|
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.
Effective now: Page 21 October 18th 08:31 KST |
On October 18 2014 07:19 Xiphos wrote:
Anita clearly scammed people into buying her narrative or rather, completely spurious narrative. She got money from bunch of people by brainwashing them. Then not only did she not fulfill her end of the bargain, she went on to fake death threat to gain sympathy points to frame herself as the victim. And later, it was found out that she lied about even reporting the case to any police.
Dude, your metaphors suck. When you're accusing someone of something, don't use hyperbole. No one will take you seriously. I've edited them out because I feel sorry for you and you're just hurting your own case.
Show me the link or evidence of her fabricating threats to her life.
|
On October 18 2014 07:38 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 07:19 Xiphos wrote:
Anita clearly scammed people into buying her narrative or rather, completely spurious narrative. She got money from bunch of people by brainwashing them. Then not only did she not fulfill her end of the bargain, she went on to fake death threat to gain sympathy points to frame herself as the victim. And later, it was found out that she lied about even reporting the case to any police.
Dude, your metaphors suck. When you're accusing someone of something, don't use hyperbole. No one will take you seriously. I've edited them out because I feel sorry for you and you're just hurting your own case. Show me the link or evidence of her fabricating threats to her life.
Not a metaphor, its what actually happened.
People bought in on her ideal that games are sexists (this is called brainwashing) even though it have been debunked numerous times by YouTubers.
If you would read the thread, you would definitely find the evidence not too far from here. Go to pg 19.
I know it might be very hard for you to understand why she would do that, you are appearing more and more surprised at every turn. And I get it! How could a person do such things?
But it is important to accept them and find ways to prevent it from happening next time.
|
On October 18 2014 07:06 TotalBiscuit wrote:Show nested quote +Except the Visual Novel industry has been going strong for like a decade, so it's not like Depression Quest broke any ground.
And really, my complaints about it aren't really about the fact that it exists and that people have interest in it (even if I think it's a fairly poor representation of depression). It's that any text-based game that's full of grammatical errors and typos should be called out for lacking any professional polish. Yeah it's also not the first game to touch on issues of depression either (you could argue Actual Sunlight did a better job). I support DQ due to its message, I think that's important, but simultaneously it is a terrible videogame and if I were to critique it I'd shred it. I'm choosing not to because I can't be arsed with the hassle that would come from it.
Huh, haven't actually heard of that game before.
Worth checking out at all?
|
On October 18 2014 07:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 07:06 TotalBiscuit wrote:Except the Visual Novel industry has been going strong for like a decade, so it's not like Depression Quest broke any ground.
And really, my complaints about it aren't really about the fact that it exists and that people have interest in it (even if I think it's a fairly poor representation of depression). It's that any text-based game that's full of grammatical errors and typos should be called out for lacking any professional polish. Yeah it's also not the first game to touch on issues of depression either (you could argue Actual Sunlight did a better job). I support DQ due to its message, I think that's important, but simultaneously it is a terrible videogame and if I were to critique it I'd shred it. I'm choosing not to because I can't be arsed with the hassle that would come from it. Huh, haven't actually heard of that game before. Worth checking out at all?
Short interactive story that deals with suicide. Do not expect a pleasant experience.
|
The idea that something as complicated and multi-faceted as the possibility of sexist portrayal of women in video games could be debunked by a YouTube video is hilarious. I love how you keep coming out and saying "nope these youtubers said Anita was wrong, so sexism in video games doesn't exist" as though Anita is the only person who thinks games can be problematic, and this entire thing only is a conversation because Anita made it one.
People were talking about sexism in video games for decades before Anita even thought of the idea to make a video, and will continue to do it long after people have forgotten she exists.
Continuing to beat the dead horse on Anita and Quinn just feeds the idea that GG is about harassing feminists.
|
On October 18 2014 06:46 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 06:34 Defacer wrote:On October 18 2014 05:21 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 05:04 Defacer wrote:On October 18 2014 04:54 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 04:40 Defacer wrote:On October 18 2014 01:36 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 01:15 Thax wrote:On October 18 2014 00:14 Xiphos wrote:On October 17 2014 23:14 Defacer wrote:[quote] First of all, relax. You must of written 300 words per minute. + Show Spoiler +This is all bull shit. GG isn't about Anita no matter how much you seem to think it is. She is background noise at best and is used to deflect from the actual issue at hand. Dude, you brought her up. And I was just commenting to how absurd it is that people are so upset she exists. And you kind of proved my point ... You're setting the bar for success pretty low. You're basically stating that because she wasn't frothing at the mouth and calling for male game devs to be castrated that her criticisms have more merit. All her points, whether you agree with her or not, are explicitly illustrated and supported with examples. Her argument is reasoned and well-researched. It's structured, and builds towards an actually conclusion. You can bitch and complain that it's not exhaustive, but it's not meant to be. She has a thesis and she defends it well. It's certainly not lazy. That's more than can you say than most of her detractors, who rely on heresay or empty accusations or dismiss entire 3000 word articles with links and annotations simply because they think the publisher is a shill. I'm sorry, but there's nothing intellectually dishonest about it, no matter how loud you shout it from the roof tops. Intellectual dishonest implies she's not earnest. She believes what she says. You just disagree with her. Like I said, I don't blame you because there's a metric shit ton of them out there. Others use Anita's videos to justify THEIR hatred and then take to articles/twitter/whateverthefuckever. I can hate her work but, as I've said countless times, GG isn't about Anita. Alright, I think I understand what you're saying here. You're issue isn't with Anita's argument. It's the idiots that amplify it and take it out of context. It happens on both sides. I absolutely agree. I do not condone stupidity. Oh-so-false. Saying "she just a media critic" means you haven't done nearly as much research as you think you have. I'm not going to bring up the personal things about how she lies about being a gamer and some of the other talks she's given because I don't want my own opinion of them to taint them if you ever get around to them.
