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.

 Manchu wrote:

 Mechanical Crow wrote:
Its not about misogyny FFS.

I think you have a good point here but that point is constantly undermined by (a) how and why any of these issues about charity blew up in the first place and (b) the misogynistic language some folks keep using to characterize the issues (perhaps including this "SJW" label).

SJW just means social justice warrior. There is nothing misogynistic about it because it's a gender-neutral term

And also, let's put it this way. There are crazies on both side of the fence, however, on one side, crazies are basically getting a free pass while on the other side, crazies are somehow defining the ENTIRE population of that subset. I think that's what's pretty annoying to most people; myself included.

Also, there has been some pretty convincing allegations thrown around with little to no rebuttal from one side. There is nothing being done to address these allegations and yet people want to go 'but this is just a crusade started by some random misogynists' and throw out everything brought up from those revelations. Even if the facts themselves seem perfectly serviceable. This is basically throwing out the baby with the bathwater type behavior

squidhills wrote:


Trust me. I'm a feminist. I agree with full equality between men and women. I am able to look past the smokescreen here and see the real issue is the lack of integrity and objectivity on the part of game journos (not to mention wider corruption and backscratching between journos and some developers) and not misogyny. I belive that some misogynistic jerk weasels have, in fact, attacked Anita and Zoe because they are women, but I fully believe that the majority of gamers are not those gakholes. All that being said, MRA *is* a slur and an insult and justifiably so. So-called MRAs are misogynists claiming "sexism against men" the same way the Klan cried "reverse racism" in the 80s in an effort to get Affirmative Action repealed. They are all, horrible, horrible people. I have not met one or heard of one who wasn't an unabashedly and unashamed misongynist.

Oh I don't disagree with that at all, people are using gamergate to attack Anita and Zoe without evidence, they don't deserve harassment, they deserve to be looked into for matters of fraud however.

And I will be honest I haven't looked that much into MRAs, the first time I heard of it was when CAFE did the seminar on the sexism that men face, and it was the feminists screaming about it. Seemed odd for them to attack an association dedicated to equality.

 Mechanical Crow wrote:
Max Tempken gets rape allegations and they run stories, Zoe Quinn admits to raping someone and again, nothing.

If she's admitted to raping someone, why haven't you contacted the police? If she's as horrid a person as you keep on suggesting, surely you'd leap at the chance to get her imprisoned?

A couple of questions anyway:

1) People keep on mentioning Mass Effect 3 as some massive gaming journalism scandal; what actually happened? The only controversy I can find is about the ending.

2) What's the end-game here? Keep on causing the loss of sponsors until these places shut down?i see people making criticisms all the time, but I can't see any suggestions of solutions.

Sining wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Mechanical Crow wrote:
Its not about misogyny FFS.

I think you have a good point here but that point is constantly undermined by (a) how and why any of these issues about charity blew up in the first place and (b) the misogynistic language some folks keep using to characterize the issues (perhaps including this "SJW" label).

SJW just means social justice warrior. There is nothing misogynistic about it because it's a gender-neutral term

And also, let's put it this way. There are crazies on both side of the fence, however, on one side, crazies are basically getting a free pass while on the other side, crazies are somehow defining the ENTIRE population of that subset. I think that's what's pretty annoying to most people; myself included.

Also, there has been some pretty convincing allegations thrown around with little to no rebuttal from one side. There is nothing being done to address these allegations and yet people want to go 'but this is just a crusade started by some random misogynists' and throw out everything brought up from those revelations. Even if the facts themselves seem perfectly serviceable. This is basically throwing out the baby with the bathwater type behavior

Leigh Alexander is really guilty of this, she will bash people all day and turn around and block them or worse.

 LordofHats wrote:
So are the GamerGate and NotYourShield crowd. There have been plenty of questionable behaviors revealed since this started, social advocates and women being the least among them. It defeats the purpose of the movement to constantly harp on women and 'SJW' while claiming "we're not misogynists." This is the internet, not a college debate team. Words will be twisted so stop giving them words to twist.

I have seen no harping on women within the "movement." There has been harping on about (mostly) two individual women, but if we're going to call any and all criticism of a female misogyny, we might as well all go home now. Neither woman is a stranger to controversy, neither woman has acted, by all appearances, entirely above board, and both are full game for valid criticism whether people like that or not.

I have seen harping on SJWs. It seems a large swathe of the gaming public doesn't want its specialist media pushing a progressive social agenda. I'm not sure why that's controversial.

Regarding 2) I think in the end, at the very least, the writers who wrote the articles decrying gamers are dead/toxic should write a public apology for lumping in everyone together and insulting basically a huge portion of their audience.

