Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Azazelx wrote:
Nah, the carefully chosen wording

Such as? You seem to be assuming some kind of conspiracy to cause controversy, which I find laughable. I might have agreed with you if you said it was poorly worded and poorly thought out in how it said things, but you seem to be saying that it was intentionally put out this way in some sort of bizarre conspiracy, rather than just someone making a carelessly celebratory post that happened to insult a few loud and obnoxious people.

 Azazelx wrote:
3) Methinks you need to look up the word "explicit".

Explicit, adjective; "describing or representing sexual activity in a graphic fashion."

That is really damn graphic as far as representatives of sexual activity go. Just because she's still wearing a tube-top doesn't mean it's not explicit. About the only mainstream game that I've seen with more graphic sex in it is South Park: The Stick of Truth.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Isn't that how they portray sex in Hollywood films?
All clothes, no footage of the naughty bits?

Depends on the film. I've seen a few Hollywood films where the actors gave the appearance of being nude (they may not have actually been nude, though).

A single snarky comment made on twitter doesn't indicate any kind of grand conspiracy

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
So...mainstream films are more explicit then?

Nudity isn't sex.

Next you'll start talking about lizardpeople and chemtrails.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
I'm not being snarky, by the by. Unlike Ms Alexander, you're actually conversing about this.

In her defense, you realize how many random people are trying to "converse" with her bout it, all of them wanting to have the same conversation and refusing to look at other conversations she's had in the past on the exact same topic?

I don't blame her for blocking #gamergate on twitter, given that. Let's face it, there's probably been thousands of people before you, and a good portion of them were not looking for any sort of honest conversation-- they were looking for gotchas and to pin insults on her and goad her in to things.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
if I do, it'll only be to tease you further for lacking a sense of humour.

If you did, it would actually be funny, unlike your previous statement, which was either silly because it was serious (and yes, plenty of people have said that exact thing to me being quite serious about it), or so Poe it wasn't funny.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
However, unless I've missed it, she hasn't clarified her article since publishing it. Which would be nice considering an argument can be made about its intent in either direction.

At the same time, can you blame her for just wanting to drop it because at this point, she doesn't see continued talk about as improving anything with much of anyone?

... which is kind of why gamergate is doing more harm than good to ethics in game journalism right now.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
... which is kind of why gamergate is doing more harm than good to ethics in game journalism right now.

Why “right now”?

Because I'm trying to assume good faith in this discussion.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
I don't see how GG is harming ethics in game journalism

By attacking any game journalist that says something they don't like, no matter how unrelated to ethics that thing is, thus causing game journalists to become less responsive and less likely to listen to input to begin with.

This is something that's actually happened, unfortunately-- I'm not assuming you personally did it, only that a substantial number of very loud people did it, in #gamergate's name. Which is why so many people are distancing themselves from the movement.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Really? I wasn't aware they ever listened to input to begin with.

And that is part of the problem, I believe.

The vitriol of the internet leaves people less and less willing to listen to any random person.

Thus my statement of how gamergate is only doing more harm, by adding more vitrol to a system already chock full of it.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
GG wants professional standards from games journalists, with a small section wanting women out of gaming.

Unfortunately, the most noticeable and loudest portion are the latter, and we may be in disagreement on just how big that section actually is.

And for the former, I haven't seen a real agreement over what exactly "professional standards" actually are. Because a lot of gamergaters get upset when someone IS professional and looks critically at a game they love-- which is antithetical to professional standards in video game journalism. In actual journalism, you need people to be critical of things, even things you love.

ESPECIALLY things you love.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
AntiGG wants (I think) better standards in online multiplayer conduct, and. . . stuff?

I think most of them would like the harassment to stop. Both in game and out of game. Especially the rape threats and sexual harassment delivered towards women gamers and women game journalists.

Unfortunately, again, many people who are part of the #gamergate movement see those two things as valid tools to get what they want, even though both of them are antithetical to their supposed purpose.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
SJW's

A nebulous term that, at this point, is devoid of any real meaning. The presence of the term in a person's post often indicates that the discussion is devolving in to something not worth reading to begin with.

It's unfortunate what happened to her, and I think that the people who did that shouldn't get away with it. But I also dispute your assertion that "both sides are just as bad", that is an unproven assertion. Centrism for centrism's sake is not in and of itself anything resembling wisdom.

And I also assert that claiming, without any evidence, that "both sides are just as bad" is a very big part of the reason why people CAN get away with things like this, because it is an inherently dismissive claim, a claim that makes it appear as if the speaker thinks there is no solution because everyone does it.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
I'm mainly concerned about Conflicts of Interest, particularly Patreon. A reviewer getting paid by the reviewee should set off alarm bells, and these keep coming up.
I don't mind if a reviewer or journo doesn't like what I like, but I might be in the minority on that one.