The "worst case scenario" is that a woman who has admitted she doesn't like games and doesn't play games has now been consulted by major studios about their games where she'll continue to push her biased/questionable message. As somebody on a site that was dedicated to hard core gaming I hope you can at least appreciate the absolute ridiculousness of that. Oh, and it should be more exhaustive given how much money she was given but I'll let that slide for now. ... aaannnd you're losing me. This is coming off as sour grapes, to be honest. Maybe she lied about being a gamer. I have no idea what this accusation really means. The definition of being a gamer is very, very broad and means different things to different people. To someone like Anita, it probably meant playing a game a few hours on the weekend and even included roleplaying or board games with her friends. I don't really give a shit about her personal life, so I honestly don't know. But to a hardcore gamer, it literally means BUY EVERY MAJOR RELEASE AND PLAY NON-STOP UNTIL COMPLETION NEED MONSTER ENERGY DRINK. These people exist. That's a massive spectrum there. Consultants from other industries and fields get hired all the time. Gaming is an expensive, high-risk business. Sometimes celebrity or creative consultants are brought on to boost the profile of a game. Sometimes they are actually technical consultants, like cinematographers or architects. There is an obvious lack of realistic or even interesting representation of women in triple-A games. Maybe she'll get paid to consult on content. Maybe a developer will hire her as a token creative consultant, the way Will.i.am or Pharell seems to be the creative consultant on everything, in the hopes it will provide a halo effect around the game and attract a broader demographic. In either sense, trust me — her influence will be smaller than you think. Games are not build by consultants. They're built by 50 to 100 people working 60 hours a week. I know a lot of people that work in triple-A gaming. I know it sucks, but you're resenting her for identifying an issue in gaming that is rarely addressed, building a case for it's importance, representing herself as an expert on that particular issue, and being rewarded because it. That happens in almost industry because that's how society works. Trust me, as a designer, I have seen many younger, stupider people position themselves as experts on sustainability or social media experts — despite having very superficial knowledge — and fast tracking their careers. You're resenting a person for carving a niche and building a name for herself. The world isn't a meritocracy. Her getting gigs you wish you had — or think other people should have — is your problem, not hers. Now let's move on before we start bitching about Ben Affleck as Batman. This is where your tinfoil hat is showing even more than before. Show me serious attempts to threaten Sarkeesian. Oh, the one that she screen capped 20 seconds after it was posted while not logged into twitter? The one at the university yesterday that the police deemed as not-credible? Know how many journalists/critics/developers have been killed over their opinion on games? 0 I'm going to pretend to be your conscience for a second: "Threatening to shoot up a lecture hall is a serious offense. It is not a trivial threat, even if it's a lie. If you get caught you will get arrested. "Also, if someone threatens to murder you, encourages others to harass or hurt you, and publicizes you're home address, it is perfectly rational to not feel safe. If you are driven out of your own home out of fear, it's okay to feel like you're being violated, because you are." Trolls exist on the internet. This... surprises you? We live in a world where assholes "swat" people on Twitchtv and you're surprised that some shitheads leveled deaththreats and say stupid, vitriolic things on twitter? Once again, you're on a gaming website and you're surprised there exists people who make it their goal to push other people's buttons? Nobody after a game of SC told you to die in a fire or call you a faggot? Why yes! I know you're trying to dismiss the significance of online threats or abuse as trivial or 'less real', but that's a weak argument. And you're just admitting that games can lead to anti-social behaviour. As if stupidity is an excuse. Are you sure you're not an SJW at-heart? This also falls into the main point of GG is the inability to criticize "these people" (journalists, SWJs, and everybody in between). Comments are deleted/disabled, reddit threads are deleted, people are shadow banned, and entire pieces are forced to be taken down and yet somehow GG are the ones who are being accused of censorship. Virtually every single person who writes above the 5th grade reading level and supports GG also calls for NO CENSORSHIP. Let her have here views; then let others rebut them if that's what they want to do. Isn't that's what supposed to happen? Why did this suddenly become a bad thing that bad reporting/criticism is pointed out? You know the other thing that Pro-GGs aren't doing? Making a gigantic production out of every threat posted to them on twitter despite their being plenty of choose from. They're not trying to play victims and garner attention/sympathy, they're trying to have an actual discussion. HAHAHA! BULL! SHIT! Are you serious dude? The one's complaining and whining the loudest have been the GG community. Check out KotakuInAction. In the past four hours, some Gawker reporter made a joke about bullying nerds, and they turned it into a witch hunt, had a little non-stop pity party, and now have a 'nerd' challenging the reporter to $10,000 boxing match! Mike Cernovich challenges Gawker to $10,000 boxing matchhttps://twitter.com/PlayDangerously/status/522971574400348160 How's that for production and spectacle? And what does it have to do with journalistic integrity? NOTHING. I would never accuse GG of censorship. I would never do that. I'm accusing a subset of trolls using GamerGate as a political shield to threaten, intimidate and harass three women until they were forced to leave their homes and go into hiding. That's worse then censorship. It's the literal definition of terrorism. For two of them the only 'crime' they committed, technically, is having an fucking opinion. And now other female developers are afraid to speak out out of fear of reprisal. That's sad. GG has been censored and blocked on several sites. No dispute here. I'm sure the publications have different reasons. But if I had to guess, I think the most common reason is that most sites, particularly online magazines, don't have the time or energy to moderate the inevitable fucking shitstorm. Nor are they obligated to. We're having a reasonable discussion, but if a bunch of turds took over the thread Team Liquid would shut our asses down and there's nothing they could do about it. Reddit? My theory would be they were in the middle of catching a bunch of shit for their facilitation of Fappening, it hurt their reputation, put them in an embarassing legal situation, and because of the ties of misogyny to GamerGate (justified or not) they didn't want to touch it with a ten-foot-pole. You got screwed by pervs. The only way for GamerGate to have completely autonomy and control over the discourse is to have their own platform. And so far, the quality and presentation of GamerGates concerns have been scattered and amatuerish. [quote] Are you accusing me of being part of a conspiracy, or a secret dick? If it makes you feel better, it's the latter.  I can honestly say I am not anti-GamerGate, because I still don't know what the hell GamerGate is. The issues that actually seem worth discussing — the representation of women in games (both on and behind the scenes), the integrity of game journalism, and the future of gamer-culture as gaming becomes more and more significant to mainstream culture — have absolutely nothing to do with each other. They really don't. And it's the conflation of this issues by people that support GamerGate is what makes their perspective so easy to dismiss. A lot of their arguments and discussion is tainted with allegations, innuendo, or incessant lulz-humor that simply diminishes whatever legitimate point or grievance they might have. Here's an example from the kotakuinaction reddit of one guy who thinks he's spitting truth bombs. He opens the article by whining while congratulating himself. [quote] Mindless Zombie StudiosIn actuality his writing is rushed and lazy; mostly editorial; and offers no new information that contradicts basic facts reported by mainstream source — thus rendering his premise of revealing 'misinformation' pretty much pointless. Like I said, if Gaters want to be taken seriously, they can learn a lot about how to present an argument by watching Sarkeesian's videos. If you don't know what GamerGate is, none of your opinions matters. On topic: A lot of misconception about GamerGate. To put it in the most basic form: GamerGate is the gaming consumers' reactionary force to dissipate any biases in gaming reviews for a more wholesome competitive market. A lot of you guys think that GamerGate requires some special membership to participate in. However, with the assumption that we all hope for a meritocracy system in the gaming industry, most of us are already, intentionally or not and even if you don't want to rally behind the hash tag or not, part of the GamerGate "movement". However, this movement will mostly likely be a lost cause and let me tell y'all why. In order to get rid of any media nepotism in the gaming community, we must look at all the parties involved that created nepotism in the first place. They are: 1. Producer of the game. Ex: Zoe Quinn. Laughing my ass off at people being ignorant on this one. 2. Game reviewer outlets. Ex: IGN, Kotaku, GameSpot that gave out favorable reviews because of sexual, monetary, and/or other reasons. and lastly: 3. Any other people that support the gaming producer to further their own personal agendas. They are termed as "Social Justice Warriors", SJWs for short, basically the radical pro-feminism, pro-LGBT crowds that supported a certain game because both the game producers and their political beliefs aligns with each other for mutual benefit. Ex: Anita Sarkessian. For corruption and nepotism to fully dispel in our industry, we have to get rid of ALL 3 parties. But here is the thing though, you can shame characters Zoe Quinn and Game reviewers/journalist all you want, the main beast you have to deal with are #3 of the list. The question remains whether or not the integrity of gaming development can be saved w/ enough manpower in our side to get rid of all the parties or not. So far, there have been a lot in-fighting in the community about who to blame it on. A lot of apologist by saying "Woah, you can't possibly go after X, Y, and Z. You have to go after A, B, and C instead!" No the correct approach is to go after EVERYBODY involved, you can't afford to cherry pick the target. Talk about misconceptions ... Around the turn of the millennium gamers were trying to stop journalist to blame games for school