Please don't go calling people racist, misogynists, or any combination therein. Don't start throwing around words like "white Knight" or SJW, these words are at this point used in a derogatory manner regarding this debate. You can discuss that these terms exist, but do not attribute them to any individual user or group of users on this website.
Try to have a serious discussion about the topic at hand without resorting to personal attacks and we will all be the better for it. Breaking this rule will result in an automatic temp ban the length of which will depend on the comment you make.
This thread started not so bad. It is getting worse. If you want to have this discussion on TL be respectful of your fellow users, we all live in the same house.
On October 17 2014 13:58 ShiroKaisen wrote: The fact that GG hasn't even attempted to pick up where Doritogate left off and is just targeting indie developers and the Gawker network dooms it to never getting anywhere.
The close relationship between AAA publishers and gaming media outlets is the real problem, but GG started in reaction to Quinn stuff and in the end, it's going to be completely impossible to separate it from the extremists who just want Anita and other "SJWs" out of their lives. 'cause apparently any time a review points out that a game treats women or minorities poorly, they were paid for in money or sexual favors to go along with the "SJW agenda." And apparently this is an even bigger deal than the decades-long partnership between gaming news and game developers that render real "games journalism" impossible.
If GG had just picked up where Doritogate left off and stopped talking about how much it hates feminism and Social Justice Strawmen it might've actually done something worthwhile. As it is, it's just gonna be a bunch of angry people who get other people angry and in the end, nothing is going to change except maybe the Gawker network takes a hit.
I remember reading gaming magazines back in the early to mid 90s as a kid that clearly inflated the scores of the AAA titles. It's been going on for over 20 years, and it needs to stop.
On October 17 2014 13:58 ShiroKaisen wrote: The fact that GG hasn't even attempted to pick up where Doritogate left off and is just targeting indie developers and the Gawker network dooms it to never getting anywhere.
The close relationship between AAA publishers and gaming media outlets is the real problem, but GG started in reaction to Quinn stuff and in the end, it's going to be completely impossible to separate it from the extremists who just want Anita and other "SJWs" out of their lives. 'cause apparently any time a review points out that a game treats women or minorities poorly, they were paid for in money or sexual favors to go along with the "SJW agenda." And apparently this is an even bigger deal than the decades-long partnership between gaming news and game developers that render real "games journalism" impossible.
If GG had just picked up where Doritogate left off and stopped talking about how much it hates feminism and Social Justice Strawmen it might've actually done something worthwhile. As it is, it's just gonna be a bunch of angry people who get other people angry and in the end, nothing is going to change except maybe the Gawker network takes a hit.
I think there's a lot of issues at hand here. Games journalism is one part.
The other is picking up where things like Jack Thompson or the "Sex simulator" white-washing of Mass Effect left off. People have been trying to demonize video games and video game culture (and movies, music, tabletop games, etc. before it), usually with poorly done research or outright ignorance. Misogyny and sexism seem like the latest buzzwords, and unlike Jack Thompson where every video game website was happy to lampoon the idiot, this time they're jumping onto the bandwagon.
Also, biggest difference between this and something like Doritogate or Geirstmangate (you damn Americans shoving "-gate" onto everything) is that you generally have one site screwing up, and all their competitor happily dog-piling on the offender.
This time around most major game websites seems happy to either stir the pot or invoke the Streisand Effect, which apparently is what it takes for one of these things to hit critical mass. It's actually kind of fascinating, purely from an overview of social interaction.
But in both of those instances, the violence and the sexism, there's a very real, important conversation to be had that the extremists on both sides are obscuring. During the Jack Thompson days in the early 2000s, there was still a very interesting, important discussion about violence in video games. It ultimately didn't go very far, and obviously Jack Thompson himself was completely off-base with an irrational vendetta, but there were a few interesting little things that came out of it - like the whole controversy around the Columbine RPG. Likewise, with sexism, the majority acknowledges that games don't generally treat women very well. It's just a question of how we want to go about talking about that and making it better.
