|
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 03:38 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I would actually love to have reasoned discussion about a lot of the tropes she covers. Damsel in distress is always a fun one, because it always seems to be treated as objectification of women and treatment of them as some plot MacGuffin, whereas the origins that have led to it are a lot more nuanced.
But it seems to be a fairly loaded topic right now.
|
On October 18 2014 00:04 eits wrote:
this all reeks of one of Zoes' toolbags coming out of the woodwork to defend her.
fucking trash thread, shes a whore and deserved to be called out for it. her game is shit shes a shit developer, and when she couldn't deal with that she needed white knights to swoop in and make her feel wanted.
these are the same women who honestly believe GTA will make me go out, beat up a hooker, and absolutely love it because my games teach me to objectify women!
User was temp banned for this post.
This comment is the epitome of the worst of discussion. It's just some random gamer swooping in, and projecting their out self-pity, defensiveness and insecurity onto a situation.
This is like someone going to a restaurant, saying, "Wow, there's a lot of meat on the menu, and no vegetables or sides What's that say to vegetarians or anyone that might want a balanced diet" And the chef coming out and saying, "WHAT! STOP CALLING ME A MEAT EATER! Why are you trying to ruin my restaurant? Why are you trying to force feed me vegetables?"
The reactionary is completely disproportional to the actual criticism, and taken way too personally.
|
On October 18 2014 01:36 Xiphos 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 See none of those harassment would have occurred in the first place if characters such as Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkessian didn't go out of their way to scam everybody by faking the victimhood. Its saying that African american folks in the civil right strike are "a toxic movement, a hate group" because they are harassing the the cacausian folks for their misdemeanor even though some slave owners do exactly deserve what was coming to them.
Dem right! Those bitches deserved it! Talking in public instead of making me a sandwich.
So that's you're excuse? They deserved it because they were faking it? Sarkeesian started getting shit years ago, I saw it as far back as her Kickstarter campaign.This whole mess took form after what's-his-name's screed against Zoe Quinn, and the shit piled up on her after that. Various other people, journalist, authors, game developers, mostly women, but some men too, who dare to speak out against this have heaps of crap piled upon them. The evidence is all over the place, Kickstarter, Youtube, Twittter, Look in the Redpill Reddit (or whatever it's called) for some truly awe inspiring circle jerks and vileness, or other MRA forums on reddit and 4chan and were ever else they hide. ... But they are faking it. Sure.
And did you really just compare the American civil rights movement with GamersGate? Even if all they did actually was for "fair journalism in gaming" instead of harassing and threating and other asshattery that would be preposterous. You are not a suppressed minority. King didn't threaten to shoot up schools or rape people for speaking their minds.
|
On October 18 2014 03:51 Thax wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 01:36 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 01:15 Thax wrote:On October 18 2014 00:14 Xiphos wrote:On October 17 2014 23:14 Defacer wrote:On October 17 2014 20:51 I_Love_Bacon wrote:
It's hard to separate it. Hell I know because I still talk about it at times when I probably shouldn't because keeping one's mouth shut is not easy.
First of all, relax. You must of written 300 words per minute. + Show Spoiler +This is all bull shit. GG isn't about Anita no matter how much you seem to think it is. She is background noise at best and is used to deflect from the actual issue at hand. Dude, you brought her up. And I was just commenting to how absurd it is that people are so upset she exists. And you kind of proved my point ... You're setting the bar for success pretty low. You're basically stating that because she wasn't frothing at the mouth and calling for male game devs to be castrated that her criticisms have more merit. All her points, whether you agree with her or not, are explicitly illustrated and supported with examples. Her argument is reasoned and well-researched. It's structured, and builds towards an actually conclusion. You can bitch and complain that it's not exhaustive, but it's not meant to be. She has a thesis and she defends it well. It's certainly not lazy. That's more than can you say than most of her detractors, who rely on heresay or empty accusations or dismiss entire 3000 word articles with links and annotations simply because they think the publisher is a shill. I'm sorry, but there's nothing intellectually dishonest about it, no matter how loud you shout it from the roof tops. Intellectual dishonest implies she's not earnest. She believes what she says. You just disagree with her. Like I said, I don't blame you because there's a metric shit ton of them out there. Others use Anita's videos to justify THEIR hatred and then take to articles/twitter/whateverthefuckever. I can hate her work but, as I've said countless times, GG isn't about Anita. Alright, I think I understand what you're saying here. You're issue isn't with Anita's argument. It's the idiots that amplify it and take it out of context. It happens on both sides. I absolutely agree. I do not condone stupidity. Oh-so-false. Saying "she just a media critic" means you haven't done nearly as much research as you think you have. I'm not going to bring up the personal things about how she lies about being a gamer and some of the other talks she's given because I don't want my own opinion of them to taint them if you ever get around to them.
The "worst case scenario" is that a woman who has admitted she doesn't like games and doesn't play games has now been consulted by major studios about their games where she'll continue to push her biased/questionable message. As somebody on a site that was dedicated to hard core gaming I hope you can at least appreciate the absolute ridiculousness of that. Oh, and it should be more exhaustive given how much money she was given but I'll let that slide for now. ... aaannnd you're losing me. This is coming off as sour grapes, to be honest. Maybe she lied about being a gamer. I have no idea what this accusation really means. The definition of being a gamer is very, very broad and means different things to different people. To someone like Anita, it probably meant playing a game a few hours on the weekend and even included roleplaying or board games with her friends. I don't really give a shit about her personal life, so I honestly don't know. But to a hardcore gamer, it literally means BUY EVERY MAJOR RELEASE AND PLAY NON-STOP UNTIL COMPLETION NEED MONSTER ENERGY DRINK. These people exist. That's a massive spectrum there. Consultants from other industries and fields get hired all the time. Gaming is an expensive, high-risk business. Sometimes celebrity or creative consultants are brought on to boost the profile of a game. Sometimes they are actually technical consultants, like cinematographers or architects. There is an obvious lack of realistic or even interesting representation of women in triple-A games. Maybe she'll get paid to consult on content. Maybe a developer will hire her as a token creative consultant, the way Will.i.am or Pharell seems to be the creative consultant on everything, in the hopes it will provide a halo effect around the game and attract a broader demographic. In either sense, trust me — her influence will be smaller than you think. Games are not build by consultants. They're built by 50 to 100 people working 60 hours a week. I know a lot of people that work in triple-A gaming. I know it sucks, but you're resenting her for identifying an issue in gaming that is rarely addressed, building a case for it's importance, representing herself as an expert on that particular issue, and being rewarded because it. That happens in almost industry because that's how society works. Trust me, as a designer, I have seen many younger, stupider people position themselves as experts on sustainability or social media experts — despite having very superficial knowledge — and fast tracking their careers. You're resenting a person for carving a niche and building a name for herself. The world isn't a meritocracy. Her getting gigs you wish you had — or think other people should have — is your problem, not hers. Now let's move on before we start bitching about Ben Affleck as Batman. This is where your tinfoil hat is showing even more than before. Show me serious attempts to threaten Sarkeesian. Oh, the one that she screen capped 20 seconds after it was posted while not logged into twitter? The one at the university yesterday that the police deemed as not-credible? Know how many journalists/critics/developers have been killed over their opinion on games? 0 I'm going to pretend to be your conscience for a second: "Threatening to shoot up a lecture hall is a serious offense. It is not a trivial threat, even if it's a lie. If you get caught you will get arrested. "Also, if someone threatens to murder you, encourages others to harass or hurt you, and publicizes you're home address, it is perfectly rational to not feel safe. If you are driven out of your own home out of fear, it's okay to feel like you're being violated, because you are." Trolls exist on the internet. This... surprises you? We live in a world where assholes "swat" people on Twitchtv and you're surprised that some shitheads leveled deaththreats and say stupid, vitriolic things on twitter? Once again, you're on a gaming website and you're surprised there exists people who make it their goal to push other people's buttons? Nobody after a game of SC told you to die in a fire or call you a faggot? Why yes! I know you're trying to dismiss the significance of online threats or abuse as trivial or 'less real', but that's a weak argument. And you're just admitting that games can lead to anti-social behaviour. As if stupidity is an excuse. Are you sure you're not an SJW at-heart? This also falls into the main point of GG is the inability to criticize "these people" (journalists, SWJs, and everybody in between). Comments are deleted/disabled, reddit threads are deleted, people are shadow banned, and entire pieces are forced to be taken down and yet somehow GG are the ones who are being accused of censorship. Virtually every single person who writes above the 5th grade reading level and supports GG also calls for NO CENSORSHIP. Let her have here views; then let others rebut them if that's what they want to do. Isn't that's what supposed to happen? Why did this suddenly become a bad thing that bad reporting/criticism is pointed out? You know the other thing that Pro-GGs aren't doing? Making a gigantic production out of every threat posted to them on twitter despite their being plenty of choose from. They're not trying to play victims and garner attention/sympathy, they're trying to have an actual discussion. HAHAHA! BULL! SHIT! Are you serious dude? The one's complaining and whining the loudest have been the GG community. Check out KotakuInAction. In the past four hours, some Gawker reporter made a joke about bullying nerds, and they turned it into a witch hunt, had a little non-stop pity party, and now have a 'nerd' challenging the reporter to $10,000 boxing match! Mike Cernovich challenges Gawker to $10,000 boxing matchhttps://twitter.com/PlayDangerously/status/522971574400348160 How's that for production and spectacle? And what does it have to do with journalistic integrity? NOTHING. I would never accuse GG of censorship. I would never do that. I'm accusing a subset of trolls using GamerGate as a political shield to threaten, intimidate and harass three women until they were forced to leave their homes and go into hiding. That's worse then censorship. It's the literal definition of terrorism. For two of them the only 'crime' they committed, technically, is having an fucking opinion. And now other female developers are afraid to speak out out of fear of reprisal. That's sad. GG has been censored and blocked on several sites. No dispute here. I'm sure the publications have different reasons. But if I had to guess, I think the most common reason is that most sites, particularly online magazines, don't have the time or energy to moderate the inevitable fucking shitstorm. Nor are they obligated to. We're having a reasonable discussion, but if a bunch of turds took over the thread Team Liquid would shut our asses down and there's nothing they could do about it. Reddit? My theory would be they were in the middle of catching a bunch of shit for their facilitation of Fappening, it hurt their reputation, put them in an embarassing legal situation, and because of the ties of misogyny to GamerGate (justified or not) they didn't want to touch it with a ten-foot-pole. You got screwed by pervs. The only way for GamerGate to have completely autonomy and control over the discourse is to have their own platform. And so far, the quality and presentation of GamerGates concerns have been scattered and amatuerish. There's a time and a place to discuss these things, but that's not what GG is. The people who claim it is only do so for 2 options: Either they're misinformed or they do it to push their own narrative. Are you accusing me of being part of a conspiracy, or a secret dick? If it makes you feel better, it's the latter. I can honestly say I am not anti-GamerGate, because I still don't know what the hell GamerGate is. The issues that actually seem worth discussing — the representation of women in games (both on and behind the scenes), the integrity of game journalism, and the future of gamer-culture as gaming becomes more and more significant to mainstream culture — have absolutely nothing to do with each other. They really don't. And it's the conflation of this issues by people that support GamerGate is what makes their perspective so easy to dismiss. A lot of their arguments and discussion is tainted with allegations, innuendo, or incessant lulz-humor that simply diminishes whatever legitimate point or grievance they might have. Here's an example from the kotakuinaction reddit of one guy who thinks he's spitting truth bombs. He opens the article by whining while congratulating himself. Written by @JamieBworth, rejected by Cracked for stupid reasons, and published here, with permission. Because fuck Cracked, this shit is hilarious and genius. Mindless Zombie StudiosIn actuality his writing is rushed and lazy; mostly editorial; and offers no new information that contradicts basic facts reported by mainstream source — thus rendering his premise of revealing 'misinformation' pretty much pointless. Like I said, if Gaters want to be taken seriously, they can learn a lot about how to present an argument by watching Sarkeesian's videos. If you don't know what GamerGate is, none of your opinions matters. On topic: A lot of misconception about GamerGate. To put it in the most basic form: GamerGate is the gaming consumers' reactionary force to dissipate any biases in gaming reviews for a more wholesome competitive market. A lot of you guys think that GamerGate requires some special membership to participate in. However, with the assumption that we all hope for a meritocracy system in the gaming industry, most of us are already, intentionally or not and even if you don't want to rally behind the hash tag or not, part of the GamerGate "movement". However, this movement will mostly likely be a lost cause and let me tell y'all why. In order to get rid of any media nepotism in the gaming community, we must look at all the parties involved that created nepotism in the first place. They are: 1. Producer of the game. Ex: Zoe Quinn. Laughing my ass off at people being ignorant on this one. 2. Game reviewer outlets. Ex: IGN, Kotaku, GameSpot that gave out favorable reviews because of sexual, monetary, and/or other reasons. and lastly: 3. Any other people that support the gaming producer to further their own personal agendas. They are termed as "Social Justice Warriors", SJWs for short, basically the radical pro-feminism, pro-LGBT crowds that supported a certain game because both the game producers and their political beliefs aligns with each other for mutual benefit. Ex: Anita Sarkessian. For corruption and nepotism to fully dispel in our industry, we have to get rid of ALL 3 parties. But here is the thing though, you can shame characters Zoe Quinn and Game reviewers/journalist all you want, the main beast you have to deal with are #3 of the list. The question remains whether or not the integrity of gaming development can be saved w/ enough manpower in our side to get rid of all the parties or not. So far, there have been a lot in-fighting in the community about who to blame it on. A lot of apologist by saying "Woah, you can't possibly go after X, Y, and Z. You have to go after A, B, and C instead!" No the correct approach is to go after EVERYBODY involved, you can't afford to cherry pick the target. Talk about misconceptions ... Around the turn of the millennium gamers were trying to stop journalist to blame games for school shootings. This week "gamers" threatened with a school shooting to prevent a journalist from speaking out in public. GamerGate is a toxic movement, a hate group, started by a sad little man who felt the need to get back at his failed relationship in public. Any sort of valid point it might have had went out of the window a long time ago. If you affiliate yourself with gamersgate, you stand with racists and mysoginists, you excuse harassers and abusers, you're a willing patsy and a horrible human being. http://www.themarysue.com/gamergate-terrorist-threats/http://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/the-man-who-sparked-gamergate-regrets-the-harassment-but-say#1jomgbx See none of those harassment would have occurred in the first place if characters such as Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkessian didn't go out of their way to scam everybody by faking the victimhood. Its saying that African american folks in the civil right strike are "a toxic movement, a hate group" because they are harassing the the cacausian folks for their misdemeanor even though some slave owners do exactly deserve what was coming to them. Dem right! Those bitches deserved it! Talking in public instead of making me a sandwich. So that's you're excuse? They deserved it because they were faking it? Sarkeesian started getting shit years ago, I saw it as far back as her Kickstarter campaign.This whole mess took form after what's-his-name's screed against Zoe Quinn, and the shit piled up on her after that. Various other people, journalist, authors, game developers, mostly women, but some men too, who dare to speak out against this have heaps of crap piled upon them. The evidence is all over the place, Kickstarter, Youtube, Twittter, Look in the Redpill Reddit (or whatever it's called) for some truly awe inspiring circle jerks and vileness, or other MRA forums on reddit and 4chan and were ever else they hide. ... But they are faking it. Sure. And did you really just compare the American civil rights movement with GamersGate? Even if all they did actually was for "fair journalism in gaming" instead of harassing and threating and other asshattery that would be preposterous. You are not a suppressed minority. King didn't threaten to shoot up schools or rape people for speaking their minds.
