaming "CHRISTIANS ARE IDIOTS" wasn't really enough, and we should consider how we fit into other progressive movements (feminism, anti-racism, etc). This really annoyed the "libertarian" atheists who really don't like those things, and Thunderf00t took their side. He ragequit the blog network he had briefly been invited to, kept his access to the private mailing list (through a software bug) and posted private information, started making videos attacking feminism and complaining about how it ruins everything and atheists shouldn't say anything besides "there is no god", all the "liberal" atheists want to censor everything, etc. TBH even if I agreed with what he had to say I wouldn't want him representing my side.
I see.
Sining wrote: Can we go back to talking about the gamergate issue and less about what people think a feminist should or shouldn't be. Also, seriously, we need to stop being so worked up about the same people in this thread who keep posting the same denials over and over again lest we get this thread locked again.
Well, she might not be a true feminist, but at least she is a true Scotsman, right? Also would like to point out the previous thread was locked only because of completely pro-GamerGate “slacktivists”. They kept on posting tweets with inappropriate content despite numerous warnings from the mods. So, it had nothing to do with “people posting denials”
And Brietbart's heirs continue his glorious tradition of ethical journalism, leaking private conversations that have very little, if any, news value in an attempt to create more drama.
And Brietbart's heirs continue his glorious tradition of ethical journalism, leaking private conversations that have very little, if any, news value in an attempt to create more drama.
Little value? I see a lot of value, especially given the fact that so many publications essentially releasing the same article/narrative, represented by the same pr firm and now direct evidence that the editor's indeed all communicate.
If the few remaining prominent journalistic institutions all released similar articles on the same day, were all represented by the same pr firm and information leaked that showed direct evidence that all their editors communicate you don't think there would be ramifications?
Why make any distinction between journalism and propaganda at that point?
Peregrine wrote: And Brietbart's heirs continue his glorious tradition of ethical journalism, leaking private conversations that have very little, if any, news value in an attempt to create more drama.
Peregrine wrote: And Brietbart's heirs continue his glorious tradition of ethical journalism, leaking private conversations that have very little, if any, news value in an attempt to create more drama.
"There's no censorship among games journalists!"
Emails are leaked which show they're trying to censor talk on Gamergate.
Sining wrote: Am I missing something? What's wrong with breitbart? As long as the articles are researched and evidence is shown, what's wrong with any articles?
Absolutely nothing. The Right wing in the US has a very bad reputation for making things up and being total bollocks. When conservative voices don't do that but instead use actual facts and research to base and support their opinions, it's actually a good thing and their voice is worth listening to. Fox news and republican politicians tarnish the conservative side pretty badly. I don't think any conservative with opinions based on actual facts would be anywhere near as demonised. So yeah, right wingers relying on facts is a nice change - if that is indeed what's going on, I didn't know the website before this.
I guess NOT being an american, I have no ideas what websites are conservative or not. Hence I just read the articles linked and decide if they're of value
Sining wrote: Am I missing something? What's wrong with breitbart? As long as the articles are researched and evidence is shown, what's wrong with any articles?
Breitbart (the guy who created the site) was a dishonest right-wing troll who made a joke out of the concept of journalistic integrity. He was the kind of propaganda writer who could post a story about how the sky is blue and any sensible person would still go outside and check. It's theoretically possible that something posted on his website could be true, but it still requires extreme skepticism. And so far everything posted in relation to this subject has been the same kind of right-wing propaganda that is more concerned with making "liberals" look bad than discovering or reporting anything newsworthy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VorpalBunny74 wrote: Emails are leaked which show they're trying to censor talk on Gamergate.
I don't think you understand what censorship is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crablezworth wrote: Little value? I see a lot of value, especially given the fact that so many publications essentially releasing the same article/narrative, represented by the same pr firm and now direct evidence that the editor's indeed all communicate.
Exactly, little value. If you already know that game journalism is on the same level of seriousness as celebrity gossip magazines then "these guys talk to each other" is hardly a controversy.
If the few remaining prominent journalistic institutions all released similar articles on the same day, were all represented by the same pr firm and information leaked that showed direct evidence that all their editors communicate you don't think there would be ramifications?
Possibly, depending on the context. It would have to be a major scandal involving "legitimate" news articles, not just fluff pieces like game reviews, and some kind of dishonesty element. But that's not what we have here.
Why make any distinction between journalism and propaganda at that point?
I didn't know that anyone did make that distinction. I've been saying this from the beginning, everyone has known for years/decades that game journalism is a joke. This isn't about any newsworthy events, it's just an opportunity to have more drama.
Exactly, little value. If you already know that game journalism is on the same level of seriousness as celebrity gossip magazines then "these guys talk to each other" is hardly a controversy.
Your strawman's are getting lazier, B12 shot man, perk you right back up lol. The latest revelations confirm collusion, you can downplay that all you want and play the subjectivity card.
Crablezworth wrote: The latest revelations confirm collusion, you can downplay that all you want and play the subjectivity card.
But the point is that collusion is only newsworthy if you think that game journalism is more respectable than celebrity gossip magazines. And if you've paid any attention to game journalism over the past 10+ years you know that it isn't.
Peregrine wrote: everyone has known for years/decades that game journalism is a joke. This isn't about any newsworthy events, it's just an opportunity to have more drama.
And your participation in said drama only to remind everyone what the logical consistency of a tuna sandwich resembles.
Here, let me strawman you "this is nothing new, and as such allow me to downplay everything, I could present evidence but scatter shot value statements should do".
Crablezworth wrote: The latest revelations confirm collusion, you can downplay that all you want and play the subjectivity card.
But the point is that collusion is only newsworthy if you think that game journalism is more respectable than celebrity gossip magazines. And if you've paid any attention to game journalism over the past 10+ years you know that it isn't.
Right, and yet you discard and minimize everything to be "above" this whole topic, while still involving yourself in it. What can we call this, the unargument argument?
'Censorship isn't a government only thing. It is mostly done by governments, but also by media outlets (google in China), educational institutions (book banning), any authorities in essence.'
'Censorship isn't a government only thing. It is mostly done by governments, but also by media outlets (google in China), educational institutions (book banning), any authorities in essence.'
I don't think you understand what censorship is.
You're forgetting the most insidious form of censorship:
It is disappointing that journalists still aren't understanding what the problem is. The interview with Brad Wardell was good, though I think he still (understandably) holds a grudge about the SJWs attacking him awhile ago hehe.
I have been ‘cautioned’ to be careful about associating with a movement that is supposedly being more and more associated with ‘misogyny and harassment’. I was told by more people than I can count that I had ‘burnt several bridges’ already and I should be wary of burning any more, especially once this whole thing ‘turns sour’. Not from just one person, but from many.
So if you’re wondering if I was ‘harassed’, the answer is not exactly. But I was certainly encouraged by several people whom I have considered friends and business associates that I should step the feth back to save my career.
Censorship indeed. Toe the party line or you're out.
---
Yeah I feel for Wardell and admire that he's still speaking out about it. Hopefully he doesn't suffer a backlash for it. I like to think that the market for his games - games like Sins of a Solar Empire - are mature enough to not fall for this gak.
Yonan wrote: Censorship indeed. Toe the party line or you're out.
Again, this is not censorship. A company declining to give him a platform to speak from is not the same thing as losing his right to speak. And freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences from that speech. He is still free to say whatever he likes, and nobody can stop him.
Yonan wrote: Censorship indeed. Toe the party line or you're out.
Again, this is not censorship. A company declining to give him a platform to speak from is not the same thing as losing his right to speak. And freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences from that speech. He is still free to say whatever he likes, and nobody can stop him.
Right.. the consequences being an internet hate campaign, death threats, slander, doxxing of personal info, threats that his career will be over...
All the things that GamerGaters are accused of, have been and are being done by the radical feminist and corrupt "journalist" side too.
Yonan wrote: Censorship indeed. Toe the party line or you're out.
Again, this is not censorship. A company declining to give him a platform to speak from is not the same thing as losing his right to speak. And freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences from that speech. He is still free to say whatever he likes, and nobody can stop him.
Right.. the consequences being an internet hate campaign, death threats, slander, doxxing of personal info, threats that his career will be over...
Gah, others responding to him still has me seeing his posts. You're very much right Edithae. Threats to "shut up or we'll force you out" is definitely censorship of a very vile kind. It's supposed friends and colleagues saying "das ist verboten" when any reputable industry should welcome frank and open discussion on what it's doing. Boogies livelihood and possible personal safety are on the line here. I'm sad that he chose to give in but I do understand it and can't blame him for it.
Ben Kuchera, opinion editor at games website Polygon, publicised lurid sexual allegations about the chief executive of Stardock, a 20-year video games industry veteran, in an apparent attempt to do professional damage to someone he perceived to have right-wing politics, two industry sources have told Breitbart London.
*Note fully dismissed allegations with signed letter of apology from the originator.
Regular readers will be struck by the irony of Kuchera's responsibility for this mess: Kuchera was seen in private emails leaked to Breitbart London last week demanding that The Escapist, a rival website, take down forum posts that discussed sexual allegations about Zoe Quinn, a developer whose colourful private life has been the subject of widespread reporting in recent weeks.
"I received an email from someone who described my house in sufficient detail to concern me and promised to kill me, rape my wife and sodomize my son," Wardell told Breitbart on Monday. "My Wikipedia page was defaced with people putting up that my sons were 'gay.' People today still refer to the allegations in themselves as proof.
This happens to a male in the industry and no one bats an eye.
I know hypocrisy is in the thread. Asherian Command, for example, two pages back. But it's not really important, and snide remarks only serve as flamebait.
Right.. the consequences being an internet hate campaign, death threats, slander, doxxing of personal info, threats that his career will be over...
Nono, you don't understand, it's ok to do this to a man. He's not a woman, after all.
And this remark was necessary why?
Because we have multiple cases of internet hate campaigns against video game developers, one female (Zoe Quinn) and one male (Brad Wardell).
Guess which hate campaign the mainstream video gaming media doesn't give a flying feth about? (And in some cases, are even participating in said hate campaign).
Right.. the consequences being an internet hate campaign, death threats, slander, doxxing of personal info, threats that his career will be over...
Nono, you don't understand, it's ok to do this to a man. He's not a woman, after all.
And this remark was necessary why?
Because we have multiple cases of internet hate campaigns against video game developers, one female (Zoe Quinn) and one male (Brad Wardell).
Guess which hate campaign the mainstream video gaming media doesn't give a flying feth about? (And in some cases, are even participating in said hate campaign).
To me, it appeared as though the remark targeted something else than mainstream video gaming media. To my knowledge, both sides in this debate agree media are doing bad things.
Ashiraya wrote: I know hypocrisy is in the thread. Asherian Command, for example, committed some rather spectacular hypocrisy a few pages back. But it's not really important, and snide remarks only serve as flamebait.
Ashiraya wrote: I know hypocrisy is in the thread. Asherian Command, for example, committed some rather spectacular hypocrisy a few pages back. But it's not really important, and snide remarks only serve as flamebait.
Ashiraya wrote: I know hypocrisy is in the thread. Asherian Command, for example, two pages back. But it's not really important, and snide remarks only serve as flamebait.
Dodged the point. The problem is that the entire thing became big because Quinn's a woman, nothing more. Same thing happening to a man, who cares. WORSE, same thing happening to a man who is not a disgusting liar. But alas, he's just a man. It's ok.
Ashiraya wrote: I know hypocrisy is in the thread. Asherian Command, for example, two pages back. But it's not really important, and snide remarks only serve as flamebait.
Dodged the point. The problem is that the entire thing became big because Quinn's a woman, nothing more. Same thing happening to a man, who cares. WORSE, same thing happening to a man who is not a disgusting liar. But alas, he's just a man. It's ok.
Yes, media abuse the presence of sexism (and, thus, feminism), twisting it into a shield while the internet turns it in the wrong direction.
But there is no 'point' to dodge here. Sure, it's certainly possible that Zoe recieved more sympathy for no good reason. So... what does this prove, exactly?
Right.. the consequences being an internet hate campaign, death threats, slander, doxxing of personal info, threats that his career will be over...
Nono, you don't understand, it's ok to do this to a man. He's not a woman, after all.
And this remark was necessary why?
Because we have multiple cases of internet hate campaigns against video game developers, one female (Zoe Quinn) and one male (Brad Wardell).
Guess which hate campaign the mainstream video gaming media doesn't give a flying feth about? (And in some cases, are even participating in said hate campaign).
To me, it appeared as though the remark targeted something else than mainstream video gaming media. To my knowledge, both sides in this debate agree media are doing bad things.
Oh absolutely. But the thing is, not all the GamerGate people criticising Quinn and gaming journalists participate in the hate campaigns, yet ALL opposition and criticism are being categorised and slandered as misogynists. It's ad hominem on a grand scale.
Plus there's the NotYourShield people, female gamers, LGBT people, ethnic minorities etc who are tired of being treated as a political football by gaming journalists, yet are derided and slandered and dismissed by the media.
Ashiraya wrote: I know hypocrisy is in the thread. Asherian Command, for example, committed some rather spectacular hypocrisy a few pages back. But it's not really important, and snide remarks only serve as flamebait.
Ashiraya wrote: Sure, it's certainly possible that Zoe recieved more sympathy for no good reason. So... what does this prove, exactly?
What do you think it proves.
1. Woman claims harassment. Automatically assumed to be telling the truth (Zoe vs Wizardchan), and given media attention sympathetic to her case (such as on the Escapist, where a few weeks ago they admitted to simply believing Zoe and taking her side without checking the truth).
2. Man claims harassment. Doesn't get ignored, but any coverage simply demonises him (such as in the case of Stardock's CEO).
I realise that this is a very broad brush I'm using, but that's what Sigvatr is getting at.
Oh absolutely. But the thing is, not all the GamerGate people criticising Quinn and gaming journalists participate in the hate campaigns, yet ALL opposition and criticism are being categorised and slandered as misogynists. It's ad hominem on a grand scale.
Plus there's the NotYourShield people, female gamers, LGBT people, ethnic minorities etc who are tired of being treated as a political football by gaming journalists, yet are derided and slandered and dismissed by the media.
Oh yes, I fully agree. I am an LGBT activist in real life, these issues are close to heart for me.
I am seeing some rather unpleasant implications going on here, though. NotYourShield is good, but people taking the Quinn/Wardell discrepancy as an excuse to snipe at feminism is... not good. I am less concerned with what happens with the scandals and journalism as it seems most people have realised the problems, but I am concerned about the snipes.
As for Peregrine? That's between him and you guys. Currently, I have no comments on his posts. He has not broken any forum rules yet, at least.
Ashiraya wrote: Sure, it's certainly possible that Zoe recieved more sympathy for no good reason. So... what does this prove, exactly?
What do you think it proves.
1. Woman claims harassment.
Automatically assumed to be telling the truth (Zoe vs Wizardchan), and given media attention sympathetic to her case (such as on the Escapist, where a few weeks ago they admitted to simply believing Zoe and taking her side without checking the truth).
2. Man claims harassment.
Doesn't get ignored, but any coverage simply demonises him (such as in the case of Stardock's CEO).
I realise that this is a very broad brush I'm using, but that's what Sigvatr is getting at.
I do agree that the double standard is a problem. I have never claimed otherwise.
I only questioned the necessity for being snide to begin with, actually.
Exactly the ridiculous double standard by the reporters in the industry, and far from the only one. There's the whole Neogaf owner doing his own "mysogynistic posts" tyhen banning anyone that ever refers to them whilst being very much anti-gg because "they're all mysoginists", and so much more. It's ... bad. Very bad.
Ashiraya wrote: I am seeing some rather unpleasant implications going on here, though. NotYourShield is good, but people taking the Quinn/Wardell discrepancy as an excuse to snipe at feminism is... not good. I am less concerned with what happens with the scandals and journalism as it seems most people have realised the problems, but I am concerned about the snipes.
Feminists like Sommers and Watson snipe at (extreme) feminism for the exact same reason - they're using "helping make women equal" as an excuse to hate men and bring men down. The pro-gg crowd aren't mysoginists, anti-women, anti-feminist, we're anti-extremist-feminists, just the same as feminists are anti-extremist-feminists. Feminism is about equality - something I think the vast majority of us want. Extremist feminism is not. Did you see how quickly a lot of us latched onto Sommers when she seemed to be speaking on "our side"? We're decidedly not anti-feminist in the GG crowd.
Ashiraya wrote: I disapprove of extremism in general, including extreme feminism.
I do not believe the GG crowd in general are sexists, but I believe sexists are using GG as a weapon and I consider this a problem as well.
Maybe. But the mainstream gaming media is either unable or unwilling to distinguish between legitimate criticism, and the mob of internet trolls that materialise around ALL controversial issues on the internet.
Instead of responding to actual critics like Mundane Matt, gaming "journalists" instead point to the extremely vocal minority of sexist trolls and declare "these people are abusive and sexist! Ergo everyone n that side of the debate are misogynist!"
They also rarely report on the anti GamerGate trolls, carrying out their own hate campaigns against anyone who challenges their narrative. In some cases journalists are even colluding in those hate campaigns.
Thank you for clarifying your opinions though. I can now stop perceiving you as one of the "extremists".
Automatically Appended Next Post: In other news... ISIS militants are raping children as young as nine...
Also, to clarify above (for anyone who didn't know), when I said the Escapist admitted to believing Zoe without checking her story I should also point out that they didn't weasel their way out of it or put a 'but' at the end of their admission. To their credit they acknowledged their error and apologised. That's what people found to be in the wrong, or people who are found to have made snap judgements, should be doing. What you don't do is release 10 'hit' articles over a 48 hour period attacking your main demographic.