The louder GGers don't seem to be interested in having that conversation and lash out on people trying to have it as "SJWs," such as when a GameSpot reviewer so much as mentions sexism in a review, and the loud anti-GGers keep resorting to really unnecessary harsh, inflammatory language when discussing the GG crowd. Both sides have people who are making their side look bad, the only difference is that the GG crowd has such a confused, muddled message that everything about it has been overtaken by the existence of the death threats.
I want to be having these conversations, and that's really what incenses me about this whole thing. It's making both viewpoints less willing to discuss them.
Very little will be done in the end. Most people who read these trashsites wont suddenly realize they're trashsites. They either don't know about the problems inherent in their journalists or they don't care. Either way, they aren't bothered by the controversy and it will stay that way. The people pushing back against Gamergate don't really have a leg to stand on. "Harassment is bad." Well, no shit. I'm pretty sure everybody already agrees. But that is the only message that they're trying to put out and even if somehow no trolls, shills, or just plain assholes ever posted something harassing for weeks they still wouldn't change their 1 stance: "Harassment is bad."
The people making the push for better ethics/coverage have hit a rather obvious road block but haven't really seemed to acknowledge it... These aren't individual journalists but entire "news" sites and their editors/founders/entire staff. At this point, why do they continue to campaign for reform in an obviously broken area? Migrate to a place that does do actual journalism if that's what you want. There's clearly none to be found in the options you used to use. It doesn't mean the "sjws" win if you move because your "space" is simply the gaming industry and they can't force you out. You can simply ignore them and let them talk to themselves while you take no part in their 1-way discussion.
Then have those discussions, don't penalize games for not adhering to it. Don't be corrupt as fuck about pushing your agenda, and don't make people like Anita the flagship when her points have been debunked to hell and back and is in general full of crap because it undermines any sense that you're really interested in the discussion instead of just forcing your ideology onto people when you refuse actual discussion, and only dictate.
Also studies have shown there is no link to video games and violence, and in fact areas of crime seem to decrease from some video game genres. (Though it's mostly correlation)
And no, I don't believe GG has a confused and muddled message at all. You're just not actually getting the message from the source, you're getting it filtered from the one who stands to lose if you get it unfiltered. Go to youtube, or http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/ for basic gamergate news.
Really though, this idea that a group got together to discuss their ideas to make a good feminist video game for women for them to donate to is somehow the same group of people responsible for death threats en large is ridiculous. If they hated feminists so much, why donate nearly 100 grand to one to help women in gaming?
And here's the majority of #Gamergate's take on sexism in gaming:
It isn't that they don't want to discuss it, it's just they don't want to discuss what isn't there(misogyny. Sexism is there, but sexism is not an absolute evil. Often you find them saying "This is sexist, therefore bad. But they can't go into further detail, just alluding to some far-off culture it contributes to that it actually doesn't) There's very obviously a perversion in our media to find offense with whatever they can to generate revenue, and being offended for women is a big one.
On October 17 2014 15:21 ShiroKaisen wrote: But in both of those instances, the violence and the sexism, there's a very real, important conversation to be had that the extremists on both sides are obscuring. During the Jack Thompson days in the early 2000s, there was still a very interesting, important discussion about violence in video games. It ultimately didn't go very far, and obviously Jack Thompson himself was completely off-base with an irrational vendetta, but there were a few interesting little things that came out of it - like the whole controversy around the Columbine RPG. Likewise, with sexism, the majority acknowledges that games don't generally treat women very well. It's just a question of how we want to go about talking about that and making it better.
The louder GGers don't seem to be interested in having that conversation and lash out on people trying to have it as "SJWs," such as when a GameSpot reviewer so much as mentions sexism in a review, and the loud anti-GGers keep resorting to really unnecessary harsh, inflammatory language when discussing the GG crowd. Both sides have people who are making their side look bad, the only difference is that the GG crowd has such a confused, muddled message that everything about it has been overtaken by the existence of the death threats.