shootings. This week "gamers" threatened with a school shooting to prevent a journalist from speaking out in public. GamerGate is a toxic movement, a hate group, started by a sad little man who felt the need to get back at his failed relationship in public. Any sort of valid point it might have had went out of the window a long time ago. If you affiliate yourself with gamersgate, you stand with racists and mysoginists, you excuse harassers and abusers, you're a willing patsy and a horrible human being. http://www.themarysue.com/gamergate-terrorist-threats/http://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/the-man-who-sparked-gamergate-regrets-the-harassment-but-say#1jomgbx See none of those harassment would have occurred in the first place if characters such as Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkessian didn't go out of their way to scam everybody by faking the victimhood. Its saying that African american folks in the civil right strike are "a toxic movement, a hate group" because they are harassing the the cacausian folks for their misdemeanor even though some slave owners do exactly deserve what was coming to them. This is definition of self-delusion and victim-blaming folks. He's comparing Zoe Quinn and Anita to being slave owners. And that gamers are being persecuted by them. Like black people. For making a game about depression and having an alternative opinion on games. Seriously. Okay let's go down that road, yeah that's exactly what they did! Anita have been broadcasting how egregious the gaming communities are with the women topic which have been debunked! She have been adamant in persecuting the entire industry. Subsequently, the feminism media swallowed the wrong pill and presented it as fact and with their heavy hitter journalist on their side, furthered that damage. You simple can't deny that and for that reason, one can definitely argue that an entire community have been dragged down to the dirt by these malevolent individuals with sufficient evidence to back up. No one has 'debunked' anything because there is nothing to 'debunk.' She made a video series on games from a feminist perspective. This would be no different than an atheist making a video series on religious topics, or a 'nerd' doing a series on music and fashion. These are all just perspectives folks. You can choose to ignore them or not. They actually are really valuable, because they broaden the reach of what you love, and depth or richness to it's discussion, and validate the significance of what you love to society and culture. Yes, her videos made people extremely, extremely defensive. But that is not her problem. People need to grow up and realize having a differing opinion or perspective on something you like is not a personal attack. The GamerGate community is so insulated and insecure that they have to play the victim card faster and more loosely more than any SJW so far. How's that for irony? No, you are attempting to separate her and her perspective. And by the way, she isn't using exactly looking things through a traditional feminist point of view. Traditional feminist fights for women's equal rights as men not to denigrate men w/o malicious intent. That's not being a feminist, traditionally speaking but that's simply bullying and defamation. So she needs to grow up, she needs to know that putting yourself out w/ malicious intent and false information will gets you bad rep. She needs to learn to cease scamming people out of their cash. She has never denigrated men. With malicious intent. Unless you define being 'malicious' as having a point of view. She has probably gotten more and more defensive as trolls harass her. But who can fucking blame her? She's not scamming anyone out of cash. Are you really that blindly arrogant that you believe everyone that agrees with her — and disagrees with you — is a mindless zombie? Who's prejudiced now? This kind of rhetoric is why no mainstream media is picking up the GamerGate perspective. Because it's riddled with doublespeak, innuendo, pettiness and condescension. If these are GamerGates idea of 'facts' than the mainstream media is omitting, than the mainstream has done a bang-up job reporting on this issue, separating actual facts from subjective, editorial opinions.
After all, she is the criminal here.
This is literally, and figuratively, and categorically not true. She is a lady that carved a niche around an under-represented topic and audience and built a career around it. Whoopty-fricking-doo. There are wrong opinions and right opinions much like right perspective and wrong perspectives. She have the wrong opinion and the wrong perspective and brainwashed people to join her. By presenting herself as a gamer expert while she is not, that's lying to the public. So she lied to sell her product, that's scamming right there. She deliberately went out of her way to paint the entire industry and men in defamation. You have nothing to gain by white knighting her only to perpetuate such criminal behavior. So stop it before you embarrass yourself.
Think about this: if he has nothing to gain by 'white knighting', as you so tactlessly put it, why would he bother at all? I've looked at her material, and she has not demonized or defamed men, and has not presented herself as a 'gamer expert'. While I strongly disagree with her opinions, she also is not a criminal or a scam artist until it is proven in a court of law. If there is so much evidence to the contrary, why has she not been taken to court? Perhaps it's because of the 'brainwashing'?
|
On October 18 2014 07:53 TotalBiscuit wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 07:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 18 2014 07:06 TotalBiscuit wrote:Except the Visual Novel industry has been going strong for like a decade, so it's not like Depression Quest broke any ground.
And really, my complaints about it aren't really about the fact that it exists and that people have interest in it (even if I think it's a fairly poor representation of depression). It's that any text-based game that's full of grammatical errors and typos should be called out for lacking any professional polish. Yeah it's also not the first game to touch on issues of depression either (you could argue Actual Sunlight did a better job). I support DQ due to its message, I think that's important, but simultaneously it is a terrible videogame and if I were to critique it I'd shred it. I'm choosing not to because I can't be arsed with the hassle that would come from it. Huh, haven't actually heard of that game before. Worth checking out at all? Short interactive story that deals with suicide. Do not expect a pleasant experience.
I'm afraid to try this game now. LOL.
|
United States15275 Posts
On October 18 2014 08:02 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 07:53 TotalBiscuit wrote:On October 18 2014 07:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 18 2014 07:06 TotalBiscuit wrote:Except the Visual Novel industry has been going strong for like a decade, so it's not like Depression Quest broke any ground.
And really, my complaints about it aren't really about the fact that it exists and that people have interest in it (even if I think it's a fairly poor representation of depression). It's that any text-based game that's full of grammatical errors and typos should be called out for lacking any professional polish. Yeah it's also not the first game to touch on issues of depression either (you could argue Actual Sunlight did a better job). I support DQ due to its message, I think that's important, but simultaneously it is a terrible videogame and if I were to critique it I'd shred it. I'm choosing not to because I can't be arsed with the hassle that would come from it. Huh, haven't actually heard of that game before. Worth checking out at all? Short interactive story that deals with suicide. Do not expect a pleasant experience. I'm afraid to try this game now. LOL.
It's mainly just boring from my experience. The biggest issue with DQ is one of principle: it's impossible to accurately portray and simulate depression by giving the player control. One of the debilitating symptoms of long-term depression is a perceived lack of autonomy over one's life.
Oops, wrong game. XD
|
On October 18 2014 08:16 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 08:02 Defacer wrote:On October 18 2014 07:53 TotalBiscuit wrote:On October 18 2014 07:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 18 2014 07:06 TotalBiscuit wrote:Except the Visual Novel industry has been going strong for like a decade, so it's not like Depression Quest broke any ground.
And really, my complaints about it aren't really about the fact that it exists and that people have interest in it (even if I think it's a fairly poor representation of depression). It's that any text-based game that's full of grammatical errors and typos should be called out for lacking any professional polish. Yeah it's also not the first game to touch on issues of depression either (you could argue Actual Sunlight did a better job). I support DQ due to its message, I think that's important, but simultaneously it is a terrible videogame and if I were to critique it I'd shred it. I'm choosing not to because I can't be arsed with the hassle that would come from it. Huh, haven't actually heard of that game before. Worth checking out at all? Short interactive story that deals with suicide. Do not expect a pleasant experience. I'm afraid to try this game now. LOL. It's mainly just boring from my experience. The biggest issue with DQ is one of principle: it's impossible to accurately portray and simulate depression by giving the player control. One of the debilitating symptoms of long-term depression is a perceived lack of autonomy over one's life.
I think they were talking about Actual Sunlight at the end.
now some quick thoughts on the actual topic. .
arguing over something where you can't tell what's real and what's not seems pointless. TB said it perfectly when he said it's impossible to know the truth.
as to Anita or whatever her name is there's sexism in video games but it seems she's making a bigger deal of it than it actually is.
as for video game journalism it's never been objective and I don't see why it's as big of a deal as anyone's making it. I'm sure you can find independent reviews if you want. It's like movie critics you try to find one that has similar taste to what you have, or just wait a few days and find youtube reviews. anyway have fun arguing.
|
On October 18 2014 08:00 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 06:46 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 06:34 Defacer wrote:On October 18 2014 05:21 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 05:04 Defacer wrote:On October 18 2014 04:54 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 04:40 Defacer wrote:On October 18 2014 01:36 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 01:15 Thax wrote:On October 18 2014 00:14 Xiphos wrote:
[quote]
If you don't know what GamerGate is, none of your opinions matters.
On topic:
A lot of misconception about GamerGate.