Yep, Escapist handled that pretty well. I think the article is still up and is still... not ideal... but it's better. They're also hosting a gamergate discussion - one of the few main sites to not censor it completely - so I'm at least content with them.
Yonan wrote: Yep, Escapist handled that pretty well. I think the article is still up and is still... not ideal... but it's better. They're also hosting a gamergate discussion - one of the few main sites to not censor it completely - so I'm at least content with them.
They actually got attacked over it as well, with the DDOS.
Yeah pretty despicable how much they're doing to stop our side of the argument having a voice. The anti-gg crowd got a black game dev fired for starting the notyoursheild campaign, boogie was scared out of supporting it by warnings of being excluded (basically losing his job too)... it's shocking how bad this is, but how little coverage this aspect it's getting in games media really shows the single sided narrative. And yet the GamerGaters are the attackers here supposedly.
Yonan wrote: Yeah pretty despicable how much they're doing to stop our side of the argument having a voice. The anti-gg crowd got a black game dev fired for starting the notyoursheild campaign, boogie was scared out of supporting it by warnings of being excluded (basically losing his job too)... it's shocking how bad this is, but how little coverage this aspect it's getting in games media really shows the single sided narrative. And yet the GamerGaters are the attackers here supposedly.
Great soundcloud interview by Milo with Adam Baldwin and Christina Hoff Sommers on Gamergate went up today. I didn't know he was in Firefly. Gorram femnazis! ; p
am seeing some rather unpleasant implications going on here, though. NotYourShield is good, but people taking the Quinn/Wardell discrepancy as an excuse to snipe at feminism is... not good. I am less concerned with what happens with the scandals and journalism as it seems most people have realised the problems, but I am concerned about the snipes.
It's because they aren't real feminists.
Feminists do not target men. Feminism wants equal rights, and equality between men and women regardless of race.
Saying women should have more benefits of men is not feminism. Which is some of the implied nature of the feminist fight in this debate. There are a ton of egalitarians in this movement and all of them are quite rational in this debate.
I have tried on numerous occasions to talk these people and rationalize and say that they do not properly fit the definition of a feminist.
am seeing some rather unpleasant implications going on here, though. NotYourShield is good, but people taking the Quinn/Wardell discrepancy as an excuse to snipe at feminism is... not good. I am less concerned with what happens with the scandals and journalism as it seems most people have realised the problems, but I am concerned about the snipes.
It's because they aren't real feminists.
Feminists do not target men. Feminism wants equal rights, and equality between men and women regardless of race.
Saying women should have more benefits of men is not feminism. Which is some of the implied nature of the feminist fight in this debate. There are a ton of egalitarians in this movement and all of them are quite rational in this debate.
I have tried on numerous occasions to talk these people and rationalize and say that they do not properly fit the definition of a feminist.
But what he's saying is that the hate on Quinn/Sark is causing people to snipe on ACTUAL Feminists. And that is a problem if true (Haven't seen it but haven't been looking for it, either).
I haven't seen it but it is possible. They're poisoning their own well with what they're doing. Everything I've seen however is rational people thanking Sommers for her input and agreeing pretty much wholeheartedly with Emma Watsons recent speech.
Yonan wrote: I haven't seen it but it is possible. They're poisoning their own well with what they're doing. Everything I've seen however is rational people thanking Sommers for her input and agreeing pretty much wholeheartedly with Emma Watsons recent speech.
Slarg232 wrote: But what he's saying is that the hate on Quinn/Sark is causing people to snipe on ACTUAL Feminists.
She.
Also this thread is coming pretty damn close to confuse “actual feminists” with “people that tells me what I want to hear”, I think.
Bloody people changing bloody avatars and bloody bloody things....
If "People that tells me what I want to hear" are the people saying "We are all in for gender equality" and not "Men are te h evils", then yes, I suppose it is.
Yonan wrote: I haven't seen it but it is possible. They're poisoning their own well with what they're doing. Everything I've seen however is rational people thanking Sommers for her input and agreeing pretty much wholeheartedly with Emma Watsons recent speech.
Well, except for those attacking Sommers.
The rad fems and their sockpuppets (the journos) did that pretty quickly didn't they yeah.
Slarg232 wrote: If "People that tells me what I want to hear" are the people saying "We are all in for gender equality" and not "Men are te h evils", then yes, I suppose it is.
Have you ever seen anyone saying “men are the evils”. Did I miss them, or are you just strawmaning people that raise issues that bothers you rather than just sticking to very consensual stuff?
Slarg232 wrote: If "People that tells me what I want to hear" are the people saying "We are all in for gender equality" and not "Men are te h evils", then yes, I suppose it is.
Have you ever seen anyone saying “men are the evils”. Did I miss them, or are you just strawmaning people that raise issues that bothers you rather than just sticking to very consensual stuff?
Well, when "Feminists" like the journalists start calling a very large group of people a "Bunch of white male misogynistic neck beards", to which women/non-whites come out and say "We aren't men"/"We aren't white", to which the Journalists/supporters start calling those people fake accounts, sock puppets, or willing slaves (Not to mention the racial slurs), you can see how it's a pretty easy line to draw.
am seeing some rather unpleasant implications going on here, though. NotYourShield is good, but people taking the Quinn/Wardell discrepancy as an excuse to snipe at feminism is... not good. I am less concerned with what happens with the scandals and journalism as it seems most people have realised the problems, but I am concerned about the snipes.
It's because they aren't real feminists.
Feminists do not target men. Feminism wants equal rights, and equality between men and women regardless of race.
Saying women should have more benefits of men is not feminism. Which is some of the implied nature of the feminist fight in this debate. There are a ton of egalitarians in this movement and all of them are quite rational in this debate.
I have tried on numerous occasions to talk these people and rationalize and say that they do not properly fit the definition of a feminist.
But what he's saying is that the hate on Quinn/Sark is causing people to snipe on ACTUAL Feminists. And that is a problem if true (Haven't seen it but haven't been looking for it, either).
Ha.
I have not sniped at them, I merely make mockery of their statements.
Or I objectively criticize their works as I see it as quite deplorable or disfigured compared to someone who has willingly researched and done more than just listen to a public speaker.
A well informed individual who claims to be part of the movement must of individually taken an interest and must be educated to be apart of that group.
Now for gamers this is similar, many are educated in what a game is, and have willingly for pleasure played a game.
Also on Sommers, I think it is interesting only one person thus far has criticized her and that is Peregrine.
Which in itself is quite interesting, as I having looked up the research myself and found sources to debate the subject. I disagree with a lot of things she does say mostly about the wage gap etc.
It just comes to shove that not everyone has the same opinion and just because that person has a similar view on a subject does not mean we all have the same views. Unlike the media seems to paint us for.
I remember a few days ago someone said I must be a republician for supporting gamer gate. I replied with. "You do realize I am a hardcore egalitarian socialist right?"
Which they replied with. "Liar." And blocked me.
You can see the dilemma with the other side is quite clear they stick their head under the dirt and ignore us, thinking we might just go away. Unaware to them their house is burning down and their insurance won't pay for it.
That safety net for journalists is slowly starting to recede. As big advertisers slowly began to move away from the games media, seeing it might actually be more trouble than its worth to stay with that company.
Slarg232 wrote: If "People that tells me what I want to hear" are the people saying "We are all in for gender equality" and not "Men are te h evils", then yes, I suppose it is.
Have you ever seen anyone saying “men are the evils”. Did I miss them, or are you just strawmaning people that raise issues that bothers you rather than just sticking to very consensual stuff?
Well, when "Feminists" like the journalists start calling a very large group of people a "Bunch of white male misogynistic neck beards", to which women/non-whites come out and say "We aren't men"/"We aren't white", to which the Journalists/supporters start calling those people fake accounts, sock puppets, or willing slaves (Not to mention the racial slurs), you can see how it's a pretty easy line to draw.
That was quite disturbing I found that quite unbelievable. I openly admitted I was white and they called me a sock puppet still.
So I stopped talking on twitter, because it was in-futile to discuss things with these peoples.
am seeing some rather unpleasant implications going on here, though. NotYourShield is good, but people taking the Quinn/Wardell discrepancy as an excuse to snipe at feminism is... not good. I am less concerned with what happens with the scandals and journalism as it seems most people have realised the problems, but I am concerned about the snipes.
It's because they aren't real feminists.
Feminists do not target men. Feminism wants equal rights, and equality between men and women regardless of race.
Saying women should have more benefits of men is not feminism. Which is some of the implied nature of the feminist fight in this debate. There are a ton of egalitarians in this movement and all of them are quite rational in this debate.
I have tried on numerous occasions to talk these people and rationalize and say that they do not properly fit the definition of a feminist.
But what he's saying is that the hate on Quinn/Sark is causing people to snipe on ACTUAL Feminists. And that is a problem if true (Haven't seen it but haven't been looking for it, either).
am seeing some rather unpleasant implications going on here, though. NotYourShield is good, but people taking the Quinn/Wardell discrepancy as an excuse to snipe at feminism is... not good. I am less concerned with what happens with the scandals and journalism as it seems most people have realised the problems, but I am concerned about the snipes.
It's because they aren't real feminists.
Feminists do not target men. Feminism wants equal rights, and equality between men and women regardless of race.
Saying women should have more benefits of men is not feminism. Which is some of the implied nature of the feminist fight in this debate. There are a ton of egalitarians in this movement and all of them are quite rational in this debate.
I have tried on numerous occasions to talk these people and rationalize and say that they do not properly fit the definition of a feminist.
But what he's saying is that the hate on Quinn/Sark is causing people to snipe on ACTUAL Feminists. And that is a problem if true (Haven't seen it but haven't been looking for it, either).
I have, and it is worrying.
Methinks Anita Sarkeesian gives Feminism a bad name...
To me the real shame in this is that sexism in gaming IS a valid issue that needs to be addressed. Unfortunately its been derailed by mountebanks and opportunists on both sides of this.
The video in question. The kid targets people war livestreaming on purpose. Personally I see no problem with this. Its not a hate crime its just a teenager killing people in World of Warcraft.
Now you know why I think it might be a joke. But alas it is not.... (in terms of movie bobs response, I Hoped it was a joke.)
(The VIDEO) ITS A HATE CRIME SEE! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-veY0LQ1QcU
Boggy Man wrote: To me the real shame in this is that sexism in gaming IS a valid issue that needs to be addressed. Unfortunately its been derailed by mountebanks and opportunists on both sides of this.
Sexism has nothing to do with gaming. That's something people need to understand.
There is sexism in gaming. But it's not there because of gaming. It's there because it's there among a much larger group: everyone. If you want to reduce sexism in gaming, you need to reduce sexism as a whole.
Gaming is as relevant as anywhere else. It does not get a get-out-of-jail-free card from criticism because 'it is better to fight sexism in other areas'.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Yeah, seems to be a bit tasteless, imo.
Not quite sure if it's deserving of imprisonment though.
Probably not. I don't see why they would stir a commotion. Standard troll. Ignore, move on.
I think it gets worse there are a few articles that are attacking Mrs. Sommers, there was an auto tune made by a friend of Antia's. Yeah completely unbiased there.
I think the ironic twist of the knife is that antia thinks we think she fabricated the facts. I think it is suspicious but I don't think she did.
Really? I mean, really?
And then you will still wonder why people link the GG with misogyny ?
He's targeting people who have webcams and identify as 'girl gamers' an insult to actual girls who play video games.
I Personally hate the gamer gate phenonomon and a gross exaggeration and objectification of women.
Personally I think it is hypocritical to say that these women need defending. I mean its WOW not real life.
Its not a hate crime. It is stupid teenager killing someone in WOW. I've seen it hundreds of times in streams. Especially when someone BDMS Total Biscuit in hearthstone? Is that a hate crime? Its dumb an rude, but not a 'hate crime' against women.
In fact both Parties in this case I throw my hat out and say. "I don't care what happens. Both parties are a bunch of gakkers."
I think though sending the kid to prison is overboard.
Asherian Command wrote: He's targeting people who have webcams and identify as 'girl gamers' an insult to actual girls who play video games.
What the feth is that even supposed to mean? Are you drunk?
"Booth Babes"
Objectification.
I am using feminist reasoning. Thats what it says in my book I have to do see!
I have to tell women they don't know any better
Anyway, the main issue I find though is that they probably get a ton of a publicity and overprotective of any woman in the industry... As long as it suits themselves.
The main irk point though is that they draw attention with being a girl. Some Twitch girls do not. They just play and record. Because they like to play games. (Like Aurelyan, Minx, and Catabot)
It is a stupid objectcation thing.
A way to gain views, from a giant audience is to post pictures of boobs as a thumbnail.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ashiraya wrote: I wouldn't target someone calling themselves a 'male gamer' and think this was an insult to the actual men who play video games.
Hahaha. Are you two not familar with the term gamer girl?
it is used mostly to target women. Its an issue in gaming. In general using women to objectify them and use them as propaganda and just makes the hobby look silly.
There is nothing wrong in what they do. It is the publicity that uses them that is the problem.
It reminds me quite a bit of the EA fiasco a few years ago. Where they had the lust competition.
As I have stated, there is sexism in the gamersphere that requires stamping out (Last of Us, Remember Me, and Bioshock Infinite all shouldn't have had to put up with what they did in order to be made....), and though I stopped watching the "How to Gank a Gamer Girl" vid within a minute, jail time is hardly something that needs to be involved. Kids an a-hole, but not a criminal.
Asherian Command wrote: He's targeting people who have webcams and identify as 'girl gamers' an insult to actual girls who play video games.
What the feth is that even supposed to mean? Are you drunk?
Girl gamers has become a very specific term these days on twitch. It's essentially girls getting high stream numbers by pointing their webcam as far down their cleavage as possible. Not inherently bad obviously. But them being ganked is not something I'm going to lose sleep over.
Asherian Command wrote: He's targeting people who have webcams and identify as 'girl gamers' an insult to actual girls who play video games.
What the feth is that even supposed to mean? Are you drunk?
I think his point was that they emphasise their gender and make a bid deal out of it instead of focusing on the game, thereby doing a disservice to and undermining other girls who just want to get on with the game instead of playing gender politics.
Asherian Command wrote: I remember a few days ago someone said I must be a republician for supporting gamer gate. I replied with. "You do realize I am a hardcore egalitarian socialist right?"
Which they replied with. "Liar." And blocked me.
They did the same thing to Sommers. The next day four 'hit' articles came out, all of which made sure to use the word "conservative" in their headlines. Her response? "I'm a registered Democrat".
Yeah I always thought I was pretty damn liberal (not Aussie Liberal) but this has been an eye opener for the crazies on "our side". It was interesting to hear Sommers talk about how everyone else rolled over to this agenda but gamers are the only ones fighting back so far... I thought we needed people like her, maybe they need a large, vocal riled up demographic like us. Maybe we need each other I guess ; p The widespread censorship makes getting your voice heard hard, so having Baldwin and Sommers as focal points really helps. I hate to ask more of TB, but we really need him to step up too I think ; p The bald bastard has so much clout.
Steam curators: 1. Totalbiscuit: 130K 2. PC Gamer: 42K 3. Jim Stirling: 29K 4. RPS: 18K 5. Just Good PC Games: 17K 6. Nerd Boxset: 17K 7. Kotaku: 15K X. Jesse CoX: 4K (<3 Jesse)
Totalbiscuit so far ahead after a day, Kotaku dropping from 4th to 7th place and Jim going up to 3rd. It says a lot about the journalism in the industry that two individuals doing video content get so many followers looking for their critique.
Asherian Command wrote: He's targeting people who have webcams and identify as 'girl gamers' an insult to actual girls who play video games.
What the feth is that even supposed to mean? Are you drunk?
I think his point was that they emphasise their gender and make a bid deal out of it instead of focusing on the game, thereby doing a disservice to and undermining other girls who just want to get on with the game instead of playing gender politics.
The converse to that is the individuals that are all angry about it are more likely placing the biggest emphasis on the gender issue. If you get all hot n bothered by cleavage on a webcam an then give that cleavage money that is your problem. If a woman knows she can do something incredibly minor and get free anything out of it then good for her I guess. But that very much is not gender politics. That is human sexuality and capitalism at its best.
Female gamers that just want to play....just play. Male gamers that just want to play...play.
Dude that makes videos actually displaying misogyny is not okay nor should be defended in anyway.
Asherian Command wrote:^ Wow people understood me!
Yeah!
I am not as stupid as I think I am!
Understood, sure I suppose. A good line of thinking though I can not say it was.
Here is the deal. Does sexism exist in gaming? Answer is yes it does. Is gaming a major contributor to sexism? No it is not. However "gaming culture" is quickly becoming a safe haven for sexist mentality. I left the "gamer culture" a while back. Precisely because it was becoming exactly what it is now. Because of the internet groups have been able to meld with "gamer culture". So now we have the Fedora Dudes, Trolls, Mens Rights Activists, Friend-zoners that are a accept addition to the melding pot.
Those individuals are pretty much way I whole hearted do believe that it is time for "gamer culture" and the gamer to just die. Its been polluted and perverted. It honestly isn't about video games at all anymore. It is about the next crusade or the enemy (interestingly enough if it isn't EA it is probably a woman). Saying your a gamer is really just a fashion statement for the rest of the baggage that you carry to the pot.
Just play games damn it. Talk about games too. But is the rest of this stuff needed? Its just two sides of the same coin calling each other fake.