I want to be having these conversations, and that's really what incenses me about this whole thing. It's making both viewpoints less willing to discuss them.
Eh, internet mobs are internet mobs, no matter what they're rabbling about. If you refuse to have a conversation because of those people, then you might as well not do anything on the internet to begin with.
As for "women not being treated well" in games, that's a topic I frequently find muddied by far too many presuppositions from people starting the discussions. There's a lot of interesting things to talk about, like how to approach the targeting of demographics, or the origins and meanings of certain tropes.
The complaints about sexism in GG specifically I see as a response to a few overarching issues. One is backlash to being insulted looked down on, just like with Jack Thompson. The other is problems with undue attention to certain games that only standout for being "progressive", or certain games getting negative press because a writer takes personal issue with it.
"Corruption" seems like a rather broad term used to encompass a lot of things. Some of the issues I see floating around aren't so much about ethical breaches, as they are about amateur writers being treated as professionals by the industry, or writers treating official websites as their own personal blogs.
"Corruption" seems like a rather broad term used to encompass a lot of things. Some of the issues I see floating around aren't so much about ethical breaches, as they are about amateur writers being treated as professionals by the industry, or writers treating official websites as their own personal blogs.
I'm more than willing to admit some, even most of what we've seen might not actually be "corruption" and I understand personally it's hard to vocalize, categorize, etc what we're seeing and why we think it's wrong. But concerns just keep building up, and up. And they're digging themselves deeper graves by avoiding them, so I do hope some paranoia on my and others parts doesn't come off as too tinfoil when we see them just avoiding the issue entirely, it makes us think they're avoiding it because they know it's wrong.
Seeing even how the tops act in Gawker, maybe some of it is just amateur hour and not a meeting of the third Reich.
No one thinks that video games actually CAUSE violence, but that doesn't mean the portrayal of violence isn't or wasn't worth talking about. Saying "video games don't cause violence" doesn't make the conversation over. There are plenty of great modern games, like Spec Ops: The Line for instance, that have continued to advance this conversation by using the violence in the game as a tool for storytelling.
The basic messages of that video are "hardcore gamers are mostly men, and men like sexy girls and male heroes, and that's fine, so games aren't sexist" and "just because a few gamers harassed women, doesn't make all gamers harassers." The second is true, but the first is a non-sequitur. Games are obviously made for an audience, and that's fine. No one thinks people who like sexy girls and male heroes should be punished or shamed for liking those games, just that there ought to be more alternatives out there and more people ought to be included and represented. Women not being "hardcore gamers" is chalked up by that video as something that can't be helped. It doesn't even attempt to explain why. People trying to improve female representation in games are trying to understand why girls don't play "hardcore" games and make games that would appeal to them.
...and wait, did you actually just say that sexism isn't bad?
Sexism is there, but sexism is not an absolute evil.
what.
Also that video deliberately makes fun of people with sociology degrees, and if that's not pandering to the crowd that's getting confirmation bias out of it, I don't know what is. People need to stop crapping on people who study stuff like sociology and communication, and that's coming from an engineer.
let it be said though that the bullying comments from the head of gawker are absolutely inexcusable.
Personally feel like one major part of the movement is a backlash at the SJW types that sent angry letters to EG, etc over things like Stephano's jokes on stream or got Orb frozen out when that could have been something positive (Less sympathy for orb to be fair).
Combine that with some gender narratives being pushed that look a bit dodgy here and there (wage gap/ sexual assault) and you have the grounds for a general reaction to a sort of culture war going on this time from the left. It's interesting looking at the biases and acceptable language being thrown about when discussing gamergate. ( I mean Adam Sessler talked about his fanbase as being worse than chemical weapons buyers.)
IMO if the movement lasts out the election we might start seeing something more conciliatory come out from the anti-side and maybe that will beget some rapprochement. Curious and a little worried by the out side conservative groups circling like vultures.
