|
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 01:52 Millitron wrote: I feel like "Racist" and "Misogynist" are this generation's "Communist". Everyone you don't agree with is one. except for the fact that all the pick up guys, mensrights and redpill people actually are a bunch of idiots that fit exactly your description. That otherwise very smart people like TB pour oil on the fire by using the same jargon that is very typical of these communities really goes to show that there really is a problem inside the internet/gaming culture.
|
On October 18 2014 02:29 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 01:52 Millitron wrote: I feel like "Racist" and "Misogynist" are this generation's "Communist". Everyone you don't agree with is one. except for the fact that all the pick up guys, mensrights and redpill people actually are a bunch of idiots that fit exactly your description. That otherwise very smart people like TB pour oil on the fire by using the same jargon that is very typical of these communities really goes to show that there really is a problem inside the internet/gaming culture. And there really were communists back in the 50's, but we still call McCarthy a witchhunt leader.
|
On October 18 2014 01:56 trollcenter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2014 23:14 Defacer wrote:
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. Are you for real? How informed are you about Sarkeesian and what she's talking? Have you played the games presented in her videos? I suggest you look her and her subjects up more. From what I can tell, it looks like you do not know much about the titles she presents and are easily impressed by the fact that she supports her claims with examples. You don't seem to understand their context or have enough knowledge on the subject to decide if they are fair or cherry picked moments taken out of context in order to push towards a conclusion she was determined to reach even before doing any of her "research". In her Hitman example, she presents a very specific moment of a very specific mission to make the claim that the game is sexist. She shows an abnormal way of playing, one that the game punishes you for, and falsely claims that the game "invites you to do so" while beating innocent strippers to death. She then reaches the disgusting conclusion that "players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting female characters", a very subjective interpretation which in no way can be realistically reached from any part of the game and only serves to push her personal agenda. All this while completely ignoring the fact that you can kill innocent men throughout the game the exact same way, while getting punished the exact same way. The way she's playing is as if you killed every guard in Thief, a stealth game where you're supposed to NOT do that, and then claim that the game is about a psychopath deriving sick pleasure from murdering innocent people. And how about the claim that women are used as background decoration? You know who else is background decoration in Hitman? Men. And you can do the same things to them. That's the whole point of the game. Innocent people are the background decoration and you're supposed to get clean assassinations on designated targets while hurting nobody else. Taking away the option of killing innocent people would make the game easier and go against what the game series is about. Now the issue is why are those women strippers, I guess. Hitman usually has location variety, this mission is in a strip club, all the others aren't. The only sexist thing I agree about is the fact that the game does indeed have scantily dressed women and not men. It feels like a cheap way to attract players, sex sells unfortunately. But to read so much into situations where the game treats them equally and only victimize the women while playing the game in a way that's discouraged...That's bullshit. Even w/ the scantily dressed argument, that's not entirely true.
A lot of men in video games are designed topless with displayable muscle definitions. I would wage that there might be more games that the men are showing more skins than their female counterpart.
Men + Women are both demonstrated as the pinnacle of human physique in video games (and they are proud to show it off). No sexist there.
|
On October 18 2014 02:27 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 01:50 kwizach wrote:On October 18 2014 01:42 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 01:37 kwizach 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. You didn't answer my question. Where exactly did you see evidence of a journalist receiving bribes/favors from Zoe Quinn to write favorable reviews? Obviously you haven't read the thread, if you seek it, you will find it. I've seen things posted and debunked. Can you please indicate where exactly you saw evidence of a journalist receiving bribes/favors from Zoe Quinn to write favorable reviews? Top of page 13. Unsurprisingly, not one of those links is evidence of a journalist receiving bribes/favors from Zoe Quinn to write favorable reviews. Anything else?
|
On October 18 2014 01:50 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 01:42 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 01:37 kwizach 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. You didn't answer my question. Where exactly did you see evidence of a journalist receiving bribes/favors from Zoe Quinn to write favorable reviews? Obviously you haven't read the thread, if you seek it, you will find it. I've seen things posted and debunked. Can you please indicate where exactly you saw evidence of a journalist receiving bribes/favors from Zoe Quinn to write favorable reviews? "Bribes" or "favours" seems like an unfortunate choice of words that paints a picture of someone actually explicitly doing one thing for another in return.
The reality seems more like a small clique of people who will jump to help their friends without a second thought, using whatever channels they have. In direct relation to Zoe Quinn, that basically amounts to a bad game getting a lot of praise and media attention, and several websites basically reblogging things she posts.