BrotherGecko wrote: Here is the deal. Does sexism exist in gaming? Answer is yes it does. Is gaming a major contributor to sexism? No it is not. However "gaming culture" is quickly becoming a safe haven for sexist mentality. I left the "gamer culture" a while back. Precisely because it was becoming exactly what it is now. Because of the internet groups have been able to meld with "gamer culture". So now we have the Fedora Dudes, Trolls, Mens Rights Activists, Friend-zoners that are a accept addition to the melding pot.
Those individuals are pretty much way I whole hearted do believe that it is time for "gamer culture" and the gamer to just die. Its been polluted and perverted. It honestly isn't about video games at all anymore. It is about the next crusade or the enemy (interestingly enough if it isn't EA it is probably a woman). Saying your a gamer is really just a fashion statement for the rest of the baggage that you carry to the pot.
Just play games damn it. Talk about games too. But is the rest of this stuff needed? Its just two sides of the same coin calling each other fake.
I think you're misinterpreting general trolling as sexism. Any anonymous chat quickly turns to bollocks because trolls can run rampant consequence free. Moderation (not censorship) always greatly improves this - look at Dakka, it is for the most part very civilised thanks in a large part to its moderation. Women aren't targeted any more than men in online trolling (something like 13% of women reported it compared to 12% of men) - Sommers points to a study showing this, and attacks on women are made by other women 40% of the time in the study she refers to.
Asherian Command wrote: I remember a few days ago someone said I must be a republician for supporting gamer gate. I replied with. "You do realize I am a hardcore egalitarian socialist right?"
Which they replied with. "Liar." And blocked me.
They did the same thing to Sommers. The next day four 'hit' articles came out, all of which made sure to use the word "conservative" in their headlines. Her response? "I'm a registered Democrat".
First of all you can be a conservative and a Democrat. Neither a mutually exclusive and should never be considered as such.
Second if you establish knowledge of an issue but then go on to do nothing what does that say? Should not gamers take pride in leading the way where the rest of society fails? Seeing as most men are exposed to gamer culture wouldn't it then be a force of change capable of influencing millions?
Yonan wrote:
BrotherGecko wrote: Here is the deal. Does sexism exist in gaming? Answer is yes it does. Is gaming a major contributor to sexism? No it is not. However "gaming culture" is quickly becoming a safe haven for sexist mentality. I left the "gamer culture" a while back. Precisely because it was becoming exactly what it is now. Because of the internet groups have been able to meld with "gamer culture". So now we have the Fedora Dudes, Trolls, Mens Rights Activists, Friend-zoners that are a accept addition to the melding pot.
Those individuals are pretty much way I whole hearted do believe that it is time for "gamer culture" and the gamer to just die. Its been polluted and perverted. It honestly isn't about video games at all anymore. It is about the next crusade or the enemy (interestingly enough if it isn't EA it is probably a woman). Saying your a gamer is really just a fashion statement for the rest of the baggage that you carry to the pot.
Just play games damn it. Talk about games too. But is the rest of this stuff needed? Its just two sides of the same coin calling each other fake.
I think you're misinterpreting general trolling as sexism. Any anonymous chat quickly turns to bollocks because trolls can run rampant consequence free. Moderation (not censorship) always greatly improves this - look at Dakka, it is for the most part very civilised thanks in a large part to its moderation. Women aren't targeted any more than men in online trolling (something like 13% of women reported it compared to 12% of men) - Sommers points to a study showing this, and attacks on women are made by other women 40% of the time in the study she refers to.
Doing sexist things for the lolz is unlikely. Picking targeting to harass with your awful worthless views is much or in the reality. Trolls are worthless human beings and shouldn't be encouraged.
As for the study I have never seen it. Nor would know if it is actually accurate beyond the usual of statistics being what ever you make of them for your agenda.
Sining wrote:How did we go back to sexism in gaming again?
I'm guessing because all the other issues where never the issue. Merely the justifications for the issue. But that is only what I can divine from this big hoopla. As all my information has come directly and solely from this thread and those that have presented the sides.
If that was true, then more people other than Hybrid and Peregine would keep talking about sexism, ZQ and Anita -_- I like how people responding to those two and arguing with them about how it isn't about sexism suddenly makes this issue about sexism.
Is there sexism in gaming? Yes, because sexism/corruption/whatever is going to exist where there are people. However, gamergate isn't about sexism, it's about corruption. I mean, ideally if you guys want to hijack a thread or #tag, go create your own. I'm pretty sure there are some suited for you guys to discuss your notions of sexism and how it can be prevented or if it exists.
More keeps coming out of the woodwork, journalists being fired for exposing corruption in the industry so sites can "preserve their relationship with game writers". Other attempts to get people fired thankfully the guy had a good boss. Baldwin was right, the industry is writhing in pain as sunlight gets shined on it for the first time.
BrotherGecko wrote: I'm guessing because all the other issues where never the issue.
You mean corruption in game journalism, that 'other issue', the one that's been fuelling this for over a month now? Nah I'm pretty sure that's still the issue.
No. No, no, no. No you are not.
If “your book” tells you that slut-shaming is feminist reasoning, then burn your book.
Sining wrote: If that was true, then more people other than Hybrid and Peregine would keep talking about sexism, ZQ and Anita -_-
You do realize we are currently discussing something that Asherian Command brought up? You do realize I did not even knew that guy existed before Asherian Command posted about him? You do realize trying to pretend that it is only Peregrine and me turning the subject onto feminism is pitiful, ridiculous and doomed in advance?
BrotherGecko wrote: I'm guessing because all the other issues where never the issue.
You mean corruption in game journalism, that 'other issue', the one that's been fuelling this for over a month now? Nah I'm pretty sure that's still the issue.
Going by this thread alone (and its predecessor) I am not wholly convinced by that. Maybe it is better to say then that it means much to many for differing reasons?
Sining wrote:Maybe you and whoeever wants to discuss feminism with you can go take it to another thread that can be titled Sexism in gaming
I believe the sexism is part of the scandal aspect of this particular thread? Maybe the removal of comments in reference to the secondary party to the debate would reduce talks of feminism and such? Because the moment you throw the feminist conspiracy angle into the mix you invite the debates.
Remember the thread is about "The Gamergate, Scandal, Conspiracy, and Journalism Corruption" which involves the entire topic not just the stuff you want to talk about. What ever that may be.
Speaking of which what is exactly the Gamergate end game agenda and how is it being obtained? As of right now it looks more like the stuff I would see from 9-11 Truthers (which I have no strong opinions of in any direction). This stuff seems to be the rough equivalent to trashy day time tv then a movement with a message.
Sining wrote: If that was true, then more people other than Hybrid and Peregine would keep talking about sexism, ZQ and Anita -_-
You mean like the people I keep replying to when they bring up issues about sexism? It seems like every time I step away from this thread it's back to someone posting another article about how Anita sucks or how feminism is ruining everything. Remember this little summary image that the OP posted in the middle of complaining about how everyone keeps talking about sexism?
BrotherGecko wrote: Speaking of which what is exactly the Gamergate end game agenda and how is it being obtained? As of right now it looks more like the stuff I would see from 9-11 Truthers (which I have no strong opinions of in any direction). This stuff seems to be the rough equivalent to trashy day time tv then a movement with a message.
Given our voices are being stifled in many common discussion areas - the two most popular gamnig subs on reddit, 4chan, even twitter has had bans for covering gamergate, it's pretty hard for us to get a unified voice on the topic. There are some attempts coming out to outline our main goals but they're still being refined and discusses, mainly on 8chan and kotakuinaction on reddit.
The main things are:
- transparency on relationships
- no censorship
- balanced reporting
- no collusion to push agendas
There are some others of course.
There is ample evidence of substantial censorship and other wrongdoign against GamerGaters. Yes, there are some pieces where some have jumped the gun, but there are many where people have been confirmed to have been harassed at work, some losing their jobs, others having syringes sent to them and much more. There are many examples of journalists attacking gamers in their journalistic articles and on twitter. These people need to be held to a much higher standard than a random poster on the internet.
Sining wrote: If that was true, then more people other than Hybrid and Peregine would keep talking about sexism, ZQ and Anita -_- I like how people responding to those two and arguing with them about how it isn't about sexism suddenly makes this issue about sexism.
Is there sexism in gaming? Yes, because sexism/corruption/whatever is going to exist where there are people. However, gamergate isn't about sexism, it's about corruption. I mean, ideally if you guys want to hijack a thread or #tag, go create your own. I'm pretty sure there are some suited for you guys to discuss your notions of sexism and how it can be prevented or if it exists.
I think we have enough comments from those two on that subject, I mean FFs those two are more profligate on sexism than Melissia is.
BrotherGecko wrote: Speaking of which what is exactly the Gamergate end game agenda and how is it being obtained? As of right now it looks more like the stuff I would see from 9-11 Truthers (which I have no strong opinions of in any direction). This stuff seems to be the rough equivalent to trashy day time tv then a movement with a message.
Given our voices are being stifled in many common discussion areas - the two most popular gamnig subs on reddit, 4chan, even twitter has had bans for covering gamergate, it's pretty hard for us to get a unified voice on the topic. There are some attempts coming out to outline our main goals but they're still being refined and discusses, mainly on 8chan and kotakuinaction on reddit.
The main things are:
- transparency on relationships
- no censorship
- balanced reporting
- no collusion to push agendas
There are some others of course.
There is ample evidence of substantial censorship and other wrongdoign against GamerGaters. Yes, there are some pieces where some have jumped the gun, but there are many where people have been confirmed to have been harassed at work, some losing their jobs, others having syringes sent to them and much more. There are many examples of journalists attacking gamers in their journalistic articles and on twitter. These people need to be held to a much higher standard than a random poster on the internet.
I will stick to here and what is said here.
Transparency on relationships- I would say that is reasonable to a degree. Exactly how transparent should they be about relationships that they have?
No Censorship- That one should be a given.Though were game review articles ever actually censored? And sometimes I would like to see the Trolls outright banned for the stuff they like to say.
Balanced Reporting- Given the nature of the medium I would say that is only ever going to be a work in progress. Video games tend to be a personal experience. A review should and will reflect that aspect. It is on the consumer to find a reviewer that is offering a point of view they are friendly towards.
No collusion to push agendas- This Is censorship and needs to be dropped. You can not ask some one to not censor you but then in turn ask them to censor themselves. If a group of journalists believe strongly in something then it is their right to make it a point of issue in the manner they best believe they will get it across. It is the responsibility of the consumer to move on if the disagree with the journalists underlying message. If transparency is achieved then you will know who the journalist knows or rather who also agrees with who and how they translate that message into their work.
Some of this stuff is borderline entitlement issues. The I WANT philosophy that permeates the gamer community as of late. I do not think it is the driving force mind you but it could easily cross into that territory.
BrotherGecko wrote: No collusion to push agendas- This Is censorship and needs to be dropped. You can not ask some one to not censor you but then in turn ask them to censor themselves. If a group of journalists believe strongly in something then it is their right to make it a point of issue in the manner they best believe they will get it across. It is the responsibility of the consumer to move on if the disagree with the journalists underlying message. If transparency is achieved then you will know who the journalist knows or rather who also agrees with who and how they translate that message into their work.
No. A list of journalists colluding to decide how to present a certain topic is absolutely not acceptable. If an individual decides to publish something like that on their own - fine. It's not censorship to stop vested interests in investment or politics, it's certainly not censorship to do it here either.
BrotherGecko wrote: Balanced Reporting- Given the nature of the medium I would say that is only ever going to be a work in progress. Video games tend to be a personal experience. A review should and will reflect that aspect. It is on the consumer to find a reviewer that is offering a point of view they are friendly towards.
Given the collusion to present a single opinion and the ostracising of those who present different opinions, it becomes increasingly hard to find a reviewer offering a diseenting opinion. We have multiple examples of those losing their jobs.
Some of this stuff is borderline entitlement issues. The I WANT philosophy that permeates the gamer community as of late. I do not think it is the driving force mind you but it could easily cross into that territory.
Yes, damn those consumers for having desires for the products they purchase! Monsters, the lot of them.
As an aside, for the whole "There are misogynists and a-holes and whatnot in the gaming community so I think the gaming community and the gamer identity should die" idea....
What groups are we cool with then? Because no group in the history of the world with more than like eight members hasn't had an a-hole or five in it. Sexual assault is fairly common in the armed forces. Should we disband the armed forces? Should we be against anyone who self identifies as a 'soldier' or 'marine' because there are indeed dicks in the services? It's the same for every group. I think the feminist identity needs to die because there is a minority of rabid a-holes in it. I think the entire world of sports should be shut down because some athletes and some sports fans are a-holes. Gearhead as an identity should be torn down because a guy in a rebuilt '67 Impala cut me off the other day. It's always easy to attack entire groups based on the actions of a small percentage of that community if you don't like them.
Obviously all groups must die then. In fact, i think I see the common denominator in all these problems. Humans -_- Well, you know what we have to do then
Yonan wrote: A list of journalists colluding to decide how to present a certain topic is absolutely not acceptable.
Why not? Nothing is preventing you from publishing your alternative point of view. Why do you care so much about other people organizing to decide how to present their opinions?
If an individual decides to publish something like that on their own - fine. It's not censorship to stop vested interests in investment or politics, it's certainly not censorship to do it here either.
IOW:
People opposing a point of view that you agree with = censorship.
You opposing a point of view that you disagree with = not censorship.
Given the collusion to present a single opinion and the ostracising of those who present different opinions, it becomes increasingly hard to find a reviewer offering a diseenting opinion.
So start your own website and publish some reviews. It seems like your issue here isn't censorship, it's the fact that you might have to work to get your own ideas out there instead of just sitting back and demanding that someone else give equal time to your point of view on their own website.
We have multiple examples of those losing their jobs.
And this is a surprise? If your boss says "write X" and you write Y instead why shouldn't you be fired? A writing job isn't a completely independent position where you're free to say whatever you want to say and still collect a paycheck, it's a job where you write what the company wants you to write. This is like expressing surprise that a GW store manager was fired for posting "go buy Infinity models instead" on their store's facebook page.
Speaking of which what is exactly the Gamergate end game agenda and how is it being obtained? As of right now it looks more like the stuff I would see from 9-11 Truthers (which I have no strong opinions of in any direction). This stuff seems to be the rough equivalent to trashy day time tv then a movement with a message.
You're speaking as if the people who support gamergate has a common hive mind. Hint, we don't. This has been pointed out before in previous pages. We can in fact disagree on a lot of things except for the fact we think gamergate is a legit issue
And this is a surprise? If your boss says "write X" and you write Y instead why shouldn't you be fired? A writing job isn't a completely independent position where you're free to say whatever you want to say and still collect a paycheck, it's a job where you write what the company wants you to write. This is like expressing surprise that a GW store manager was fired for posting "go buy Infinity models instead" on their store's facebook page.
Because a GW store manager carries the same connotations as a journalist. Ah Peregrine, your replies amuse me.
Sining wrote: You're speaking as if the people who support gamergate has a common hive mind. Hint, we don't. This has been pointed out before in previous pages. We can in fact disagree on a lot of things except for the fact we think gamergate is a legit issue
The point was that nobody seems to be able to agree on just what legit issue "gamergate" consists of. There are a lot of people who are unhappy about various semi-related things, but so far the only unifying issue seems to be "WE ARE UNHAPPY FOR REASONS".
Because a GW store manager carries the same connotations as a journalist.
Who cares what connotations you decide to attach to the job? You're not the one signing the paychecks. These were clearly jobs where the writers had very little independence and were expected to write what their bosses told them to write.
Sining wrote: If that was true, then more people other than Hybrid and Peregine would keep talking about sexism, ZQ and Anita -_-
You mean like the people I keep replying to when they bring up issues about sexism? It seems like every time I step away from this thread it's back to someone posting another article about how Anita sucks or how feminism is ruining everything. Remember this little summary image that the OP posted in the middle of complaining about how everyone keeps talking about sexism?
Sexism does not exist in the industry itself, but in the community it does. You are confusing the industry with community.
They are two seperate entities. That post is completely correct. There is no sexism that we know of in the games industry. As far as we know.
Women are treated extremely well in the gaming industry.
But in the community not so well.
Some of this stuff is borderline entitlement issues. The I WANT philosophy that permeates the gamer community as of late. I do not think it is the driving force mind you but it could easily cross into that territory.
I don't think labeling your sources and your opinions and saying whether not you are biased is hard to do.
I do it in every paper I do. And my teach always asks why. And I said because the entire piece is my opinion, no matter what I do that is still an opinion it may be objective, but it does not mean it is fully objective
Transparency on relationships- I would say that is reasonable to a degree. Exactly how transparent should they be about relationships that they have?
By labeling their articles as either editorials (opinion) or news (Objective)
I mean its not that hard. None of their articles have clearly labeled it.
Sources are also incorrect and are not put into a certain way under the guidelines for writing sources. These 'journalists' are not journalists as long as they continue to demonize their market.
I believe the sexism is part of the scandal aspect of this particular thread? Maybe the removal of comments in reference to the secondary party to the debate would reduce talks of feminism and such? Because the moment you throw the feminist conspiracy angle into the mix you invite the debates.
Remember the thread is about "The Gamergate, Scandal, Conspiracy, and Journalism Corruption" which involves the entire topic not just the stuff you want to talk about. What ever that may be.
Correct. IT is an issue but not in the industry itself. The main issue is that there is this whole idea that women need to be protected. In itself white knighting for someone of the opposite sex, because you think they are defenseless and need help.
Is completely and utterly sexist.
If they ask them to help them. Then it is not.
But all I see is idiots with swords and shields clanging and crying out into the sky say we are lower than them, say gamers are dead, we are nazis, we are worse than ISIS. We are homophobes.
Which is quite interesting.