On October 17 2014 16:08 ShiroKaisen wrote: Also that video deliberately makes fun of people with sociology degrees, and if that's not pandering to the crowd that's getting confirmation bias out of it, I don't know what is. People need to stop crapping on people who study stuff like sociology and communication, and that's coming from an engineer.
Probably worth noting that Christina Sommers was philosophy professor, and seems to have a lot of books that would probably be considered sociology.
Not that I know anything about the quality of her work, the posted video is the first I've actually seen of her. Just saying that any criticism against sociology probably isn't about the field as a whole.
On October 17 2014 16:08 ShiroKaisen wrote: No one thinks people who like sexy girls and male heroes should be punished or shamed for liking those games,
That's actually where you're wrong and has caused a lot of the backlash against SJWs. There have been journalists, industry people, and outsiders who have all commented and painted either GG supporters or gamers in general with broad-strokes like that.
When somebody runs a youtube series based entirely around sexism in games and doesn't prove any of it, but still continues to push the idea that games are sexist and cause inherent sexism in gamers... do you expect them to just sit quietly and accept it? "Oh man, your video providing no facts and entirely dishonest examples sure makes me feel like the woman-hating piece of shit you think I've been programmed to be." That's one area I wish there was more outrage; putting up with bullshit because GG has been doing its best to not shitsling at the moment. A lie aint another side of a story; it's just a lie.
On October 17 2014 16:08 ShiroKaisen wrote: Also that video deliberately makes fun of people with sociology degrees, and if that's not pandering to the crowd that's getting confirmation bias out of it, I don't know what is. People need to stop crapping on people who study stuff like sociology and communication, and that's coming from an engineer.
Probably worth noting that Christina Sommers was philosophy professor, and seems to have a lot of books that would probably be considered sociology.
Not that I know anything about the quality of her work, the posted video is the first I've actually seen of her. Just saying that any criticism against sociology probably isn't about the field as a whole.
Well sure, but the way she threw in the jibe about "hipster sociology graduates" or whatever felt like something straight out of the mouth of your average internet gamer, and really took me out of the video. It both felt super out of place, and like it undermined her argument by attempting to paint the opposition as silly or not worth listening to. You can't have a discussion if you just throw out the opinions of one side.
On October 17 2014 16:08 ShiroKaisen wrote: No one thinks people who like sexy girls and male heroes should be punished or shamed for liking those games,
That's actually where you're wrong and has caused a lot of the backlash against SJWs. There have been journalists, industry people, and outsiders who have all commented and painted either GG supporters or gamers in general with broad-strokes like that.
When somebody runs a youtube series based entirely around sexism in games and doesn't prove any of it, but still continues to push the idea that games are sexist and cause inherent sexism in gamers... do you expect them to just sit quietly and accept it? "Oh man, your video providing no facts and entirely dishonest examples sure makes me feel like the woman-hating piece of shit you think I've been programmed to be." That's one area I wish there was more outrage; putting up with bullshit because GG has been doing its best to not shitsling at the moment. A lie aint another side of a story; it's just a lie.
And those guys are in the wrong. People in the gaming industry and consumers of games do and say some sexist or hateful stuff, but that doesn't give them the right to paint everyone in those colors.
What I just don't understand is why people are so fixated on Anita's videos. They're just some videos on Youtube made by one person, and people chose to give her money to make them. If you don't like them, don't watch them?
Don't try to say that "sexism exists in games" is a lie though, because that's blatantly not true. Just because Anita's videos weren't very good doesn't mean the idea that games could portray women better isn't also true.
As a note on Sommers, she firmly believes that women should be stay at home mothers and anything else is oppression towards men because evolution. I would take anything she says with a large bucket of salt.
On October 17 2014 16:08 ShiroKaisen wrote: Also that video deliberately makes fun of people with sociology degrees, and if that's not pandering to the crowd that's getting confirmation bias out of it, I don't know what is. People need to stop crapping on people who study stuff like sociology and communication, and that's coming from an engineer.
Probably worth noting that Christina Sommers was philosophy professor, and seems to have a lot of books that would probably be considered sociology.