To put it in the most basic form: GamerGate is the gaming consumers' reactionary force to dissipate any biases in gaming reviews for a more wholesome competitive market.
A lot of you guys think that GamerGate requires some special membership to participate in. However, with the assumption that we all hope for a meritocracy system in the gaming industry, most of us are already, intentionally or not and even if you don't want to rally behind the hash tag or not, part of the GamerGate "movement".
However, this movement will mostly likely be a lost cause and let me tell y'all why.
In order to get rid of any media nepotism in the gaming community, we must look at all the parties involved that created nepotism in the first place. They are:
1. Producer of the game. Ex: Zoe Quinn. Laughing my ass off at people being ignorant on this one.
2. Game reviewer outlets. Ex: IGN, Kotaku, GameSpot that gave out favorable reviews because of sexual, monetary, and/or other reasons.
and lastly:
3. Any other people that support the gaming producer to further their own personal agendas. They are termed as "Social Justice Warriors", SJWs for short, basically the radical pro-feminism, pro-LGBT crowds that supported a certain game because both the game producers and their political beliefs aligns with each other for mutual benefit. Ex: Anita Sarkessian.
For corruption and nepotism to fully dispel in our industry, we have to get rid of ALL 3 parties. But here is the thing though, you can shame characters Zoe Quinn and Game reviewers/journalist all you want, the main beast you have to deal with are #3 of the list.
The question remains whether or not the integrity of gaming development can be saved w/ enough manpower in our side to get rid of all the parties or not.
So far, there have been a lot in-fighting in the community about who to blame it on. A lot of apologist by saying "Woah, you can't possibly go after X, Y, and Z. You have to go after A, B, and C instead!"
No the correct approach is to go after EVERYBODY involved, you can't afford to cherry pick the target. Talk about misconceptions ... Around the turn of the millennium gamers were trying to stop journalist to blame games for school shootings. This week "gamers" threatened with a school shooting to prevent a journalist from speaking out in public. GamerGate is a toxic movement, a hate group, started by a sad little man who felt the need to get back at his failed relationship in public. Any sort of valid point it might have had went out of the window a long time ago. If you affiliate yourself with gamersgate, you stand with racists and mysoginists, you excuse harassers and abusers, you're a willing patsy and a horrible human being. http://www.themarysue.com/gamergate-terrorist-threats/http://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/the-man-who-sparked-gamergate-regrets-the-harassment-but-say#1jomgbx See none of those harassment would have occurred in the first place if characters such as Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkessian didn't go out of their way to scam everybody by faking the victimhood. Its saying that African american folks in the civil right strike are "a toxic movement, a hate group" because they are harassing the the cacausian folks for their misdemeanor even though some slave owners do exactly deserve what was coming to them. This is definition of self-delusion and victim-blaming folks. He's comparing Zoe Quinn and Anita to being slave owners. And that gamers are being persecuted by them. Like black people. For making a game about depression and having an alternative opinion on games. Seriously. Okay let's go down that road, yeah that's exactly what they did! Anita have been broadcasting how egregious the gaming communities are with the women topic which have been debunked! She have been adamant in persecuting the entire industry. Subsequently, the feminism media swallowed the wrong pill and presented it as fact and with their heavy hitter journalist on their side, furthered that damage. You simple can't deny that and for that reason, one can definitely argue that an entire community have been dragged down to the dirt by these malevolent individuals with sufficient evidence to back up. No one has 'debunked' anything because there is nothing to 'debunk.' She made a video series on games from a feminist perspective. This would be no different than an atheist making a video series on religious topics, or a 'nerd' doing a series on music and fashion. These are all just perspectives folks. You can choose to ignore them or not. They actually are really valuable, because they broaden the reach of what you love, and depth or richness to it's discussion, and validate the significance of what you love to society and culture. Yes, her videos made people extremely, extremely defensive. But that is not her problem. People need to grow up and realize having a differing opinion or perspective on something you like is not a personal attack. The GamerGate community is so insulated and insecure that they have to play the victim card faster and more loosely more than any SJW so far. How's that for irony? No, you are attempting to separate her and her perspective. And by the way, she isn't using exactly looking things through a traditional feminist point of view. Traditional feminist fights for women's equal rights as men not to denigrate men w/o malicious intent. That's not being a feminist, traditionally speaking but that's simply bullying and defamation. So she needs to grow up, she needs to know that putting yourself out w/ malicious intent and false information will gets you bad rep. She needs to learn to cease scamming people out of their cash. She has never denigrated men. With malicious intent. Unless you define being 'malicious' as having a point of view. She has probably gotten more and more defensive as trolls harass her. But who can fucking blame her? She's not scamming anyone out of cash. Are you really that blindly arrogant that you believe everyone that agrees with her — and disagrees with you — is a mindless zombie? Who's prejudiced now? This kind of rhetoric is why no mainstream media is picking up the GamerGate perspective. Because it's riddled with doublespeak, innuendo, pettiness and condescension. If these are GamerGates idea of 'facts' than the mainstream media is omitting, than the mainstream has done a bang-up job reporting on this issue, separating actual facts from subjective, editorial opinions.
After all, she is the criminal here.
This is literally, and figuratively, and categorically not true. She is a lady that carved a niche around an under-represented topic and audience and built a career around it. Whoopty-fricking-doo. There are wrong opinions and right opinions much like right perspective and wrong perspectives. She have the wrong opinion and the wrong perspective and brainwashed people to join her. By presenting herself as a gamer expert while she is not, that's lying to the public. So she lied to sell her product, that's scamming right there. She deliberately went out of her way to paint the entire industry and men in defamation. You have nothing to gain by white knighting her only to perpetuate such criminal behavior. So stop it before you embarrass yourself. Think about this: if he has nothing to gain by 'white knighting', as you so tactlessly put it, why would he bother at all? I've looked at her material, and she has not demonized or defamed men, and has not presented herself as a 'gamer expert'. While I strongly disagree with her opinions, she also is not a criminal or a scam artist until it is proven in a court of law. If there is so much evidence to the contrary, why has she not been taken to court? Perhaps it's because of the 'brainwashing'?
Its like the Sons of StarCraft situation where people know that they have been scammed but the money they've invested in it isn't worth hiring a computer savvy lawyer to fight for it.
Perhaps some people will take action against her given time that she ran out of credibility.
Here is an interesting link: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/12/07/whats-anita-sarkeesian-doing-with-all-that-kickstarter-money/
Not explicitly she didn't, she gave example of a Nintendo male designer as a proponent for "wrongful portrayal" here: + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6p5AZp7r_Q
And regarding nothing to gain, I was just assuming that at the moment because he seemed to be proponent for journalistic integrity and wasn't sure if he was actually trying to protect Anita and is just confused and/or mis-communication have occurred b/w us. But now I no longer hold that position.
|
Northern Ireland24547 Posts
On October 18 2014 08:16 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 08:02 Defacer wrote:On October 18 2014 07:53 TotalBiscuit wrote:On October 18 2014 07:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 18 2014 07:06 TotalBiscuit wrote:Except the Visual Novel industry has been going strong for like a decade, so it's not like Depression Quest broke any ground.
And really, my complaints about it aren't really about the fact that it exists and that people have interest in it (even if I think it's a fairly poor representation of depression). It's that any text-based game that's full of grammatical errors and typos should be called out for lacking any professional polish. Yeah it's also not the first game to touch on issues of depression either (you could argue Actual Sunlight did a better job). I support DQ due to its message, I think that's important, but simultaneously it is a terrible videogame and if I were to critique it I'd shred it. I'm choosing not to because I can't be arsed with the hassle that would come from it. Huh, haven't actually heard of that game before. Worth checking out at all? Short interactive story that deals with suicide. Do not expect a pleasant experience. I'm afraid to try this game now. LOL. It's mainly just boring from my experience. The biggest issue with DQ is one of principle: it's impossible to accurately portray and simulate depression by giving the player control. One of the debilitating symptoms of long-term depression is a perceived lack of autonomy over one's life. Oops, wrong game. XD
Yeah 'RL' is one tough motherfucker of a game.