She's not actually raped someone, she's only done something she describes as being akin to rape. As some point she claimed that having illicit sex with someone else while in a relationship and then going back to the original partner and not telling them what you've been doing, is akin to rape because they wouldn't consent knowing what you'd been doing. Now that's of interest if she did indeed cheat five times on her ex.

 Goliath wrote:
1) People keep on mentioning Mass Effect 3 as some massive gaming journalism scandal; what actually happened? The only controversy I can find is about the ending.

ME3 was a very bad moment for gamers. I've said several times "yes the ending sucked but you guys are frothing at the mouth crazy throwing around claims of false advertising, strong arming journalists, etc" with regards to ME3. Basically the ending was dreadful and everyone quickly forgot the rest of the game was pretty damn good because the ending was just that bad and the whole thing exploded into this drama fest. EDIT: Most reviewers criticized the ending too.

As a whole, ME3's scores matched the game imo, and in the end 16 different endings that differ only slightly is still 16 different endings as far as advertising laws are concerned. It's not like the game was DA2 where reviews were quite clearly bought, or Aliens:Colonial Marines where there was clear false advertising (including accusations that journalists knew that the final product wasn't anything like the advertised product before release and said nothing to warn consumers).

2) What's the end-game here?

A good question indeed.

 Goliath wrote:

 Mechanical Crow wrote:
Max Tempken gets rape allegations and they run stories, Zoe Quinn admits to raping someone and again, nothing.

If she's admitted to raping someone, why haven't you contacted the police? If she's as horrid a person as you keep on suggesting, surely you'd leap at the chance to get her imprisoned?

A couple of questions anyway:

1) People keep on mentioning Mass Effect 3 as some massive gaming journalism scandal; what actually happened? The only controversy I can find is about the ending.

2) What's the end-game here? Keep on causing the loss of sponsors until these places shut down?i see people making criticisms all the time, but I can't see any suggestions of solutions.

The main issue was that gamers were seen in a negative light by the gaming press.

They had opposing views on the matter of mass effect 3. And this caused some distrust between the two groups.

 Goliath wrote:
If she's admitted to raping someone, why haven't you contacted the police? If she's as horrid a person as you keep on suggesting, surely you'd leap at the chance to get her imprisoned?

A couple of questions anyway:

1) People keep on mentioning Mass Effect 3 as some massive gaming journalism scandal; what actually happened? The only controversy I can find is about the ending.

2) What's the end-game here? Keep on causing the loss of sponsors until these places shut down?i see people making criticisms all the time, but I can't see any suggestions of solutions.

I don't know what the Mass Effect 3 scandal is, either, unless people are referring to the backlash of "you're all whiny crybabies" articles that a lot of major sites ran when ME3 players started complaining about the ending.

As for the end-game? I don't know. I personally would certainly like to see some of the larger, more worthless sites go down; an end to Kotaku, Polygon, and Rock Paper Shotgun wouldn't make the gaming landscape a worse place.

Mostly I think people just want the gaming media at large to stop its incestuous old boys' club network shenanigans with itself and with developers and publishers, and to stop pushing pet political agendas. I have a degree, I had to sit through a Gender Studies class, I really don't need Nathan Grayson to write more, "Tropes In Chess: How Sacrificing The Queen To Save The King Is Misogynistic" articles.

 Valion wrote:
"Tropes In Chess: How Sacrificing The Queen To Save The King Is Misogynistic"

...

I'd read that article.

I'd love more diverse articles among the sites myself so that reviews read more like they're written by people with different viewpoints or likes instead of being told 'heres whats good about the game, write about that'. Everyone likes all the AAA titles, everyone likes all the AA titles, it seems like everyone likes the same games or close enough that their scores are very similar.

Sining wrote:
SJW just means social justice warrior. There is nothing misogynistic about it because it's a gender-neutral term

I realize that a so-called SJW can be a man or a woman. What I mean is, it is a derogatory label for one "side" of this discussion, the side that claims to women are under attack at least partly because of misogyny.

 Goliath wrote:

 Mechanical Crow wrote:
Max Tempken gets rape allegations and they run stories, Zoe Quinn admits to raping someone and again, nothing.

If she's admitted to raping someone, why haven't you contacted the police? If she's as horrid a person as you keep on suggesting, surely you'd leap at the chance to get her imprisoned?

A couple of questions anyway:

1) People keep on mentioning Mass Effect 3 as some massive gaming journalism scandal; what actually happened? The only controversy I can find is about the ending.

2) What's the end-game here? Keep on causing the loss of sponsors until these places shut down?i see people making criticisms all the time, but I can't see any suggestions of solutions.