First of all, calm down.
Secondly, read up on black panther, please.
And lastly while there are real hates since she posted misinformation and scammed people.
But I'm ofc talking about this: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BwJNnfUCAAA9VrZ.jpg
|
On October 18 2014 01:15 Thax wrote: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
That "interview" on Ezra is like the worst piece of periodism i had read on years. Probably because it isn't.
Do you see an interview ? No you fucking don't, you just the read author telling you how you should feel about some answers the interviewed gave while we don't know the fucking context. Seriously, how can you even read that crap and post it here?
|
On October 18 2014 03:51 Thax wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 01:36 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 01:15 Thax wrote:On October 18 2014 00:14 Xiphos wrote:On October 17 2014 23:14 Defacer wrote:On October 17 2014 20:51 I_Love_Bacon wrote:
It's hard to separate it. Hell I know because I still talk about it at times when I probably shouldn't because keeping one's mouth shut is not easy.
First of all, relax. You must of written 300 words per minute. + Show Spoiler +This is all bull shit. GG isn't about Anita no matter how much you seem to think it is. She is background noise at best and is used to deflect from the actual issue at hand. Dude, you brought her up. And I was just commenting to how absurd it is that people are so upset she exists. And you kind of proved my point ... You're setting the bar for success pretty low. You're basically stating that because she wasn't frothing at the mouth and calling for male game devs to be castrated that her criticisms have more merit. All her points, whether you agree with her or not, are explicitly illustrated and supported with examples. Her argument is reasoned and well-researched. It's structured, and builds towards an actually conclusion. You can bitch and complain that it's not exhaustive, but it's not meant to be. She has a thesis and she defends it well. It's certainly not lazy. That's more than can you say than most of her detractors, who rely on heresay or empty accusations or dismiss entire 3000 word articles with links and annotations simply because they think the publisher is a shill. I'm sorry, but there's nothing intellectually dishonest about it, no matter how loud you shout it from the roof tops. Intellectual dishonest implies she's not earnest. She believes what she says. You just disagree with her. Like I said, I don't blame you because there's a metric shit ton of them out there. Others use Anita's videos to justify THEIR hatred and then take to articles/twitter/whateverthefuckever. I can hate her work but, as I've said countless times, GG isn't about Anita. Alright, I think I understand what you're saying here. You're issue isn't with Anita's argument. It's the idiots that amplify it and take it out of context. It happens on both sides. I absolutely agree. I do not condone stupidity. Oh-so-false. Saying "she just a media critic" means you haven't done nearly as much research as you think you have. I'm not going to bring up the personal things about how she lies about being a gamer and some of the other talks she's given because I don't want my own opinion of them to taint them if you ever get around to them.
The "worst case scenario" is that a woman who has admitted she doesn't like games and doesn't play games has now been consulted by major studios about their games where she'll continue to push her biased/questionable message. As somebody on a site that was dedicated to hard core gaming I hope you can at least appreciate the absolute ridiculousness of that. Oh, and it should be more exhaustive given how much money she was given but I'll let that slide for now. ... aaannnd you're losing me. This is coming off as sour grapes, to be honest. Maybe she lied about being a gamer. I have no idea what this accusation really means. The definition of being a gamer is very, very broad and means different things to different people. To someone like Anita, it probably meant playing a game a few hours on the weekend and even included roleplaying or board games with her friends. I don't really give a shit about her personal life, so I honestly don't know. But to a hardcore gamer, it literally means BUY EVERY MAJOR RELEASE AND PLAY NON-STOP UNTIL COMPLETION NEED MONSTER ENERGY DRINK. These people exist. That's a massive spectrum there. Consultants from other industries and fields get hired all the time. Gaming is an expensive, high-risk business. Sometimes celebrity or creative consultants are brought on to boost the profile of a game. Sometimes they are actually technical consultants, like cinematographers or architects. There is an obvious lack of realistic or even interesting representation of women in triple-A games. Maybe she'll get paid to consult on content. Maybe a developer will hire her as a token creative consultant, the way Will.i.am or Pharell seems to be the creative consultant on everything, in the hopes it will provide a halo effect around the game and attract a broader demographic. In either sense, trust me — her influence will be smaller than you think. Games are not build by consultants. They're built by 50 to 100 people working 60 hours a week. I know a lot of people that work in triple-A gaming. I know it sucks, but you're resenting her for identifying an issue in gaming that is rarely addressed, building a case for it's importance, representing herself as an expert on that particular issue, and being rewarded because it. That happens in almost industry because that's how society works. Trust me, as a designer, I have seen many younger, stupider people position themselves as experts on sustainability or social media experts — despite having very superficial knowledge — and fast tracking their careers. You're resenting a person for carving a niche and building a name for herself. The world isn't a meritocracy. Her getting gigs you wish you had — or think other people should have — is your problem, not hers. Now let's move on before we start bitching about Ben Affleck as Batman. This is where your tinfoil hat is showing even more than before. Show me serious attempts to threaten Sarkeesian. Oh, the one that she screen capped 20 seconds after it was posted while not logged into twitter? The one at the university yesterday that the police deemed as not-credible? Know how many journalists/critics/developers have been killed over their opinion on games? 0 I'm going to pretend to be your conscience for a second: "Threatening to shoot up a lecture hall is a serious offense. It is not a trivial threat, even if it's a lie. If you get caught you will get arrested. "Also, if someone threatens to murder you, encourages others to harass or hurt you, and publicizes you're home address, it is perfectly rational to not feel safe. If you are driven out of your own home out of fear, it's okay to feel like you're being violated, because you are." Trolls exist on the internet. This... surprises you? We live in a world where assholes "swat" people on Twitchtv and you're surprised that some shitheads leveled deaththreats and say stupid, vitriolic things on twitter? Once again, you're on a gaming website and you're surprised there exists people who make it their goal to push other people's buttons? Nobody after a game of SC told you to die in a fire or call you a faggot? Why yes! I know you're trying to dismiss the significance of online threats or abuse as trivial or 'less real', but that's a weak argument. And you're just admitting that games can lead to anti-social behaviour. As if stupidity is an excuse. Are you sure you're not an SJW at-heart? This also falls into the main point of GG is the inability to criticize "these people" (journalists, SWJs, and everybody in between). Comments are deleted/disabled, reddit threads are deleted, people are shadow banned, and entire pieces are forced to be taken down and yet somehow GG are the ones who are being accused of censorship. Virtually every single person who writes above the 5th grade reading level and supports GG also calls for NO CENSORSHIP. Let her have here views; then let others rebut them if that's what they want to do. Isn't that's what supposed to happen? Why did this suddenly become a bad thing that bad reporting/criticism is pointed out? You know the other thing that Pro-GGs aren't doing? Making a gigantic production out of every threat posted to them on twitter despite their being plenty of choose from. They're not trying to play victims and garner attention/sympathy, they're trying to have an actual discussion. HAHAHA! BULL! SHIT! Are you serious dude? The one's complaining and whining the loudest have been the GG community. Check out KotakuInAction. In the past four hours, some Gawker reporter made a joke about bullying nerds, and they turned it into a witch hunt, had a little non-stop pity party, and now have a 'nerd' challenging the reporter to $10,000 boxing match! Mike Cernovich challenges Gawker to $10,000 boxing matchhttps://twitter.com/PlayDangerously/status/522971574400348160 How's that for production and spectacle? And what does it have to do with journalistic integrity? NOTHING. I would never accuse GG of censorship. I would never do that. I'm accusing a subset of trolls using GamerGate as a political shield to threaten, intimidate and harass three women until they were forced to leave their homes and go into hiding. That's worse then censorship. It's the literal definition of terrorism. For two of them the only 'crime' they committed, technically, is having an fucking opinion. And now other female developers are afraid to speak out out of fear of reprisal. That's sad. GG has been censored and blocked on several sites. No dispute here. I'm sure the publications have different reasons. But if I had to guess, I think the most common reason is that most sites, particularly online magazines, don't have the time or energy to moderate the inevitable fucking shitstorm. Nor are they obligated to. We're having a reasonable discussion, but if a bunch of turds took over the thread Team Liquid would shut our asses down and there's nothing they could do about it. Reddit? My theory would be they were in the middle of catching a bunch of shit for their facilitation of Fappening, it hurt their reputation, put them in an embarassing legal situation, and because of the ties of misogyny to GamerGate (justified or not) they didn't want to touch it with a ten-foot-pole. You got screwed by pervs. The only way for GamerGate to have completely autonomy and control over the discourse is to have their own platform. And so far, the quality and presentation of GamerGates concerns have been scattered and amatuerish. There's a time and a place to discuss these things, but that's not what GG is. The people who claim it is only do so for 2 options: Either they're misinformed or they do it to push their own narrative. Are you accusing me of being part of a conspiracy, or a secret dick? If it makes you feel better, it's the latter. I can honestly say I am not anti-GamerGate, because I still don't know what the hell GamerGate is. The issues that actually seem worth discussing — the representation of women in games (both on and behind the scenes), the integrity of game journalism, and the future of gamer-culture as gaming becomes more and more significant to mainstream culture — have absolutely nothing to do with each other. They really don't. And it's the conflation of this issues by people that support GamerGate is what makes their perspective so easy to dismiss. A lot of their arguments and discussion is tainted with allegations, innuendo, or incessant lulz-humor that simply diminishes whatever legitimate point or grievance they might have. Here's an example from the kotakuinaction reddit of one guy who thinks he's spitting truth bombs. He opens the article by whining while congratulating himself. Written by @JamieBworth, rejected by Cracked for stupid reasons, and published here, with permission. Because fuck Cracked, this shit is hilarious and genius. Mindless Zombie StudiosIn actuality his writing is rushed and lazy; mostly editorial; and offers no new information that contradicts basic facts reported by mainstream source — thus rendering his premise of revealing 'misinformation' pretty much pointless. Like I said, if Gaters want to be taken seriously, they can learn a lot about how to present an argument by watching Sarkeesian's videos. If you don't know what GamerGate is, none of your opinions matters. On topic: A lot of misconception about GamerGate. To put it in the most basic form: GamerGate is the gaming consumers' reactionary force to dissipate any biases in gaming reviews for a more wholesome competitive market. A lot of you guys think that GamerGate requires some special membership to participate in. However, with the assumption that we all hope for a meritocracy system in the gaming industry, most of us are already, intentionally or not and even if you don't want to rally behind the hash tag or not, part of the GamerGate "movement". However, this movement will mostly likely be a lost cause and let me tell y'all why. In order to get rid of any media nepotism in the gaming community, we must look at all the parties involved that created nepotism in the first place. They are: 1. Producer of the game. Ex: Zoe Quinn. Laughing my ass off at people being ignorant on this one. 2. Game reviewer outlets. Ex: IGN, Kotaku, GameSpot that gave out favorable reviews because of sexual, monetary, and/or other reasons. and lastly: 3. Any other people that support the gaming producer to further their own personal agendas. They are termed as "Social Justice Warriors", SJWs for short, basically the radical pro-feminism, pro-LGBT crowds that supported a certain game because both the game producers and their political beliefs aligns with each other for mutual benefit. Ex: Anita Sarkessian. For corruption and nepotism to fully dispel in our industry, we have to get rid of ALL 3 parties. But here is the thing though, you can shame characters Zoe Quinn and Game reviewers/journalist all you want, the main beast you have to deal with are #3 of the list. The question remains whether or not the integrity of gaming development can be saved w/ enough manpower in our side to get rid of all the parties or not. So far, there have been a lot in-fighting in the community about who to blame it on. A lot of apologist by saying "Woah, you can't possibly go after X, Y, and Z. You have to go after A, B, and C instead!" No the correct approach is to go after EVERYBODY involved, you can't afford to cherry pick the target. Talk about misconceptions ... Around the turn of the millennium gamers were trying to stop journalist to blame games for school shootings. This week "gamers" threatened with a school shooting to prevent a journalist from speaking out in public. GamerGate is a toxic movement, a hate group, started by a sad little man who felt the need to get back at his failed relationship in public. Any sort of valid point it might have had went out of the window a long time ago. If you affiliate yourself with gamersgate, you stand with racists and mysoginists, you excuse harassers and abusers, you're a willing patsy and a horrible human being. http://www.themarysue.com/gamergate-terrorist-threats/http://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/the-man-who-sparked-gamergate-regrets-the-harassment-but-say#1jomgbx See none of those harassment would have occurred in the first place if characters such as Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkessian didn't go out of their way to scam everybody by faking the victimhood. Its saying that African american folks in the civil right strike are "a toxic movement, a hate group" because they are harassing the the cacausian folks for their misdemeanor even though some slave owners do exactly deserve what was coming to them. Dem right! Those bitches deserved it! Talking in public instead of making me a sandwich. So that's you're excuse? They deserved it because they were faking it? Sarkeesian started getting shit years ago, I saw it as far back as her Kickstarter campaign.This whole mess took form after what's-his-name's screed against Zoe Quinn, and the shit piled up on her after that. Various other people, journalist, authors, game developers, mostly women, but some men too, who dare to speak out against this have heaps of crap piled upon them. The evidence is all over the place, Kickstarter, Youtube, Twittter, Look in the Redpill Reddit (or whatever it's called) for some truly awe inspiring circle jerks and vileness, or other MRA forums on reddit and 4chan and were ever else they hide. ... But they are faking it. Sure. And did you really just compare the American civil rights movement with GamersGate? Even if all they did actually was for "fair journalism in gaming" instead of harassing and threating and other asshattery that would be preposterous. You are not a suppressed minority. King didn't threaten to shoot up schools or rape people for speaking their minds.
This is a very clever way of sidestepping an argument. Nobody is actually making the claim that they are a suppressed minority. They are making far more specific claims than that. You are creating a strawman and then responding to it. Perhaps more to the point, however, your statement isn't necessarily even true; any consensus status assigned to a group of people by definition makes dissenters among that group a suppressed minority.
|
On October 18 2014 03:51 Thax wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 01:36 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 01:15 Thax wrote:On October 18 2014 00:14 Xiphos wrote:On October 17 2014 23:14 Defacer wrote:On October 17 2014 20:51 I_Love_Bacon wrote:
It's hard to separate it. Hell I know because I still talk about it at times when I probably shouldn't because keeping one's mouth shut is not easy.
First of all, relax. You must of written 300 words per minute. + Show Spoiler +This is all bull shit. GG isn't about Anita no matter how much you seem to think it is. She is background noise at best and is used to deflect from the actual issue at hand. Dude, you brought her up. And I was just commenting to how absurd it is that people are so upset she exists. And you kind of proved my point ... You're setting the bar for success pretty low. You're basically stating that because she wasn't frothing at the mouth and calling for male game devs to be castrated that her criticisms have more merit. All her points, whether you agree with her or not, are explicitly illustrated and supported with examples. Her argument is reasoned and well-researched. It's structured, and builds towards an actually conclusion. You can bitch and complain that it's not exhaustive, but it's not meant to be. She has a thesis and she defends it well. It's certainly not lazy. That's more than can you say than most of her detractors, who rely on heresay or empty accusations or dismiss entire 3000 word articles with links and annotations simply because they think the publisher is a shill. I'm sorry, but there's nothing intellectually dishonest about it, no matter how loud you shout it from the roof tops. Intellectual dishonest implies she's not earnest. She believes what she says. You just disagree with her. Like I said, I don't blame you because there's a metric shit ton of them out there. Others use Anita's videos to justify THEIR hatred and then take to articles/twitter/whateverthefuckever. I can hate her work but, as I've said countless times, GG isn't about Anita. Alright, I think I understand what you're saying here. You're issue isn't with Anita's argument. It's the idiots that amplify it and take it out of context. It happens on both sides. I absolutely agree. I do not condone stupidity. Oh-so-false. Saying "she just a media critic" means you haven't done nearly as much research as you think you have. I'm not going to bring up the personal things about how she lies about being a gamer and some of the other talks she's given because I don't want my own opinion of them to taint them if you ever get around to them.