I think the biggest problem is this broad brush people seem to paint the community. IT isn't really helping the community.
Anyone saying that gamers are acting too entitled. May I ask who has control over someones job the customer or the employee who's job is at risk?
The Customer is the consumer and by right they can demand for a quality product. If they are not given this quality product it is in violation of this sacred agreement.
I mean come on its like the first thing you learn in consumer management courses.
The same can be said about journalists.
If a journalists refuses to improve, then their boss should fire their ass faster than a bullet.
It is something in this media and community though. That the Media believes that they are more entitled and that they don't need the community. Which is funny because the media is useless to the community. They don't need.
They have never needed it. And now that gamers have learned that, they are becoming productive getting together moving against the bigots in their own community.
This is a stone that will start something more.
Maybe this is the entire gaming community, industry and media finally growing the hell up?
Sining wrote: If that was true, then more people other than Hybrid and Peregine would keep talking about sexism, ZQ and Anita -_-
You mean like the people I keep replying to when they bring up issues about sexism? It seems like every time I step away from this thread it's back to someone posting another article about how Anita sucks or how feminism is ruining everything. Remember this little summary image that the OP posted in the middle of complaining about how everyone keeps talking about sexism?
Sexism does not exist in the industry itself, but in the community it does. You are confusing the industry with community.
They are two seperate entities. That post is completely correct. There is no sexism that we know of in the games industry. As far as we know.
Women are treated extremely well in the gaming industry.
But in the community not so well.
How do you arrive to that answer when the post you are answering to makes no mention of either industry or community?
Asherian Command wrote: By labeling their articles as either editorials (opinion) or news (Objective)
Every review ever is going to be an editorial then. Unless it is only repeating the facts that the company told them, like the minimal configuration or other very basic stuff, which would be pretty useless. If you want to know about some game, just learning if it has multiplayer is not all that interesting, what you want to know is whether that multiplayer is good and fun to play, but this is always going to be subjective.
Sining wrote: If that was true, then more people other than Hybrid and Peregine would keep talking about sexism, ZQ and Anita -_-
You mean like the people I keep replying to when they bring up issues about sexism? It seems like every time I step away from this thread it's back to someone posting another article about how Anita sucks or how feminism is ruining everything. Remember this little summary image that the OP posted in the middle of complaining about how everyone keeps talking about sexism?
Sexism does not exist in the industry itself, but in the community it does. You are confusing the industry with community.
They are two seperate entities. That post is completely correct. There is no sexism that we know of in the games industry. As far as we know.
Women are treated extremely well in the gaming industry.
But in the community not so well.
If there is no sexism in the industry, why do games featuring Female Protagonists have to fight so hard to get made?
-DONTNOD's Remember Me spent years trying to find a publisher that would accept the "risk" of publishing a game with a female protagonist.
-2K eventually removed Elizabeth (Arguably the MAIN character rather than Booker in Bioshock Infinite) from the front cover because of "poor reception".
-Naughty Dog had to fight tooth and nail to keep Ellie on the front cover of The Last of Us.
-Don't even get me started on Beyond Good and Evil 2....
And that's just whats happened in recent memory; female characters are getting sidelined or just plain removed.
Now obviously having a female protagonist doesn't make a game better simply for that (Remember Me was woefully average, and I personally never really cared for BGaE), you cannot deny that apart from Samus and Lara, female characters are terribly represented.
Slarg232 wrote: Now obviously having a female protagonist doesn't make a game better simply for that (Remember Me was woefully average, and I personally never really cared for BGaE), you cannot deny that apart from Samus and Lara, female characters are terribly represented.
Slarg232 wrote: Now obviously having a female protagonist doesn't make a game better simply for that (Remember Me was woefully average, and I personally never really cared for BGaE), you cannot deny that apart from Samus and Lara, female characters are terribly represented.
I would be willing to bet a substantial amount that you could compile a list of male characters using the same criteria and get three times as long of a list, bar minimum.
How do you arrive to that answer when the post you are answering to makes no mention of either industry or community?
Because the question was there is sexism in the games industry. There isn't there never has been.
Every review ever is going to be an editorial then. Unless it is only repeating the facts that the company told them, like the minimal configuration or other very basic stuff, which would be pretty useless. If you want to know about some game, just learning if it has multiplayer is not all that interesting, what you want to know is whether that multiplayer is good and fun to play, but this is always going to be subjective.
Not talking about reviews talking about games in general if a game comes out from a major publisher and they cover it. We don't want to know what the opinion of the author is. That is news. Not your opinion on the matter. You can write an after thought, but we want facts.
If there is no sexism in the industry, why do games featuring Female Protagonists have to fight so hard to get made?
-DONTNOD's Remember Me spent years trying to find a publisher that would accept the "risk" of publishing a game with a female protagonist.
-2K eventually removed Elizabeth (Arguably the MAIN character rather than Booker in Bioshock Infinite) from the front cover because of "poor reception".
-Naughty Dog had to fight tooth and nail to keep Ellie on the front cover of The Last of Us.
-Don't even get me started on Beyond Good and Evil 2....
And that's just whats happened in recent memory; female characters are getting sidelined or just plain removed.
Now obviously having a female protagonist doesn't make a game better simply for that (Remember Me was woefully average, and I personally never really cared for BGaE), you cannot deny that apart from Samus and Lara, female characters are terribly represented.
Because publishers control what goes into the game. If any game designer throws an idea for a female protoganist guess what?
They get shot down usually. Its not a 'popular' subject. It is mostly due to the fact that the industry is trying to grow up but the publishers still hold all the cards.
And yes that bioshock thing was not really 2ks fault. They were forced into it. Critics are the ones to blame for alot of problems in the industry mainly journalists thinking it is stupid to have a sexy main protagonist.
And I disagree. Female characters are represented quite well in games itself.
Though most of them are from japan.
Most american made games usually have terrible female protagonists.
The japanese have more grown up standards for their characters. Like it or not.
Its like the difference between the reverence to the gun in japanese and american culture. American's love guns, but they see it as a tool. The Japanese see it as a weapon, that they only use in times of great peril, they revere it, fear it and honor it.
There is no sexism in the industry itself. There is no discrimination of real female people.
Discriminating against female characters is not that big of a deal.
But discriminating against real women is a problem. But that does not exist in the games industry.
No, nobody asked this question in the discussion you quoted.
Asherian Command wrote: Not talking about reviews talking about games in general if a game comes out from a major publisher and they cover it. We don't want to know what the opinion of the author is. That is news. Not your opinion on the matter. You can write an after thought, but we want facts.
So, you only want the journalist to forward the press release from the developers without adding any kind of value to it?
Asherian Command wrote: Because publishers control what goes into the game. If any game designer throws an idea for a female protoganist guess what?
They get shot down usually. Its not a 'popular' subject. It is mostly due to the fact that the industry is trying to grow up but the publishers still hold all the cards.
And yes that bioshock thing was not really 2ks fault.
So there is some sexist problem with the publishers, that are part of the industry, right?
Asherian Command wrote: Critics are the ones to blame for alot of problems in the industry mainly journalists thinking it is stupid to have a sexy main protagonist.
There are plenty of differences between America and Japan, though I wouldn't call either more grown up.
If we really wanted to bring publishers into the conversation, we could go into the argument of publishers "Wanting to diversify the audience", but yet refusing to make diverse characters, but that is a different subject entirely.
You are, however, going to have to expand on what you mean by Critics are to blame.
So there is some sexist problem with the publishers, that are part of the industry, right?
That is not sexism.
Hating an idea is not sexist.
They do not choose it because of gender, they pick it according to which game they think will sell better.
Now that is assuming that they are sexist. But I don't think they are.
I think they just choose not to. And that is not sexist.
Its not true sexism, sexism means you dislike it. In this view the publisher just doesn't want to do it. Because they think they might lose money from doing it.
If they make a quality game, what will the media think. They are a business and they need to think for the entire business they are in.
So if they take a risk like having a female character, it might not end well.
Because what will the critics think, what will the consumers think.
That is not sexism. That is just a problem with publishers. They don't like taking risks. Ever.
No, nobody asked this question in the discussion you quoted.
Peregrine said there is sexism in the industry. I am saying no there isn't. It doesn't exist as far as we know.
I… what?
That is the main reason why some characters in bioshock were cut off from the main cover, and many other characters are cut out, even if they are female its because a bunch of critics think it is dumb to have a strong female woman. And she shows some skin, like her arms and thats it. And thats considered too revealing by some critics. (I.E Feminist Critics)
If we really wanted to bring publishers into the conversation, we could go into the argument of publishers "Wanting to diversify the audience", but yet refusing to make diverse characters, but that is a different subject entirely.
You are, however, going to have to expand on what you mean by Critics are to blame.
Critics control what gets into a game. Before a game is released it is reviewed and looked through by the publishers or a trusted media associate.
That associate shares with others and then that game is criticized, sometimes they don't like certain things. And the designers have to remove or add something.
It is post production. It is something that happens quite often in the industry. The Critics control all the cards sometimes.
There are plenty of differences between America and Japan, though I wouldn't call either more grown up.
In terms of how they treat people in games. They are extremely grown up.
They take issues and they make them apparent.
I wasn't talking about television. But japan has numerous differences compared to the united states.
Aren't Samus Aran and Lara Croft pretty much Universally praised by Feminist Critics, despite one wearing a skin tight leotard and the other in short shorts and a bra?
Isn't American McGee's Alice Liddell seen as a strong character and a positive story despite the fact that the last boss is trying to rape her, which is usually considered lazy writing (Madness Returns, not the first one)?
Slarg232 wrote: Aren't Samus Aran and Lara Croft pretty much Universally praised by Feminist Critics, despite one wearing a skin tight leotard and the other in short shorts and a bra?
Isn't American McGee's Alice Liddell seen as a strong character and a positive story despite the fact that the last boss is trying to rape her, which is usually considered lazy writing (Madness Returns, not the first one)?
Yeah. But lets face it. That is still considered a risk by the publisher to put a female protagonist into the game.
It happens. But there are some feminists that think samus aran and lara croft are weak characters. Or just down right ignore them. Because they have larger breasts than they should.
Slarg232 wrote: If there is no sexism in the industry, why do games featuring Female Protagonists have to fight so hard to get made?
-DONTNOD's Remember Me spent years trying to find a publisher that would accept the "risk" of publishing a game with a female protagonist.
-2K eventually removed Elizabeth (Arguably the MAIN character rather than Booker in Bioshock Infinite) from the front cover because of "poor reception".
-Naughty Dog had to fight tooth and nail to keep Ellie on the front cover of The Last of Us.
-Don't even get me started on Beyond Good and Evil 2....
And that's just whats happened in recent memory; female characters are getting sidelined or just plain removed.
Now obviously having a female protagonist doesn't make a game better simply for that (Remember Me was woefully average, and I personally never really cared for BGaE), you cannot deny that apart from Samus and Lara, female characters are terribly represented.
I don't 100% disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure that most of the above has to do with market forces and demographics more than "Keeping the womenfolk down!". It's a bit like when Anthony B. Jordan got cast as The Human Torch in the upcoming Fantastic Four Pre-School Adventures movie, and everyone lost their gak 'cause a black guy was playing Human Torch. A lot of people assumed it was tokenism and people ticking diversity boxes but what it was more likely to be true is that he was chosen because he's seen as a hot property and the producers/studio wanted to cash in on that quickly. In other words, the phrase "Anthony B. Jordan is so hot right now!" was more likely than "We need a minority in this film!". I think the same applies to some of the above.
Asherian Command wrote: That is the main reason why some characters in bioshock were cut off from the main cover, and many other characters are cut out, even if they are female its because a bunch of critics think it is dumb to have a strong female woman. And she shows some skin, like her arms and thats it. And thats considered too revealing by some critics. (I.E Feminist Critics)
What the hell are you taking about? Alice has always been a strong female character that showed the skin of her arms, and no-one ever criticized that, especially not feminist critics, as far as I know.
Of course, this is different. We are not talking just showing a bit of skin here.
In what kind of bizarro word does a feminist critic ask for the removal of a strong female character that only shows the skin of her arms?
Asherian Command wrote: That is the main reason why some characters in bioshock were cut off from the main cover, and many other characters are cut out, even if they are female its because a bunch of critics think it is dumb to have a strong female woman. And she shows some skin, like her arms and thats it. And thats considered too revealing by some critics. (I.E Feminist Critics)
What the hell are you taking about? Alice has always been a strong female character that showed the skin of her arms, and no-one ever criticized that, especially not feminist critics, as far as I know. Of course, this is different. We are not talking just showing a bit of skin here. In what kind of bizarro word does a feminist critic ask for the removal of a strong female character that only shows the skin of her arms?
Thats not sexism that is immaturity. Big Difference.
I concede its not in his messages, but he did post the image and it did say that. and I was confirming that idea. IT doesn't exist in the industry but it does exist in the community though it is not as common as people like to think.
Anyway we need more sources to talk about the gamer gate issue.
Here we go find some from searching the #gamergate hashtag on twitter.
Did I use the word sexism in that message you quoted?
Asherian Command wrote: I concede its not in his messages, but he did post the image and it did say that.
He reposted an image you originally posted to show that you were starting discussion on sexism, not him. That image, if you disagree with it, why did you post it?
Did I use the word sexism in that message you quoted?
No but you implied it. You didn't outwardly say anything about that you have avoided using any word to describe it. I assumed you meant that.
He reposted an image you originally posted to show that you were starting discussion on sexism, not him. That image, if you disagree with it, why did you post it?
I agree with the picture. But it doesn't say anything about the community itself. The picture is right. You didn't read my post. You willfully ignore my points and just make an assumption and take it 180 degrees to the left. You need to rethink your argument because thus far you have not outwardly stated anything.
I am merely explaining what goes on. And what happens in it. I have debunking the idea of sexism in the industry.
Also on LOL being sexist.
You do realize half the games characters are women right?
And that there are a bunch of female designers in the company that made LOL.
Having sexy outfits is not sexist or a problem. It the portrayal of them that really matters.
Clothing does not make the character.
I have said this hundreds of times.
Just because the Prince of Persia doesn't wear a shirt does not make him a whore. Less clothing does not mean they are trying to be sexist, they are artists and as far as I am aware they can do whatever they damn well please.
Asherian Command wrote: That is the main reason why some characters in bioshock were cut off from the main cover, and many other characters are cut out, even if they are female its because a bunch of critics think it is dumb to have a strong female woman. And she shows some skin, like her arms and thats it. And thats considered too revealing by some critics. (I.E Feminist Critics)
What the hell are you taking about? Alice has always been a strong female character that showed the skin of her arms, and no-one ever criticized that, especially not feminist critics, as far as I know.
Of course, this is different. We are not talking just showing a bit of skin here.
In what kind of bizarro word does a feminist critic ask for the removal of a strong female character that only shows the skin of her arms?
Thats not sexism that is immaturity. Big Difference.
I concede its not in his messages, but he did post the image and it did say that. and I was confirming that idea. IT doesn't exist in the industry but it does exist in the community though it is not as common as people like to think.
Anyway we need more sources to talk about the gamer gate issue.
Here we go find some from searching the #gamergate hashtag on twitter.
He should play the race card. I bet that'll confuse the SJWs.
Probably won't work compared to what is going on.
The Journalists are on the defensive right now.
I can’t directly speak for anyone else’s experiences but my own in this situation, but I can say this much. Gamergate has been very welcoming to me as a human being and what I have to say as a critic and editorialist, while the other side has not. The narrative that I have been told is not matching up with the experience that I’ve had. When a clearly identified and not anonymous minority is able to easily corroborate many parts of the overarching Gamergate fiasco from the bottom with his own experience, I would suggest many of the sites in question and anti-GamerGate people take a seriously hard look at their position and consider the possibility that they may be in the wrong in this scenario.
Asherian Command wrote: No but you implied it. You didn't outwardly say anything about that you have avoided using any word to describe it. I assumed you meant that.
I said feminists critics would likely object to that, and with good reasons.
I think having only, or even having a huge majority of, sexy outfits is a problem. Also, the outfits are only part of the character design, the rest matters too, like the poses and the body types.
Asherian Command wrote: Just because the Prince of Persia doesn't wear a shirt does not make him a whore.
Few clothing is not the same as sexy clothing. You can be less sexualized naked than with clothing.
Few clothing is not the same as sexy clothing. You can be less sexualized naked than with clothing.
Yes and whats the difference. Without your shirt on is seen as sexualized to the extreme.
IF a woman took her top off. Everyone wold cry SEXUALIZED! NUDITY!
But a guy! Oh hey man hows it going.
That is a double standard and it has to die.
I think having only, or even having a huge majority of, sexy outfits is a problem. Also, the outfits are only part of the character design, the rest matters too, like the poses and the body types.
Yes but some characters it makes sense for them to do that.
Jinx is insane as her character she doesn't wear that much clothing because she is a gun happy girl.
She doesn't care what people think of her.
That is something that happens. As long as it makes sense to the character.
But the clothing does not make the character.
The character makes the character.
Just because they have sexy outfits does not mean it is bad.
I did not say sexist. On purpose.
Yes you did you have expressed that women would object to it.
In what way other than being sexist?
I said feminists critics would likely object to that, and with good reasons.
Art is Art if you don't like it then ignore it.
Don't demand an artist to change their interpretation.
Works the same as for women: depend on how it is done. Add Chippendale-style shirt cuff and collar without the shirt itself, and you will get a whole deal closer. Poses do a lot too.
If it makes sense for a huge majority of your female character rooster but none or next to none of your male character rooster, you might reconsider how you design characters.