Personally, I wouldn't say that she has bribed anyway or exchanged any favours. More like she's someone who's much more adept at networking than she is at actually making games, which has led to a lot of people have a much more vested interest in her work than is professional.
On October 17 2014 21:00 Defacer wrote: Conflicts of interest arise in all forms of journalism, particularly sports and entertainment. ESPN is going through that right now with their partnership with the NFL. Almost all content in fashion is sponsored or traded for. Does anyone seriously think that Team Liquid, EG, MLG, Blizzard, ESL etc don't coordinate efforts and talk on a regular basis? Do you think Team Liquid reports every behind-the-scenes controversy? Of course not. They're all friends.
Part of the job of journalism is developing a network with your peers and the players in the industry you're covering. Sometimes you form relationships, make friends, and yes, have sex with people. That can lead to biased or favorable reporting, but it's not exactly 'a conspiracy'. I think you're confusing a few things. The fact that connections and networking exist is not a problem. The issue arises when those connections lead to conflicts of interest that have adverse effects on other people/organizations.
If organizations were doing things like rigging brackets for teams they're close with, or showing scheduling favouritism (for reasons not related to timezones and viewership numbers), then you'd have a seriously problem. Or if the few reporters we do have in the scene were involved in covering up issues in the scene, whether explicitly or implicitly, then that would also cause problems.
Actually, it's good that you brought up the whole Esports angle into this, because we have plenty examples of amateur journalists who are friendly with players, teams and organizations, but will still tread over toes without a second thought. Slasher and Richard Lewis come to mind. Granted, both of them are still very much amateurs, and they may fall into the tabloid-style clickbaiting a few too many times, but neither of them have a single care about pissing off people that they're regular in contact with.
|
On October 18 2014 02:29 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 01:52 Millitron wrote: I feel like "Racist" and "Misogynist" are this generation's "Communist". Everyone you don't agree with is one. except for the fact that all the pick up guys, mensrights and redpill people actually are a bunch of idiots that fit exactly your description. That otherwise very smart people like TB pour oil on the fire by using the same jargon that is very typical of these communities really goes to show that there really is a problem inside the internet/gaming culture.
Well now you are getting into very gray area.
You can't put PUA, MRA, and redpiller into one bunch.
While I agree that PUA does contain many men that utilizes the skills taught there to pyschologically torment the girls they've picked up, most of the guys in the field just want to learn skills on how to properly get a girl to like him.
If you are going to blame MRA for being extremely "misogynistic", then you should look at the modernized feminist with "#killallmen" and how writers like Ezra Klein wants all men to live in fear against women.
There is nothing inherent wrong with learning how to get a girl to like you, or want to advocate for men's right because equality there nor is it wrong to fight for women's right. But everything to moderation is the key.
So we have to look at this objectively, are the hates warranted directed to Anita + Zoe? Absolutely! They are bad human beings that didn't to where they are because of their product but due to their questionable marketing ethics.
Unless you think that all women manipulate the system in this manner, those who criticize those two are NOT saying that all women are like that. It is important to not call them undeserved names such as "misogynistic" or "women-hating".
And listen the feminism movement shouldn't even support those two because this actually hurt their credibility!
Now every time someone call themselves "feminist" would be labeled as manipulators that scams people to get to their place.
|
On October 18 2014 02:40 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 02:27 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 01:50 kwizach wrote:On October 18 2014 01:42 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 01:37 kwizach 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. You didn't answer my question. Where exactly did you see evidence of a journalist receiving bribes/favors from Zoe Quinn to write favorable reviews? Obviously you haven't read the thread, if you seek it, you will find it. I've seen things posted and debunked. Can you please indicate where exactly you saw evidence of a journalist receiving bribes/favors from Zoe Quinn to write favorable reviews? Top of page 13. Not one of those links is evidence of a journalist receiving bribes/favors from Zoe Quinn to write favorable reviews. Anything else?
There doesn't need to be evidence to it beyond shadow of a doubt really. There were concerns raised about this because it's been done before and to dismiss it they lied about it (says they weren't gf/bf at the time. but they were verrry close the entire time and it's still nepotism) Now the issue is about how they dealt with those concerns, though really it's pretty obvious he was shilling for his friend. You don't need to find a signed contract to notice the difference in coverage she got after she became friends with people.
@MRA, Redpill: These are counter cultures dedicated to undoing what they perceived to be wrong. PUA are just assholes trying to get laid with the most hurtful methods.