The "worst case scenario" is that a woman who has admitted she doesn't like games and doesn't play games has now been consulted by major studios about their games where she'll continue to push her biased/questionable message. As somebody on a site that was dedicated to hard core gaming I hope you can at least appreciate the absolute ridiculousness of that. Oh, and it should be more exhaustive given how much money she was given but I'll let that slide for now. ... aaannnd you're losing me. This is coming off as sour grapes, to be honest. Maybe she lied about being a gamer. I have no idea what this accusation really means. The definition of being a gamer is very, very broad and means different things to different people. To someone like Anita, it probably meant playing a game a few hours on the weekend and even included roleplaying or board games with her friends. I don't really give a shit about her personal life, so I honestly don't know. But to a hardcore gamer, it literally means BUY EVERY MAJOR RELEASE AND PLAY NON-STOP UNTIL COMPLETION NEED MONSTER ENERGY DRINK. These people exist. That's a massive spectrum there. Consultants from other industries and fields get hired all the time. Gaming is an expensive, high-risk business. Sometimes celebrity or creative consultants are brought on to boost the profile of a game. Sometimes they are actually technical consultants, like cinematographers or architects. There is an obvious lack of realistic or even interesting representation of women in triple-A games. Maybe she'll get paid to consult on content. Maybe a developer will hire her as a token creative consultant, the way Will.i.am or Pharell seems to be the creative consultant on everything, in the hopes it will provide a halo effect around the game and attract a broader demographic. In either sense, trust me — her influence will be smaller than you think. Games are not build by consultants. They're built by 50 to 100 people working 60 hours a week. I know a lot of people that work in triple-A gaming. I know it sucks, but you're resenting her for identifying an issue in gaming that is rarely addressed, building a case for it's importance, representing herself as an expert on that particular issue, and being rewarded because it. That happens in almost industry because that's how society works. Trust me, as a designer, I have seen many younger, stupider people position themselves as experts on sustainability or social media experts — despite having very superficial knowledge — and fast tracking their careers. You're resenting a person for carving a niche and building a name for herself. The world isn't a meritocracy. Her getting gigs you wish you had — or think other people should have — is your problem, not hers. Now let's move on before we start bitching about Ben Affleck as Batman. This is where your tinfoil hat is showing even more than before. Show me serious attempts to threaten Sarkeesian. Oh, the one that she screen capped 20 seconds after it was posted while not logged into twitter? The one at the university yesterday that the police deemed as not-credible? Know how many journalists/critics/developers have been killed over their opinion on games? 0 I'm going to pretend to be your conscience for a second: "Threatening to shoot up a lecture hall is a serious offense. It is not a trivial threat, even if it's a lie. If you get caught you will get arrested. "Also, if someone threatens to murder you, encourages others to harass or hurt you, and publicizes you're home address, it is perfectly rational to not feel safe. If you are driven out of your own home out of fear, it's okay to feel like you're being violated, because you are." Trolls exist on the internet. This... surprises you? We live in a world where assholes "swat" people on Twitchtv and you're surprised that some shitheads leveled deaththreats and say stupid, vitriolic things on twitter? Once again, you're on a gaming website and you're surprised there exists people who make it their goal to push other people's buttons? Nobody after a game of SC told you to die in a fire or call you a faggot? Why yes! I know you're trying to dismiss the significance of online threats or abuse as trivial or 'less real', but that's a weak argument. And you're just admitting that games can lead to anti-social behaviour. As if stupidity is an excuse. Are you sure you're not an SJW at-heart? This also falls into the main point of GG is the inability to criticize "these people" (journalists, SWJs, and everybody in between). Comments are deleted/disabled, reddit threads are deleted, people are shadow banned, and entire pieces are forced to be taken down and yet somehow GG are the ones who are being accused of censorship. Virtually every single person who writes above the 5th grade reading level and supports GG also calls for NO CENSORSHIP. Let her have here views; then let others rebut them if that's what they want to do. Isn't that's what supposed to happen? Why did this suddenly become a bad thing that bad reporting/criticism is pointed out? You know the other thing that Pro-GGs aren't doing? Making a gigantic production out of every threat posted to them on twitter despite their being plenty of choose from. They're not trying to play victims and garner attention/sympathy, they're trying to have an actual discussion. HAHAHA! BULL! SHIT! Are you serious dude? The one's complaining and whining the loudest have been the GG community. Check out KotakuInAction. In the past four hours, some Gawker reporter made a joke about bullying nerds, and they turned it into a witch hunt, had a little non-stop pity party, and now have a 'nerd' challenging the reporter to $10,000 boxing match! Mike Cernovich challenges Gawker to $10,000 boxing matchhttps://twitter.com/PlayDangerously/status/522971574400348160 How's that for production and spectacle? And what does it have to do with journalistic integrity? NOTHING. I would never accuse GG of censorship. I would never do that. I'm accusing a subset of trolls using GamerGate as a political shield to threaten, intimidate and harass three women until they were forced to leave their homes and go into hiding. That's worse then censorship. It's the literal definition of terrorism. For two of them the only 'crime' they committed, technically, is having an fucking opinion. And now other female developers are afraid to speak out out of fear of reprisal. That's sad. GG has been censored and blocked on several sites. No dispute here. I'm sure the publications have different reasons. But if I had to guess, I think the most common reason is that most sites, particularly online magazines, don't have the time or energy to moderate the inevitable fucking shitstorm. Nor are they obligated to. We're having a reasonable discussion, but if a bunch of turds took over the thread Team Liquid would shut our asses down and there's nothing they could do about it. Reddit? My theory would be they were in the middle of catching a bunch of shit for their facilitation of Fappening, it hurt their reputation, put them in an embarassing legal situation, and because of the ties of misogyny to GamerGate (justified or not) they didn't want to touch it with a ten-foot-pole. You got screwed by pervs. The only way for GamerGate to have completely autonomy and control over the discourse is to have their own platform. And so far, the quality and presentation of GamerGates concerns have been scattered and amatuerish. There's a time and a place to discuss these things, but that's not what GG is. The people who claim it is only do so for 2 options: Either they're misinformed or they do it to push their own narrative. Are you accusing me of being part of a conspiracy, or a secret dick? If it makes you feel better, it's the latter. I can honestly say I am not anti-GamerGate, because I still don't know what the hell GamerGate is. The issues that actually seem worth discussing — the representation of women in games (both on and behind the scenes), the integrity of game journalism, and the future of gamer-culture as gaming becomes more and more significant to mainstream culture — have absolutely nothing to do with each other. They really don't. And it's the conflation of this issues by people that support GamerGate is what makes their perspective so easy to dismiss. A lot of their arguments and discussion is tainted with allegations, innuendo, or incessant lulz-humor that simply diminishes whatever legitimate point or grievance they might have. Here's an example from the kotakuinaction reddit of one guy who thinks he's spitting truth bombs. He opens the article by whining while congratulating himself. Written by @JamieBworth, rejected by Cracked for stupid reasons, and published here, with permission. Because fuck Cracked, this shit is hilarious and genius. Mindless Zombie StudiosIn actuality his writing is rushed and lazy; mostly editorial; and offers no new information that contradicts basic facts reported by mainstream source — thus rendering his premise of revealing 'misinformation' pretty much pointless. Like I said, if Gaters want to be taken seriously, they can learn a lot about how to present an argument by watching Sarkeesian's videos. If you don't know what GamerGate is, none of your opinions matters. On topic: A lot of misconception about GamerGate. To put it in the most basic form: GamerGate is the gaming consumers' reactionary force to dissipate any biases in gaming reviews for a more wholesome competitive market. A lot of you guys think that GamerGate requires some special membership to participate in. However, with the assumption that we all hope for a meritocracy system in the gaming industry, most of us are already, intentionally or not and even if you don't want to rally behind the hash tag or not, part of the GamerGate "movement". However, this movement will mostly likely be a lost cause and let me tell y'all why. In order to get rid of any media nepotism in the gaming community, we must look at all the parties involved that created nepotism in the first place. They are: 1. Producer of the game. Ex: Zoe Quinn. Laughing my ass off at people being ignorant on this one. 2. Game reviewer outlets. Ex: IGN, Kotaku, GameSpot that gave out favorable reviews because of sexual, monetary, and/or other reasons. and lastly: 3. Any other people that support the gaming producer to further their own personal agendas. They are termed as "Social Justice Warriors", SJWs for short, basically the radical pro-feminism, pro-LGBT crowds that supported a certain game because both the game producers and their political beliefs aligns with each other for mutual benefit. Ex: Anita Sarkessian. For corruption and nepotism to fully dispel in our industry, we have to get rid of ALL 3 parties. But here is the thing though, you can shame characters Zoe Quinn and Game reviewers/journalist all you want, the main beast you have to deal with are #3 of the list. The question remains whether or not the integrity of gaming development can be saved w/ enough manpower in our side to get rid of all the parties or not. So far, there have been a lot in-fighting in the community about who to blame it on. A lot of apologist by saying "Woah, you can't possibly go after X, Y, and Z. You have to go after A, B, and C instead!" No the correct approach is to go after EVERYBODY involved, you can't afford to cherry pick the target. Talk about misconceptions ... Around the turn of the millennium gamers were trying to stop journalist to blame games for school shootings. This week "gamers" threatened with a school shooting to prevent a journalist from speaking out in public. GamerGate is a toxic movement, a hate group, started by a sad little man who felt the need to get back at his failed relationship in public. Any sort of valid point it might have had went out of the window a long time ago. If you affiliate yourself with gamersgate, you stand with racists and mysoginists, you excuse harassers and abusers, you're a willing patsy and a horrible human being. http://www.themarysue.com/gamergate-terrorist-threats/http://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/the-man-who-sparked-gamergate-regrets-the-harassment-but-say#1jomgbx See none of those harassment would have occurred in the first place if characters such as Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkessian didn't go out of their way to scam everybody by faking the victimhood. Its saying that African american folks in the civil right strike are "a toxic movement, a hate group" because they are harassing the the cacausian folks for their misdemeanor even though some slave owners do exactly deserve what was coming to them. Dem right! Those bitches deserved it! Talking in public instead of making me a sandwich. So taht's you're excuse? They deserved it because they were faking it? Sarkeesian started getting shit years ago, I saw it as far back as her Kickstarter campaign.This whole mess took form after what's-his-name's screed against Zoe Quinn, and the shit pile up on her after that the evidence is all over the place, Kickstarter, Youtube, Twittter, ... Various other people, journalist, authors, game developers, mostly women, but some men too, who dare to speak out against this have heaps of crap piled upon them. The evidence is all over the place, Kickstarter, Youtube, Twittter, Look in the Redpill Reddit (or whatever it's called) for some truly awe inspiring circle jerks and vileness, or other MRA forums on reddit and 4chan and were ever else they hide. ... But they are faking it. Sure. And did you really just compare the American civil rights movement with GamersGate? Even if all they did actually was for "fair journalism in gaming" instead of harassing and threating and other asshattery that would be preposterous. You are not a suppressed minority. King didn't threaten to shoot up schools or rape people for speaking their minds.
There were African Americans that advocated violence toward white people during the civil rights movement. You are correct in that they don't represent King or his supporters. Just like the harassers in this case don't represent the group of people who are not involved in harassment.
|
On October 18 2014 03:59 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 03:51 Thax wrote:On October 18 2014 01:36 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 01:15 Thax wrote:On October 18 2014 00:14 Xiphos wrote:On October 17 2014 23:14 Defacer wrote:On October 17 2014 20:51 I_Love_Bacon wrote:
It's hard to separate it. Hell I know because I still talk about it at times when I probably shouldn't because keeping one's mouth shut is not easy.
First of all, relax. You must of written 300 words per minute. + Show Spoiler +This is all bull shit. GG isn't about Anita no matter how much you seem to think it is. She is background noise at best and is used to deflect from the actual issue at hand. Dude, you brought her up. And I was just commenting to how absurd it is that people are so upset she exists. And you kind of proved my point ... You're setting the bar for success pretty low. You're basically stating that because she wasn't frothing at the mouth and calling for male game devs to be castrated that her criticisms have more merit. All her points, whether you agree with her or not, are explicitly illustrated and supported with examples. Her argument is reasoned and well-researched. It's structured, and builds towards an actually conclusion. You can bitch and complain that it's not exhaustive, but it's not meant to be. She has a thesis and she defends it well. It's certainly not lazy. That's more than can you say than most of her detractors, who rely on heresay or empty accusations or dismiss entire 3000 word articles with links and annotations simply because they think the publisher is a shill. I'm sorry, but there's nothing intellectually dishonest about it, no matter how loud you shout it from the roof tops. Intellectual dishonest implies she's not earnest. She believes what she says. You just disagree with her. Like I said, I don't blame you because there's a metric shit ton of them out there. Others use Anita's videos to justify THEIR hatred and then take to articles/twitter/whateverthefuckever. I can hate her work but, as I've said countless times, GG isn't about Anita. Alright, I think I understand what you're saying here. You're issue isn't with Anita's argument. It's the idiots that amplify it and take it out of context. It happens on both sides. I absolutely agree. I do not condone stupidity. Oh-so-false. Saying "she just a media critic" means you haven't done nearly as much research as you think you have. I'm not going to bring up the personal things about how she lies about being a gamer and some of the other talks she's given because I don't want my own opinion of them to taint them if you ever get around to them.