I said feminist critics would object to it. Do you think feminist critics would not object to it? Because I can show you ton of feminist critics objecting to it.
A product made by a big company to make money is a product made by a big company to make money. If that product is not to my taste, I will let this known.
A product made by a big company to make money is a product made by a big company to make money. If that product is not to my taste, I will let this known.
Games are consider both an art and a product so that line of thinking doesn't work anymore XD
Comics should be considered an art form. They are very close to books.
The thing is that people see the game maker as a toy maker.
Toy makers make things for childern and sometimes adults.
But a game is different as is a comic book. A comic book has both art and and dialogue.
They are two seperate things entirely.
You can't say. WEll both have to do it.
That is wrong.
If you can't censor a book, you should not be able to decide what goes into a game or a comic book.
Comic books were destroyed by a moron who was very much like jack thompson.
I don't think it works Hybrid. Though I am extremely biased. I see games as an art form. IT is never really a product. IT is a labor that makes an artwork that will last for generations.
But the consumer can demand that the art be better. That is fine. But if it harms the artistic image, then no.
Asherian Command wrote: If you can't censor a book, you should not be able to decide what goes into a game or a comic book.
Sigh. How many times do I have to say this? NOBODY IS CENSORING VIDEO GAMES. You, along with every game developer, are still free to publish whatever games you want. You might get criticized for your choices and you might not make much money if the customers don't like your product, but they can't stop you from publishing your game and selling it to anyone who wants to buy it. A for-profit business voluntarily making changes to their product to maximize sales is NOT the same thing as censorship. And you know this just as well as I do, because you don't start an epic crusade against censorship every time gamers demand that a console game be released for PCs, criticize the ending of a video game that disappointed them, etc.
In fact, according to your own standards here, YOU are guilty of censorship. You keep telling people to get out of the thread if they post something you consider off-topic, you celebrate the "death" of game journalism websites that are on the "wrong" side of the issue, and you expect people who are advocating more gender equality in games to shut up and stop making demands that you don't approve of. So how do you justify this hypocrisy?
Comic books were not destroyed by Fredric Wertham, and I'd say the fact that books like Saga and Sex Criminals can exist alongside superhero stories shows that comics are doing alright for themselves these days in terms of content variety.
Asherian Command wrote: If you can't censor a book, you should not be able to decide what goes into a game or a comic book.
Sigh. How many times do I have to say this? NOBODY IS CENSORING VIDEO GAMES. You, along with every game developer, are still free to publish whatever games you want. You might get criticized for your choices and you might not make much money if the customers don't like your product, but they can't stop you from publishing your game and selling it to anyone who wants to buy it. A for-profit business voluntarily making changes to their product to maximize sales is NOT the same thing as censorship. And you know this just as well as I do, because you don't start an epic crusade against censorship every time gamers demand that a console game be released for PCs, criticize the ending of a video game that disappointed them, etc.
In fact, according to your own standards here, YOU are guilty of censorship. You keep telling people to get out of the thread if they post something you consider off-topic, you celebrate the "death" of game journalism websites that are on the "wrong" side of the issue, and you expect people who are advocating more gender equality in games to shut up and stop making demands that you don't approve of. So how do you justify this hypocrisy?
Actually, you don't have to tell someone to stop or else in order to censor them.
By not giving certain games a voice, you essentially censor them by not giving them a megaphone in the sea of other people you've given megaphones.
Can Igo sliiiiightly off topic and ask when was the press on Five Nights at Freddy's? Because I'd never heard about that game and suddenly it's EVERYWHERE. It popped out of the ground like some sort of shambling zombie.
Peregrine wrote: Sigh. How many times do I have to say this? NOBODY IS CENSORING VIDEO GAMES
Peregrine, I'm wondering if we've had a failure to communicate.
We've gone back and forth a little bit on censorship.
When I was talking about it, I meant in regards to the attempted silence of debate about GamerGate. For example, the Reddit graveyard, the recent 4chan purge, Ben Kuchera trying to convince Greg Tito to shut down the Escapist thread.
Did you think I was talking about censorship in games?
VorpalBunny74 wrote: Peregrine, I'm wondering if we've had a failure to communicate.
You're right. You quoted a post aimed at someone else who was talking about "censorship" of video games and responded to it as if I was responding to something you said. I wasn't.
When I was talking about it, I meant in regards to the attempted silence of debate about GamerGate. For example, the Reddit graveyard, the recent 4chan purge, Ben Kuchera trying to convince Greg Tito to shut down the Escapist thread.
But that isn't really silencing, because there are countless other places to discuss the subject. A host saying "we don't want this on our site" is not the same thing as someone saying "you can't discuss this".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slarg232 wrote: Actually, you don't have to tell someone to stop or else in order to censor them.
Yes you do, because that's what censorship is: the removal of content by force.
By not giving certain games a voice, you essentially censor them by not giving them a megaphone in the sea of other people you've given megaphones.
Err, lol? So now it's censorship if people don't make a special effort to help you speak and reach a larger audience? That sounds like a pretty entitled attitude to have.
CorporateLogo wrote: Comic books were not destroyed by Fredric Wertham, and I'd say the fact that books like Saga and Sex Criminals can exist alongside superhero stories shows that comics are doing alright for themselves these days in terms of content variety.
They technically where. They had a massive drop in sales and places no longer carried them.
They were hurt for a very long time. And they still haven't recovered.
In fact, according to your own standards here, YOU are guilty of censorship. You keep telling people to get out of the thread if they post something you consider off-topic, you celebrate the "death" of game journalism websites that are on the "wrong" side of the issue, and you expect people who are advocating more gender equality in games to shut up and stop making demands that you don't approve of. So how do you justify this hypocrisy?
I am only guilty of being an idiot sometimes. But sometimes saying two people need to rethink their stances and actually read statements said by others instead OF cherry picking a conversation apart.
I have said that there is alot of issue with trying to get gender equality in games. I support it, but the realist in me says no. It won't happen. We have to do it slowly.
We can't just sit down and say. "Okay everyone lets make every character female from now on!
That doesn't help the issue. And that is what many people advocating for in multiple threads. Its not only stupid, but it is the most childish idea ever. That is ignoring 95% of the problems.
We do not need more female characters. We need better characters in general.
And don't even start with me Peregrine. You have made quite a few statements that are quite false and hypocritical.
But hey at least I admit my faults.
There are many things in the gaming industry that need to change. Mostly representation of women. But that is a issue that will come back.
But that is not an issue in gamergate.
The feminist side makes it out to be like that. Or the hipster side is trying to make that a major point and it is flat out wrong. It is not what this movement is about. Read the articles and stop cherry picking statements. Argue THE WHOLE statement. Not just the statements you disagree with.
Sigh. How many times do I have to say this? NOBODY IS CENSORING VIDEO GAMES. You, along with every game developer, are still free to publish whatever games you want. You might get criticized for your choices and you might not make much money if the customers don't like your product, but they can't stop you from publishing your game and selling it to anyone who wants to buy it. A for-profit business voluntarily making changes to their product to maximize sales is NOT the same thing as censorship. And you know this just as well as I do, because you don't start an epic crusade against censorship every time gamers demand that a console game be released for PCs, criticize the ending of a video game that disappointed them, etc.
That is technically censorship. Not allowing someone to do something or criticizing them and pressuring them into doing something you want because you don't want that thing to be covered.
Is censorship. It is the worse type of censorship, it prevents artists from displaying their opinions on the matter.
A few years back there was a designer who made a game about the holocaust and was banned by the united states from making the darn thing because it might hurt peoples feelings. He did it anyway.
And guess what. The game never came out, and his career was destroyed.
He was using the game to teach people about the holocaust. what people went through, It was going to be a tool to do this.
Yes you do, because that's what censorship is: the removal of content by force.
Not all the time it can be as suddle as marking someone out.
a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively
: a person who examines books, movies, letters, etc., and removes things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc.
It does not require force. IT requires action. Two different words.
Action can be as suttle as marking it black. Or blurring something It does not have to be large and extravegant,
It is a huge issue.
Err, lol? So now it's censorship if people don't make a special effort to help you speak and reach a larger audience? That sounds like a pretty entitled attitude to have.
Technically it is censorship just a lower form of it. It happens and you unwillingly block out that groups voice.
Hence why it is better to generalize in certain situations. I.E. Opinion pieces on how to improve your house... Or who to vote for.
But that isn't really silencing, because there are countless other places to discuss the subject. A host saying "we don't want this on our site" is not the same thing as someone saying "you can't discuss this".
Oh that is silencing someone's voice. A large public forum just decided to say. "NOPE! CAN'T Talk about that!"
Is silencing.
It is like that either because the moderator doesn't agree at all, or they are being asked to do it because someone else disagrees.
It does not happen because some idiot makes a stupid post and insults someone. That doesn't happen in 4chan or reddit.
Those are public forums. Not telling your users why you are doing that is a huge problem.
Asherian Command wrote: But sometimes saying two people need to rethink their stances and actually read statements said by others instead OF cherry picking a conversation apart.
Censorship.
We can't just sit down and say. "Okay everyone lets make every character female from now on!
Censorship.
Its not only stupid, but it is the most childish idea eve.r
Censorship.
We do not need more female characters.
Censorship.
But that is not an issue in gamergate.
And yet you, and other people on "your side" keep bringing it up.
Read the articles and stop cherry picking statements. Argue THE WHOLE statement. Not just the statements you disagree with.
Censorship.
It is the worse type of censorship, it prevents artists from displaying their opinions on the matter.
It does no such thing. "Artists" are still free to display their opinions on the matter, they just aren't entitled to collect a paycheck and other support from their employers while doing so. You need to learn the difference between censorship and declining to offer support to something you disagree with.
A few years back there was a designer who made a game about the holocaust and was banned by the united states from making the darn thing because it might hurt peoples feelings. He did it anyway.
No such thing ever happened. Nor would it even be possible for it to happen, as the US has no power to ban games with legal but offensive content.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asherian Command wrote: Action can be as suttle as marking it black. Or blurring something It does not have to be large and extravegant,
Oh FFS, you still don't get it. The person marking something black is doing it with government authority behind their actions, and the threat of jail time or other consequences if you don't submit your work to be censored. That's why it's done by force, not because someone is literally holding a gun to a person's head and saying "take this out".
And, like it or not, the simple fact here is that no such thing is happening in the case of games. People are saying "we don't like X" and for-profit businesses are potentially deciding that including X is not a good business decision, but nobody is being forced to remove X against their will. If you want to publish a game with X in it you are free to do so, and nobody can stop you.
Technically it is censorship just a lower form of it. It happens and you unwillingly block out that groups voice.
And now your definition of "censorship" has gone far beyond any conventional definition. It seems like the real issue here isn't censorship, it's that you're unhappy that your opinion isn't shared by the majority and you feel entitled to an equal share of the discussion even if it means that other people have to help you publish your ideas.
A large public forum just decided to say. "NOPE! CAN'T Talk about that!"
I don't think you understand the difference between public and private forums. A website's comment section is a private forum, and the people running it have every right to determine what is and isn't allowed there. This is no different than having guests over for dinner and asking them to refrain from talking about politics.
Is silencing.
No it isn't. If you want to speak you are free to do so. Declining to provide someone a platform to speak from is not the same thing as silencing them.
Those are public forums. Not telling your users why you are doing that is a huge problem.
And again with the entitlement. The fact that you want something does not mean that someone else is obligated to provide you with it. If you don't like how a private website runs their discussion area then don't participate in it. The fact that you disagree with their policies does not mean that you are being oppressed, or that there is any moral issue here.
Peregrine wrote: You're right. You quoted a post aimed at someone else who was talking about "censorship" of video games and responded to it as if I was responding to something you said. I wasn't.
My mistake and apologies.
Peregrine wrote: But that isn't really silencing, because there are countless other places to discuss the subject. A host saying "we don't want this on our site" is not the same thing as someone saying "you can't discuss this".
It isn't 'countless places' when you can count them on one hand. The Escapist is the only major video game news website that has allowed a continued discussion on GamerGate.
Also, a host saying "we don't want this on our site" should hopefully clarify why.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: It isn't 'countless places' when you can count them on one hand. The Escapist is the only major video game news website that has allowed a continued discussion on GamerGate.
That's only because you're arbitrarily limiting it to places where you can have a large audience for your opinion. "None of the people who have a large audience want to give me a platform to speak from" is not the same thing as censorship. You're still free to post your opinion on the countless smaller sites, start your own site, etc. And hey, that's exactly what you're doing right now.
Also, a host saying "we don't want this on our site" should hopefully clarify why.
You might want that clarification, but you aren't entitled to receive it. And you aren't being censored or oppressed if they don't give it to you.
Peregrine wrote: That's only because you're arbitrarily limiting it to places where you can have a large audience for your opinion. "None of the people who have a large audience want to give me a platform to speak from" is not the same thing as censorship. You're still free to post your opinion on the countless smaller sites, start your own site, etc. And hey, that's exactly what you're doing right now.
Well, yes. I want to know what other gamers are thinking about these issues. As far as GamerGate goes, that's increasingly hard to do on video game websites, due to rigorous censorship. If certain video game websites are concerned about discussing corruption that they might have been involved in, they could take a page from actual journalism:
This is the NY times NOT burying its head in the sand over a scandal they were involved in.
Peregrine wrote: You might want that clarification, but you aren't entitled to receive it. And you aren't being censored or oppressed if they don't give it to you.
And yet you, and other people on "your side" keep bringing it up.
I do not bring up female representation other people do. And I clarify and say no.
Censorship.
Nope. You can think that but it doesn't make you right.
I don't think you understand the difference between public and private forums. A website's comment section is a private forum, and the people running it have every right to determine what is and isn't allowed there. This is no different than having guests over for dinner and asking them to refrain from talking about politics.
Incorrect. A public forum can be used by anonymous users.
4chan is a public a forum. It is not private in the least anyone can get onto 4chan and discuss things. It is controlled and maintained but it is still an open public forum.
It does not allow the moderators to attack someone.
Private forums are invite only.
There is a huge difference between a public forum and a private forum.
And now your definition of "censorship" has gone far beyond any conventional definition. It seems like the real issue here isn't censorship, it's that you're unhappy that your opinion isn't shared by the majority and you feel entitled to an equal share of the discussion even if it means that other people have to help you publish your ideas.
I think most people here have agreed with me on several issues. And where are you getting these ideas from? O.o
I said there are multiple layers of censorship. Which in itself is a true statement.
No such thing ever happened. Nor would it even be possible for it to happen, as the US has no power to ban games with legal but offensive content.
Censorship does not have to be by a governmental body. It just has to be a group of people saying nope. That won't work.
I don't think you understand the difference between public and private forums. A website's comment section is a private forum, and the people running it have every right to determine what is and isn't allowed there. This is no different than having guests over for dinner and asking them to refrain from talking about politics.
Heres the difference unlike a public forum which everyone can join in. A private forum is invite only. Those people were invited by you, so you have every right to say no political discussions. But if it is not invite only, and it is not your house, and anyone can walk in and say anything they want. Then it is no longer private.
Its public.
No it isn't. If you want to speak you are free to do so. Declining to provide someone a platform to speak from is not the same thing as silencing them.
Hahaha. That is censorship. All you have to do is have a public debate and say no you we won't let you speak. That is again CENSORSHIP. and silencing discussion.
They are. My point. It apparently went over your head.
Asherian Command wrote: If you can't censor a book, you should not be able to decide what goes into a game or a comic book.
And what is preventing me from criticizing a book and saying what I would like to read?
Asherian Command wrote: Comic books were destroyed by a moron who was very much like jack thompson.
Comic books are very much alive.
Asherian Command wrote: I don't think it works Hybrid. Though I am extremely biased. I see games as an art form. IT is never really a product. IT is a labor that makes an artwork that will last for generations.
You certainly seem to forget who is paying your bills, here.
Now, if you want to live the way of Picasso, you will get total artistic freedom.
The artistic image of having every goddamn female character in the game extremely sexualized, while non of the males are?
Ah ah.
Slarg232 wrote: Actually, you don't have to tell someone to stop or else in order to censor them.
By not giving certain games a voice, you essentially censor them by not giving them a megaphone in the sea of other people you've given megaphones.
OMFG PICASSO WAS SO MUCH CENSORED, NOBODY GAVE HIM A VOICE IN HIS WHOLE LIFE.
We all know how this ended.
Asherian Command wrote: We do not need more female characters. We need better characters in general.
We talked about that enough already. You like fully fleshed out, no customization possible characters. Some people like customizable or placeholder characters. Both should exists to satisfy everybody, and both should provide a wide range of female options.
So, this is about Nintendo. But looking through the whole article, it seems to me the real problem is that he sadly did not get the funding he needed from the indiegogo campaign, rather than Nintendo. Also, you must be so mad at Apple .
Remember that image you posted that contains an argument about how female representation in games isn't an issue?
Censorship.
Nope. You can think that but it doesn't make you right.
I don't just think that, I'm indisputably correct. You have made it very clear that you consider it censorship if someone says "stop doing X, I don't like it" (as the feminist groups are doing to video game developers). And yet you keep saying "stop doing X, I don't like it". So I can conclude from this that either you're in favor of censorship, or that your definition of censorship consists of "saying something I don't like".
4chan is a public a forum. It is not private in the least anyone can get onto 4chan and discuss things. It is controlled and maintained but it is still an open public forum.
Wrong again. It's a private forum because it is owned and controlled by an individual (or private corporation, in other cases), and you are only permitted to post there as long as the owner(s) allow you to. They might currently have a policy of granting permission to post very generously, but they are under no obligation to continue that policy.