God, another 4 pages since I last logged about Anita Sarkeesian? Really?
|
Canada13388 Posts
On October 18 2014 08:16 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 08:02 Defacer wrote:On October 18 2014 07:53 TotalBiscuit wrote:On October 18 2014 07:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 18 2014 07:06 TotalBiscuit wrote:Except the Visual Novel industry has been going strong for like a decade, so it's not like Depression Quest broke any ground.
And really, my complaints about it aren't really about the fact that it exists and that people have interest in it (even if I think it's a fairly poor representation of depression). It's that any text-based game that's full of grammatical errors and typos should be called out for lacking any professional polish. Yeah it's also not the first game to touch on issues of depression either (you could argue Actual Sunlight did a better job). I support DQ due to its message, I think that's important, but simultaneously it is a terrible videogame and if I were to critique it I'd shred it. I'm choosing not to because I can't be arsed with the hassle that would come from it. Huh, haven't actually heard of that game before. Worth checking out at all? Short interactive story that deals with suicide. Do not expect a pleasant experience. I'm afraid to try this game now. LOL. It's mainly just boring from my experience. The biggest issue with DQ is one of principle: it's impossible to accurately portray and simulate depression by giving the player control. One of the debilitating symptoms of long-term depression is a perceived lack of autonomy over one's life. Oops, wrong game. XD
Not to get too off topic here, but you know what game is good at that hopeless feeling? Neverending nightmare. That guy nailed it. Really hits the whole "you kinda forget whats going in your life and lose control" thing.
I also want to poke my head in here and say we've added a mod note.
Read it, learn it, love it. The quality of this thread has dropped drastically, and rather than close it before it gets worse (I've personally avoided most of this GamerGate stuff online because of the hateful shit it always seems to devolve into) we decided to try and stop at the very least personal attacks. I tried to make it clear as mud so please note, this is the one and only warning the posters in this thread will have.
|
On October 18 2014 04:02 Slow Motion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 03:51 Thax wrote:On October 18 2014 01:36 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 01:15 Thax wrote:On October 18 2014 00:14 Xiphos wrote:On October 17 2014 23:14 Defacer wrote:On October 17 2014 20:51 I_Love_Bacon wrote:
It's hard to separate it. Hell I know because I still talk about it at times when I probably shouldn't because keeping one's mouth shut is not easy.
First of all, relax. You must of written 300 words per minute. + Show Spoiler +This is all bull shit. GG isn't about Anita no matter how much you seem to think it is. She is background noise at best and is used to deflect from the actual issue at hand. Dude, you brought her up. And I was just commenting to how absurd it is that people are so upset she exists. And you kind of proved my point ... You're setting the bar for success pretty low. You're basically stating that because she wasn't frothing at the mouth and calling for male game devs to be castrated that her criticisms have more merit. All her points, whether you agree with her or not, are explicitly illustrated and supported with examples. Her argument is reasoned and well-researched. It's structured, and builds towards an actually conclusion. You can bitch and complain that it's not exhaustive, but it's not meant to be. She has a thesis and she defends it well. It's certainly not lazy. That's more than can you say than most of her detractors, who rely on heresay or empty accusations or dismiss entire 3000 word articles with links and annotations simply because they think the publisher is a shill. I'm sorry, but there's nothing intellectually dishonest about it, no matter how loud you shout it from the roof tops. Intellectual dishonest implies she's not earnest. She believes what she says. You just disagree with her. Like I said, I don't blame you because there's a metric shit ton of them out there. Others use Anita's videos to justify THEIR hatred and then take to articles/twitter/whateverthefuckever. I can hate her work but, as I've said countless times, GG isn't about Anita. Alright, I think I understand what you're saying here. You're issue isn't with Anita's argument. It's the idiots that amplify it and take it out of context. It happens on both sides. I absolutely agree. I do not condone stupidity. Oh-so-false. Saying "she just a media critic" means you haven't done nearly as much research as you think you have. I'm not going to bring up the personal things about how she lies about being a gamer and some of the other talks she's given because I don't want my own opinion of them to taint them if you ever get around to them.
The "worst case scenario" is that a woman who has admitted she doesn't like games and doesn't play games has now been consulted by major studios about their games where she'll continue to push her biased/questionable message. As somebody on a site that was dedicated to hard core gaming I hope you can at least appreciate the absolute ridiculousness of that. Oh, and it should be more exhaustive given how much money she was given but I'll let that slide for now. ... aaannnd you're losing me. This is coming off as sour grapes, to be honest. Maybe she lied about being a gamer. I have no idea what this accusation really means. The definition of being a gamer is very, very broad and means different things to different people. To someone like Anita, it probably meant playing a game a few hours on the weekend and even included roleplaying or board games with her friends. I don't really give a shit about her personal life, so I honestly don't know. But to a hardcore gamer, it literally means BUY EVERY MAJOR RELEASE AND PLAY NON-STOP UNTIL COMPLETION NEED MONSTER ENERGY DRINK. These people exist. That's a massive spectrum there. Consultants from other industries and fields get hired all the time. Gaming is an expensive, high-risk business. Sometimes celebrity or creative consultants are brought on to boost the profile of a game. Sometimes they are actually technical consultants, like cinematographers or architects. There is an obvious lack of realistic or even interesting representation of women in triple-A games. Maybe she'll get paid to consult on content. Maybe a developer will hire her as a token creative consultant, the way Will.i.am or Pharell seems to be the creative consultant on everything, in the hopes it will provide a halo effect around the game and attract a broader demographic. In either sense, trust me — her influence will be smaller than you think. Games are not build by consultants. They're built by 50 to 100 people working 60 hours a week. I know a lot of people that work in triple-A gaming. I know it sucks, but you're resenting her for identifying an issue in gaming that is rarely addressed, building a case for it's importance, representing herself as an expert on that particular issue, and being rewarded because it. That happens in almost industry because that's how society works. Trust me, as a designer, I have seen many younger, stupider people position themselves as experts on sustainability or social media experts — despite having very superficial knowledge — and fast tracking their careers. You're resenting a person for carving a niche and building a name for herself. The world isn't a meritocracy. Her getting gigs you wish you had — or think other people should have — is your problem, not hers. Now let's move on before we start bitching about Ben Affleck as Batman. This is where your tinfoil hat is showing even more than before. Show me serious attempts to threaten Sarkeesian. Oh, the one that she screen capped 20 seconds after it was posted while not logged into twitter? The one at the university yesterday that the police deemed as not-credible? Know how many journalists/critics/developers have been killed over their opinion on games? 