The "worst case scenario" is that a woman who has admitted she doesn't like games and doesn't play games has now been consulted by major studios about their games where she'll continue to push her biased/questionable message. As somebody on a site that was dedicated to hard core gaming I hope you can at least appreciate the absolute ridiculousness of that. Oh, and it should be more exhaustive given how much money she was given but I'll let that slide for now. ... aaannnd you're losing me. This is coming off as sour grapes, to be honest. Maybe she lied about being a gamer. I have no idea what this accusation really means. The definition of being a gamer is very, very broad and means different things to different people. To someone like Anita, it probably meant playing a game a few hours on the weekend and even included roleplaying or board games with her friends. I don't really give a shit about her personal life, so I honestly don't know. But to a hardcore gamer, it literally means BUY EVERY MAJOR RELEASE AND PLAY NON-STOP UNTIL COMPLETION NEED MONSTER ENERGY DRINK. These people exist. That's a massive spectrum there. Consultants from other industries and fields get hired all the time. Gaming is an expensive, high-risk business. Sometimes celebrity or creative consultants are brought on to boost the profile of a game. Sometimes they are actually technical consultants, like cinematographers or architects. There is an obvious lack of realistic or even interesting representation of women in triple-A games. Maybe she'll get paid to consult on content. Maybe a developer will hire her as a token creative consultant, the way Will.i.am or Pharell seems to be the creative consultant on everything, in the hopes it will provide a halo effect around the game and attract a broader demographic. In either sense, trust me — her influence will be smaller than you think. Games are not build by consultants. They're built by 50 to 100 people working 60 hours a week. I know a lot of people that work in triple-A gaming. I know it sucks, but you're resenting her for identifying an issue in gaming that is rarely addressed, building a case for it's importance, representing herself as an expert on that particular issue, and being rewarded because it. That happens in almost industry because that's how society works. Trust me, as a designer, I have seen many younger, stupider people position themselves as experts on sustainability or social media experts — despite having very superficial knowledge — and fast tracking their careers. You're resenting a person for carving a niche and building a name for herself. The world isn't a meritocracy. Her getting gigs you wish you had — or think other people should have — is your problem, not hers. Now let's move on before we start bitching about Ben Affleck as Batman. This is where your tinfoil hat is showing even more than before. Show me serious attempts to threaten Sarkeesian. Oh, the one that she screen capped 20 seconds after it was posted while not logged into twitter? The one at the university yesterday that the police deemed as not-credible? Know how many journalists/critics/developers have been killed over their opinion on games? 0 I'm going to pretend to be your conscience for a second: "Threatening to shoot up a lecture hall is a serious offense. It is not a trivial threat, even if it's a lie. If you get caught you will get arrested. "Also, if someone threatens to murder you, encourages others to harass or hurt you, and publicizes you're home address, it is perfectly rational to not feel safe. If you are driven out of your own home out of fear, it's okay to feel like you're being violated, because you are." Trolls exist on the internet. This... surprises you? We live in a world where assholes "swat" people on Twitchtv and you're surprised that some shitheads leveled deaththreats and say stupid, vitriolic things on twitter? Once again, you're on a gaming website and you're surprised there exists people who make it their goal to push other people's buttons? Nobody after a game of SC told you to die in a fire or call you a faggot? Why yes! I know you're trying to dismiss the significance of online threats or abuse as trivial or 'less real', but that's a weak argument. And you're just admitting that games can lead to anti-social behaviour. As if stupidity is an excuse. Are you sure you're not an SJW at-heart? This also falls into the main point of GG is the inability to criticize "these people" (journalists, SWJs, and everybody in between). Comments are deleted/disabled, reddit threads are deleted, people are shadow banned, and entire pieces are forced to be taken down and yet somehow GG are the ones who are being accused of censorship. Virtually every single person who writes above the 5th grade reading level and supports GG also calls for NO CENSORSHIP. Let her have here views; then let others rebut them if that's what they want to do. Isn't that's what supposed to happen? Why did this suddenly become a bad thing that bad reporting/criticism is pointed out? You know the other thing that Pro-GGs aren't doing? Making a gigantic production out of every threat posted to them on twitter despite their being plenty of choose from. They're not trying to play victims and garner attention/sympathy, they're trying to have an actual discussion. HAHAHA! BULL! SHIT! Are you serious dude? The one's complaining and whining the loudest have been the GG community. Check out KotakuInAction. In the past four hours, some Gawker reporter made a joke about bullying nerds, and they turned it into a witch hunt, had a little non-stop pity party, and now have a 'nerd' challenging the reporter to $10,000 boxing match! Mike Cernovich challenges Gawker to $10,000 boxing matchhttps://twitter.com/PlayDangerously/status/522971574400348160 How's that for production and spectacle? And what does it have to do with journalistic integrity? NOTHING. I would never accuse GG of censorship. I would never do that. I'm accusing a subset of trolls using GamerGate as a political shield to threaten, intimidate and harass three women until they were forced to leave their homes and go into hiding. That's worse then censorship. It's the literal definition of terrorism. For two of them the only 'crime' they committed, technically, is having an fucking opinion. And now other female developers are afraid to speak out out of fear of reprisal. That's sad. GG has been censored and blocked on several sites. No dispute here. I'm sure the publications have different reasons. But if I had to guess, I think the most common reason is that most sites, particularly online magazines, don't have the time or energy to moderate the inevitable fucking shitstorm. Nor are they obligated to. We're having a reasonable discussion, but if a bunch of turds took over the thread Team Liquid would shut our asses down and there's nothing they could do about it. Reddit? My theory would be they were in the middle of catching a bunch of shit for their facilitation of Fappening, it hurt their reputation, put them in an embarassing legal situation, and because of the ties of misogyny to GamerGate (justified or not) they didn't want to touch it with a ten-foot-pole. You got screwed by pervs. The only way for GamerGate to have completely autonomy and control over the discourse is to have their own platform. And so far, the quality and presentation of GamerGates concerns have been scattered and amatuerish. There's a time and a place to discuss these things, but that's not what GG is. The people who claim it is only do so for 2 options: Either they're misinformed or they do it to push their own narrative. Are you accusing me of being part of a conspiracy, or a secret dick? If it makes you feel better, it's the latter. I can honestly say I am not anti-GamerGate, because I still don't know what the hell GamerGate is. The issues that actually seem worth discussing — the representation of women in games (both on and behind the scenes), the integrity of game journalism, and the future of gamer-culture as gaming becomes more and more significant to mainstream culture — have absolutely nothing to do with each other. They really don't. And it's the conflation of this issues by people that support GamerGate is what makes their perspective so easy to dismiss. A lot of their arguments and discussion is tainted with allegations, innuendo, or incessant lulz-humor that simply diminishes whatever legitimate point or grievance they might have. Here's an example from the kotakuinaction reddit of one guy who thinks he's spitting truth bombs. He opens the article by whining while congratulating himself. Written by @JamieBworth, rejected by Cracked for stupid reasons, and published here, with permission. Because fuck Cracked, this shit is hilarious and genius. Mindless Zombie StudiosIn actuality his writing is rushed and lazy; mostly editorial; and offers no new information that contradicts basic facts reported by mainstream source — thus rendering his premise of revealing 'misinformation' pretty much pointless. Like I said, if Gaters want to be taken seriously, they can learn a lot about how to present an argument by watching Sarkeesian's videos. If you don't know what GamerGate is, none of your opinions matters. On topic: A lot of misconception about GamerGate. To put it in the most basic form: GamerGate is the gaming consumers' reactionary force to dissipate any biases in gaming reviews for a more wholesome competitive market. A lot of you guys think that GamerGate requires some special membership to participate in. However, with the assumption that we all hope for a meritocracy system in the gaming industry, most of us are already, intentionally or not and even if you don't want to rally behind the hash tag or not, part of the GamerGate "movement". However, this movement will mostly likely be a lost cause and let me tell y'all why. In order to get rid of any media nepotism in the gaming community, we must look at all the parties involved that created nepotism in the first place. They are: 1. Producer of the game. Ex: Zoe Quinn. Laughing my ass off at people being ignorant on this one. 2. Game reviewer outlets. Ex: IGN, Kotaku, GameSpot that gave out favorable reviews because of sexual, monetary, and/or other reasons. and lastly: 3. Any other people that support the gaming producer to further their own personal agendas. They are termed as "Social Justice Warriors", SJWs for short, basically the radical pro-feminism, pro-LGBT crowds that supported a certain game because both the game producers and their political beliefs aligns with each other for mutual benefit. Ex: Anita Sarkessian. For corruption and nepotism to fully dispel in our industry, we have to get rid of ALL 3 parties. But here is the thing though, you can shame characters Zoe Quinn and Game reviewers/journalist all you want, the main beast you have to deal with are #3 of the list. The question remains whether or not the integrity of gaming development can be saved w/ enough manpower in our side to get rid of all the parties or not. So far, there have been a lot in-fighting in the community about who to blame it on. A lot of apologist by saying "Woah, you can't possibly go after X, Y, and Z. You have to go after A, B, and C instead!" No the correct approach is to go after EVERYBODY involved, you can't afford to cherry pick the target. Talk about misconceptions ... Around the turn of the millennium gamers were trying to stop journalist to blame games for school shootings. This week "gamers" threatened with a school shooting to prevent a journalist from speaking out in public. GamerGate is a toxic movement, a hate group, started by a sad little man who felt the need to get back at his failed relationship in public. Any sort of valid point it might have had went out of the window a long time ago. If you affiliate yourself with gamersgate, you stand with racists and mysoginists, you excuse harassers and abusers, you're a willing patsy and a horrible human being. http://www.themarysue.com/gamergate-terrorist-threats/http://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/the-man-who-sparked-gamergate-regrets-the-harassment-but-say#1jomgbx See none of those harassment would have occurred in the first place if characters such as Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkessian didn't go out of their way to scam everybody by faking the victimhood. Its saying that African american folks in the civil right strike are "a toxic movement, a hate group" because they are harassing the the cacausian folks for their misdemeanor even though some slave owners do exactly deserve what was coming to them. Dem right! Those bitches deserved it! Talking in public instead of making me a sandwich. So that's you're excuse? They deserved it because they were faking it? Sarkeesian started getting shit years ago, I saw it as far back as her Kickstarter campaign.This whole mess took form after what's-his-name's screed against Zoe Quinn, and the shit piled up on her after that. Various other people, journalist, authors, game developers, mostly women, but some men too, who dare to speak out against this have heaps of crap piled upon them. The evidence is all over the place, Kickstarter, Youtube, Twittter, Look in the Redpill Reddit (or whatever it's called) for some truly awe inspiring circle jerks and vileness, or other MRA forums on reddit and 4chan and were ever else they hide. ... But they are faking it. Sure. And did you really just compare the American civil rights movement with GamersGate? Even if all they did actually was for "fair journalism in gaming" instead of harassing and threating and other asshattery that would be preposterous. You are not a suppressed minority. King didn't threaten to shoot up schools or rape people for speaking their minds. First of all, calm down. Secondly, read up on black panther, please. And lastly while there are real hates since she posted misinformation and scammed people. But I'm ofc talking about this: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BwJNnfUCAAA9VrZ.jpg
I'm calm. Thank you for your concern. This is therapeutic for me.
I'm aware of Black Panther, thank you. If you were comparing yourself with them, then that makes a lot of sense.
I'm talking about this:
https://twitter.com/Spacekatgal/status/523113644205555712/photo/1
"She's lying about us setting up an harassment campaign. Let's set up a harassment campaign! That'll show them how righteous we are!"
|
On October 18 2014 04:12 Thax wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 03:59 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 03:51 Thax wrote:On October 18 2014 01:36 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 01:15 Thax wrote:On October 18 2014 00:14 Xiphos wrote:On October 17 2014 23:14 Defacer wrote:On October 17 2014 20:51 I_Love_Bacon wrote:
It's hard to separate it. Hell I know because I still talk about it at times when I probably shouldn't because keeping one's mouth shut is not easy.
First of all, relax. You must of written 300 words per minute. + Show Spoiler +This is all bull shit. GG isn't about Anita no matter how much you seem to think it is. She is background noise at best and is used to deflect from the actual issue at hand. Dude, you brought her up. And I was just commenting to how absurd it is that people are so upset she exists. And you kind of proved my point ... You're setting the bar for success pretty low. You're basically stating that because she wasn't frothing at the mouth and calling for male game devs to be castrated that her criticisms have more merit. All her points, whether you agree with her or not, are explicitly illustrated and supported with examples. Her argument is reasoned and well-researched. It's structured, and builds towards an actually conclusion. You can bitch and complain that it's not exhaustive, but it's not meant to be. She has a thesis and she defends it well. It's certainly not lazy. That's more than can you say than most of her detractors, who rely on heresay or empty accusations or dismiss entire 3000 word articles with links and annotations simply because they think the publisher is a shill. I'm sorry, but there's nothing intellectually dishonest about it, no matter how loud you shout it from the roof tops. Intellectual dishonest implies she's not earnest. She believes what she says. You just disagree with her. Like I said, I don't blame you because there's a metric shit ton of them out there. Others use Anita's videos to justify THEIR hatred and then take to articles/twitter/whateverthefuckever. I can hate her work but, as I've said countless times, GG isn't about Anita. Alright, I think I understand what you're saying here. You're issue isn't with Anita's argument. It's the idiots that amplify it and take it out of context. It happens on both sides. I absolutely agree. I do not condone stupidity. Oh-so-false. Saying "she just a media critic" means you haven't done nearly as much research as you think you have. I'm not going to bring up the personal things about how she lies about being a gamer and some of the other talks she's given because I don't want my own opinion of them to taint them if you ever get around to them.