Oh FFS, did you even read anything about this game? You claimed that the developer "was banned by the united states from making the darn thing because it might hurt peoples feelings", and no such thing ever happened. Some people thought the subject was controversial, and the publisher (a private corporation, not the US government) decided not to sell it. Meanwhile the developer decided to take their work elsewhere, and the US government continued to do absolutely nothing to prevent them from making it.
Censorship does not have to be by a governmental body. It just has to be a group of people saying nope. That won't work.
Only because you're using your own personal definition of "censorship" that has nothing to do with the real one. A company saying "nope, we don't think that will be a good business decision" is NOT censorship because you are still free to publish your ideas elsewhere. This is just your entitled opinion that everyone is obligated to help you publish your ideas, and if they don't they're censoring you.
Heres the difference unlike a public forum which everyone can join in. A private forum is invite only. Those people were invited by you, so you have every right to say no political discussions. But if it is not invite only, and it is not your house, and anyone can walk in and say anything they want. Then it is no longer private.
This is just laughably wrong. The fact that someone is generous in allowing people to come onto their property and speak does NOT mean that you have an inherent right to continue speaking even when the owner doesn't want you to. This is an appallingly entitled attitude, more like something I'd expect to hear from a spoiled child than a mature adult.
All you have to do is have a public debate and say no you we won't let you speak..
And that's not what is happening here. There is no public debate because the conversation is happening on a private website. This isn't censorship, it's you acting like you're entitled to have someone help you present your opinion to a major audience and claiming oppression when they say no.
But for those of you that can't be bothered, he's a full transcript:
We are Gamers We are alive.
We believe that games are an art form that should be allowed to flourish and evolve naturally and freely and should thus be protected from the dogmatic rhetoric of a clique of totalitarian ideologues who seek only to reign over an intellectually monolithic empire.
We believe that the free flow of ideas and information is necessary for an informed, free democratic society to function and condemn all attempts to use disinformation, censorship and bullying to disrupt free discussion.
We believe that a Fifth Estate worthy of that name needs to be ethical, transparent, free from conflicts of interests and independent from undue outside influence to merit the trust of the public, the real and only source of its legitimacy.
We denounce the mercantilization of debased social justice and thus believe it is our responsibility to inform sponsors and partners of the moral corruption they implicitly endorse through their advertisements.
We resist the careerist writers who sacrifice social harmony, human ethics and intellectual honesty on the altar of Controversy, in their quest for clicks in attempt to please their corporate owners’ cupidity.
We refuse to forego our legitimate right to think for ourselves, and resist those who want us to serve as a passive, obedient, subservient audience whose only function is to listen and believe the propaganda of culture war profiteers and patented gurus who prey on the gullible.
We reject harassment, threats, abuse; and the use of those terms to mislabel questions, dissent and criticism which are all essential parts of any rational, logical, respectful social discussion.
We reject the Industry of Outrage and its shame-based economic model which parades calculated victimhood and fabricated martyrs to distract from its own sins while panhandling for the sympathy of the morally manipulated masses.
We reject the ideological megaphones who perpetually parrot their prejudiced hate which they attempt to masquerade as progressive political preferences to disguise their own self-centered ethically bankrupt behavior.
We reject the meticulous and deliberate manufacturing of self-fulfilling prophecies by self-aggrandizing and recognition-starved academics who have neither knowledge nor care for games, developers and gamers.
We believe that misogyny does exist, is toxic, and that trivializing its true gravity by throwing the term around as a ready-made decoy to stonewall any constructive dialogue is intellectually dishonest and immoral.
We believe that we are humans first; and that the use of our gender, sexual orientation, religious or ethnic identities as mere commodities, to be traded on the open market, in return for ideological brownie points objectifies, exploits and ultimately dehumanizes us all.
We are of all genders, skin colors, sexual orientations, cultures, creeds, ages, education levels and social classes To you, those things should divide us Yet here we stand, united.
Because we are not divided by those identities we didn't choose We are united by the one identity we did choose.
I dear hope you are joking. I didn't like the article XD.
Not because of the writing style but because shesh really?
Way to go on a neutral standing NPR. XD
I'm just going to throw this out there. But maybe they did?
Being fully serious here too. This person may not be nearly as attached to the topic as you and is presenting what they found. Or you know feminist conspiracies and such.
I'm waiting for the third group to arise out of both sides and notices either side isn't innocent or inherently right.
@H.B.M.C : that is the best argument I've seen for the Gamergate movement. Unfortunately it is a lot of vague wording as to what exactly are they implying. Other then deliberately saying we do not approve of the Anita person. Which isn't really that relevant to them she has the right to do what she does as much as the Gamergate movement does too.
Really they just need to leave that stuff behind as it is just miring the whole situation in politics. Or maybe they could reach across the isle and start enlisting the opposite end with good honest points of view.
BrotherGecko wrote: I'm waiting for the third group to arise out of both sides and notices either side isn't innocent or inherently right.
We've acknowledged that:
1. Trolls exist fanning the flames against both sides.
2. Pro-GG starting out of the Quinnspiracy thing was not ideal as it's not what GG is about but makes it seem like it's about being anti-feminism or anti-female.
3. There are many individuals on our side, and since we've been repeatedly censored and have no gaming media publishing our side, that makes some people go further than they should to try to get their voice heard.
Neither side is innocent, but one side is *far* more wrong when you add up collusion amongst journalists to present a unified anti-gamer viewpoint (proven with gamejournolist), collusion to censor the topic on most popular discussion forums (proven with banned mods on reddit, 4chan and gamejournolist requests for the same and so on) which combine to a vast disparity in the strength of our voices which greatly helps sell their side of the story primarily by silencing ours. Zoe Quinn was possibly doxxed (possibly faked) - it got huge gaming media coverage. Boogie, Baldwin and several others were doxxed... media silence. People have been fired and others have had attempts to get them fired because they spoke out for gamergate... media silence. We're relying on outside coverage to get our voice heard.
BrotherGecko wrote: I know right. Why would a journalist interview a major player in the event when that person is somebody you don't like. Like fer realz yo!
Don't be intentionally obtuse. Leigh Alexander is a hateful, spiteful person who has done nothing but put out hate-mongering tweets/articles since this began. This isn't just because it's "somebody I don't like".
We believe that games are an art form that should be allowed to flourish and evolve naturally and freely and should thus be protected from the dogmatic rhetoric of a clique of totalitarian ideologues who seek only to reign over an intellectually monolithic empire.
These are indie developers also responding to GamerGate. Majority on this list wished to remain anonymous, for fear of attacks.
Update: also, went to the gamergateharrassment tumblr, but it's been inexplicably replaced by some bodybuilder gak. It's spelled gamergateharassment, with just ONE "R". The one with 2 "Rs" is the fake.
I'm waiting for the third group to arise out of both sides and notices either side isn't innocent or inherently right.
I don't think that is going to happen. The third rational side isn't coming to the rescue. They are staying the heck away from this whole mess. No one with half a brain would want to jump in and try to be the reasonable one. There is simply too much gack involved to get at the handful of meaningful issues. (You might end up getting the third side that goes kill half the puppies, but ya.)
We believe that games are an art form that should be allowed to flourish and evolve naturally and freely and should thus be protected from the dogmatic rhetoric of a clique of totalitarian ideologues who seek only to reign over an intellectually monolithic empire.
Ah ah ah!
I'd ask you to stop trolling, but that would require more effort that I'm willing to expend on you at this point...
Slarg232 wrote: Actually, you don't have to tell someone to stop or else in order to censor them.
Yes you do, because that's what censorship is: the removal of content by force.
By not giving certain games a voice, you essentially censor them by not giving them a megaphone in the sea of other people you've given megaphones.
Err, lol? So now it's censorship if people don't make a special effort to help you speak and reach a larger audience? That sounds like a pretty entitled attitude to have.
We believe that games are an art form that should be allowed to flourish and evolve naturally and freely and should thus be protected from the dogmatic rhetoric of a clique of totalitarian ideologues who seek only to reign over an intellectually monolithic empire.
Ah ah ah!
I'd ask you to stop trolling, but that would require more effort that I'm willing to expend on you at this point...
What's trolling about it? That quote is just hilarious, laughing at it is the only reasonable response. I mean, really, "totalitarian ideologues"? Games as a "freely flourishing art form"? Someone doesn't seem to understand that games are a for-profit business built around milking the cash cow as efficiently as possible, not great works of art made by poor persecuted artists who just want to let their voices be heard. And it just gets better from there. The whole thing is the kind of dramatic speech you'd expect to hear in a rebellion against an evil dictatorship, not a mess of twitter drama where the core argument seems to be outrage that the equivalent of celebrity gossip magazines aren't respectable enough in their Real Serious Journalism about the latest toys.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I'd ask you to stop trolling, but that would require more effort that I'm willing to expend on you at this point...
All it takes for him to gracefully exit a thread though is to call him out on his blatantly false stances and unjustified insults, which is relevant to this thread too thankfully:
Yonan wrote: It looks like there may have been more to the whole "4chan against Emma Watson" thing:
The people behind the "Emma Watson your next" thing, currently trying to frame 4chan, might be a company called rantic. Seems like it's a company that basically creates drama and then profits from it. Or perhaps they were doing it at the behest of some third party. What else have they done? Evidence in the thread I linked. Wait for more evidence before completely freaking out though. The research is in progress. If you can help them out, by gathering and (as importantly) archiving evidence, do so please.
If this pans out, it looks like there are outside groups with agendas to push that's seriously impacting online/gamer culture which is pretty fethed.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Damn. I would not have guessed my analysis of Yonan was that much spot-on. I hear tinfoils hat protect from gaming journalists mind control devices!
I shouldn't reply to you, but did you at least look at the evidence collected so far? "emmayouarenext.com is owned by a PR/marketing firm by the name of http://www.rantic.com/ " which funnily enough if you go there is now "Rantic Social Media Marketers. is currently undergoing scheduled maintenance."
" We have been hired by celebrity publicists to bring this disgusting issue to attention. The recent 4chan celebrity nude leaks in the past 2 months have been an invasion of privacy and is also clear indication that the internet NEEDS to be censored. Every Facebook like, share & Twitter mention will count as a social signature -- and will be one step closer to shutting down www.4chan.org. "
Sincerely, Rantic.com
Third parties muddying the waters, blatantly lying and running interference during GamerGate. 4chan is still regarded by most to be on the pro-GG side (though this is no longer the case since Moot cleaned house and banned all discussion of it). By blatantly lying and saying 4chan were threatening to leak nudes of Emma Watson straight after her - awesome - speech on feminism at the UN, it's clearly going to have an unjustified negative impact on the pro-gamergate stance. Multiple news outlets jumped on the "4chan is the bad" when the threat went up. No apologies after proven false, and only one or two sites have covered the Rantic admission of having done it. Screw the media.
Yonan wrote: Multiple news outlets jumped on the "4chan is the bad" when the threat went up.
Was it too hasty? Perhaps, but you should consider asking why the "4chan did it" story seemed so plausible and nobody was protesting that they would never do such a thing.
This really has nothing to do with the thread. And it doesn't even have anything to do with his argument. Guys, why are you even bothering with Peregrine, a person who self-admittedly said he only posts when he's certain he's right? I mean, do you think he's going to suddenly change his mind? Or even be open to other peoples opinions that don't coincide with his?
Sining wrote: This really has nothing to do with the thread. And it doesn't even have anything to do with his argument. Guys, why are you even bothering with Peregrine, a person who self-admittedly said he only posts when he's certain he's right? I mean, do you think he's going to suddenly change his mind? Or even be open to other peoples opinions that don't coincide with his?
I have said this before, but:
Why is this even relevant?
The other side of the debate (Asherian, HBMC etc) are not exactly the type to change their minds, either, but curiously this is not something you adress.
Or perhaps you can give me some examples of their concessions ITT.
At this point, none of you are going to convince one another. You all have very defined opinions.
The ones you are trying to convince are the thread's passive observers.
Games as a "freely flourishing art form"? Someone doesn't seem to understand that games are a for-profit business built around milking the cash cow as efficiently as possible, not great works of art made by poor persecuted artists who just want to let their voices be heard.
Yeah, because art hasn't been made to milk for cash these last bunch of years? "Art" is just as much of a cash cow as those games.
Ashiraya wrote: The other side of the debate (Asherian, HBMC etc) are not exactly the type to change their minds, either, but curiously this is not something you adress.
Or perhaps you can give me some examples of their concessions ITT.
Ashiraya wrote: The other side of the debate (Asherian, HBMC etc) are not exactly the type to change their minds, either, but curiously this is not something you adress.
Or perhaps you can give me some examples of their concessions ITT.
The other side of the debate (Asherian, HBMC etc) are not exactly the type to change their minds, either, but curiously this is not something you adress.
Or perhaps you can give me some examples of their concessions ITT.
At this point, none of you are going to convince one another. You all have very defined opinions.
The ones you are trying to convince are the thread's passive observers.
I actually think my sig quote applies.
Curiously neither Asherian, HBMC have ever said that they only post when they're convinced they're right. -_-
Ashiraya wrote: You have found one example of one person in your side of the argument making a tiny concession.
It's not really my point to start a contest of who makes more concessions. My point was the sig reference.
You asked for examples of people on the pro-gg side giving concessions when they're wrong. I gave you one of mine - given that I'm on the pro-gg side - that came to mind. Do you expect me to have memorised every post everyone on dakka has made?
Sining wrote: Must you ask rhetorical questions that don't have anything to do with this issue at all? Maybe start a general philosophy thread or something
You tell me, you begun dismissing Peregrine with the justification that he is unlikely to change his mind. I question this.
Sining wrote: Must you ask rhetorical questions that don't have anything to do with this issue at all? Maybe start a general philosophy thread or something
You know, for someone who claims to dislike going off-topic, you sure like playing moderator. Ashiraya's rethorical question was completely on-topic because it highlighted a problem with your argument.
BrotherGecko wrote: I'm waiting for the third group to arise out of both sides and notices either side isn't innocent or inherently right.
We've acknowledged that: 1. Trolls exist fanning the flames against both sides. 2. Pro-GG starting out of the Quinnspiracy thing was not ideal as it's not what GG is about but makes it seem like it's about being anti-feminism or anti-female. 3. There are many individuals on our side, and since we've been repeatedly censored and have no gaming media publishing our side, that makes some people go further than they should to try to get their voice heard.
Neither side is innocent, but one side is *far* more wrong when you add up collusion amongst journalists to present a unified anti-gamer viewpoint (proven with gamejournolist), collusion to censor the topic on most popular discussion forums (proven with banned mods on reddit, 4chan and gamejournolist requests for the same and so on) which combine to a vast disparity in the strength of our voices which greatly helps sell their side of the story primarily by silencing ours. Zoe Quinn was possibly doxxed (possibly faked) - it got huge gaming media coverage. Boogie, Baldwin and several others were doxxed... media silence. People have been fired and others have had attempts to get them fired because they spoke out for gamergate... media silence. We're relying on outside coverage to get our voice heard.
That looks suspiciously like concessions to me... followed by a very relevant comparison about the *real* evil doers ; p
The question was not who made most concessions. That was just a sidetrack really.
The point was that Peregrine doesn't really have to make any concessions for his arguments to be valid. It's okay to say it would be nice if he would make concession posts instead of going silent (if that is what he does) but it does not affect the validity of the arguments themselves. On the previous page, Sining asserted that they were indeed affected, which is an assertion I question.
I don't necessarily agree with this article, although it does raise some interesting points. What's more interesting though are the comments (what???), where someone has come in with some very interesting discussion from the games developer point of view. Worth a read.
Sining wrote: Curiously neither Asherian, HBMC have ever said that they only post when they're convinced they're right. -_-
The base assumption is that I'm always right, and that nothing I ever say is wrong.
Everyone: The sky is now a deep green, and constantly speaks to us all in German.
And because I'm always right about everything, that is now the truth. Now excuse me, Herr Himmel wants to talk some more.
The question was not who made most concessions. That was just a sidetrack really.
The point was that Peregrine doesn't really have to make any concessions for his arguments to be valid. It's okay to say it would be nice if he would make concession posts instead of going silent (if that is what he does) but it does not affect the validity of the arguments themselves. On the previous page, Sining asserted that they were indeed affected, which is an assertion I question.
Could you please... stop? Most of us were responding to Pregrine flat out stating he doesn't post unless he knows he's right. This implies that he think's he's always right and thus any argument with him falls on deaf ears.
None of us have made any such statements.
So, the question wasn't who made most concessions, and it's just a sidetrack really... then why did you ask it? I'm sorry but you ask for something and at the first sign of someone giving you even the tiniest amount proof you immediately try to back out.
All you've been doing so far is playing I-want-to-be-a-moderator and dragging things further off topic by constantly questioning people on things that are already off topic to begin with.
Sining wrote: Must you ask rhetorical questions that don't have anything to do with this issue at all? Maybe start a general philosophy thread or something
You tell me, you begun dismissing Peregrine with the justification that he is unlikely to change his mind. I question this.
See, you're just missing the obvious explanation her: I never back down because I only post when I already know I'm right. And, in this case, I'm right.
Sining wrote: Must you ask rhetorical questions that don't have anything to do with this issue at all? Maybe start a general philosophy thread or something
You tell me, you begun dismissing Peregrine with the justification that he is unlikely to change his mind. I question this.
See, you're just missing the obvious explanation her: I never back down because I only post when I already know I'm right. And, in this case, I'm right.
Yep, he is unlikely to change his mind. But I criticised that this was used as a justification to dismiss him.
@Soladrin: As said, it's not him you're trying to convince. It's the readers. You won't convince him anyway, just like he won't convince you. You all have immovable opinions already.