Unfortunately, this is not really a thing that is discussed amongst gamergate very often. More often, they are upset that game reviewers say anything remotely resembling feminism, and that is the core of what the movement's backlash has targeted thus far.

I believe strongly that you can't have professional game journalism without having space for feminist or racial minority critiques of video games. And, throughout the entirety of its history from its sordid beginnings, gamergate as a general whole has set out to attack and eliminate that space. And equally unfortunately, that's been the core of what it has accomplished, as well.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Unfortunately GG and anti-GG of both genders are both being harassed to blazes.

Yes, but it's not in equal amounts. Gamergate was a movement formed around sexual harassment towards women; whether or not you think it has redeemed itself of that, its members do a massive amount of it, and it is heavily documented. It has been the norm, for the movement, not the exception.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
It might be naïve, but I'm hopeful that positive things will come out of it all.

I don't see anything good coming out of it.

Arguing that things are fine the way they are and that nothing should change isn't avoiding politics, it's advocating politics.

Regardless, games have always been political. Sometimes unintentionally so, sometimes quite intentionally so. Refusing to talk about it doesn't really make it go away, and being angry at those who talk about it doesn't make it go away, either.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
No, I'm angry when those talking about those political issues employ double standards, lie, and engage in witch hunts that cost people - women no less - their jobs.

Gamergate is massively political, and has done exactly that. Yet you have shown no anger towards gamergate.

Perhaps you should be angry at yourself, for advocating politics yet engaging in double standards while doing so. Because... you are.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
I agree that there is a space for feminism or racial minority critiques of video games - its a shame such websites don't currently exist.

There are plenty of such places. GeekFeminism, TheMarySue, etc.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Quinnspiracy.

Man, I'm trying my hardest to take this seriously, but I don't know if I can take "quinnspiracy" with a straight face.

lol, nepotism...

The main things that particular controversy revealed were that Zoe Quinn's ex was a sad, lonely, bitter shell of a man, and that a lot of other men are quick to believe everything he says without fact checking any of it.

"Hearsay" people say-- unless a man says it about a woman, apparently.

Not a strawman-- you never explicitly stated whom you were referring to. And that particular person was the obvious conclusion.

Someone making a quick reference of a game isn't really something to be gaking your pants over.

The first thing that pops to mind when thinking of that topic is the original spat between Zoe Quinn and her ex. That's not a strawman to reference that.

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
leading to more and more corruption

Most of which ended up being also fake or minor issues, too.

Meanwhile, bigger issues have long been ignored, and are still ignored, by gamergate.

In favor of instead attacking women.

 Haemonculus wrote:
Evidently, but he was not referring to that, so assuming he was is still a strawman argument.

No it isn't. It just means he failed to make it clear what he was talking about.

 Haemonculus wrote:
Most GG posts/tweets have not been attacking women

I dispute this. Most of them have been along those lines, or covering for people who are doing so.

 Haemonculus wrote:
and there is plenty of evidence to show that GG has its own review body to bring forward or highlight abuse

Citation needed; no such thing exists.

 Haemonculus wrote:
they are not the women-hating organisation you seem to desire them to be.

I don't desire them to be abusive. They are abusive, and I wish they'd fething stop.

But they aren't.

 Haemonculus wrote:
He did not say what you thought he did, and he was, I believe, very clear.

Yes. His post was very clearly referring to the original fight between exes. He then later stated that wasn't his intent, but never actually clarified waht he intent was.

His failure to make it clear what he really intended does not make responses to his post strawman posts. That you could go on all day doesn't change anything.

 Haemonculus wrote:
http://nichegamer.net/2014/11/the-gamergate-harassment-patrol-is-a-success/

An unsourced, self-congratulatory article which provides no real examples and stinks of a circle jerk by someone who wants to make themselves feel better.

Yawn.

 Haemonculus wrote:
Please read this article and come back to me: https://medium.com/message/72-hours-of-gamergate-e00513f7cf5d

Did not dispute my assertions. Sadly, Twitter demanded that he take down his actual data.

As an aside, reading that article brings to mind the laughably ironic idea that people think that the Breitbart "journalist" Milo Yiannopoulos is some kind of hero when it comes to ethics in games journalism, as well as the sad fact that he's celebrated as a hero amongst many gamergaters. This is the guy that tweets stuff like "Few things are more embarrassing than grown men getting over-excited about video games." and "Unlike video game console launches, where the only ones "present" are pungent male beta bollock-scratchers and twelve-year-olds." If you want to see someone that hates gamers, you need only look towards people like him. And yet he's celebrated by gamergate, not derided by it.