@Feminists shouldn't support Literally Whos: Zoe sure, Anita eh. I mean she does at least present the facade of contributing to discussion, it'd be nice if we could get more ingroup discussion on their part so we didn't have to deal with faulty points. Anita has bit off more than she could chew, but she isn't inherently a bad person I believe, unlike Zoe.
|
On October 18 2014 02:50 Dunnobro wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 02:40 kwizach wrote:On October 18 2014 02:27 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 01:50 kwizach wrote:On October 18 2014 01:42 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 01:37 kwizach 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. You didn't answer my question. Where exactly did you see evidence of a journalist receiving bribes/favors from Zoe Quinn to write favorable reviews? Obviously you haven't read the thread, if you seek it, you will find it. I've seen things posted and debunked. Can you please indicate where exactly you saw evidence of a journalist receiving bribes/favors from Zoe Quinn to write favorable reviews? Top of page 13. Not one of those links is evidence of a journalist receiving bribes/favors from Zoe Quinn to write favorable reviews. Anything else? There doesn't need to be evidence to it beyond shadow of a doubt really. There were concerns raised about this because it's been done before and to dismiss it they lied about it (says they weren't gf/bf at the time. but they were verrry close the entire time and it's still nepotism) Now the issue is about how they dealt with those concerns, though really it's pretty obvious he was shilling for his friend. You don't need to find a signed contract to notice the difference in coverage she got after she became friends with people. Of course there needs to be evidence. I've read plenty of posts, including in this thread, accusing her of using sex in order to get good reviews. That goes way beyond being friends with someone who happens to write reviews and might be influenced by your friendship. The burden of proof lies with the one making the accusation. If the person she slept with didn't even review any of her games afterwards, that should be a good indication of those accusations being likely wrong. So again, I'm asking those who claim she did exchange sex for good reviews - where's your evidence?
On October 18 2014 02:47 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 02:29 Nyxisto wrote:On October 18 2014 01:52 Millitron wrote: I feel like "Racist" and "Misogynist" are this generation's "Communist". Everyone you don't agree with is one. except for the fact that all the pick up guys, mensrights and redpill people actually are a bunch of idiots that fit exactly your description. That otherwise very smart people like TB pour oil on the fire by using the same jargon that is very typical of these communities really goes to show that there really is a problem inside the internet/gaming culture. So we have to look at this objectively, are the hates warranted directed to Anita + Zoe? Absolutely! They are bad human beings that didn't to where they are because of their product but due to their questionable marketing ethics. I do not know Zoe Quinn, but how the hell is Anita Sarkeesian a "bad human being" who didn't get where she is because of her product but thanks to her "questionable marketing ethics"? You seem to be spouting off angry accusations without the slightest fact to back them up.
|
On October 18 2014 02:47 Xiphos wrote: If you are going to blame MRA for being extremely "misogynistic", then you should look at the modernized feminist with "#killallmen" and how writers like Ezra Klein wants all men to live in fear against women.
Don't be hating on Ezra Klein. Yes, he has a staff (at Vox) that seem to reside solely on Tumblr, and they've seemed to rub off on him a bit, but he's definitely one of the best journalists out there right now.
As for the rest of your post, all those groups are deplorable, but in the same way that "dating psychology" is deplorable on all sides. In general, the whole this is misogynistic to a degree that is leaps and bounds beyond anything in the gaming community.
|
Anita didn't produce her film with her Kickstarter. She scammed people w/ portraying video games are sexists.
This hurts our industry and defamation to men.
Then she goes on to get donations, only to end up making YouTube videos. Essentially cheating people a la Sons of StarCraft.
Whether or not she is equally as bad person a Zoe is debatable but she is overall a horrible human being.
On October 18 2014 03:07 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 02:47 Xiphos wrote: If you are going to blame MRA for being extremely "misogynistic", then you should look at the modernized feminist with "#killallmen" and how writers like Ezra Klein wants all men to live in fear against women.
Don't be hating on Ezra Klein. Yes, he has a staff (at Vox) that seem to reside solely on Tumblr, and they've seemed to rub off on him a bit, but he's definitely one of the best journalists out there right now. As for the rest of your post, all those groups are deplorable, but in the same way that "dating psychology" is deplorable on all sides. In general, the whole this is misogynistic to a degree that is leaps and bounds beyond anything in the gaming community.