If you consider the sidetrack a problem, I apologise - the point was that whether he decides to make concessions or no, you can just as easily have the discussion anyway.
I am not playing I-want-to-be-a-moderator, but I do question the trend of calling criticism of X side of the argument 'off-topic'. It isn't. Peregrine made on-topic arguments, Sining criticised them, I point out the flaws in Sining's criticism. That is all.
Uh hello please point out where I criticised his arguments in my last post. I said there was no point arguing with him. If you're going to start spouting rhetoric, please make sure you have the right notion first
Sining wrote: Uh hello please point out where I criticised his arguments in my last post. I said there was no point arguing with him. If you're going to start spouting rhetoric, please make sure you have the right notion first
Ask yourself this: Why is there no point in arguing with him?
Yep, he is unlikely to change his mind. But I criticised that this was used as a justification to dismiss him
I think the reason I dismiss him quickly is that he often talks and yet nothing helps the discussion it is brought back.
I personally hate it when someone cherry picks my discussion and ignores my good points and takes it 180 degrees to somewhere else I did not intend.
Also Apparently I am always right according to some of you.
I'll be right back while I talk to the walls and watch the greatest movie ever. The Room.
I am not playing I-want-to-be-a-moderator, but I do question the trend of calling criticism of X side of the argument 'off-topic'. It isn't. Peregrine made on-topic arguments, Sining criticised them, I point out the flaws in Sining's criticism. That is all.
Except his discussion of the subject has been quite ill thought out.
He has not provided legitimate criticism, He has only attacked the one side. And refused to see any but his own opinion in this.
I have conceded many times in this thread. I change my opinions, because I am bloody human being and thats what we do.
It doesn't make me indecisive or a fool.
Ah Ah ah!
You know its true. Games an art form. As it is defined by the supreme court of the united states of america.
They hold all the rights to be called an art form.
Ask yourself this: Why is there no point in arguing with him?
Because he has nothing but been rude and rash, and never accepts he is wrong. And only pushes his agenda down peoples throats?
Even if it is completely wrong?
Also your getting us off point.
Stop. Get back to the discussion, or else leave the thread.
Do not play mister moderator. It is not your job or your position.
We are playing quite fair in this regard we do listen to people. Even if they are like peregrine, I do listen to him, but his points are usually offbeat and are not as well thought out.
Hybrid has certain points that are correct and do benefit the discussion.
Remaining on the topic of sexism is stupid and pointless as I have said many times and I have said it is related but it is not the deepest issue in GamerGate.
Now I respectively ask of everyone on this thread to get back on topic.
If games are an art form, then they need to open themselves up to the kind of critical appraisal that movies, television, music, et al are subject to if they wish to be taken seriously as an art form. In my experience though, whenever someone attempts this kind of appraisal on games, such as the portrayal of women, it is immediately shouted down with cries of "lt's just video games man/No politics in my video games/and so on!"
Maybe Roger Ebert was right about video games after all.
I had prepared a large post in response to this 'playing-moderator' accusation, among other things...
...But for now, since you so nicely requested a switch of topic, I won't post it even though I maintain my stance.
Instead, I say this.
H.B.M.C. wrote: We believe that misogyny does exist, is toxic, and that trivializing its true gravity by throwing the term around as a ready-made decoy to stonewall any constructive dialogue is intellectually dishonest and immoral.
This is exactly what I am concerned about, in addition to the issues with throwing sexists a bone I mentioned a few pages back.
CorporateLogo wrote: If games are an art form, then they need to open themselves up to the kind of critical appraisal that movies, television, music, et al are subject to if they wish to be taken seriously as an art form. In my experience though, whenever someone attempts this kind of appraisal on games, such as the portrayal of women, it is immediately shouted down with cries of "lt's just video games man/No politics in my video games/and so on!"
Maybe Roger Ebert was right about video games after all.
Maybe I'm old fashioned but I've never thought of games as an art form nor do I think they need to be considered one. Calling it an art form just seems so pretentious
CorporateLogo wrote: If games are an art form, then they need to open themselves up to the kind of critical appraisal that movies, television, music, et al are subject to if they wish to be taken seriously as an art form. In my experience though, whenever someone attempts this kind of appraisal on games, such as the portrayal of women, it is immediately shouted down with cries of "lt's just video games man/No politics in my video games/and so on!"
Maybe Roger Ebert was right about video games after all.
umm that is not usually done by people who play video games.
The people outside the industry are usually the ones who do that. Who dismiss games for being games.
Most designers do not do that.
Most reviewers are just unprofessional
When ever someone says. "Video Games aren't art." I die a little inside, because a lot of labor goes into making a game. Probably more so than a movie or a book.
I think corporate I think you forget that there is a push right now to have a lot of games being political. WE want games to be the intermediary it can do something other mediums cannot and that is being interactive. We are involved in the process of the game.
There are some that don't want politics in their games. I see no problem with it. I just don't think certain things should be talked about in a certain fashion (I.E. Depression Quest being an example of a way not to do it)
I think talking about it is a good idea. Nor have I ever said that it is a bad thing. But if games are pushing a propagandist point of view I will call it out on that.
It is a problem though when game reviewers think something is a metaphor when sometimes it is not and take it out of context.
I think there has been praise of certain games.
But pushing your own agenda that is not well researched is a crime and unneeded propaganda.
In short, I think video games art and you can make a point with a game. You can use it to teach and to drive an opinion.
But that does not mean you should use it as propaganda
CorporateLogo wrote: If games are an art form, then they need to open themselves up to the kind of critical appraisal that movies, television, music, et al are subject to if they wish to be taken seriously as an art form. In my experience though, whenever someone attempts this kind of appraisal on games, such as the portrayal of women, it is immediately shouted down with cries of "lt's just video games man/No politics in my video games/and so on!"
Maybe Roger Ebert was right about video games after all.
Maybe I'm old fashioned but I've never thought of games as an art form nor do I think they need to be considered one. Calling it an art form just seems so pretentious
It depends on the game. Some definitely are art, with deeper themes meanings and philosophical messages(off the top of my head and one that I've played recently is Walking Dead Season 2 - though there are probably better examples), others like Call of Duty are just meant to be entertainment.
Which is exactly the same as books, movies and television. For every Schindlers List, or Anne Frank's Diary, you have a Transformers movie or an Expendables movie.
CorporateLogo wrote: If games are an art form, then they need to open themselves up to the kind of critical appraisal that movies, televaision, music, et al are subject to if they wish to be taken seriously as an art form. In my experience though, whenever someone attempts this kind of appraisal on games, such as the portrayal of women, it is immediately shouted down with cries of "lt's just video games man/No politics in my video games/and so on!"
Maybe Roger Ebert was right about video games after all.
Maybe I'm old fashioned but I've never thought of games as an art form nor do I think they need to be considered one. Calling it an art form just seems so pretentious
Thats where i respectively disagree.
What constitutes a game not being an art form?
Because it is interactive or that it is called a game?
Or is it because it is seen as mildly childish?
And yet these people who create these games are not toymakers. They are adults whose job it is to make something that someone can experience through action.
That is far more powerful in my opinion than any other type of art form.
I think I agree with certain journalists on certain issues, but I disagree with them on several thoughts.
I do agree games are an art.
I disagree that they should spread a particular agenda such as a feminist point of view in an ill thought out manner.
Games can do things other mediums can't.
But i don't think video games should be called video games anymore interactive digital experiences probably is the closet term I can see to it being like that.
When does a game stop being a game and becomes something more?
I do say that I say all games are art. Some games could be considered bad art, and some could be considered good art.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I don't necessarily agree with this article, although it does raise some interesting points.
It is kind of true. I mean it certainly helps polarizing people. Even if we do get a bit heated here, it seems tame compared to what people apparently say on Twitter. But then again, there is the whole absence of a moderation team there that plays a role.
You know its true. Games an art form. As it is defined by the supreme court of the united states of america.
Not the part I am laughing at. Also I do not care about the supreme court of the US, they are not the center of the world .
Sining wrote: Maybe I'm old fashioned but I've never thought of games as an art form nor do I think they need to be considered one. Calling it an art form just seems so pretentious
Movies are an art. That means Twillight too. Literature is an art. That means Twilight too. Just downgrade your definition of art .
And beside, even if reducing games to their visual and musical aspect, why would a brilliant painting with a very beautiful music not be considered art because a computer is involved?
Movies are an art. That means Twillight too. Literature is an art. That means Twilight too. Just downgrade your definition of art .
And beside, even if reducing games to their visual and musical aspect, why would a brilliant painting with a very beautiful music not be considered art because a computer is involved?
I noticed recently with the "Steam" updates I can pick various Steam "curators".
So with all the claims of "Journalism Corruption", bias, developer funding (regarded little more than another branch of marketing) and kickbacks: who would I pick for recommendations or should I bother at all?
Here is a list (392 pages as of this moment): http://store.steampowered.com/curators/
The only conspiracy I am finding shocking about the whole thing is the "journalists" trying to claim that "gamers" they provided content for no longer exist, at least as a named group/culture.
Scandal happens, in pretty much anything.
The good thing to see is groups taking steps to protect against that kind of thing for the future.
Corrective action is the only reasonable response, or at least making more clear where conflict of interest may occur.
Sexism, misogyny, antifeminism, gender representation in video games, sexual harassment are strong hot topics for the "small vicious fringe" to latch on to and try gain legitimacy in unethical behavior by using public figures as scapegoats.
This last bit bothers me the most: I want to deny them all the audience they so crave who use this for their own ends but I do not want my silence to be construed as consent.
The calls for "taking a stand" I feel need to be ignored other than the developers who are trying to make a living and possibly enjoy what they do.
Yes, I think this is the only group I will support at this time.
Ashiraya wrote: You have found one example of one person in your side of the argument making a tiny concession.
It's not really my point to start a contest of who makes more concessions. My point was the sig reference.
You asked for examples of people on the pro-gg side giving concessions when they're wrong. I gave you one of mine - given that I'm on the pro-gg side - that came to mind. Do you expect me to have memorised every post everyone on dakka has made?
Correction: 'you asked for examples of people on the pro-gag side giving concessions when they're wrong in this thread.' You then defended yourself by showing that you did accept that you were wrong... That one time in a completely separate topic.
I noticed recently with the "Steam" updates I can pick various Steam "curators".
So with all the claims of "Journalism Corruption", bias, developer funding (regarded little more than another branch of marketing) and kickbacks: who would I pick for recommendations or should I bother at all?
Here is a list (392 pages as of this moment): http://store.steampowered.com/curators/
You pick Double Fine, because of the 4 pages on their Curation page 1 is of their own games, and the remaining 3 are of other people's games they think are great.
Movies are an art. That means Twillight too. Literature is an art. That means Twilight too. Just downgrade your definition of art .
And beside, even if reducing games to their visual and musical aspect, why would a brilliant painting with a very beautiful music not be considered art because a computer is involved?
There are two types of art.
Good and bad Art.
Actually, there is art that appeals to my tastes, and disgusting mediocrity that should have never seen the face of the earth .
Took me a few days to read this thread, and read other stuff on the 'Net on #GamerGate.
I'm sorry... but, I'm sure I lost a few IQ points with this.
I'm a veteran video gamer who started back in the day on Commadore 64 and owning to just about every video gaming system up to this point.
To me, this movement is about grievance.
Nothing more.
What we have is some gamers think that these game critics and community administrators are bad people who are trying to stop them from having fun. And these game critics think gamers are bad people who support misogyny or racism or whatever.
Absolutely nothing either side says or does is going to change this. Nothing. So, as the "old man in the gaming scene".. I'm throwing my hands up in the air and deciding to stay out. /get off my lawn
By the holy Emprah, what baffles me is that this is a freakin' golden age of gaming.
He works hard to not offend either side (director of digital communications and all...) but it shows a fair understanding of the issue I think. I'm glad he/EA/more people keep weighing in on this.
Quote from the article
"Critics will argue that someone banned on Reddit or neoGAF can simply go elsewhere on the Internet rather miss the point. Censorship is about denying certain views of an audience. Giving someone the freedom to speak in a deserted forest (or an unvisited website) doesn’t actually mean a great deal."
As a veteran myself (started with an Atari) I'm concerned about issues 1-3. For issue 4 I believe the market should decide what games and publications succeed, and Issue 5 I don't care a whit about.
Quinn has literally just thrown herself back into the raging fires of Mt Doom by making some serious allegations about TFYC; and how gamergate is all 4chan etc, and how they're a scammy organisation etc etc etc and how she has all the info to prove it etc etc etc and how she'll only pass it on to her trusted sources etc etc etc. It's like man, why on earth does she keep trying to make herself relevant. If you have info, why would you not just post it straight away.
I suspect my previous estimate that she was an a narcissist or attention-seeker is probably correct
On the art discussion, Games, Movies, Books and Music are not Art. They are commercial products.
Sorry, for that hyperbole what i mean is they can be art, some games are artfully made. To say that something is art because it took lots of time and money to make something makes 80 percent of the things in the world art.
But then again Art is a totally subjective
I agree with the video, they totally lost my respect as a "consumer" of their "news" sites. But anyone with some brain-cells could see the over positive reviews of games of the last 25 years or more, i go to reviews of games to (gamer) people i know and look at these sites just for info on new games.
Movies are an art. That means Twillight too. Literature is an art. That means Twilight too. Just downgrade your definition of art .
And beside, even if reducing games to their visual and musical aspect, why would a brilliant painting with a very beautiful music not be considered art because a computer is involved?
There are two types of art.
Good and bad Art.
Actually, there is art that appeals to my tastes, and disgusting mediocrity that should have never seen the face of the earth .
Sining wrote: Quote from the article
"Critics will argue that someone banned on Reddit or neoGAF can simply go elsewhere on the Internet rather miss the point. Censorship is about denying certain views of an audience. Giving someone the freedom to speak in a deserted forest (or an unvisited website) doesn’t actually mean a great deal."
And this is just laughably wrong because it's based on an assumption that websites are public property and everyone has a right to speak there unless someone has a very good reason otherwise. This is not even close to true, and when you remember that these websites are private property the "anti-censorship" argument is revealed as a claim that you're entitled to have people help you bring your ideas to a large audience just because other people have an audience and it wouldn't be fair if you didn't get equal representation.
Plus, the idea that anyone is being limited to "unvisted websites" is pretty absurd given that this discussion is happening on a reasonably popular website. Nobody is having their views silenced, they just don't have as much of an audience as they want.
Why is this a problem? People constantly try to influence game design and artistic choices. I mean, just look at this forum and how many times people talk about how GW needs to do X or how model Y sucks and needs to be improved. Are all of these people unfairly persecuting the poor artists at GW, or is attempting to persuade game developers and artists only a problem when the person attempting the persuasion is advocating something you don't agree with?
Peregrine wrote: Why is this a problem? People constantly try to influence game design and artistic choices. I mean, just look at this forum and how many times people talk about how GW needs to do X or how model Y sucks and needs to be improved. Are all of these people unfairly persecuting the poor artists at GW, or is attempting to persuade game developers and artists only a problem when the person attempting the persuasion is advocating something you don't agree with?
I don't agree with anyone trying to influence a content creator on their artistic or design directions. However, I see a slight difference between 'the new Space Marine tank sucks lol' and:
blackmails in the form of "change your game art or we won't publish a single word about you."
If you can't see a difference, then I'm happy to keep talking about it further
VorpalBunny74 wrote: I don't agree with anyone trying to influence a content creator on their artistic or design directions.
So you object to every thread complaining about GW models and trying to tell GW to change them? Were you outraged about the Mass Effect 3 incident where the fans demanded (and eventually received) a better ending? Did you join the crusade against the Diablo 1/2 fans who complained about the "cartoonish" art style shown in the Diablo 3 previews and told Blizzard to change it back?
However, I see a slight difference between 'the new Space Marine tank sucks lol' and:
blackmails in the form of "change your game art or we won't publish a single word about you."
If you can't see a difference, then I'm happy to keep talking about it further
The only difference I see is that one threat has at least a little bit of power behind it, while the forum whine threads about the new space marine models have no real influence with GW. But that's not a very significant difference because the people demanding changes from GWwant that power and would use it if they had it.
Jehan-reznor wrote: On the art discussion, Games, Movies, Books and Music are not Art. They are commercial products.
Sorry, for that hyperbole what i mean is they can be art, some games are artfully made. To say that something is art because it took lots of time and money to make something makes 80 percent of the things in the world art.
But then again Art is a totally subjective
I agree with the video, they totally lost my respect as a "consumer" of their "news" sites. But anyone with some brain-cells could see the over positive reviews of games of the last 25 years or more, i go to reviews of games to (gamer) people i know and look at these sites just for info on new games.
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
I don't see why that doesn't apply to certain games and movies, especially ones with a strong emotional message. If it takes creativity and imagination to make, then it's art. If it's unoriginal and didn't take much creativity and imagination to make and the creator didn't really have any particular theme or message in mind , then sure you can say that it's not really art.
Of course, not ALL games are art.
And do you really think that music like Beethoven or Mozart is not art?
Jehan-reznor wrote: On the art discussion, Games, Movies, Books and Music are not Art. They are commercial products.
Sorry, for that hyperbole what i mean is they can be art, some games are artfully made. To say that something is art because it took lots of time and money to make something makes 80 percent of the things in the world art.
But then again Art is a totally subjective
I agree with the video, they totally lost my respect as a "consumer" of their "news" sites. But anyone with some brain-cells could see the over positive reviews of games of the last 25 years or more, i go to reviews of games to (gamer) people i know and look at these sites just for info on new games.