Not that I know anything about the quality of her work, the posted video is the first I've actually seen of her. Just saying that any criticism against sociology probably isn't about the field as a whole.
Well sure, but the way she threw in the jibe about "hipster sociology graduates" or whatever felt like something straight out of the mouth of your average internet gamer, and really took me out of the video. It both felt super out of place, and like it undermined her argument by attempting to paint the opposition as silly or not worth listening to. You can't have a discussion if you just throw out the opinions of one side.
Oh, didn't really pay attention to that. I see your point.
Though, it's probably not about pandering to the gamer audience. Apparently she's an "anti-feminist feminist", if that makes any sense, and seems to have an issue with radical feminism in general. Not sure if that makes her better or worse in your mind.
On October 17 2014 16:08 ShiroKaisen wrote: No one thinks people who like sexy girls and male heroes should be punished or shamed for liking those games,
That's actually where you're wrong and has caused a lot of the backlash against SJWs. There have been journalists, industry people, and outsiders who have all commented and painted either GG supporters or gamers in general with broad-strokes like that.
When somebody runs a youtube series based entirely around sexism in games and doesn't prove any of it, but still continues to push the idea that games are sexist and cause inherent sexism in gamers... do you expect them to just sit quietly and accept it? "Oh man, your video providing no facts and entirely dishonest examples sure makes me feel like the woman-hating piece of shit you think I've been programmed to be." That's one area I wish there was more outrage; putting up with bullshit because GG has been doing its best to not shitsling at the moment. A lie aint another side of a story; it's just a lie.
And those guys are in the wrong. People in the gaming industry and consumers of games do and say some sexist or hateful stuff, but that doesn't give them the right to paint everyone in those colors.
What I just don't understand is why people are so fixated on Anita's videos. They're just some videos on Youtube made by one person, and people chose to give her money to make them. If you don't like them, don't watch them?
Don't try to say that "sexism exists in games" is a lie though, because that's blatantly not true. Just because Anita's videos weren't very good doesn't mean the idea that games could portray women better isn't also true.
I don't care about Sarkeesian. I don't even care about any of these shitty websites because I've never read their trash to begin with. The problem is there are people who DO read those site. And when all those sites conform to the narrative that she and a few select others want to talk about the whole thing looks like a farce. Sexism does exist in games. So does every other "bad" thing you can probably think of. Art immitates life and there's plenty of it to go around.
You want gamers to talk about sexism? Go right ahead. Nobody would stop you. You want to LIE about sexism in games? Good look having actual discourse with your supposed audience.
On October 17 2014 16:31 Gowerly wrote: As a note on Sommers, she firmly believes that women should be stay at home mothers and anything else is oppression towards men because evolution. I would take anything she says with a large bucket of salt.
Sigh... Either discuss the merits of her points or not at all. I don't like 90% of the politics of random people I read on either side of this whole thing... that shouldn't sway your opinion. The merits of their arguments are what matter. And I'm also not even saying that's a great video; it's better than most, but that's only because the bar is set so low it's almost impossible to fail.
[QUOTE]On October 17 2014 16:38 I_Love_Bacon wrote: [QUOTE]On October 17 2014 16:29 ShiroKaisen wrote: [QUOTE]On October 17 2014 16:28 I_Love_Bacon wrote: [QUOTE]On October 17 2014 16:08 ShiroKaisen wrote: [QUOTE]On October 17 2014 16:31 Gowerly wrote: As a note on Sommers, she firmly believes that women should be stay at home mothers and anything else is oppression towards men because evolution. I would take anything she says with a large bucket of salt.[/QUOTE]
Sigh... Either discuss the merits of her points or not at all. I don't like 90% of the politics of random people I read on either side of this whole thing... this that shouldn't sway your opinion. The merits of their arguments are what matter. And I'm also not even saying that's a great video; it's better than most, but that's only because the bar is set so low it's almost impossible to fail.[/QUOTE] Her points are subjective and ingrained into her beliefs. Everything you say is swayed by what you believe. Because of her beliefs she has kept the video largely one sided. Because of her beliefs you need a set of points from someone that believes the opposite.