Link his best article.
|
On October 15 2014 18:45 Tyrran wrote:I'm going to give OP the benefit of doubt, and assumes he really doesnt know anything about GamerGate, and is not just trying to make it sound positive, because -spoiler alert- it's really not. Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 16:01 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: It isn't just about harassment and sexist threats, but also about advocating for honest journalism. Its unfortunate that the noble goal of honesty is maligned into death threats and sexist remarks.
Nope. Gamergate has never been about advocating for honest journalism. It has only and ever been about harassing women in the game industry. "Honest Journalism" is only an excuse they gave, but they really dont care about it.
Statements like this are pretty ridiculous. So are all women in the industry being harassed or is the harassment limited to a select few, who are promoting a certain worldview? If gamergate were just about harassing women, then why did the whole thing start after an overt example of corrupt journalism? Moreover, what about all the women in the industry that agree with the whole gamergate thing?
The problem with the side for righteousness is that it always seems to oversimplify everything. Yes, some women are being harassed. Yes, some of the harassment is over the line (although much of what's being dubbed harassment is, as usual, nothing more than criticism). But there's more going on here than merely a pretext for everyone to be a misogynist. Dismissing people as haters and misogynists guarantees a vigorous response.
|
On October 18 2014 03:05 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 02:50 Dunnobro wrote:On October 18 2014 02:40 kwizach wrote:On October 18 2014 02:27 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 01:50 kwizach wrote:On October 18 2014 01:42 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 01:37 kwizach 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. You didn't answer my question. Where exactly did you see evidence of a journalist receiving bribes/favors from Zoe Quinn to write favorable reviews? Obviously you haven't read the thread, if you seek it, you will find it. I've seen things posted and debunked. Can you please indicate where exactly you saw evidence of a journalist receiving bribes/favors from Zoe Quinn to write favorable reviews? Top of page 13. Not one of those links is evidence of a journalist receiving bribes/favors from Zoe Quinn to write favorable reviews. Anything else? There doesn't need to be evidence to it beyond shadow of a doubt really. There were concerns raised about this because it's been done before and to dismiss it they lied about it (says they weren't gf/bf at the time. but they were verrry close the entire time and it's still nepotism) Now the issue is about how they dealt with those concerns, though really it's pretty obvious he was shilling for his friend. You don't need to find a signed contract to notice the difference in coverage she got after she became friends with people. Of course there needs to be evidence. I've read plenty of posts, including in this thread, accusing her of using sex in order to get good reviews. That goes way beyond being friends with someone who happens to write reviews and might be influenced by your friendship. The burden of proof lies with the one making the accusation. If the person she slept with didn't even review any of her games afterwards, that should be a good indication of those accusations being likely wrong. So again, I'm asking those who claim she did exchange sex for good reviews - where's your evidence?
Again, saying she exchanged sex for reviews is probably a mispainting of the situation. At most she intentionally made a lot of close personal connections knowing it would be good for media attention.
Still, it's publicly acknowledged that she did have an affair with someone who wrote articles on her (within the same time frame), and that several other writers have an overly vested interest in what she says or does.
But really, the reason why that issue is about journalism and not her is that it's not a developer or producer's job to police their connections and interactions. Schmoozing people is part of any business, unfortunately. But it is the job of journalists not to allow personal connections to influence their coverage, or at the very least draw a very public line to show when you're blogging on a personal basis and when you're writing official articles.
|
On October 18 2014 02:31 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 02:29 Nyxisto wrote:On October 18 2014 01:52 Millitron wrote: I feel like "Racist" and "Misogynist" are this generation's "Communist". Everyone you don't agree with is one. except for the fact that all the pick up guys, mensrights and redpill people actually are a bunch of idiots that fit exactly your description. That otherwise very smart people like TB pour oil on the fire by using the same jargon that is very typical of these communities really goes to show that there really is a problem inside the internet/gaming culture. And there really were communists back in the 50's, but we still call McCarthy a witchhunt leader.
To be really accurate: McCarthy, as we would find out far later, was both Correct and *underestimated* the influence the Soviet Union had within the USA.
The catch is that he trampled over all decorum in the process. The Soviets then were very good at holding Americans to their own ideals, while having 0 morals of their own. Evil can get a lot done, when it's well organized.
|
It does give the feel of a culture war between the hipsters who've recently decided that gaming is cool and the natives that don't understand why things need to change.