Its because the rape was against her boyfriend and was sex under false pretenses, which SJW and feminists have been arguing heatedly counts as rape. That and its against a man, which some how doesn't count, and police never take seriously, but that is another issue.

As for the other points,

1) IIRC it had to do with DLCs and the super positive reviews that were essentially bought. And the journalists attacking people that called them out.

2) Most of the solutions have been suggested, for journalism all funding to people they know needs to stop or be transparent, or if they have a personal relationship they need to recuse themselves or make it abundantly clear that they know each other. For the devs, critics and silverstring media that are pushing the SJW narrative, they just need to stop, I know you disagree but Art and thinking does not require a check list. If I want to make a game about a man as the main character I shouldn't have to worry about making sure there is playable female characters and that trans people are represented and that Jesus is posted in a positive light. Think of it this way, if I made a historical game about the Civil war, would I need to have a trans soldier, a female soldier and a lesbian Marxist soldier? No. Because that isn't the target audience, to complain those weren't included is intellectually dishonest.

SJWs have gotten into other things and ran the same game, look up the paper on "why gravity is sexist".

Its a backwards restrictive way of thinking that just leads to bland amorphous people, which seems like the point of the extreme political correctness.

Their derogatory term for the other side is misogynist. I somehow think that's a lot worse than being called a SJW

I actually got into a brief (Very much so) exchange with Zoe on Twitter, I did not get any sort of frothing at the mouth "Gamers are evil misogynistic pigs!", and I actually called her game bad.

That in and of itself proves (Can't post tweets, but I'll go grab them off twitter anyway).

Slarg232 wrote:Zoe, I disagree with how the game turned out, but I want you to know thanks for trying with Depression Quest. I've had that

Slarg232 wrote:Battle

Lord Zoldemort wrote:I can totally respect that. I hope it's getting easier on you at least

My point is, it's all about how you approach people.

Also, if you haven't read the techraptr interview with Daniel Vavra about this whole kerfuffle, you should.

http://techraptor.net/2014/09/12/interview-daniel-vavra/

Then you should go buy his games.

The most relevant part in this article

Is misogyny a problem in the gaming industry?
Define industry. There are hundreds of million people playing games, so it’s very likely, that some of them are going to be stupid donkey-caves. But saying that the industry is misogynist, because some idiot wrote something on Twitter is absurd, and I strongly believe that it’s used as a distraction so they don’t have to talk about the real problem here. When you are accused of something, accuse your opponent of something much worse. When somebody writes hysterical, aggressive, manipulative articles calling people ‘basement neckbeard troll scum’, he should know what’s gonna come.
I was attacked on the Internet many, many times, because I often tend to say stuff people don’t like, but I never ever had a need to whine about it in a magazine and play a victim. When stuff gets serious and somebody really is doing some ugly gak, the best thing you can do is call the police and not tweet about it.
And there is also another very important thing. A large sum of gamers are teenage boys, who kinda naturally tend to do stupid things and are often quick on conclusions and insults. So no, the industry is not misogynist. Stupid people are misogynist.

Also this is after he talks about how he worked with quite a few women in his 15 years in the gaming industry. Women who can apparently BE in the gaming industry, BE bosses or developers or coders without all the intense drama certain other women tend to bring.

 Valion wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
So are the GamerGate and NotYourShield crowd. There have been plenty of questionable behaviors revealed since this started, social advocates and women being the least among them. It defeats the purpose of the movement to constantly harp on women and 'SJW' while claiming "we're not misogynists." This is the internet, not a college debate team. Words will be twisted so stop giving them words to twist.

I have seen no harping on women within the "movement." There has been harping on about (mostly) two individual women, but if we're going to call any and all criticism of a female misogyny, we might as well all go home now. Neither woman is a stranger to controversy, neither woman has acted, by all appearances, entirely above board, and both are full game for valid criticism whether people like that or not.

I have seen harping on SJWs. It seems a large swathe of the gaming public doesn't want its specialist media pushing a progressive social agenda. I'm not sure why that's controversial.

Its mainly from echo chambers and the tumblr hug box, they represent a small number of questionable customers that are super loud. Like in 40k, there is the loud detractors, the loud supporters, and the masses of everyone else that doesn't have a clue. I mentioned gamergate to some of my gaming friends and they had no clue it was even happening, they didn't even know who Kotaku was. SJWs are attacking geek culture on all fronts and don't seem to be interested in supporting it or its future, unless of course its there version.

It's basically bullying but the more socially accepted, politically correct type of bullying now. Be the totally PC way I think you should be or else...