The "worst case scenario" is that a woman who has admitted she doesn't like games and doesn't play games has now been consulted by major studios about their games where she'll continue to push her biased/questionable message. As somebody on a site that was dedicated to hard core gaming I hope you can at least appreciate the absolute ridiculousness of that. Oh, and it should be more exhaustive given how much money she was given but I'll let that slide for now. ... aaannnd you're losing me. This is coming off as sour grapes, to be honest. Maybe she lied about being a gamer. I have no idea what this accusation really means. The definition of being a gamer is very, very broad and means different things to different people. To someone like Anita, it probably meant playing a game a few hours on the weekend and even included roleplaying or board games with her friends. I don't really give a shit about her personal life, so I honestly don't know. But to a hardcore gamer, it literally means BUY EVERY MAJOR RELEASE AND PLAY NON-STOP UNTIL COMPLETION NEED MONSTER ENERGY DRINK. These people exist. That's a massive spectrum there. Consultants from other industries and fields get hired all the time. Gaming is an expensive, high-risk business. Sometimes celebrity or creative consultants are brought on to boost the profile of a game. Sometimes they are actually technical consultants, like cinematographers or architects. There is an obvious lack of realistic or even interesting representation of women in triple-A games. Maybe she'll get paid to consult on content. Maybe a developer will hire her as a token creative consultant, the way Will.i.am or Pharell seems to be the creative consultant on everything, in the hopes it will provide a halo effect around the game and attract a broader demographic. In either sense, trust me — her influence will be smaller than you think. Games are not build by consultants. They're built by 50 to 100 people working 60 hours a week. I know a lot of people that work in triple-A gaming. I know it sucks, but you're resenting her for identifying an issue in gaming that is rarely addressed, building a case for it's importance, representing herself as an expert on that particular issue, and being rewarded because it. That happens in almost industry because that's how society works. Trust me, as a designer, I have seen many younger, stupider people position themselves as experts on sustainability or social media experts — despite having very superficial knowledge — and fast tracking their careers. You're resenting a person for carving a niche and building a name for herself. The world isn't a meritocracy. Her getting gigs you wish you had — or think other people should have — is your problem, not hers. Now let's move on before we start bitching about Ben Affleck as Batman. This is where your tinfoil hat is showing even more than before. Show me serious attempts to threaten Sarkeesian. Oh, the one that she screen capped 20 seconds after it was posted while not logged into twitter? The one at the university yesterday that the police deemed as not-credible? Know how many journalists/critics/developers have been killed over their opinion on games? 0 I'm going to pretend to be your conscience for a second: "Threatening to shoot up a lecture hall is a serious offense. It is not a trivial threat, even if it's a lie. If you get caught you will get arrested. "Also, if someone threatens to murder you, encourages others to harass or hurt you, and publicizes you're home address, it is perfectly rational to not feel safe. If you are driven out of your own home out of fear, it's okay to feel like you're being violated, because you are." Trolls exist on the internet. This... surprises you? We live in a world where assholes "swat" people on Twitchtv and you're surprised that some shitheads leveled deaththreats and say stupid, vitriolic things on twitter? Once again, you're on a gaming website and you're surprised there exists people who make it their goal to push other people's buttons? Nobody after a game of SC told you to die in a fire or call you a faggot? Why yes! I know you're trying to dismiss the significance of online threats or abuse as trivial or 'less real', but that's a weak argument. And you're just admitting that games can lead to anti-social behaviour. As if stupidity is an excuse. Are you sure you're not an SJW at-heart? This also falls into the main point of GG is the inability to criticize "these people" (journalists, SWJs, and everybody in between). Comments are deleted/disabled, reddit threads are deleted, people are shadow banned, and entire pieces are forced to be taken down and yet somehow GG are the ones who are being accused of censorship. Virtually every single person who writes above the 5th grade reading level and supports GG also calls for NO CENSORSHIP. Let her have here views; then let others rebut them if that's what they want to do. Isn't that's what supposed to happen? Why did this suddenly become a bad thing that bad reporting/criticism is pointed out? You know the other thing that Pro-GGs aren't doing? Making a gigantic production out of every threat posted to them on twitter despite their being plenty of choose from. They're not trying to play victims and garner attention/sympathy, they're trying to have an actual discussion. HAHAHA! BULL! SHIT! Are you serious dude? The one's complaining and whining the loudest have been the GG community. Check out KotakuInAction. In the past four hours, some Gawker reporter made a joke about bullying nerds, and they turned it into a witch hunt, had a little non-stop pity party, and now have a 'nerd' challenging the reporter to $10,000 boxing match! Mike Cernovich challenges Gawker to $10,000 boxing matchhttps://twitter.com/PlayDangerously/status/522971574400348160 How's that for production and spectacle? And what does it have to do with journalistic integrity? NOTHING. I would never accuse GG of censorship. I would never do that. I'm accusing a subset of trolls using GamerGate as a political shield to threaten, intimidate and harass three women until they were forced to leave their homes and go into hiding. That's worse then censorship. It's the literal definition of terrorism. For two of them the only 'crime' they committed, technically, is having an fucking opinion. And now other female developers are afraid to speak out out of fear of reprisal. That's sad. GG has been censored and blocked on several sites. No dispute here. I'm sure the publications have different reasons. But if I had to guess, I think the most common reason is that most sites, particularly online magazines, don't have the time or energy to moderate the inevitable fucking shitstorm. Nor are they obligated to. We're having a reasonable discussion, but if a bunch of turds took over the thread Team Liquid would shut our asses down and there's nothing they could do about it. Reddit? My theory would be they were in the middle of catching a bunch of shit for their facilitation of Fappening, it hurt their reputation, put them in an embarassing legal situation, and because of the ties of misogyny to GamerGate (justified or not) they didn't want to touch it with a ten-foot-pole. You got screwed by pervs. The only way for GamerGate to have completely autonomy and control over the discourse is to have their own platform. And so far, the quality and presentation of GamerGates concerns have been scattered and amatuerish. There's a time and a place to discuss these things, but that's not what GG is. The people who claim it is only do so for 2 options: Either they're misinformed or they do it to push their own narrative. Are you accusing me of being part of a conspiracy, or a secret dick? If it makes you feel better, it's the latter. I can honestly say I am not anti-GamerGate, because I still don't know what the hell GamerGate is. The issues that actually seem worth discussing — the representation of women in games (both on and behind the scenes), the integrity of game journalism, and the future of gamer-culture as gaming becomes more and more significant to mainstream culture — have absolutely nothing to do with each other. They really don't. And it's the conflation of this issues by people that support GamerGate is what makes their perspective so easy to dismiss. A lot of their arguments and discussion is tainted with allegations, innuendo, or incessant lulz-humor that simply diminishes whatever legitimate point or grievance they might have. Here's an example from the kotakuinaction reddit of one guy who thinks he's spitting truth bombs. He opens the article by whining while congratulating himself. Written by @JamieBworth, rejected by Cracked for stupid reasons, and published here, with permission. Because fuck Cracked, this shit is hilarious and genius. Mindless Zombie StudiosIn actuality his writing is rushed and lazy; mostly editorial; and offers no new information that contradicts basic facts reported by mainstream source — thus rendering his premise of revealing 'misinformation' pretty much pointless. Like I said, if Gaters want to be taken seriously, they can learn a lot about how to present an argument by watching Sarkeesian's videos. If you don't know what GamerGate is, none of your opinions matters. On topic: A lot of misconception about GamerGate. To put it in the most basic form: GamerGate is the gaming consumers' reactionary force to dissipate any biases in gaming reviews for a more wholesome competitive market. A lot of you guys think that GamerGate requires some special membership to participate in. However, with the assumption that we all hope for a meritocracy system in the gaming industry, most of us are already, intentionally or not and even if you don't want to rally behind the hash tag or not, part of the GamerGate "movement". However, this movement will mostly likely be a lost cause and let me tell y'all why. In order to get rid of any media nepotism in the gaming community, we must look at all the parties involved that created nepotism in the first place. They are: 1. Producer of the game. Ex: Zoe Quinn. Laughing my ass off at people being ignorant on this one. 2. Game reviewer outlets. Ex: IGN, Kotaku, GameSpot that gave out favorable reviews because of sexual, monetary, and/or other reasons. and lastly: 3. Any other people that support the gaming producer to further their own personal agendas. They are termed as "Social Justice Warriors", SJWs for short, basically the radical pro-feminism, pro-LGBT crowds that supported a certain game because both the game producers and their political beliefs aligns with each other for mutual benefit. Ex: Anita Sarkessian. For corruption and nepotism to fully dispel in our industry, we have to get rid of ALL 3 parties. But here is the thing though, you can shame characters Zoe Quinn and Game reviewers/journalist all you want, the main beast you have to deal with are #3 of the list. The question remains whether or not the integrity of gaming development can be saved w/ enough manpower in our side to get rid of all the parties or not. So far, there have been a lot in-fighting in the community about who to blame it on. A lot of apologist by saying "Woah, you can't possibly go after X, Y, and Z. You have to go after A, B, and C instead!" No the correct approach is to go after EVERYBODY involved, you can't afford to cherry pick the target. Talk about misconceptions ... Around the turn of the millennium gamers were trying to stop journalist to blame games for school shootings. This week "gamers" threatened with a school shooting to prevent a journalist from speaking out in public. GamerGate is a toxic movement, a hate group, started by a sad little man who felt the need to get back at his failed relationship in public. Any sort of valid point it might have had went out of the window a long time ago. If you affiliate yourself with gamersgate, you stand with racists and mysoginists, you excuse harassers and abusers, you're a willing patsy and a horrible human being. http://www.themarysue.com/gamergate-terrorist-threats/http://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/the-man-who-sparked-gamergate-regrets-the-harassment-but-say#1jomgbx See none of those harassment would have occurred in the first place if characters such as Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkessian didn't go out of their way to scam everybody by faking the victimhood. Its saying that African american folks in the civil right strike are "a toxic movement, a hate group" because they are harassing the the cacausian folks for their misdemeanor even though some slave owners do exactly deserve what was coming to them. Dem right! Those bitches deserved it! Talking in public instead of making me a sandwich. So that's you're excuse? They deserved it because they were faking it? Sarkeesian started getting shit years ago, I saw it as far back as her Kickstarter campaign.This whole mess took form after what's-his-name's screed against Zoe Quinn, and the shit piled up on her after that. Various other people, journalist, authors, game developers, mostly women, but some men too, who dare to speak out against this have heaps of crap piled upon them. The evidence is all over the place, Kickstarter, Youtube, Twittter, Look in the Redpill Reddit (or whatever it's called) for some truly awe inspiring circle jerks and vileness, or other MRA forums on reddit and 4chan and were ever else they hide. ... But they are faking it. Sure. And did you really just compare the American civil rights movement with GamersGate? Even if all they did actually was for "fair journalism in gaming" instead of harassing and threating and other asshattery that would be preposterous. You are not a suppressed minority. King didn't threaten to shoot up schools or rape people for speaking their minds. First of all, calm down. Secondly, read up on black panther, please. And lastly while there are real hates since she posted misinformation and scammed people. But I'm ofc talking about this: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BwJNnfUCAAA9VrZ.jpg I'm calm. Thank you for your concern. This is therapeutic for me. I'm aware of Black Panther, thank you. If you were comparing yourself with them, then that makes a lot of sense. I'm talking about this: https://twitter.com/Spacekatgal/status/523113644205555712/photo/1"She's lying about us setting up an harassment campaign. Let's set up a harassment campaign! That'll show them how righteous we are!"
Its not a harassment campaign, as the picture indicated (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0J5FlpIQAA7GRA.png), its a trolling campaign.
If she did do what was written there, then she deserves to be chastised and this campaign would be the least harmful way to punish her.
Its entirely fair.
|
On October 18 2014 04:00 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 03:51 Thax wrote:On October 18 2014 01:36 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 01:15 Thax wrote:On October 18 2014 00:14 Xiphos wrote:On October 17 2014 23:14 Defacer wrote:On October 17 2014 20:51 I_Love_Bacon wrote:
It's hard to separate it. Hell I know because I still talk about it at times when I probably shouldn't because keeping one's mouth shut is not easy.
First of all, relax. You must of written 300 words per minute. + Show Spoiler +This is all bull shit. GG isn't about Anita no matter how much you seem to think it is. She is background noise at best and is used to deflect from the actual issue at hand. Dude, you brought her up. And I was just commenting to how absurd it is that people are so upset she exists. And you kind of proved my point ... You're setting the bar for success pretty low. You're basically stating that because she wasn't frothing at the mouth and calling for male game devs to be castrated that her criticisms have more merit. All her points, whether you agree with her or not, are explicitly illustrated and supported with examples. Her argument is reasoned and well-researched. It's structured, and builds towards an actually conclusion. You can bitch and complain that it's not exhaustive, but it's not meant to be. She has a thesis and she defends it well. It's certainly not lazy. That's more than can you say than most of her detractors, who rely on heresay or empty accusations or dismiss entire 3000 word articles with links and annotations simply because they think the publisher is a shill. I'm sorry, but there's nothing intellectually dishonest about it, no matter how loud you shout it from the roof tops. Intellectual dishonest implies she's not earnest. She believes what she says. You just disagree with her. Like I said, I don't blame you because there's a metric shit ton of them out there. Others use Anita's videos to justify THEIR hatred and then take to articles/twitter/whateverthefuckever. I can hate her work but, as I've said countless times, GG isn't about Anita. Alright, I think I understand what you're saying here. You're issue isn't with Anita's argument. It's the idiots that amplify it and take it out of context. It happens on both sides. I absolutely agree. I do not condone stupidity. Oh-so-false. Saying "she just a media critic" means you haven't done nearly as much research as you think you have. I'm not going to bring up the personal things about how she lies about being a gamer and some of the other talks she's given because I don't want my own opinion of them to taint them if you ever get around to them.