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
I don't see why that doesn't apply to certain games and movies, especially ones with a strong emotional message. If it takes creativity and imagination to make, then it's art. If it's unoriginal and didn't take much creativity and imagination to make and the creator didn't really have any particular theme or message in mind , then sure you can say that it's not really art.
Of course, not ALL games are art.
And do you [I]really[/] think that music like Beethoven or Mozart is not art?
He said "they can be art" but he wouldn't classify most as art but rather as a commercial product. I would agree with that assessment.
Games are complex things made of visual, audio, narrative and likely other things which each individually are art, let alone the interaction of them together. There have been some beautiful looking vistas in games, amazing individual models and so on that should qualify as art on their own. Likewise the soundtracks for some games are amazing - baba yetu comes to mind from civ 4, though I doubt it was made for civ 4, but there are many amazing soundtracks made specifically for games, and OCRemix has some great remixes too. Stories like Planescape: Torment, Brothers (supposedly), Transistor, Bastion, Walking Dead, Wolf Among Us are all amazing narratives that would go well amongst narrative art works. As a cohesive whole it's hard to argue about "game art" because ... I don't really know or care tbh ; p I'll leave that to arts majors.
I think more importantly, games are tools for people to do all sorts of things in a safe environment - there are articles and studies that show by playing games with ethical considerations, people are more likely to make more ethical choices after having played them. I've always thought this - going back to DnD whether you played the white knight or the evil villain, it let you look at ethics which helped you hone your own. You may have slaughtered those villagers in that game, but you did realize doing so was bad - it can be good to be bad in a game, but it helps you realize it's bad to be bad IRL. That's part of what I think gaming contributes to society, and why GamerGate is so important - stifling that creativity by bringing outside moralistic agendas in that curtail those ethical decisions can only harm the hobby imo. If radical crusaders get their way and remove the ability for games developers to present us these ethical considerations, we lose a great opportunity to help us analyse and train ethics. The censorship of threads disagreeing with them, the mainstream journalists that only publish those viewpoints and the expectation that devs need to hire these people for their input on game development are all problematic in this regard.
Quote from the article "Critics will argue that someone banned on Reddit or neoGAF can simply go elsewhere on the Internet rather miss the point. Censorship is about denying certain views of an audience. Giving someone the freedom to speak in a deserted forest (or an unvisited website) doesn’t actually mean a great deal."
This was a really good, balanced article. Well worth reading.
Peregrine wrote: The only difference I see is that one threat has at least a little bit of power behind it, while the forum whine threads about the new space marine models have no real influence with GW. But that's not a very significant difference because the people demanding changes from GWwant that power and would use it if they had it.
So you do recognize the difference between complaints and blackmail, you just flat out don't care? 'Not a significant difference'
Also I actually was against changing the ending of Mass Effect 3
VorpalBunny74 wrote: Also I actually was against changing the ending of Mass Effect 3
3? They stopped at 2. *twitch*
Nope they made one really long game that you had to buy in installments. Just turning on the game gives me goose bumps. I will forever judge all games based off the Mass Effect Trilogy.
Note: Mass Effect 3 hits the nail on the head when it comes to "I will never quit, I will never accept defeat." It tickled all of my military spots. Sometimes no matter what you do it fails anyways...and all you can do is drive on and do the best you can.
And it is to those people I want to answer, because I think they are wrong, very wrong. I do not really care about the journalists, I was not reading them before and I will not read them after. But damn I do care about what is in the game I play, including how female characters are portrayed.
Sining wrote: Quinn has literally just thrown herself back into the raging fires of Mt Doom
Figuratively .
Jehan-reznor wrote: On the art discussion, Games, Movies, Books and Music are not Art. They are commercial products.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Actually, there is art that appeals to my tastes, and disgusting mediocrity that should have never seen the face of the earth .
To you, maybe.
I thought obvious jape was obvious .
Peregrine wrote: And this is just laughably wrong because it's based on an assumption that websites are public property and everyone has a right to speak there unless someone has a very good reason otherwise. This is not even close to true, and when you remember that these websites are private property the "anti-censorship" argument is revealed as a claim that you're entitled to have people help you bring your ideas to a large audience just because other people have an audience and it wouldn't be fair if you didn't get equal representation.
It is pretty much exactly like how Games Workshop stores do not allow you to play Warmachine or Infinity on their tables. Outrage!
Yonan wrote: Likewise the soundtracks for some games are amazing - baba yetu comes to mind from civ 4, though I doubt it was made for civ 4, but there are many amazing soundtracks made specifically for games
Bastion. Total Annihilation. Warcraft II. Not sure for Painkiller.
Yonan wrote: Stories like Planescape: Torment, Brothers (supposedly), Transistor, Bastion, Walking Dead, Wolf Among Us are all amazing narratives that would go well amongst narrative art works.
Bastion? I disagree.
Spoiler:
I ended up killing some Pocahontas with napalm because I wanted to steal their stuff, and that was not even presented as a bad thing! All the while, the character and the narrator felt like they were becoming worse and worse morally speaking, so I expected some kind… thing to happen at the end. But no, it was just “Let us kill those to steal their stuff and everything is going to be cool!”. Did I miss something? Not yet finished the game in New Game +.
Yonan wrote: stifling that creativity by bringing outside moralistic agendas in that curtail those ethical decisions can only harm the hobby imo.
Except what the GGers are working against is not a stiffing of creativity, it is about changing what the norm is. There is always going to be creativity, and there is always going to be a norm. Now if we could get the norm at the right place, it would be much better.
Putting a boob-plate or a metal bikini is about as far as one can get from creativity.
Yonan wrote: stifling that creativity by bringing outside moralistic agendas in that curtail those ethical decisions can only harm the hobby imo.
Except what the GGers are working against is not a stiffing of creativity, it is about changing what the norm is. There is always going to be creativity, and there is always going to be a norm. Now if we could get the norm at the right place, it would be much better. Putting a boob-plate or a metal bikini is about as far as one can get from creativity.
And a bunch of homogeneous looking npcs in full plate is creative? I would think taking away a design aspect is still stifling creativity, no? It may not be favorable, but it is still a tool.
Also, who determines what is the right norm? Wouldn't be more beneficial to not have a norm?
CthuluIsSpy wrote: And a bunch of homogeneous looking npcs in full plate is creative?
We are in a sad place place where, yeah, it is going to make your game stand out as different.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I would think taking away a design aspect is still stifling creativity, no?
No, actually. Imposing on yourself rules to avoid the most common cliche and tropes is a great way to force yourself to be more creative. Because you cannot rely on lazy shortcuts anymore.
Not only is it not realistic, I also am not sure it would be in any way beneficial. Games (and books or movies, for that matter) benefits from having some specific, unusual aspects, but not also having a common ground for many different games will just make having to decide (for the writers) and learn (for the audience) EVERYTHING about the new setting tedious. There is nothing wrong with sharing some good and efficient parts.
Do you mean that many game developers are dreaming of featuring huge-boobed women wearing only high heels, tongs and nipple pasties, but they are unjustly prevented from doing so, and that is why they stick to slightly less boob and slightly more covering outfits, instead of doing different, more interesting, more varied stuff, Slarg? Because that is the only way I see to interpret your comment.
What makes you assume the boobplate is automatically a lazy shortcut? What if there is indeed a thematic element behind it other than "lol, tits?" To me putting everything in full plate is just as lazy.
There is indeed nothing wrong with sharing aspects. But there is something wrong with saying "no, you can't do that, that won't be successful / won't sell / won't fly well with the public", which is what the norm is.
To me the norm limits creativity, as it makes people afraid to try new things. Better to ignore it and experiment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Do you mean that many game developers are dreaming of featuring huge-boobed women wearing only high heels, tongs and nipple pasties, but they are unjustly prevented from doing so, and that is why they stick to slightly less boob and slightly more covering outfits, instead of doing different, more interesting, more varied stuff, Slarg? Because that is the only way I see to interpret your comment.
No, he means that it's ok for a developer to put restrictions on himself in order to acquire different results and challenge himself/herself (think playing XCOM without plasma weapons), but restrictions from an outside presence would just hurt him/her.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: What makes you assume the boobplate is automatically a lazy shortcut?
Not always, only most of the time. That is why it needs to stop begin the default, and start becoming a rare exception justified by stuff on a few specific characters.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: To me putting everything in full plate is just as lazy.
Maybe, but at least it is honest, good-looking, sensible lazy .
CthuluIsSpy wrote: No, he means that it's ok for a developer to put restrictions on himself in order to acquire different results and challenge himself/herself (think playing XCOM without plasma weapons)
That is not a relevant example. We are talking about designing characters and settings.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: No, he means that it's ok for a developer to put restrictions on himself in order to acquire different results and challenge himself/herself (think playing XCOM without plasma weapons)
That is not a relevant example. We are talking about designing characters and settings.
It is relevant. It provides a challenge.
This what you typed
No, actually. Imposing on yourself rules to avoid the most common cliche and tropes is a great way to force yourself to be more creative. Because you cannot rely on lazy shortcuts anymore.
Sounds like you want devs to challenge themselves.
It is not about creating something. The end result will not be a better story or a better character because there will be no end result. It is as relevant as speaking about someone taking a huge bag while he goes on a trek to increase the challenge.
Just not one that will make the outcome better for other people, because there is no outcome for other peoples .
The aim here is not in the challenge. The aim is in the betterment of the result. The challenge is just a mean to this end.
Better: something I like more.
See this for reference:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Actually, there is art that appeals to my tastes, and disgusting mediocrity that should have never seen the face of the earth .
But seriously, I have read many times about artists that put constraint on themselves to get an end result they themselves like more.
Just another clickbait article by Cracked, someone who actively is a social justice warrior, and what seems to be alot of developers (If those are actually female developers) who have been mislead about gamersgate through the slander of the common media considering some of them seem to actively believe that only gamergate is causing harassment...
In other words "I get mad at people who talk about social issues, especially ones involving a desire for equal treatment and/or complaining about discrimination".
In other words "I get mad at people who talk about social issues, especially ones involving a desire for equal treatment and/or complaining about discrimination".
Words that never were implied or spoken, and shows one doesn't understand what a Social Justice Warrior is.
A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of.
There is a difference between those who actively fight for Justice for equality.
Talk is cheap, are you actually caring and wanting to be involved in the fight for equality between the sex's, the gender's, and those who need equal treatment? Or are you using it to try in an attempt to raise your "Internet Status". That is the crux of the issue.
Weird because anytime I've seen people use "SJW" it seems to be used to shut down any talk or action about social issues rather than have any actual critical evaluation on the topic at hand.
Cheesecat wrote: Weird because anytime I've seen people use "SJW" it seems to be used to shut down any talk or action about social issues rather than have any actual critical evaluation on the topic at hand.
Funny. That's what SJW do. They yell and scream and shut down debate with name calling.
Cheesecat wrote: Weird because anytime I've seen people use "SJW" it seems to be used to shut down any talk or action about social issues rather than have any actual critical evaluation on the topic at hand.
Funny. That's what SJW do. They yell and scream and shut down debate with name calling.
Not this fething thing again...
Yes, by their original definition, SJWs are bad and don't really contribute meaningfully.
The term is also, however, used far too readily at the moment as a means of going "well you're just an SJW so be quiet" or just to simply dismiss what someone is saying without addressing their argument.
Cheesecat wrote: Weird because anytime I've seen people use "SJW" it seems to be used to shut down any talk or action about social issues rather than have any actual critical evaluation on the topic at hand.
Funny. That's what SJW do. They yell and scream and shut down debate with name calling.
So the appropriate response to posts with little substance is to be just as obnoxious?
Calling someone a SJW isn't even on the same level as yelling and screaming. Name calling yes but not yelling and screaming.
Also, not all debates are worthwhile. As an example of what I mean, I find there's little to no use in 'debating' things with a person who thinks they're right and only posts when they're right. Not only is it a waste of my time, but in general, it just leaves me with a 'bleh' kind of feeling at the end of it. So nope, not going to do it
Supposedly the escapist is putting up an article with more balanced dev representation on the GamerGate topic soon. I look forward to it, though the escapist have at least been largely neutral, the previous article was extremely slanted against GamerGate, whether by intent or just unintentional selection of the "in-crowd" which is so much the problem we're arguing against.
Side note: One great thing about Gamergate for me is it's had me looking into two things: gender equality in general, and the "crazies" on my (left/liberal) side. This discourse however heated and radical it has been has led me to find a number of great speakers on these issues and actually given me a better perspective on what "the right" sees when they look at "the left". We can't ask them to control their crazies if we don't do the same for ours. Promoting speakers like Sommers and Bharaj as what we see as the right way is very important, in contrast to the Sarkeesians, Quinns, Suey Parks and radical feminism in general shutting down discussion or warping it into hate mongering.
Cheesecat wrote: Weird because anytime I've seen people use "SJW" it seems to be used to shut down any talk or action about social issues rather than have any actual critical evaluation on the topic at hand.
Funny. That's what SJW do. They yell and scream and shut down debate with name calling.
TotalBiscuit called for us to try to stop using such terms if possible. I can sort of see why - they're short hand to represent a group of people that definitely exist, but others get caught in the crossfire. I'm not sure on the better way to do it other than to keep saying "their side" like that... but it's a complex issue no doubt. Stereotypes exist for a reason, we just need to make sure we don't misuse them perhaps.
Sining wrote: Calling someone a SJW isn't even on the same level as yelling and screaming. Name calling yes but not yelling and screaming.
Agreed, to suggest so is disingenuous. As is to suggest that a random GG supporter (or anti-gg supporter) going off the handle on twitter is the same as a "journalist" writing a hit piece on gamers, gaming, individuals and so on, or for a known and (previously at least) respected developer to throw those same insults.
The way things are going, if GG supporters were to suddenly come up with a mass number of articles claiming Game Journalists are dead, Kotaku would write an article about how Gamergate is threatening Game Journalists with death threats -_-
Yonan wrote: Side note: One great thing about Gamergate for me is it's had me looking into two things: gender equality in general, and the "crazies" on my (left/liberal) side. This discourse however heated and radical it has been has led me to find a number of great speakers on these issues and actually given me a better perspective on what "the right" sees when they look at "the left". We can't ask them to control their crazies if we don't do the same for ours. Promoting speakers like Sommers and Bharaj as what we see as the right way is very important, in contrast to the Sarkeesians, Quinns, Suey Parks and radical feminism in general shutting down discussion or warping it into hate mongering.
If some elements of the right decide to strike while the iron is hot (a la Milo Yiannopoulos) and join this on the side of GamerGate then a lot of gamers might become more right wing out of simple gratitude.
Which I believe would be the opposite of what the GameJournoPros and various other pundits want.
A theory worth entertaining, but I don't think this is making me more right wing, so much as more aware of flaws in the extreme left wing. And also, more aware of the presence of less extreme right wingers (potentially) which is a good thing. Such things are more evident in the US than in Aus however... our right wing (ironically called Liberals) have rarely been too extreme in social policy, though their extreme fiscal conservatism and current extreme social policy (see sig ; /) are... not ideal.
I guess you could say we're becoming more right wing in that we're shifting further from extreme left as we distance ourselves from them. Still left, just not as far left ; ) Certainly not neutral either. And yeah, that would be the opposite of what the extreme left wants - they don't realize how counter productive their methods are.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: If some elements of the right decide to strike while the iron is hot (a la Milo Yiannopoulos) and join this on the side of GamerGate then a lot of gamers might become more right wing out of simple gratitude.
That would mean that gamers are idiots, and I don't think that gamers are that stupid. If you're choosing your political positions based on who is nicer to your hobby then please just stay home, don't ever vote, and don't participate in political discussions. That kind of attitude is no better than the idiots who vote for someone based on who looks prettier on TV.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Talk is cheap, are you actually caring and wanting to be involved in the fight for equality between the sex's, the gender's, and those who need equal treatment? Or are you using it to try in an attempt to raise your "Internet Status". That is the crux of the issue.
This is a ridiculous question to be asking. Nobody throwing around the "SJW" label has any clue about what the people they're talking about do outside of talking on the internet, or what their motives for choosing a side might be. It's nothing more than an accusation of bad faith made without any justification at all, simply because it's easier to dismiss people as "SJWs" than to address the substance of their arguments.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yonan wrote: Promoting speakers like Sommers and Bharaj as what we see as the right way is very important, in contrast to the Sarkeesians, Quinns, Suey Parks and radical feminism in general shutting down discussion or warping it into hate mongering.
Sorry, but calling Sarkeesian a "radical feminist" or "extremist" has got to be a joke. She might say things that make you uncomfortable, but all of the issues she's talking about are fairly mainstream ones. And I don't think anyone should be promoting Sommers, no matter what side of the debate they're on. By her own admission she isn't a gamer and has no interest in the subject beyond its usefulness in continuing her "feminists hate men and ruin everything" crusade. She's a useful tool for certain politicians who want to win votes with the "feminist" label while being reassured that everything they're doing is fine and never having to confront any awkward questions, but that's it.
Peregrine wrote: If you're choosing your political positions based on who is nicer to your hobby then please just stay home, don't ever vote, and don't participate in political discussions. That kind of attitude is no better than the idiots who vote for someone based on who looks prettier on TV.
Wait, was that a royal "you" or directed at me? Because my political position is based on my worldview (as I'd hope everyone's is) and my votes are decided by policies released leading up to elections
But assuming some gamers wouldn't rebel and re-think their political views over this is very immature. People like being respected, and being shown respect by the 'other side' might lead them to think more generously of the 'other side'.
Also, you might have assumed that I thought my theory was a good outcome. If that's the case, please quote where I said that
)
.
?