0 I'm going to pretend to be your conscience for a second: "Threatening to shoot up a lecture hall is a serious offense. It is not a trivial threat, even if it's a lie. If you get caught you will get arrested. "Also, if someone threatens to murder you, encourages others to harass or hurt you, and publicizes you're home address, it is perfectly rational to not feel safe. If you are driven out of your own home out of fear, it's okay to feel like you're being violated, because you are." Trolls exist on the internet. This... surprises you? We live in a world where assholes "swat" people on Twitchtv and you're surprised that some shitheads leveled deaththreats and say stupid, vitriolic things on twitter? Once again, you're on a gaming website and you're surprised there exists people who make it their goal to push other people's buttons? Nobody after a game of SC told you to die in a fire or call you a faggot? Why yes! I know you're trying to dismiss the significance of online threats or abuse as trivial or 'less real', but that's a weak argument. And you're just admitting that games can lead to anti-social behaviour. As if stupidity is an excuse. Are you sure you're not an SJW at-heart? This also falls into the main point of GG is the inability to criticize "these people" (journalists, SWJs, and everybody in between). Comments are deleted/disabled, reddit threads are deleted, people are shadow banned, and entire pieces are forced to be taken down and yet somehow GG are the ones who are being accused of censorship. Virtually every single person who writes above the 5th grade reading level and supports GG also calls for NO CENSORSHIP. Let her have here views; then let others rebut them if that's what they want to do. Isn't that's what supposed to happen? Why did this suddenly become a bad thing that bad reporting/criticism is pointed out? You know the other thing that Pro-GGs aren't doing? Making a gigantic production out of every threat posted to them on twitter despite their being plenty of choose from. They're not trying to play victims and garner attention/sympathy, they're trying to have an actual discussion. HAHAHA! BULL! SHIT! Are you serious dude? The one's complaining and whining the loudest have been the GG community. Check out KotakuInAction. In the past four hours, some Gawker reporter made a joke about bullying nerds, and they turned it into a witch hunt, had a little non-stop pity party, and now have a 'nerd' challenging the reporter to $10,000 boxing match! Mike Cernovich challenges Gawker to $10,000 boxing matchhttps://twitter.com/PlayDangerously/status/522971574400348160 How's that for production and spectacle? And what does it have to do with journalistic integrity? NOTHING. I would never accuse GG of censorship. I would never do that. I'm accusing a subset of trolls using GamerGate as a political shield to threaten, intimidate and harass three women until they were forced to leave their homes and go into hiding. That's worse then censorship. It's the literal definition of terrorism. For two of them the only 'crime' they committed, technically, is having an fucking opinion. And now other female developers are afraid to speak out out of fear of reprisal. That's sad. GG has been censored and blocked on several sites. No dispute here. I'm sure the publications have different reasons. But if I had to guess, I think the most common reason is that most sites, particularly online magazines, don't have the time or energy to moderate the inevitable fucking shitstorm. Nor are they obligated to. We're having a reasonable discussion, but if a bunch of turds took over the thread Team Liquid would shut our asses down and there's nothing they could do about it. Reddit? My theory would be they were in the middle of catching a bunch of shit for their facilitation of Fappening, it hurt their reputation, put them in an embarassing legal situation, and because of the ties of misogyny to GamerGate (justified or not) they didn't want to touch it with a ten-foot-pole. You got screwed by pervs. The only way for GamerGate to have completely autonomy and control over the discourse is to have their own platform. And so far, the quality and presentation of GamerGates concerns have been scattered and amatuerish. There's a time and a place to discuss these things, but that's not what GG is. The people who claim it is only do so for 2 options: Either they're misinformed or they do it to push their own narrative. Are you accusing me of being part of a conspiracy, or a secret dick? If it makes you feel better, it's the latter. I can honestly say I am not anti-GamerGate, because I still don't know what the hell GamerGate is. The issues that actually seem worth discussing — the representation of women in games (both on and behind the scenes), the integrity of game journalism, and the future of gamer-culture as gaming becomes more and more significant to mainstream culture — have absolutely nothing to do with each other. They really don't. And it's the conflation of this issues by people that support GamerGate is what makes their perspective so easy to dismiss. A lot of their arguments and discussion is tainted with allegations, innuendo, or incessant lulz-humor that simply diminishes whatever legitimate point or grievance they might have. Here's an example from the kotakuinaction reddit of one guy who thinks he's spitting truth bombs. He opens the article by whining while congratulating himself. Written by @JamieBworth, rejected by Cracked for stupid reasons, and published here, with permission. Because fuck Cracked, this shit is hilarious and genius. Mindless Zombie StudiosIn actuality his writing is rushed and lazy; mostly editorial; and offers no new information that contradicts basic facts reported by mainstream source — thus rendering his premise of revealing 'misinformation' pretty much pointless. Like I said, if Gaters want to be taken seriously, they can learn a lot about how to present an argument by watching Sarkeesian's videos. If you don't know what GamerGate is, none of your opinions matters. On topic: A lot of misconception about GamerGate. To put it in the most basic form: GamerGate is the gaming consumers' reactionary force to dissipate any biases in gaming reviews for a more wholesome competitive market. A lot of you guys think that GamerGate requires some special membership to participate in. However, with the assumption that we all hope for a meritocracy system in the gaming industry, most of us are already, intentionally or not and even if you don't want to rally behind the hash tag or not, part of the GamerGate "movement". However, this movement will mostly likely be a lost cause and let me tell y'all why. In order to get rid of any media nepotism in the gaming community, we must look at all the parties involved that created nepotism in the first place. They are: 1. Producer of the game. Ex: Zoe Quinn. Laughing my ass off at people being ignorant on this one. 2. Game reviewer outlets. Ex: IGN, Kotaku, GameSpot that gave out favorable reviews because of sexual, monetary, and/or other reasons. and lastly: 3. Any other people that support the gaming producer to further their own personal agendas. They are termed as "Social Justice Warriors", SJWs for short, basically the radical pro-feminism, pro-LGBT crowds that supported a certain game because both the game producers and their political beliefs aligns with each other for mutual benefit. Ex: Anita Sarkessian. For corruption and nepotism to fully dispel in our industry, we have to get rid of ALL 3 parties. But here is the thing though, you can shame characters Zoe Quinn and Game reviewers/journalist all you want, the main beast you have to deal with are #3 of the list. The question remains whether or not the integrity of gaming development can be saved w/ enough manpower in our side to get rid of all the parties or not. So far, there have been a lot in-fighting in the community about who to blame it on. A lot of apologist by saying "Woah, you can't possibly go after X, Y, and Z. You have to go after A, B, and C instead!" No the correct approach is to go after EVERYBODY involved, you can't afford to cherry pick the target. Talk about misconceptions ... Around the turn of the millennium gamers were trying to stop journalist to blame games for school shootings. This week "gamers" threatened with a school shooting to prevent a journalist from speaking out in public. GamerGate is a toxic movement, a hate group, started by a sad little man who felt the need to get back at his failed relationship in public. Any sort of valid point it might have had went out of the window a long time ago. If you affiliate yourself with gamersgate, you stand with racists and mysoginists, you excuse harassers and abusers, you're a willing patsy and a horrible human being. http://www.themarysue.com/gamergate-terrorist-threats/http://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/the-man-who-sparked-gamergate-regrets-the-harassment-but-say#1jomgbx See none of those harassment would have occurred in the first place if characters such as Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkessian didn't go out of their way to scam everybody by faking the victimhood. Its saying that African american folks in the civil right strike are "a toxic movement, a hate group" because they are harassing the the cacausian folks for their misdemeanor even though some slave owners do exactly deserve what was coming to them. Dem right! Those bitches deserved it! Talking in public instead of making me a sandwich. So taht's you're excuse? They deserved it because they were faking it? Sarkeesian started getting shit years ago, I saw it as far back as her Kickstarter campaign.This whole mess took form after what's-his-name's screed against Zoe Quinn, and the shit pile up on her after that the evidence is all over the place, Kickstarter, Youtube, Twittter, ... Various other people, journalist, authors, game developers, mostly women, but some men too, who dare to speak out against this have heaps of crap piled upon them. The evidence is all over the place, Kickstarter, Youtube, Twittter, Look in the Redpill Reddit (or whatever it's called) for some truly awe inspiring circle jerks and vileness, or other MRA forums on reddit and 4chan and were ever else they hide. ... But they are faking it. Sure. And did you really just compare the American civil rights movement with GamersGate? Even if all they did actually was for "fair journalism in gaming" instead of harassing and threating and other asshattery that would be preposterous. You are not a suppressed minority. King didn't threaten to shoot up schools or rape people for speaking their minds. There were African Americans that advocated violence toward white people during the civil rights movement. You are correct in that they don't represent King or his supporters. Just like the harassers in this case don't represent the group of people who are not involved in harassment.