The whole issue just boils down to a problem of generalizing and stereotypes.
|
On October 18 2014 01:43 fluidin wrote:Show nested quote +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 Sure, go ahead, paint all of these people with the same brush. This is how you bring about your own demise. I've done quite a bit of reading over gamergate these past few days, and while I still consider myself a neutral on the issue, posts like these just make me rage a little bit on the inside. The nerve, really. The few people I've come to respect are @LadyFuzztail on the Anti-GG side, and TotalBiscuit who is leaning more towards the mature GG crowd. Can't help but feel that underlying all this is just a huge shitstorm between hipsters and nerds though, with trolls sprinkled here and there.
So you're neutral towards a group that sends death and rape threats and drives people out of their homes, who threatens to shoot up schools just to silence their opposition?
|
On October 18 2014 03:31 Thax wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 01:43 fluidin 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 Sure, go ahead, paint all of these people with the same brush. This is how you bring about your own demise. I've done quite a bit of reading over gamergate these past few days, and while I still consider myself a neutral on the issue, posts like these just make me rage a little bit on the inside. The nerve, really. The few people I've come to respect are @LadyFuzztail on the Anti-GG side, and TotalBiscuit who is leaning more towards the mature GG crowd. Can't help but feel that underlying all this is just a huge shitstorm between hipsters and nerds though, with trolls sprinkled here and there. So you're neutral towards a group that sends death and rape threats and drives people out of their homes, who threatens to shoot up schools just to silence their opposition?
When the other side are scam artists that actually scammed money out of people's pocket and defaming the industry that I grew up and loved AND my entire gender?
You know where I would place my money on.
Nobody is exactly the 'hero' here but you gotta chose the lesser of the two evils accordingly.
|
On October 18 2014 03:31 Thax wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 01:43 fluidin 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 Sure, go ahead, paint all of these people with the same brush. This is how you bring about your own demise. I've done quite a bit of reading over gamergate these past few days, and while I still consider myself a neutral on the issue, posts like these just make me rage a little bit on the inside. The nerve, really. The few people I've come to respect are @LadyFuzztail on the Anti-GG side, and TotalBiscuit who is leaning more towards the mature GG crowd. Can't help but feel that underlying all this is just a huge shitstorm between hipsters and nerds though, with trolls sprinkled here and there. So you're neutral towards a group that sends death and rape threats and drives people out of their homes, who threatens to shoot up schools just to silence their opposition?
Oh, cool, we've reached this level of rhetoric.
Remind me, when did you stop beating your wife?
|
On October 18 2014 03:10 Xiphos wrote: Anita [...] is overall a horrible human being.
That seems just a tad harsh. Maybe misguided would be a better term, but that's just my suggestion.
|
On October 18 2014 03:31 Thax wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 01:43 fluidin 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 Sure, go ahead, paint all of these people with the same brush. This is how you bring about your own demise. I've done quite a bit of reading over gamergate these past few days, and while I still consider myself a neutral on the issue, posts like these just make me rage a little bit on the inside. The nerve, really. The few people I've come to respect are @LadyFuzztail on the Anti-GG side, and TotalBiscuit who is leaning more towards the mature GG crowd. Can't help but feel that underlying all this is just a huge shitstorm between hipsters and nerds though, with trolls sprinkled here and there. So you're neutral towards a group that sends death and rape threats and drives people out of their homes, who threatens to shoot up schools just to silence their opposition? Its not a group though. There's no chain of command, no organization at all. Anybody can claim to be a gamergater.
I bet some of those who sent death threats have Team Liquid accounts. Does that mean we're all horrible psychos?
|
On October 18 2014 03:31 Thax wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 01:43 fluidin 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 Sure, go ahead, paint all of these people with the same brush. This is how you bring about your own demise. I've done quite a bit of reading over gamergate these past few days, and while I still consider myself a neutral on the issue, posts like these just make me rage a little bit on the inside. The nerve, really. The few people I've come to respect are @LadyFuzztail on the Anti-GG side, and TotalBiscuit who is leaning more towards the mature GG crowd. Can't help but feel that underlying all this is just a huge shitstorm between hipsters and nerds though, with trolls sprinkled here and there. So you're neutral towards a group that sends death and rape threats and drives people out of their homes, who threatens to shoot up schools just to silence their opposition?
Inidividuals sending threats does not equal the group sending threats. By the same logic, those people are gamers, you are a gamer, therefore you're also a horrible person.
PS: Since you're obviously unaware, threats went both ways. People criticizing Zoe were harassed and doxxed too.
|
|
|
|