Because men insulting gamers is okay or something, I guess. Then again, when Jack Thompson said he hated feminism, many of the tweets for pro-gamergate were defending him. Because apparently, a feminist talking about games without ever advocating a ban or any kind of censorship is bad, but a man saying he wants to ban a great number of games and censor the rest games is good. Or something.

 mattyrm wrote:
I saw actual footage of that Anita Sarkeesian actually saying she doesnt play or like video games, so unless she was taking part in a play during a drama class, she is clearly a cynical businesswoman with actually no interest in games.

Or she developed interest in video games afterwards, both as a feminist critic and as someone who enjoys playing them as a hobby.

Is that really so strange that you cannot accept it? I mean I don't find it odd at all. Hell, it wasn't until about a year ago that my mother was interested in video games at all. Now I can't seem to get her to stop playing her damn phone games, and she's starting to show interest in the 3ds and its games, too (she wants things she can take with her on her various errands or visits with friends or what have you).

 mattyrm wrote:
At the same time, there is definitely no reason for feminists to make out that any bloke who says "feminists piss me off" is some sort of nazi

That's usually not what happens, however.

 mattyrm wrote:
They never say "fair one, maybe we should try and pick our battles/words more carefully so we don't drive people into the "feminists are all militant wackos" camp.

Matty, have you actually not paid any attention whatsoever to our conversations?

Or hell, the fact that there are fights between feminists over things like this? As one explained, and similarly to how I explained it: "We all want to raise the status of women to the level of men, to feel safe and respected, and to have a fair and equal chance for all our opinions to be heard. Since the movement is all about choice and the ability to make our own decision that affect us, then it’s necessarily going to be a group fraught with differences. We’re all making our own choices. That’s the commonality. Trying to actively be allowed these choices is the movement. Butting heads along the way from time to time is the reality."

Feminism is not a monolith, nor is it dogma. Just look at the fights between anti-pornography feminism vs sex-positive feminism. Or liberal vs radical feminism. Or the fights about what femininity is and if it should be embraced. edit: Or the disputes over how important it is to consider race when talking about feminism, or sexuality, or gender identity. There's still arguments over whether or not transwomen should be included under feminism at all, which I find sad (I think all women should be included). Or Labor Feminism's focus on economic equality as a harbinger of all other types of equality.

It's like on one hand people try to claim "feminism is a bad movement because you guys fight all the time" then another guy comes up and says "feminism is a bad movement because you guys are all the same"...

 mattyrm wrote:
No Mel that is perfectly fine, everybody can change their mind. I take umbrage with her because Ive seen things with her on news and TV interviews where she is called a "lifelong gamer" and when you combine the two I get pissed off.

Which may not have been her doing.

 mattyrm wrote:
First impressions count and she is firmly in the "motivational speaker" category in my book thanks to that, she never botherd to tell anybody that she only recently developed an interest in the hobby. Maybe I am being unfair but I'm too old and stuck in my ways to change now.

My first impression of her was of her first Tropes vs Women video. I found she did just fine, and sounded like someone whom had actually played games and done some research on games as well.

 mattyrm wrote:
Both sides have extremists that make the rest look bad.

As I keep repeating, false centrism doesn't add up to wisdom. Saying "both sides are bad" is pretty much invariably an excuse to do nothing and accept the status quo.

 mattyrm wrote:
The fact that feminism isn't a dogma is the very reason why I can say the above and it actually make sense.

No, it doesn't make sense. Feminists DO argue overwhat battles to pick. All the time.

 mattyrm wrote:
Seriously you always pull me as if I haven't been listening because you are projecting

Not projecting. This is from actual experience with dealing with my fellow feminists, including on various places that I have linked to you directly as reference, such as LoveJoyFeminism.

 mattyrm wrote:
to the general public feminism has a really bad name

I haven't ever denied this.

 mattyrm wrote:
You think nothing is wrong

No, I think that your solution is not acceptable. Just because I don't think your solution is acceptable (nor that it'd work in the first place) doesn't mean that I accept there's no problem at all.

And I've said that to you more than once now

 mattyrm wrote:
Fair enough Ill shut the feth up then.

I'm not asking you to be quiet, Matty. I like your posts, they're generally good-hearted and gregarious.

 mattyrm wrote:
Didn't you even like my Muslim analogy!?

If you are curious about that, ask in a PM That's not a topic I'd like to bleed in to this thread is all, lol.

I prefer wizards over warriors, myself, but meh.