The "worst case scenario" is that a woman who has admitted she doesn't like games and doesn't play games has now been consulted by major studios about their games where she'll continue to push her biased/questionable message. As somebody on a site that was dedicated to hard core gaming I hope you can at least appreciate the absolute ridiculousness of that. Oh, and it should be more exhaustive given how much money she was given but I'll let that slide for now. ... aaannnd you're losing me. This is coming off as sour grapes, to be honest. Maybe she lied about being a gamer. I have no idea what this accusation really means. The definition of being a gamer is very, very broad and means different things to different people. To someone like Anita, it probably meant playing a game a few hours on the weekend and even included roleplaying or board games with her friends. I don't really give a shit about her personal life, so I honestly don't know. But to a hardcore gamer, it literally means BUY EVERY MAJOR RELEASE AND PLAY NON-STOP UNTIL COMPLETION NEED MONSTER ENERGY DRINK. These people exist. That's a massive spectrum there. Consultants from other industries and fields get hired all the time. Gaming is an expensive, high-risk business. Sometimes celebrity or creative consultants are brought on to boost the profile of a game. Sometimes they are actually technical consultants, like cinematographers or architects. There is an obvious lack of realistic or even interesting representation of women in triple-A games. Maybe she'll get paid to consult on content. Maybe a developer will hire her as a token creative consultant, the way Will.i.am or Pharell seems to be the creative consultant on everything, in the hopes it will provide a halo effect around the game and attract a broader demographic. In either sense, trust me — her influence will be smaller than you think. Games are not build by consultants. They're built by 50 to 100 people working 60 hours a week. I know a lot of people that work in triple-A gaming. I know it sucks, but you're resenting her for identifying an issue in gaming that is rarely addressed, building a case for it's importance, representing herself as an expert on that particular issue, and being rewarded because it. That happens in almost industry because that's how society works. Trust me, as a designer, I have seen many younger, stupider people position themselves as experts on sustainability or social media experts — despite having very superficial knowledge — and fast tracking their careers. You're resenting a person for carving a niche and building a name for herself. The world isn't a meritocracy. Her getting gigs you wish you had — or think other people should have — is your problem, not hers. Now let's move on before we start bitching about Ben Affleck as Batman. This is where your tinfoil hat is showing even more than before. Show me serious attempts to threaten Sarkeesian. Oh, the one that she screen capped 20 seconds after it was posted while not logged into twitter? The one at the university yesterday that the police deemed as not-credible? Know how many journalists/critics/developers have been killed over their opinion on games? 0 I'm going to pretend to be your conscience for a second: "Threatening to shoot up a lecture hall is a serious offense. It is not a trivial threat, even if it's a lie. If you get caught you will get arrested. "Also, if someone threatens to murder you, encourages others to harass or hurt you, and publicizes you're home address, it is perfectly rational to not feel safe. If you are driven out of your own home out of fear, it's okay to feel like you're being violated, because you are." Trolls exist on the internet. This... surprises you? We live in a world where assholes "swat" people on Twitchtv and you're surprised that some shitheads leveled deaththreats and say stupid, vitriolic things on twitter? Once again, you're on a gaming website and you're surprised there exists people who make it their goal to push other people's buttons? Nobody after a game of SC told you to die in a fire or call you a faggot? Why yes! I know you're trying to dismiss the significance of online threats or abuse as trivial or 'less real', but that's a weak argument. And you're just admitting that games can lead to anti-social behaviour. As if stupidity is an excuse. Are you sure you're not an SJW at-heart? This also falls into the main point of GG is the inability to criticize "these people" (journalists, SWJs, and everybody in between). Comments are deleted/disabled, reddit threads are deleted, people are shadow banned, and entire pieces are forced to be taken down and yet somehow GG are the ones who are being accused of censorship. Virtually every single person who writes above the 5th grade reading level and supports GG also calls for NO CENSORSHIP. Let her have here views; then let others rebut them if that's what they want to do. Isn't that's what supposed to happen? Why did this suddenly become a bad thing that bad reporting/criticism is pointed out? You know the other thing that Pro-GGs aren't doing? Making a gigantic production out of every threat posted to them on twitter despite their being plenty of choose from. They're not trying to play victims and garner attention/sympathy, they're trying to have an actual discussion. HAHAHA! BULL! SHIT! Are you serious dude? The one's complaining and whining the loudest have been the GG community. Check out KotakuInAction. In the past four hours, some Gawker reporter made a joke about bullying nerds, and they turned it into a witch hunt, had a little non-stop pity party, and now have a 'nerd' challenging the reporter to $10,000 boxing match! Mike Cernovich challenges Gawker to $10,000 boxing matchhttps://twitter.com/PlayDangerously/status/522971574400348160 How's that for production and spectacle? And what does it have to do with journalistic integrity? NOTHING. I would never accuse GG of censorship. I would never do that. I'm accusing a subset of trolls using GamerGate as a political shield to threaten, intimidate and harass three women until they were forced to leave their homes and go into hiding. That's worse then censorship. It's the literal definition of terrorism. For two of them the only 'crime' they committed, technically, is having an fucking opinion. And now other female developers are afraid to speak out out of fear of reprisal. That's sad. GG has been censored and blocked on several sites. No dispute here. I'm sure the publications have different reasons. But if I had to guess, I think the most common reason is that most sites, particularly online magazines, don't have the time or energy to moderate the inevitable fucking shitstorm. Nor are they obligated to. We're having a reasonable discussion, but if a bunch of turds took over the thread Team Liquid would shut our asses down and there's nothing they could do about it. Reddit? My theory would be they were in the middle of catching a bunch of shit for their facilitation of Fappening, it hurt their reputation, put them in an embarassing legal situation, and because of the ties of misogyny to GamerGate (justified or not) they didn't want to touch it with a ten-foot-pole. You got screwed by pervs. The only way for GamerGate to have completely autonomy and control over the discourse is to have their own platform. And so far, the quality and presentation of GamerGates concerns have been scattered and amatuerish. There's a time and a place to discuss these things, but that's not what GG is. The people who claim it is only do so for 2 options: Either they're misinformed or they do it to push their own narrative. Are you accusing me of being part of a conspiracy, or a secret dick? If it makes you feel better, it's the latter. I can honestly say I am not anti-GamerGate, because I still don't know what the hell GamerGate is. The issues that actually seem worth discussing — the representation of women in games (both on and behind the scenes), the integrity of game journalism, and the future of gamer-culture as gaming becomes more and more significant to mainstream culture — have absolutely nothing to do with each other. They really don't. And it's the conflation of this issues by people that support GamerGate is what makes their perspective so easy to dismiss. A lot of their arguments and discussion is tainted with allegations, innuendo, or incessant lulz-humor that simply diminishes whatever legitimate point or grievance they might have. Here's an example from the kotakuinaction reddit of one guy who thinks he's spitting truth bombs. He opens the article by whining while congratulating himself. Written by @JamieBworth, rejected by Cracked for stupid reasons, and published here, with permission. Because fuck Cracked, this shit is hilarious and genius. Mindless Zombie StudiosIn actuality his writing is rushed and lazy; mostly editorial; and offers no new information that contradicts basic facts reported by mainstream source — thus rendering his premise of revealing 'misinformation' pretty much pointless. Like I said, if Gaters want to be taken seriously, they can learn a lot about how to present an argument by watching Sarkeesian's videos. If you don't know what GamerGate is, none of your opinions matters. On topic: A lot of misconception about GamerGate. To put it in the most basic form: GamerGate is the gaming consumers' reactionary force to dissipate any biases in gaming reviews for a more wholesome competitive market. A lot of you guys think that GamerGate requires some special membership to participate in. However, with the assumption that we all hope for a meritocracy system in the gaming industry, most of us are already, intentionally or not and even if you don't want to rally behind the hash tag or not, part of the GamerGate "movement". However, this movement will mostly likely be a lost cause and let me tell y'all why. In order to get rid of any media nepotism in the gaming community, we must look at all the parties involved that created nepotism in the first place. They are: 1. Producer of the game. Ex: Zoe Quinn. Laughing my ass off at people being ignorant on this one. 2. Game reviewer outlets. Ex: IGN, Kotaku, GameSpot that gave out favorable reviews because of sexual, monetary, and/or other reasons. and lastly: 3. Any other people that support the gaming producer to further their own personal agendas. They are termed as "Social Justice Warriors", SJWs for short, basically the radical pro-feminism, pro-LGBT crowds that supported a certain game because both the game producers and their political beliefs aligns with each other for mutual benefit. Ex: Anita Sarkessian. For corruption and nepotism to fully dispel in our industry, we have to get rid of ALL 3 parties. But here is the thing though, you can shame characters Zoe Quinn and Game reviewers/journalist all you want, the main beast you have to deal with are #3 of the list. The question remains whether or not the integrity of gaming development can be saved w/ enough manpower in our side to get rid of all the parties or not. So far, there have been a lot in-fighting in the community about who to blame it on. A lot of apologist by saying "Woah, you can't possibly go after X, Y, and Z. You have to go after A, B, and C instead!" No the correct approach is to go after EVERYBODY involved, you can't afford to cherry pick the target. Talk about misconceptions ... Around the turn of the millennium gamers were trying to stop journalist to blame games for school shootings. This week "gamers" threatened with a school shooting to prevent a journalist from speaking out in public. GamerGate is a toxic movement, a hate group, started by a sad little man who felt the need to get back at his failed relationship in public. Any sort of valid point it might have had went out of the window a long time ago. If you affiliate yourself with gamersgate, you stand with racists and mysoginists, you excuse harassers and abusers, you're a willing patsy and a horrible human being. http://www.themarysue.com/gamergate-terrorist-threats/http://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/the-man-who-sparked-gamergate-regrets-the-harassment-but-say#1jomgbx See none of those harassment would have occurred in the first place if characters such as Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkessian didn't go out of their way to scam everybody by faking the victimhood. Its saying that African american folks in the civil right strike are "a toxic movement, a hate group" because they are harassing the the cacausian folks for their misdemeanor even though some slave owners do exactly deserve what was coming to them. Dem right! Those bitches deserved it! Talking in public instead of making me a sandwich. So that's you're excuse? They deserved it because they were faking it? Sarkeesian started getting shit years ago, I saw it as far back as her Kickstarter campaign.This whole mess took form after what's-his-name's screed against Zoe Quinn, and the shit piled up on her after that. Various other people, journalist, authors, game developers, mostly women, but some men too, who dare to speak out against this have heaps of crap piled upon them. The evidence is all over the place, Kickstarter, Youtube, Twittter, Look in the Redpill Reddit (or whatever it's called) for some truly awe inspiring circle jerks and vileness, or other MRA forums on reddit and 4chan and were ever else they hide. ... But they are faking it. Sure. And did you really just compare the American civil rights movement with GamersGate? Even if all they did actually was for "fair journalism in gaming" instead of harassing and threating and other asshattery that would be preposterous. You are not a suppressed minority. King didn't threaten to shoot up schools or rape people for speaking their minds. This is a very clever way of sidestepping an argument. Nobody is actually making the claim that they are a suppressed minority. They are making far more specific claims than that. You are creating a strawman and then responding to it. Perhaps more to the point, however, your statement isn't necessarily even true; any consensus status assigned to a group of people by definition makes dissenters among that group a suppressed minority.
It's no strawman if it's real. Plenty of people are making the claim that they're a suppressed group. Go read some posts on 8 chan and reddit. It's the basis of their whole spiel. "Woe is us, the poor suppressed male gamer. They're trying to take our toys away! Our culture!"
Heck it's even in their latest organised mudslinging attempt: https://twitter.com/Spacekatgal/status/523113644205555712/photo/1
|
On October 18 2014 04:19 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 04:12 Thax wrote:On October 18 2014 03:59 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 03:51 Thax wrote:On October 18 2014 01:36 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 01:15 Thax wrote:On October 18 2014 00:14 Xiphos wrote:On October 17 2014 23:14 Defacer wrote:On October 17 2014 20:51 I_Love_Bacon wrote:
It's hard to separate it. Hell I know because I still talk about it at times when I probably shouldn't because keeping one's mouth shut is not easy.
First of all, relax. You must of written 300 words per minute. + Show Spoiler +This is all bull shit. GG isn't about Anita no matter how much you seem to think it is. She is background noise at best and is used to deflect from the actual issue at hand. Dude, you brought her up. And I was just commenting to how absurd it is that people are so upset she exists. And you kind of proved my point ... You're setting the bar for success pretty low. You're basically stating that because she wasn't frothing at the mouth and calling for male game devs to be castrated that her criticisms have more merit. All her points, whether you agree with her or not, are explicitly illustrated and supported with examples. Her argument is reasoned and well-researched. It's structured, and builds towards an actually conclusion. You can bitch and complain that it's not exhaustive, but it's not meant to be. She has a thesis and she defends it well. It's certainly not lazy. That's more than can you say than most of her detractors, who rely on heresay or empty accusations or dismiss entire 3000 word articles with links and annotations simply because they think the publisher is a shill. I'm sorry, but there's nothing intellectually dishonest about it, no matter how loud you shout it from the roof tops. Intellectual dishonest implies she's not earnest. She believes what she says. You just disagree with her. Like I said, I don't blame you because there's a metric shit ton of them out there. Others use Anita's videos to justify THEIR hatred and then take to articles/twitter/whateverthefuckever. I can hate her work but, as I've said countless times, GG isn't about Anita. Alright, I think I understand what you're saying here. You're issue isn't with Anita's argument. It's the idiots that amplify it and take it out of context. It happens on both sides. I absolutely agree. I do not condone stupidity. Oh-so-false. Saying "she just a media critic" means you haven't done nearly as much research as you think you have. I'm not going to bring up the personal things about how she lies about being a gamer and some of the other talks she's given because I don't want my own opinion of them to taint them if you ever get around to them.
The "worst case scenario" is that a woman who has admitted she doesn't like games and doesn't play games has now been consulted by major studios about their games where she'll continue to push her biased/questionable message. As somebody on a site that was dedicated to hard core gaming I hope you can at least appreciate the absolute ridiculousness of that. Oh, and it should be more exhaustive given how much money she was given but I'll let that slide for now. ... aaannnd you're losing me. This is coming off as sour grapes, to be honest. Maybe she lied about being a gamer. I have no idea what this accusation really means. The definition of being a gamer is very, very broad and means different things to different people. To someone like Anita, it probably meant playing a game a few hours on the weekend and even included roleplaying or board games with her friends. I don't really give a shit about her personal life, so I honestly don't know. But to a hardcore gamer, it literally means BUY EVERY MAJOR RELEASE AND PLAY NON-STOP UNTIL COMPLETION NEED MONSTER ENERGY DRINK. These people exist. That's a massive spectrum there. Consultants from other industries and fields get hired all the time. Gaming is an expensive, high-risk business. Sometimes celebrity or creative consultants are brought on to boost the profile of a game. Sometimes they are actually technical consultants, like cinematographers or architects. There is an obvious lack of realistic or even interesting representation of women in triple-A games. Maybe she'll get paid to consult on content. Maybe a developer will hire her as a token creative consultant, the way Will.i.am or Pharell seems to be the creative consultant on everything, in the hopes it will provide a halo effect around the game and attract a broader demographic. In either sense, trust me — her influence will be smaller than you think. Games are not build by consultants. They're built by 50 to 100 people working 60 hours a week. I know a lot of people that work in triple-A gaming. I know it sucks, but you're resenting her for identifying an issue in gaming that is rarely addressed, building a case for it's importance, representing herself as an expert on that particular issue, and being rewarded because it. That happens in almost industry because that's how society works. Trust me, as a designer, I have seen many younger, stupider people position themselves as experts on sustainability or social media experts — despite having very superficial knowledge — and fast tracking their careers. You're resenting a person for carving a niche and building a name for herself. The world isn't a meritocracy. Her getting gigs you wish you had — or think other people should have — is your problem, not hers. Now let's move on before we start bitching about Ben Affleck as Batman. This is where your tinfoil hat is showing even more than before. Show me serious attempts to threaten Sarkeesian. Oh, the one that she screen capped 20 seconds after it was posted while not logged into twitter? The one at the university yesterday that the police deemed as not-credible? Know how many journalists/critics/developers have been killed over their opinion on games? 