That's a very good comparison, wonder why I haven't seen it before.
Also very upset to see people still focusing on attacking Zoe. I really feel like they are just as hurtful to Gamergate as the opposition is. I don't see that in the larger gamergate communities, but i got in later. I wonder if it's because of some rules or self-policing in place.
|
On October 18 2014 07:55 ShiroKaisen wrote:
The idea that something as complicated and multi-faceted as the possibility of sexist portrayal of women in video games could be debunked by a YouTube video is hilarious. I love how you keep coming out and saying "nope these youtubers said Anita was wrong, so sexism in video games doesn't exist" as though Anita is the only person who thinks games can be problematic, and this entire thing only is a conversation because Anita made it one.
People were talking about sexism in video games for decades before Anita even thought of the idea to make a video, and will continue to do it long after people have forgotten she exists.
Continuing to beat the dead horse on Anita and Quinn just feeds the idea that GG is about harassing feminists.
I don't recall the rebuttals including "Sexism in video games doesn't exist" but rather "your evidence to try to prove it is faulty"
Also there's many many refutations to Anita's points beyond youtube videos. The fact she never addresses these refutations and just continues to fabricate more evidence should be very telling to the fact that if there is sexism, and it is a problem... Anita isn't the one who will convince people of it.
This is the woman who criticized people who questioned her, and created the motto "Listen, and believe" in her XOXO speech. You're not going to convince objective, debate-minded people by talking at them.
Furthermore, people have been talking about the moon landing being faked for a while. The "Hologoax" too. The length of time a subject is talked about says nothing on it's validity.
|
On October 18 2014 07:48 Xiphos wrote:
Not a metaphor, its what actually happened.
People bought in on her ideal that games are sexists (this is called brainwashing) even though it have been debunked numerous times by YouTubers.
If you would read the thread, you would definitely find the evidence not too far from here. Go to pg 19.
.
Do you understand what a metaphor or a simile is? Do you realize that people agreeing with one position or another doesn't constitute brainwashing? And that you're using the 'term' brainwashing as a metaphor in this instance?
I'm trying to fair and patient here, I really am.
Anyway images such as this don't prove or disprove anything.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BwJNnfUCAAA9VrZ.jpg
"not logged in"
All this proves is that this screen cap was doctored before it was published. It could be a grand conspiracy. It could also be someone logged out, and copy and pasted the menu bar at the top to hide the amount of emails and notifications she had. Sometimes those numbers get embarrassing. I have 2610 unread emails popping up on my phone, for instance.
"account made solely to make these tweets."
Well, of course. If I wanted to threaten someone with rape and murder without getting caught, I would make a dummy account too. Doesn't prove anything.
"this was scripted"
Well, no shit. If I was knowingly going to be blocked for violating Twitter's terms and service, I would carefully plan my message ahead of time and get my posts out as quickly as possible. Doesn't prove anything.
"screen cap taken 12s after last tweet"
So what? Did you know that if you take a screen cap 12s after something happens, time moves forward in a linear fashion? That means a five, ten, fifteen minutes or a WHOLE DAY can go by and the screen cap will still say 12s! HOLY SHIT! Is Anita a time lord?
I'm sorry, but this is not evidence of anything. You can choose to believe it's a fabrication, but it isn't proof she's lying. It's all just random speculation leading in a irrational, non-sequitor hypothesis to dupe people that enjoy conspiracy theories.
|
Yea there's no proof Anita "scammed" or faked anything to any extent that would be acceptable in a court of law. Suspicion sure, but remember discrediting Anita herself wouldn't even help gamergate. This has been discussed at end, stop focusing on individuals. They represent themselves, focus on the media's overall bias which happens to include them.
#Gamergate raises 10k for bullying awareness day in response to several Gawker tweets glorifying bulling "nerds"
https://www.crowdrise.com/GamerGateStompsOutBullying/fundraiser/
|
On October 18 2014 08:25 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 08:00 ninazerg wrote:On October 18 2014 06:46 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 06:34 Defacer wrote:On October 18 2014 05:21 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 05:04 Defacer wrote:On October 18 2014 04:54 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 04:40 Defacer wrote:On October 18 2014 01:36 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 01:15 Thax wrote:[quote] Talk about misconceptions ... Around the turn of the millennium gamers were trying to stop journalist to blame games for school shootings. This week "gamers" threatened with a school shooting to prevent a journalist from speaking out in public. GamerGate is a toxic movement, a hate group, started by a sad little man who felt the need to get back at his failed relationship in public. Any sort of valid point it might have had went out of the window a long time ago. If you affiliate yourself with gamersgate, you stand with racists and mysoginists, you excuse harassers and abusers, you're a willing patsy and a horrible human being. http://www.themarysue.com/gamergate-terrorist-threats/http://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/the-man-who-sparked-gamergate-regrets-the-harassment-but-say#1jomgbx See none of those harassment would have occurred in the first place if characters such as Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkessian didn't go out of their way to scam everybody by faking the victimhood. Its saying that African american folks in the civil right strike are "a toxic movement, a hate group" because they are harassing the the cacausian folks for their misdemeanor even though some slave owners do exactly deserve what was coming to them. This is definition of self-delusion and victim-blaming folks. He's comparing Zoe Quinn and Anita to being slave owners. And that gamers are being persecuted by them. Like black people. For making a game about depression and having an alternative opinion on games. Seriously. Okay let's go down that road, yeah that's exactly what they did! Anita have been broadcasting how egregious the gaming communities are with the women topic which have been debunked! She have been adamant in persecuting the entire industry. Subsequently, the feminism media swallowed the wrong pill and presented it as fact and with their heavy hitter journalist on their side, furthered that damage. You simple can't deny that and for that reason, one can definitely argue that an entire community have been dragged down to the dirt by these malevolent individuals with sufficient evidence to back up. No one has 'debunked' anything because there is nothing to 'debunk.' She made a video series on games from a feminist perspective. This would be no different than an atheist making a video series on religious topics, or a 'nerd' doing a series on music and fashion. These are all just perspectives folks. You can choose to ignore them or not. They actually are really valuable, because they broaden the reach of what you love, and depth or richness to it's discussion, and validate the significance of what you love to society and culture. Yes, her videos made people extremely, extremely defensive. But that is not her problem. People need to grow up and realize having a differing opinion or perspective on something you like is not a personal attack. The GamerGate community is so insulated and insecure that they have to play the victim card faster and more loosely more than any SJW so far. How's that for irony? No, you are attempting to separate her and her perspective. And by the way, she isn't using exactly looking things through a traditional feminist point of view. Traditional feminist fights for women's equal rights as men not to denigrate men w/o malicious intent. That's not being a feminist, traditionally speaking but that's simply bullying and defamation. So she needs to grow up, she needs to know that putting yourself out w/ malicious intent and false information will gets you bad rep. She needs to learn to cease scamming people out of their cash. She has never denigrated men. With malicious intent. Unless you define being 'malicious' as having a point of view. She has probably gotten more and more defensive as trolls harass her. But who can fucking blame her? She's not scamming anyone out of cash. Are you really that blindly arrogant that you believe everyone that agrees with her — and disagrees with you — is a mindless zombie? Who's prejudiced now? This kind of rhetoric is why no mainstream media is picking up the GamerGate perspective. Because it's riddled with doublespeak, innuendo, pettiness and condescension. If these are GamerGates idea of 'facts' than the mainstream media is omitting, than the mainstream has done a bang-up job reporting on this issue, separating actual facts from subjective, editorial opinions.
After all, she is the criminal here.