No one thinks that video games actually CAUSE violence, but that doesn't mean the portrayal of violence isn't or wasn't worth talking about. Saying "video games don't cause violence" doesn't make the conversation over. There are plenty of great modern games, like Spec Ops: The Line for instance, that have continued to advance this conversation by using the violence in the game as a tool for storytelling.
The basic messages of that video are "hardcore gamers are mostly men, and men like sexy girls and male heroes, and that's fine, so games aren't sexist" and "just because a few gamers harassed women, doesn't make all gamers harassers." The second is true, but the first is a non-sequitur. Games are obviously made for an audience, and that's fine. No one thinks people who like sexy girls and male heroes should be punished or shamed for liking those games, just that there ought to be more alternatives out there and more people ought to be included and represented. Women not being "hardcore gamers" is chalked up by that video as something that can't be helped. It doesn't even attempt to explain why. People trying to improve female representation in games are trying to understand why girls don't play "hardcore" games and make games that would appeal to them.
...and wait, did you actually just say that sexism isn't bad?
Sexism is there, but sexism is not an absolute evil.
what.
Also that video deliberately makes fun of people with sociology degrees, and if that's not pandering to the crowd that's getting confirmation bias out of it, I don't know what is. People need to stop crapping on people who study stuff like sociology and communication, and that's coming from an engineer.
let it be said though that the bullying comments from the head of gawker are absolutely inexcusable.
-Never said it wasn't worth talking about. Just that we need to actually talk about it and not talk at people.
-sexism has multiple meanings, and I was mostly referring to this one:
"attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles."
Can be both a good and bad thing, especially in an art form. Ex. It'd be technically sexist to make a male muscular, testosterone-fueled lunkhead, but what if that's how the developer feels he can best express his character in the game? If it's a bad character, why not objectively explain why then go "Well it's sexist, so bad" If they want to make a stereotypical badass, let them. If they want to make an air-headed girly-girl, let them.
-She has a sociology degree herself. It seems to be a critique of her own field that she's familiar with, or a delightful ribbing. Didn't really notice it personally.
-The explanation why isn't really understood, though there are some theories. (Women aren't as naturally competitive being the main factor, and men's minds are able to focus on single-tasks better, which would be why women like phone games where they can watch tv/talk to friends or the like as they play. But it's all theory as far as I know)
-The video does not claim that there should be no alternatives, or reach-outs made to women in gaming. Just that hindering the male side of things is the improper manner to go about it. (Hence why GG donated to women to get them to actually make games for women instead of whining about other games)
On October 17 2014 16:42 Gowerly wrote: Her points are subjective and ingrained into her beliefs. Everything you say is swayed by what you believe. Because of her beliefs she has kept the video largely one sided. Because of her beliefs you need a set of points from someone that believes the opposite.
Then either refute her statements or accept you're basically just saying she's said stupid things before. Congrats, a lot of people do and they still are able to make coherent arguments at time. I'm sure you've been wrong in your life before, guess that means nobody can ever take your opinion seriously again?
She offers her take as well as an attempt to find scholarly articles talking about the supposed problems. She might only offer a cursory glance but none of it is really patently untrue. A bit opaque at times and, like I said, I don't even like it that much but the basics are there. It's also ironic that you mention her points are subjective. You know why, because she was offered almost no facts to actually refute. She refuted the ones she could (as some others have done) and beyond that there's so little actual discussion to be had it seems like her own argument is weak because of it. She offers her opinion because that's what experts are allowed to do. Actually, anybody is allowed to do that. You can then read their opinion and think of it what you will or you can summarily dismiss it because that's clearly the intellectual thing to do when somebody says something you don't want to hear.
On October 17 2014 16:31 Gowerly wrote: As a note on Sommers, she firmly believes that women should be stay at home mothers and anything else is oppression towards men because evolution. I would take anything she says with a large bucket of salt.
EPT