0 I'm going to pretend to be your conscience for a second: "Threatening to shoot up a lecture hall is a serious offense. It is not a trivial threat, even if it's a lie. If you get caught you will get arrested. "Also, if someone threatens to murder you, encourages others to harass or hurt you, and publicizes you're home address, it is perfectly rational to not feel safe. If you are driven out of your own home out of fear, it's okay to feel like you're being violated, because you are." Trolls exist on the internet. This... surprises you? We live in a world where assholes "swat" people on Twitchtv and you're surprised that some shitheads leveled deaththreats and say stupid, vitriolic things on twitter? Once again, you're on a gaming website and you're surprised there exists people who make it their goal to push other people's buttons? Nobody after a game of SC told you to die in a fire or call you a faggot? Why yes! I know you're trying to dismiss the significance of online threats or abuse as trivial or 'less real', but that's a weak argument. And you're just admitting that games can lead to anti-social behaviour. As if stupidity is an excuse. Are you sure you're not an SJW at-heart? This also falls into the main point of GG is the inability to criticize "these people" (journalists, SWJs, and everybody in between). Comments are deleted/disabled, reddit threads are deleted, people are shadow banned, and entire pieces are forced to be taken down and yet somehow GG are the ones who are being accused of censorship. Virtually every single person who writes above the 5th grade reading level and supports GG also calls for NO CENSORSHIP. Let her have here views; then let others rebut them if that's what they want to do. Isn't that's what supposed to happen? Why did this suddenly become a bad thing that bad reporting/criticism is pointed out? You know the other thing that Pro-GGs aren't doing? Making a gigantic production out of every threat posted to them on twitter despite their being plenty of choose from. They're not trying to play victims and garner attention/sympathy, they're trying to have an actual discussion. HAHAHA! BULL! SHIT! Are you serious dude? The one's complaining and whining the loudest have been the GG community. Check out KotakuInAction. In the past four hours, some Gawker reporter made a joke about bullying nerds, and they turned it into a witch hunt, had a little non-stop pity party, and now have a 'nerd' challenging the reporter to $10,000 boxing match! Mike Cernovich challenges Gawker to $10,000 boxing matchhttps://twitter.com/PlayDangerously/status/522971574400348160 How's that for production and spectacle? And what does it have to do with journalistic integrity? NOTHING. I would never accuse GG of censorship. I would never do that. I'm accusing a subset of trolls using GamerGate as a political shield to threaten, intimidate and harass three women until they were forced to leave their homes and go into hiding. That's worse then censorship. It's the literal definition of terrorism. For two of them the only 'crime' they committed, technically, is having an fucking opinion. And now other female developers are afraid to speak out out of fear of reprisal. That's sad. GG has been censored and blocked on several sites. No dispute here. I'm sure the publications have different reasons. But if I had to guess, I think the most common reason is that most sites, particularly online magazines, don't have the time or energy to moderate the inevitable fucking shitstorm. Nor are they obligated to. We're having a reasonable discussion, but if a bunch of turds took over the thread Team Liquid would shut our asses down and there's nothing they could do about it. Reddit? My theory would be they were in the middle of catching a bunch of shit for their facilitation of Fappening, it hurt their reputation, put them in an embarassing legal situation, and because of the ties of misogyny to GamerGate (justified or not) they didn't want to touch it with a ten-foot-pole. You got screwed by pervs. The only way for GamerGate to have completely autonomy and control over the discourse is to have their own platform. And so far, the quality and presentation of GamerGates concerns have been scattered and amatuerish. There's a time and a place to discuss these things, but that's not what GG is. The people who claim it is only do so for 2 options: Either they're misinformed or they do it to push their own narrative. Are you accusing me of being part of a conspiracy, or a secret dick? If it makes you feel better, it's the latter. I can honestly say I am not anti-GamerGate, because I still don't know what the hell GamerGate is. The issues that actually seem worth discussing — the representation of women in games (both on and behind the scenes), the integrity of game journalism, and the future of gamer-culture as gaming becomes more and more significant to mainstream culture — have absolutely nothing to do with each other. They really don't. And it's the conflation of this issues by people that support GamerGate is what makes their perspective so easy to dismiss. A lot of their arguments and discussion is tainted with allegations, innuendo, or incessant lulz-humor that simply diminishes whatever legitimate point or grievance they might have. Here's an example from the kotakuinaction reddit of one guy who thinks he's spitting truth bombs. He opens the article by whining while congratulating himself. Written by @JamieBworth, rejected by Cracked for stupid reasons, and published here, with permission. Because fuck Cracked, this shit is hilarious and genius. Mindless Zombie StudiosIn actuality his writing is rushed and lazy; mostly editorial; and offers no new information that contradicts basic facts reported by mainstream source — thus rendering his premise of revealing 'misinformation' pretty much pointless. Like I said, if Gaters want to be taken seriously, they can learn a lot about how to present an argument by watching Sarkeesian's videos. If you don't know what GamerGate is, none of your opinions matters. On topic: A lot of misconception about GamerGate. To put it in the most basic form: GamerGate is the gaming consumers' reactionary force to dissipate any biases in gaming reviews for a more wholesome competitive market. A lot of you guys think that GamerGate requires some special membership to participate in. However, with the assumption that we all hope for a meritocracy system in the gaming industry, most of us are already, intentionally or not and even if you don't want to rally behind the hash tag or not, part of the GamerGate "movement". However, this movement will mostly likely be a lost cause and let me tell y'all why. In order to get rid of any media nepotism in the gaming community, we must look at all the parties involved that created nepotism in the first place. They are: 1. Producer of the game. Ex: Zoe Quinn. Laughing my ass off at people being ignorant on this one. 2. Game reviewer outlets. Ex: IGN, Kotaku, GameSpot that gave out favorable reviews because of sexual, monetary, and/or other reasons. and lastly: 3. Any other people that support the gaming producer to further their own personal agendas. They are termed as "Social Justice Warriors", SJWs for short, basically the radical pro-feminism, pro-LGBT crowds that supported a certain game because both the game producers and their political beliefs aligns with each other for mutual benefit. Ex: Anita Sarkessian. For corruption and nepotism to fully dispel in our industry, we have to get rid of ALL 3 parties. But here is the thing though, you can shame characters Zoe Quinn and Game reviewers/journalist all you want, the main beast you have to deal with are #3 of the list. The question remains whether or not the integrity of gaming development can be saved w/ enough manpower in our side to get rid of all the parties or not. So far, there have been a lot in-fighting in the community about who to blame it on. A lot of apologist by saying "Woah, you can't possibly go after X, Y, and Z. You have to go after A, B, and C instead!" No the correct approach is to go after EVERYBODY involved, you can't afford to cherry pick the target. Talk about misconceptions ... Around the turn of the millennium gamers were trying to stop journalist to blame games for school shootings. This week "gamers" threatened with a school shooting to prevent a journalist from speaking out in public. GamerGate is a toxic movement, a hate group, started by a sad little man who felt the need to get back at his failed relationship in public. Any sort of valid point it might have had went out of the window a long time ago. If you affiliate yourself with gamersgate, you stand with racists and mysoginists, you excuse harassers and abusers, you're a willing patsy and a horrible human being. http://www.themarysue.com/gamergate-terrorist-threats/http://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/the-man-who-sparked-gamergate-regrets-the-harassment-but-say#1jomgbx See none of those harassment would have occurred in the first place if characters such as Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkessian didn't go out of their way to scam everybody by faking the victimhood. Its saying that African american folks in the civil right strike are "a toxic movement, a hate group" because they are harassing the the cacausian folks for their misdemeanor even though some slave owners do exactly deserve what was coming to them. Dem right! Those bitches deserved it! Talking in public instead of making me a sandwich. So that's you're excuse? They deserved it because they were faking it? Sarkeesian started getting shit years ago, I saw it as far back as her Kickstarter campaign.This whole mess took form after what's-his-name's screed against Zoe Quinn, and the shit piled up on her after that. Various other people, journalist, authors, game developers, mostly women, but some men too, who dare to speak out against this have heaps of crap piled upon them. The evidence is all over the place, Kickstarter, Youtube, Twittter, Look in the Redpill Reddit (or whatever it's called) for some truly awe inspiring circle jerks and vileness, or other MRA forums on reddit and 4chan and were ever else they hide. ... But they are faking it. Sure. And did you really just compare the American civil rights movement with GamersGate? Even if all they did actually was for "fair journalism in gaming" instead of harassing and threating and other asshattery that would be preposterous. You are not a suppressed minority. King didn't threaten to shoot up schools or rape people for speaking their minds. First of all, calm down. Secondly, read up on black panther, please. And lastly while there are real hates since she posted misinformation and scammed people. But I'm ofc talking about this: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BwJNnfUCAAA9VrZ.jpg I'm calm. Thank you for your concern. This is therapeutic for me. I'm aware of Black Panther, thank you. If you were comparing yourself with them, then that makes a lot of sense. I'm talking about this: https://twitter.com/Spacekatgal/status/523113644205555712/photo/1"She's lying about us setting up an harassment campaign. Let's set up a harassment campaign! That'll show them how righteous we are!" Its not a harassment campaign, as the picture indicated (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0J5FlpIQAA7GRA.png), its a trolling campaign. If she did do what was written there, then she deserves to be chastised and this campaign would be the least harmful way to punish her. Its entirely fair.
You say tomato, I say tomato. How is an organised attempt to undermine a person's work, to derail her career anything other than harassment? You think that's harmless fun? Just a little bit of light trolling?
*If* she did do what was written there, then no it still wouldn't be fair, and since she *didn't* do what was written there it is not just unfair, it is beyond vile.
|
On October 18 2014 00:14 Xiphos wrote:
If you don't know what GamerGate is, none of your opinions matters.
Oh, do go on ... this should be interesting.
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.
Oooooookay. But all media criticism is subjective and inherently biased. From Siskel & Ebert to Marshall McLuhan. There is no such thing as 'purely objective' interpretation of art. There's different opinions, some better than others. That's assuming you consider gaming an art form, which I hope you do, considering how much you care about it.
You'll never eliminate bias, nor try to. There is plenty of room for a diversity of perspectives, and you get to vote with your time and attention which media fails and which doesn't. Diversity equals a competitive market. So when you use a word like wholesome, it makes me wonder if you just want media to be homogenized to your personal taste.
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.
Nepotism is pervasive, and part of every industry. To be surprised or shocked by this is pretty silly. Most triple-A game developers are young men, and they actively play politics to get ahead and benefit from maintaining a boys club. Ask anyone working from EA for instance, and they will chew you out.
Everyone has leveraged personal relationships to get ahead. It's not that I support Zoe Quinn or anything she did, but for any one sit on a high horse to claim moral superiority over her is just begging for double-speak and hypocrisy.
2. Game reviewer outlets. Ex: IGN, Kotaku, GameSpot that gave out favorable reviews because of sexual, monetary, and/or other reasons.
Okay. But you realize that small publications like Team Liquid probably wouldn't survive, or have to scale back their coverage significantly, if teams, tournaments and they they themselves didn't have a direct relationship with Blizzard.
And again: this kind of shoulder rubbing is not unique to games. Journalist are expected to develop a network of contacts and peers, and inevitably, there is a conflict of interest. It happens in most trade publications, particular sports and entertainment, and more and more people are starting to openly admit it.
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.
No the correct approach is to go after EVERYBODY involved, you can't afford to cherry pick the target.
Let's simplify this — some people made a game. It was different from other games and some people supported it for being different, or aligned with their political world view. They may have even their connections in the media to publicize it.
None this these things are illegal. AND all of these things are basically what a lot of new start-ups do to get off the ground, aligning themselves with political or ideological goals as part of their brand. And you can point to any mobile or casual game out there and you'll find out how they knew a guy that knew a guy and got pick-uped by mashable.
I mean, is that 'just' or 'fair'? Well, I guess not. But that is hardly exclusive to SJW-LGBT issues.
That's what's clouding the GamerGate argument, and makes it sound disingenuous and dishonest. There has ALWAYS been collusion and favoritism in games journalism. (secret: Nintendo Power wasn't a real magazine). It's people that point fingers and labels anyone with a different opinion as a SJW, or 'not-having-the-facts' (while producing almost no new information) is what is hurting any efforts GamerGate to gain legitimacy.
|
On October 18 2014 01:36 Xiphos 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 See none of those harassment would have occurred in the first place if characters such as Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkessian didn't go out of their way to scam everybody by faking the victimhood. Its saying that African american folks in the civil right strike are "a toxic movement, a hate group" because they are harassing the the cacausian folks for their misdemeanor even though some slave owners do exactly deserve what was coming to them.
This is definition of self-delusion and victim-blaming folks. He's comparing Zoe Quinn and Anita to being slave owners. And that gamers are being persecuted by them. Like black people. For making a game about depression and having an alternative opinion on games.
Seriously.
|
On October 18 2014 04:20 Thax wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 04:00 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2014 03:51 Thax wrote:On October 18 2014 01:36 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 01:15 Thax wrote:On October 18 2014 00:14 Xiphos wrote:On October 17 2014 23:14 Defacer wrote:On October 17 2014 20:51 I_Love_Bacon wrote:
It's hard to separate it. Hell I know because I still talk about it at times when I probably shouldn't because keeping one's mouth shut is not easy.
First of all, relax. You must of written 300 words per minute. + Show Spoiler +This is all bull shit. GG isn't about Anita no matter how much you seem to think it is. She is background noise at best and is used to deflect from the actual issue at hand. Dude, you brought her up. And I was just commenting to how absurd it is that people are so upset she exists. And you kind of proved my point ... You're setting the bar for success pretty low. You're basically stating that because she wasn't frothing at the mouth and calling for male game devs to be castrated that her criticisms have more merit. All her points, whether you agree with her or not, are explicitly illustrated and supported with examples. Her argument is reasoned and well-researched. It's structured, and builds towards an actually conclusion. You can bitch and complain that it's not exhaustive, but it's not meant to be. She has a thesis and she defends it well. It's certainly not lazy. That's more than can you say than most of her detractors, who rely on heresay or empty accusations or dismiss entire 3000 word articles with links and annotations simply because they think the publisher is a shill. I'm sorry, but there's nothing intellectually dishonest about it, no matter how loud you shout it from the roof tops. Intellectual dishonest implies she's not earnest. She believes what she says. You just disagree with her. Like I said, I don't blame you because there's a metric shit ton of them out there. Others use Anita's videos to justify THEIR hatred and then take to articles/twitter/whateverthefuckever. I can hate her work but, as I've said countless times, GG isn't about Anita. Alright, I think I understand what you're saying here. You're issue isn't with Anita's argument. It's the idiots that amplify it and take it out of context. It happens on both sides. I absolutely agree. I do not condone stupidity. Oh-so-false. Saying "she just a media critic" means you haven't done nearly as much research as you think you have. I'm not going to bring up the personal things about how she lies about being a gamer and some of the other talks she's given because I don't want my own opinion of them to taint them if you ever get around to them.