Edited by Manchu

Sining wrote:
Their derogatory term for the other side is misogynist. I somehow think that's a lot worse than being called a SJW

It depends on what SJW comes to signify. If it is anything like what Sarkeesian and Quinn have been called, it is pretty terrible.

I explained this in the last thread;

Back in the early and mid 90's, an SJW was a type of internet troll. Someone who would sideline existing threads, topics, and chat room discussions to harp about social issues and to insult the participants already engaged in a separate discussion.

Now most sites have rules against being off topic (they didn't if you can believe that, back in ye olde interweb), so this kind of troll doesn't exist much anymore, but the term is still thrown around at bloggers and others in a derogatory manner, as if people think that even mentioning social issues is in itself trolling.

It's a very stupid phrase.

 LordofHats wrote:
I explained this in the last thread;

Back in the early and mid 90's, an SJW was a type of internet troll. Someone who would sideline existing threads, topics, and chat room discussions to harp about social issues and to insult the participants already engaged in a separate discussion.

Now most sites have rules against being off topic (they didn't if you can believe that, back in ye olde interweb), so this kind of troll doesn't exist much anymore, but the term is still thrown around at bloggers and others in a derogatory manner, as if people think that even mentioning social issues is in itself trolling.

It's a very stupid phrase.

Would you say that is more or less stupid than saying an entire group of people hate women because they like to play video games?

SJW is the same as Keyboard Warrior. Use whatever definition you want or feel more comfortable with. Anita / Quinn aren't SJW, they are desperately seeking for attention.

Edited by Manchu

PhantomViper wrote:
Would you say that is more or less stupid than saying an entire group of people hate women because they like to play video games?

Both are pretty stupid. Issue is that the people playing games are making it really easy for the other side to hurl insults at them by harping on and on about 'SJWs.' If that phrase were completely dropped from this debate, it wouldn't really change anything but it would make the GamerGate crowd a lot harder to attack.

 Manchu wrote:

Sining wrote:
Their derogatory term for the other side is misogynist. I somehow think that's a lot worse than being called a SJW

It depends on what SJW comes to signify. If it is anything like what Sarkeesian and Quinn have been called, it is pretty terrible.

I associate with people that are easily offended, focus narrowly on one thing, do little to no research, derail and muddy anything that doesn't fit the narrative or agenda. We've seen it here on dakka, and all over the net. And the behaviour patterns are the same as if it was taught, so using Social Justice Warrior is a lot better then the alternatives. I can use racists, sexists, intellectually immoral, fraudulent victims, or just hypocrites.

Misogynist is hatred of distrust of women. I love women, especially independent, career orientated and intellectual women. So calling me a misogynist is pretty offensive. What Im against is corrupt A-holes (especially at the corporate and government level) that spread dishonest ideology and practice, and SJWs fit that bill pretty well, I have only run into this kind of wilful ignorance a few other times in my life 1) was arguing religion with a creationist 2) was with a racist and supporter of shark finning and 3) is SJWs. The difference is that religion and racists didn't storm their way into things I enjoy and start demanding things to fit their agendas, but some how extreme political correctness gets a pass because they use gender and perceived victimhood as constant defence.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:
SJW is the same as Keyboard Warrior. Use whatever definition you want or feel more comfortable with. Anita / Quinn aren't SJW, they are

I assume you meant feminist at the end of that. And Quinn is pretty bad for it, a lot of the logs from the Zoe Post show quite the opposite of what she claims to be. Anita is a sex negative feminist, which is basically the fun police of feminists normally.

No, that's not what I said. Please PM Manchu and ask him what I said.

And no, they aren't feminists. They aren't fighting for a cause, they are looking for attention. Actual feminists do not only complain, they are looking for constructive solutions to a problem. Especially Quinn is a considerable positive sexist as she abuses her gender to make false claims and blame people as misognists where in reality, there's no actual misogny involved.

 Mechanical Crow wrote:
using Social Justice Warrior is a lot better then the alternatives

One alternative is not using a label at all and that is probably the best way.

 Sigvatr wrote:
No, that's not what I said. Please PM Manchu and ask him what I said.

And no, they aren't feminists. They aren't fighting for a cause, they are looking for attention. Actual feminists do not only complain, they are looking for constructive solutions to a problem. Especially Quinn is a considerable positive sexist as she abuses her gender to make false claims and blame people as misognists where in reality, there's no actual misogny involved.

I apologize, meant no offence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 Mechanical Crow wrote:
using Social Justice Warrior is a lot better then the alternatives

One alternative is not using a label at all and that is probably the best way.

True, either way it does dehumanize. Its just easier then saying long winded "person whos views differ then mine in the opposite direction" that and I dislike using "they" that's just a pet peeve though.