This is literally, and figuratively, and categorically not true. She is a lady that carved a niche around an under-represented topic and audience and built a career around it. Whoopty-fricking-doo. There are wrong opinions and right opinions much like right perspective and wrong perspectives. She have the wrong opinion and the wrong perspective and brainwashed people to join her. By presenting herself as a gamer expert while she is not, that's lying to the public. So she lied to sell her product, that's scamming right there. She deliberately went out of her way to paint the entire industry and men in defamation. You have nothing to gain by white knighting her only to perpetuate such criminal behavior. So stop it before you embarrass yourself. Think about this: if he has nothing to gain by 'white knighting', as you so tactlessly put it, why would he bother at all? I've looked at her material, and she has not demonized or defamed men, and has not presented herself as a 'gamer expert'. While I strongly disagree with her opinions, she also is not a criminal or a scam artist until it is proven in a court of law. If there is so much evidence to the contrary, why has she not been taken to court? Perhaps it's because of the 'brainwashing'? Its like the Sons of StarCraft situation where people know that they have been scammed but the money they've invested in it isn't worth hiring a computer savvy lawyer to fight for it. Perhaps some people will take action against her given time that she ran out of credibility. Here is an interesting link: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/12/07/whats-anita-sarkeesian-doing-with-all-that-kickstarter-money/Not explicitly she didn't, she gave example of a Nintendo male designer as a proponent for "wrongful portrayal" here: + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6p5AZp7r_Q at 1:40. And regarding nothing to gain, I was just assuming that at the moment because he seemed to be proponent for journalistic integrity and wasn't sure if he was actually trying to protect Anita and is just confused and/or mis-communication have occurred b/w us. But now I no longer hold that position.
I'm a computer-savvy, enterprising plaintiff's attorney. What exactly do you think the claim is? What contract was broken? What fraud was perpetrated?
|
On October 18 2014 08:25 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 08:00 ninazerg wrote:On October 18 2014 06:46 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 06:34 Defacer wrote:On October 18 2014 05:21 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 05:04 Defacer wrote:On October 18 2014 04:54 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 04:40 Defacer wrote:On October 18 2014 01:36 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 01:15 Thax wrote:[quote] Talk about misconceptions ... Around the turn of the millennium gamers were trying to stop journalist to blame games for school shootings. This week "gamers" threatened with a school shooting to prevent a journalist from speaking out in public. GamerGate is a toxic movement, a hate group, started by a sad little man who felt the need to get back at his failed relationship in public. Any sort of valid point it might have had went out of the window a long time ago. If you affiliate yourself with gamersgate, you stand with racists and mysoginists, you excuse harassers and abusers, you're a willing patsy and a horrible human being. http://www.themarysue.com/gamergate-terrorist-threats/http://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/the-man-who-sparked-gamergate-regrets-the-harassment-but-say#1jomgbx See none of those harassment would have occurred in the first place if characters such as Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkessian didn't go out of their way to scam everybody by faking the victimhood. Its saying that African american folks in the civil right strike are "a toxic movement, a hate group" because they are harassing the the cacausian folks for their misdemeanor even though some slave owners do exactly deserve what was coming to them. This is definition of self-delusion and victim-blaming folks. He's comparing Zoe Quinn and Anita to being slave owners. And that gamers are being persecuted by them. Like black people. For making a game about depression and having an alternative opinion on games. Seriously. Okay let's go down that road, yeah that's exactly what they did! Anita have been broadcasting how egregious the gaming communities are with the women topic which have been debunked! She have been adamant in persecuting the entire industry. Subsequently, the feminism media swallowed the wrong pill and presented it as fact and with their heavy hitter journalist on their side, furthered that damage. You simple can't deny that and for that reason, one can definitely argue that an entire community have been dragged down to the dirt by these malevolent individuals with sufficient evidence to back up. No one has 'debunked' anything because there is nothing to 'debunk.' She made a video series on games from a feminist perspective. This would be no different than an atheist making a video series on religious topics, or a 'nerd' doing a series on music and fashion. These are all just perspectives folks. You can choose to ignore them or not. They actually are really valuable, because they broaden the reach of what you love, and depth or richness to it's discussion, and validate the significance of what you love to society and culture. Yes, her videos made people extremely, extremely defensive. But that is not her problem. People need to grow up and realize having a differing opinion or perspective on something you like is not a personal attack. The GamerGate community is so insulated and insecure that they have to play the victim card faster and more loosely more than any SJW so far. How's that for irony? No, you are attempting to separate her and her perspective. And by the way, she isn't using exactly looking things through a traditional feminist point of view. Traditional feminist fights for women's equal rights as men not to denigrate men w/o malicious intent. That's not being a feminist, traditionally speaking but that's simply bullying and defamation. So she needs to grow up, she needs to know that putting yourself out w/ malicious intent and false information will gets you bad rep. She needs to learn to cease scamming people out of their cash. She has never denigrated men. With malicious intent. Unless you define being 'malicious' as having a point of view. She has probably gotten more and more defensive as trolls harass her. But who can fucking blame her? She's not scamming anyone out of cash. Are you really that blindly arrogant that you believe everyone that agrees with her — and disagrees with you — is a mindless zombie? Who's prejudiced now? This kind of rhetoric is why no mainstream media is picking up the GamerGate perspective. Because it's riddled with doublespeak, innuendo, pettiness and condescension. If these are GamerGates idea of 'facts' than the mainstream media is omitting, than the mainstream has done a bang-up job reporting on this issue, separating actual facts from subjective, editorial opinions.
After all, she is the criminal here.
This is literally, and figuratively, and categorically not true. She is a lady that carved a niche around an under-represented topic and audience and built a career around it. Whoopty-fricking-doo. There are wrong opinions and right opinions much like right perspective and wrong perspectives. She have the wrong opinion and the wrong perspective and brainwashed people to join her. By presenting herself as a gamer expert while she is not, that's lying to the public. So she lied to sell her product, that's scamming right there. She deliberately went out of her way to paint the entire industry and men in defamation. You have nothing to gain by white knighting her only to perpetuate such criminal behavior. So stop it before you embarrass yourself. Think about this: if he has nothing to gain by 'white knighting', as you so tactlessly put it, why would he bother at all? I've looked at her material, and she has not demonized or defamed men, and has not presented herself as a 'gamer expert'. While I strongly disagree with her opinions, she also is not a criminal or a scam artist until it is proven in a court of law. If there is so much evidence to the contrary, why has she not been taken to court? Perhaps it's because of the 'brainwashing'? Its like the Sons of StarCraft situation where people know that they have been scammed but the money they've invested in it isn't worth hiring a computer savvy lawyer to fight for it.
That's really apples and oranges. Just because someone else did something bad doesn't mean someone else is also doing something bad simply because the cases sound similar.
I thought the link was going to be interesting. This is rubbish. The author even goes so far as to ask "What model of car is she driving these days?" which indicates to me that the piece is biased. There are no facts involved in regards to the money. If you care about "journalistic integrity" at all, I would consider not linking stuff like this. :/
|
This whole situation seems like a case of the lower classes fighting amongst themselves while the upper classes sit back and laugh while they fly around in jets having fun living extravagant lifestyles.
The focus should be on the source of these issues. Why is western society the way it currently is? The video game industry and video game journalism is just a small reflection of the broader system. It's just a small part of the larger culture industries and industry practices.
Why do games portray certain populations in certain ways? Why female league of legend characters portrayed in certain ways? What aspects of the video game industry reflect other industries? Why do we continue to support content/game providers that may be spreading more negative values than positive values. Of course the audience also has the capacity to interpret things differently than just what is presented in front of them.
|
I don't get why it's so hard to accept that gaming might have some sexism in it. I mean come on guys it's an industry built largely for teenage boys. There boob armour and gratitutious fan service everywhere. We all obviously love gaming. So recognising one of the limiting aspects of the genre isn't a bad thing. It's so we can improve. And we didint need gamer gate to tell us this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