The "worst case scenario" is that a woman who has admitted she doesn't like games and doesn't play games has now been consulted by major studios about their games where she'll continue to push her biased/questionable message. As somebody on a site that was dedicated to hard core gaming I hope you can at least appreciate the absolute ridiculousness of that. Oh, and it should be more exhaustive given how much money she was given but I'll let that slide for now. ... aaannnd you're losing me. This is coming off as sour grapes, to be honest. Maybe she lied about being a gamer. I have no idea what this accusation really means. The definition of being a gamer is very, very broad and means different things to different people. To someone like Anita, it probably meant playing a game a few hours on the weekend and even included roleplaying or board games with her friends. I don't really give a shit about her personal life, so I honestly don't know. But to a hardcore gamer, it literally means BUY EVERY MAJOR RELEASE AND PLAY NON-STOP UNTIL COMPLETION NEED MONSTER ENERGY DRINK. These people exist. That's a massive spectrum there. Consultants from other industries and fields get hired all the time. Gaming is an expensive, high-risk business. Sometimes celebrity or creative consultants are brought on to boost the profile of a game. Sometimes they are actually technical consultants, like cinematographers or architects. There is an obvious lack of realistic or even interesting representation of women in triple-A games. Maybe she'll get paid to consult on content. Maybe a developer will hire her as a token creative consultant, the way Will.i.am or Pharell seems to be the creative consultant on everything, in the hopes it will provide a halo effect around the game and attract a broader demographic. In either sense, trust me — her influence will be smaller than you think. Games are not build by consultants. They're built by 50 to 100 people working 60 hours a week. I know a lot of people that work in triple-A gaming. I know it sucks, but you're resenting her for identifying an issue in gaming that is rarely addressed, building a case for it's importance, representing herself as an expert on that particular issue, and being rewarded because it. That happens in almost industry because that's how society works. Trust me, as a designer, I have seen many younger, stupider people position themselves as experts on sustainability or social media experts — despite having very superficial knowledge — and fast tracking their careers. You're resenting a person for carving a niche and building a name for herself. The world isn't a meritocracy. Her getting gigs you wish you had — or think other people should have — is your problem, not hers. Now let's move on before we start bitching about Ben Affleck as Batman. This is where your tinfoil hat is showing even more than before. Show me serious attempts to threaten Sarkeesian. Oh, the one that she screen capped 20 seconds after it was posted while not logged into twitter? The one at the university yesterday that the police deemed as not-credible? Know how many journalists/critics/developers have been killed over their opinion on games? 0 I'm going to pretend to be your conscience for a second: "Threatening to shoot up a lecture hall is a serious offense. It is not a trivial threat, even if it's a lie. If you get caught you will get arrested. "Also, if someone threatens to murder you, encourages others to harass or hurt you, and publicizes you're home address, it is perfectly rational to not feel safe. If you are driven out of your own home out of fear, it's okay to feel like you're being violated, because you are." Trolls exist on the internet. This... surprises you? We live in a world where assholes "swat" people on Twitchtv and you're surprised that some shitheads leveled deaththreats and say stupid, vitriolic things on twitter? Once again, you're on a gaming website and you're surprised there exists people who make it their goal to push other people's buttons? Nobody after a game of SC told you to die in a fire or call you a faggot? Why yes! I know you're trying to dismiss the significance of online threats or abuse as trivial or 'less real', but that's a weak argument. And you're just admitting that games can lead to anti-social behaviour. As if stupidity is an excuse. Are you sure you're not an SJW at-heart? This also falls into the main point of GG is the inability to criticize "these people" (journalists, SWJs, and everybody in between). Comments are deleted/disabled, reddit threads are deleted, people are shadow banned, and entire pieces are forced to be taken down and yet somehow GG are the ones who are being accused of censorship. Virtually every single person who writes above the 5th grade reading level and supports GG also calls for NO CENSORSHIP. Let her have here views; then let others rebut them if that's what they want to do. Isn't that's what supposed to happen? Why did this suddenly become a bad thing that bad reporting/criticism is pointed out? You know the other thing that Pro-GGs aren't doing? Making a gigantic production out of every threat posted to them on twitter despite their being plenty of choose from. They're not trying to play victims and garner attention/sympathy, they're trying to have an actual discussion. HAHAHA! BULL! SHIT! Are you serious dude? The one's complaining and whining the loudest have been the GG community. Check out KotakuInAction. In the past four hours, some Gawker reporter made a joke about bullying nerds, and they turned it into a witch hunt, had a little non-stop pity party, and now have a 'nerd' challenging the reporter to $10,000 boxing match! Mike Cernovich challenges Gawker to $10,000 boxing matchhttps://twitter.com/PlayDangerously/status/522971574400348160 How's that for production and spectacle? And what does it have to do with journalistic integrity? NOTHING. I would never accuse GG of censorship. I would never do that. I'm accusing a subset of trolls using GamerGate as a political shield to threaten, intimidate and harass three women until they were forced to leave their homes and go into hiding. That's worse then censorship. It's the literal definition of terrorism. For two of them the only 'crime' they committed, technically, is having an fucking opinion. And now other female developers are afraid to speak out out of fear of reprisal. That's sad. GG has been censored and blocked on several sites. No dispute here. I'm sure the publications have different reasons. But if I had to guess, I think the most common reason is that most sites, particularly online magazines, don't have the time or energy to moderate the inevitable fucking shitstorm. Nor are they obligated to. We're having a reasonable discussion, but if a bunch of turds took over the thread Team Liquid would shut our asses down and there's nothing they could do about it. Reddit? My theory would be they were in the middle of catching a bunch of shit for their facilitation of Fappening, it hurt their reputation, put them in an embarassing legal situation, and because of the ties of misogyny to GamerGate (justified or not) they didn't want to touch it with a ten-foot-pole. You got screwed by pervs. The only way for GamerGate to have completely autonomy and control over the discourse is to have their own platform. And so far, the quality and presentation of GamerGates concerns have been scattered and amatuerish. There's a time and a place to discuss these things, but that's not what GG is. The people who claim it is only do so for 2 options: Either they're misinformed or they do it to push their own narrative. Are you accusing me of being part of a conspiracy, or a secret dick? If it makes you feel better, it's the latter. I can honestly say I am not anti-GamerGate, because I still don't know what the hell GamerGate is. The issues that actually seem worth discussing — the representation of women in games (both on and behind the scenes), the integrity of game journalism, and the future of gamer-culture as gaming becomes more and more significant to mainstream culture — have absolutely nothing to do with each other. They really don't. And it's the conflation of this issues by people that support GamerGate is what makes their perspective so easy to dismiss. A lot of their arguments and discussion is tainted with allegations, innuendo, or incessant lulz-humor that simply diminishes whatever legitimate point or grievance they might have. Here's an example from the kotakuinaction reddit of one guy who thinks he's spitting truth bombs. He opens the article by whining while congratulating himself. Written by @JamieBworth, rejected by Cracked for stupid reasons, and published here, with permission. Because fuck Cracked, this shit is hilarious and genius. Mindless Zombie StudiosIn actuality his writing is rushed and lazy; mostly editorial; and offers no new information that contradicts basic facts reported by mainstream source — thus rendering his premise of revealing 'misinformation' pretty much pointless. Like I said, if Gaters want to be taken seriously, they can learn a lot about how to present an argument by watching Sarkeesian's videos. If you don't know what GamerGate is, none of your opinions matters. On topic: A lot of misconception about GamerGate. To put it in the most basic form: GamerGate is the gaming consumers' reactionary force to dissipate any biases in gaming reviews for a more wholesome competitive market. A lot of you guys think that GamerGate requires some special membership to participate in. However, with the assumption that we all hope for a meritocracy system in the gaming industry, most of us are already, intentionally or not and even if you don't want to rally behind the hash tag or not, part of the GamerGate "movement". However, this movement will mostly likely be a lost cause and let me tell y'all why. In order to get rid of any media nepotism in the gaming community, we must look at all the parties involved that created nepotism in the first place. They are: 1. Producer of the game. Ex: Zoe Quinn. Laughing my ass off at people being ignorant on this one. 2. Game reviewer outlets. Ex: IGN, Kotaku, GameSpot that gave out favorable reviews because of sexual, monetary, and/or other reasons. and lastly: 3. Any other people that support the gaming producer to further their own personal agendas. They are termed as "Social Justice Warriors", SJWs for short, basically the radical pro-feminism, pro-LGBT crowds that supported a certain game because both the game producers and their political beliefs aligns with each other for mutual benefit. Ex: Anita Sarkessian. For corruption and nepotism to fully dispel in our industry, we have to get rid of ALL 3 parties. But here is the thing though, you can shame characters Zoe Quinn and Game reviewers/journalist all you want, the main beast you have to deal with are #3 of the list. The question remains whether or not the integrity of gaming development can be saved w/ enough manpower in our side to get rid of all the parties or not. So far, there have been a lot in-fighting in the community about who to blame it on. A lot of apologist by saying "Woah, you can't possibly go after X, Y, and Z. You have to go after A, B, and C instead!" No the correct approach is to go after EVERYBODY involved, you can't afford to cherry pick the target. Talk about misconceptions ... Around the turn of the millennium gamers were trying to stop journalist to blame games for school shootings. This week "gamers" threatened with a school shooting to prevent a journalist from speaking out in public. GamerGate is a toxic movement, a hate group, started by a sad little man who felt the need to get back at his failed relationship in public. Any sort of valid point it might have had went out of the window a long time ago. If you affiliate yourself with gamersgate, you stand with racists and mysoginists, you excuse harassers and abusers, you're a willing patsy and a horrible human being. http://www.themarysue.com/gamergate-terrorist-threats/http://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/the-man-who-sparked-gamergate-regrets-the-harassment-but-say#1jomgbx See none of those harassment would have occurred in the first place if characters such as Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkessian didn't go out of their way to scam everybody by faking the victimhood. Its saying that African american folks in the civil right strike are "a toxic movement, a hate group" because they are harassing the the cacausian folks for their misdemeanor even though some slave owners do exactly deserve what was coming to them. Dem right! Those bitches deserved it! Talking in public instead of making me a sandwich. So that's you're excuse? They deserved it because they were faking it? Sarkeesian started getting shit years ago, I saw it as far back as her Kickstarter campaign.This whole mess took form after what's-his-name's screed against Zoe Quinn, and the shit piled up on her after that. Various other people, journalist, authors, game developers, mostly women, but some men too, who dare to speak out against this have heaps of crap piled upon them. The evidence is all over the place, Kickstarter, Youtube, Twittter, Look in the Redpill Reddit (or whatever it's called) for some truly awe inspiring circle jerks and vileness, or other MRA forums on reddit and 4chan and were ever else they hide. ... But they are faking it. Sure. And did you really just compare the American civil rights movement with GamersGate? Even if all they did actually was for "fair journalism in gaming" instead of harassing and threating and other asshattery that would be preposterous. You are not a suppressed minority. King didn't threaten to shoot up schools or rape people for speaking their minds. This is a very clever way of sidestepping an argument. Nobody is actually making the claim that they are a suppressed minority. They are making far more specific claims than that. You are creating a strawman and then responding to it. Perhaps more to the point, however, your statement isn't necessarily even true; any consensus status assigned to a group of people by definition makes dissenters among that group a suppressed minority. It's no strawman if it's real. Plenty of people are making the claim that they're a suppressed group. Go read some posts on 8 chan and reddit. It's the basis of their whole spiel. "Woe is us, the poor suppressed male gamer. They're trying to take our toys away! Our culture!" Heck it's even in their latest organised mudslinging attempt: https://twitter.com/Spacekatgal/status/523113644205555712/photo/1
This is a complete exaggeration of what's happening, so much so that I don't even know why I'm bothering to respond.
Again, there are many females associated with the gamergate fiasco, so it's hardly "woe is us, the poor suppressed male gamer." You're oversimplification is at odds with easily verifiable data. The gamergate thing is attacking the ongoing damsel-in-distress elevator to hell facilitated by media corruption in gaming. Yes, some women are being harassed for their views. Yes, some of these culture critics like Sarkeesian have made valid points. But for the most part they're just a bunch of sophists who take themselves far too seriously, and end up attacking people for disagreeing with them even on the most trivial point, dismissing them, and then the gaming culture at large as misogynist etc.
You can't cherry pick the most egregious examples of opposition and then paint the entire social phenomenon with that same brush.
|
On October 17 2014 20:40 HeatEXTEND wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2014 19:47 Defacer wrote:
First, I realized that her most controversial assertion — that the objectification of women in games can result in gamers objectifying women in real life — is probably the kind of comment that 4chan/8chan would most likely dismiss as PC-bs. But that exact 'theory' has been absolutely validated by the nature of harassment and threats levelled at her by her enemies themselves.
That doesn't even make sense. People think she is spinning a fabricated narrative so they are objectifying women ? What ? I could go on and on about your post but it would just be a lot more "what ?", so I'll spare you all  .
Basically: trolls claims all her videos are fabrications and have no basis in reality. Trolls then proceed to validate every one of her claims by demonstrating the behaviours she has describes in the videos.
|
On October 18 2014 04:40 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +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. This is definition of self-delusion and victim-blaming folks. He's comparing Zoe Quinn and Anita to being slave owners. And that gamers are being persecuted by them. Like black people. For making a game about depression and having an alternative opinion on games. Seriously.
Okay let's go down that road, yeah that's exactly what they did!
Anita have been broadcasting how egregious the gaming communities are with the women topic which have been debunked! She have been adamant in persecuting the entire industry.
Subsequently, the feminism media swallowed the wrong pill and presented it as fact and with their heavy hitter journalist on their side, furthered that damage.
You simple can't deny that and for that reason, one can definitely argue that an entire community have been dragged down to the dirt by these malevolent individuals with sufficient evidence to back up.
|
Well, I see this thread has gone to the shitter already...
|
On October 18 2014 04:54 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 04:40 Defacer wrote:On October 18 2014 01:36 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 01:15 Thax wrote:On October 18 2014 00:14 Xiphos wrote:On October 17 2014 23:14 Defacer wrote: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. This is definition of self-delusion and victim-blaming folks. He's comparing Zoe Quinn and Anita to being slave owners. And that gamers are being persecuted by them. Like black people. For making a game about depression and having an alternative opinion on games. Seriously. Okay let's go down that road, yeah that's exactly what they did! Anita have been broadcasting how egregious the gaming communities are with the women topic which have been debunked! She have been adamant in persecuting the entire industry. Subsequently, the feminism media swallowed the wrong pill and presented it as fact and with their heavy hitter journalist on their side, furthered that damage. You simple can't deny that and for that reason, one can definitely argue that an entire community have been dragged down to the dirt by these malevolent individuals with sufficient evidence to back up.
No one has 'debunked' anything because there is nothing to 'debunk.' She made a video series on games from a feminist perspective. This would be no different than an atheist making a video series on religious topics, or a 'nerd' doing a series on music and fashion.
These are all just perspectives folks. You can choose to ignore them or not. They actually are really valuable, because they broaden the reach of what you love, and depth or richness to it's discussion, and validate the significance of what you love to society and culture.
Yes, her videos made people extremely, extremely defensive. But that is not her problem. People need to grow up and realize having a differing opinion or perspective on something you like is not a personal attack.
The GamerGate community is so insulated and insecure that they have to play the victim card faster and more loosely more than any SJW so far. How's that for irony?
|
On October 18 2014 05:04 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 04:54 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 04:40 Defacer wrote:On October 18 2014 01:36 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 01:15 Thax wrote:On October 18 2014 00:14 Xiphos wrote:On October 17 2014 23:14 Defacer wrote: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. This is definition of self-delusion and victim-blaming folks. He's comparing Zoe Quinn and Anita to being slave owners. And that gamers are being persecuted by them. Like black people. For making a game about depression and having an alternative opinion on games. Seriously. Okay let's go down that road, yeah that's exactly what they did! Anita have been broadcasting how egregious the gaming communities are with the women topic which have been debunked! She have been adamant in persecuting the entire industry. Subsequently, the feminism media swallowed the wrong pill and presented it as fact and with their heavy hitter journalist on their side, furthered that damage. You simple can't deny that and for that reason, one can definitely argue that an entire community have been dragged down to the dirt by these malevolent individuals with sufficient evidence to back up. No one has 'debunked' anything because there is nothing to 'debunk.' She made a video series on games from a feminist perspective. This would be no different than an atheist making a video series on religious topics, or a 'nerd' doing a series on music and fashion. These are all just perspectives folks. You can choose to ignore them or not. They actually are really valuable, because they broaden the reach of what you love, and depth or richness to it's discussion, and validate the significance of what you love to society and culture. Yes, her videos made people extremely, extremely defensive. But that is not her problem. People need to grow up and realize having a differing opinion or perspective on something you like is not a personal attack. The GamerGate community is so insulated and insecure that they have to play the victim card faster and more loosely more than any SJW so far. How's that for irony?
I think the problem here is that people feel she did not gain her perspective on video games from playing video games, but went into it with that perspective and then cherry picked examples out of context that would support that perspective.
She may be entitled to her opinion, but people are entitled to be pissed off when she uses poor journalism to try to get other people to adopt that opinion.
And using your analogies, you don't think people would get a little miffed if an influential atheist YouTuber started making religious videos under the pretense that they were not an atheist, and started making videos that make religion look bad by leaving out any of its redeeming qualities? Because that is a more specific analogy to what we are dealing with here, and I think people would get pretty pissed off, and rightfully so.
Still, like most other people have said, it's a shame that the trolls happen to be all on the same side of the fence, because it is clouding any real discussion of issues.
|
On October 18 2014 05:04 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 04:54 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 04:40 Defacer wrote:On October 18 2014 01:36 Xiphos wrote:On October 18 2014 01:15 Thax wrote:On October 18 2014 00:14 Xiphos wrote:On October 17 2014 23:14 Defacer wrote: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. This is definition of self-delusion and victim-blaming folks. He's comparing Zoe Quinn and Anita to being slave owners. And that gamers are being persecuted by them. Like black people. For making a game about depression and having an alternative opinion on games. Seriously. Okay let's go down that road, yeah that's exactly what they did! Anita have been broadcasting how egregious the gaming communities are with the women topic which have been debunked! She have been adamant in persecuting the entire industry. Subsequently, the feminism media swallowed the wrong pill and presented it as fact and with their heavy hitter journalist on their side, furthered that damage. You simple can't deny that and for that reason, one can definitely argue that an entire community have been dragged down to the dirt by these malevolent individuals with sufficient evidence to back up. No one has 'debunked' anything because there is nothing to 'debunk.' She made a video series on games from a feminist perspective. This would be no different than an atheist making a video series on religious topics, or a 'nerd' doing a series on music and fashion. These are all just perspectives folks. You can choose to ignore them or not. They actually are really valuable, because they broaden the reach of what you love, and depth or richness to it's discussion, and validate the significance of what you love to society and culture. Yes, her videos made people extremely, extremely defensive. But that is not her problem. People need to grow up and realize having a differing opinion or perspective on something you like is not a personal attack. The GamerGate community is so insulated and insecure that they have to play the victim card faster and more loosely more than any SJW so far. How's that for irony?
No, you are attempting to separate her and her perspective. And by the way, she isn't using exactly looking things through a traditional feminist point of view. Traditional feminist fights for women's equal rights as men not to denigrate men w/o malicious intent. That's not being a feminist, traditionally speaking but that's simply bullying and defamation.
So she needs to grow up, she needs to know that putting yourself out w/ malicious intent and false information will gets you bad rep. She needs to learn to cease scamming people out of their cash.
After all, she is the criminal here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
