I’d like to end this with the reminder that backlash happens in response to change, so as horrible as this is, it doesn’t show things getting are steadily worse. It shows things are getting better and a lot of people being angry at that and trying very hard to make things worse again.
Didn’t expect this from you. As someone who, while doesn’t interact in social networks much (other than to see fandom fanarts and stuff), but supports gamergate, I feel disappointed.
First of all, gameplay is absolute king in any game. While yes, character development and storyline, when present (because games can work without either, just look at Pacman), are a close second to it, gameplay is what matters the most. And it can be objective, for example let’s compare AC Brotherhood and Revelations. The latter showed signs of button bloating that the former did not, having a much more intuitive and simple control setup, in addition to a much free-er combat style (eg the only ways to actually kill a Janissary mid combat is throwing him a bomb to the face or taking a quarter hp off slowly with Hidden Gun or a weapon counter). Simply put, putting themes in the spotlight for more that what they deserve in space for the game review is absurd. Yes it may seem mysogynist to have a female character raped in her backstory, but I’ve seen it done without such a thing. Yes she may not have had the awesome backstory, but a hero might be both the knight that has already led a couple years of military prowess or the villager who happened to be at the given time/place to become the hero.
The GameJournoPro list issue (not sure if I’m spelling that right), was not about the list in itself, but in the fact that they were deciding as a group what games to review and what games not to, which plus their supports to certain indie developer did reek of corruption.
In addition, a dealbreaker should not affect the overall rating of the game in itself, just because some people won’t feel comfortable playing the game at all. I am not a fan of horror games because I don’t deal with them that well, but that is no reason that if I was to steel myself to play something like Silent Hill and review it, yes I should say that some of the content might be a dealbreaker and for those people not to buy it, but that would not change my opinion on how good the game was.
I don’t want games to be labelled as ‘It’s mysogynist, don’t buy it!’, but I wouldn’t have problems if it was labelled instead ‘It’s ____(insert general adjective to rate the game), but if you have issues with graphic representations of female mistreatment, don’t buy it.’
“Didn’t expect this from you.”
You… don’t read this site, do you?
I wonder if we’re getting a new influx of people from somewhere? The amount of, “Hmm, weird, you have opinions on women and video games,” over the past few days is really odd.
Was following on the F/SN reviews.
And… that didn’t tip you off that maybe we were in favor of gaming being more inclusive? I’m not really subtle.
Stop obsessing over reviews.
That’s what at least 80% of this nonsense boils down to- there are vast swathes of gamers who want reviews to be some sort of gold-standard completely objective judgement on a game that will either validate their own opinions of invalidate those of people they disagree with, and they lost their fucking minds over any suggestion that that may not be the case.
Except that’s *not* the case, and never has been. Reviews are one person’s opinion. You don’t agree with them? You don’t like what parts of a game they chose to talk about? Too bad. Discount their opinion, or leave a comment disagreeing, or write your own review. No one has an obligation to cater their writing to your feelings.
“Gaming journalism” is a bunch of internet nerds whose opinions have zero extra worth. Objectivity is a pipedream; nobody has ever been objective about anything in the history of ever, no way some random nerd on internet will be “objective” about something as trivial as a game. Stirring up a shitstorm for this is dumb (far too many gamers are dumb, so here we are).
Is there shady poo in gaming? Of course. There’s this shady character who seems to be into some shady poo for example*. But if large swathes of your cause’s “supporters” AND “opposers” are shitty internet neckbeards exclusively fixating on this shady character’s pussy, it’s time to reexamine this “cause”.
“Simply put, putting themes in the spotlight for more that what they deserve in space for the game review is absurd. Yes it may seem mysogynist to have a female character raped in her backstory, but I’ve seen it done without such a thing. Yes she may not have had the awesome backstory, but a hero might be both the knight that has already led a
couple years of military prowess or the villager who happened to be at the given time/place to become the hero.”
You don’t even lift. I can tell.
“In addition, a dealbreaker should not affect the overall rating of the game in itself,”
Oh. You’re a bot and don’t understand how humans form opinions and come to conclusions. Well, nevermind.
*Which isn’t even a grain of sand compared to the deserts made of shady poo multibillion corps who fed the stinkiest pile of bullshit known as AAA** to general gaming populace regularly deals in.
**AAA – “Your corporate overlords blew shittons of money for this thing so you mouth breating peasants are obligated to buy it now.”
Your terrible comment gets a free pass because it agrees with the opinion of the majority or they didn’t even bother to start picking it out due to the gargantuan size of this, in your words, stinky pile of bullshit?
It gets a pass because it’s true:
-Gaming journalism is worthless: check
-Gamergate created large piles of crap from all concerned: check
Wasn’t exactly looking for your input, of course you believe whatever you’re babbling about. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have posted it.
That said, your second point is quite true-the first however, is still the typical rambling of the uninformed. I was just wondering about the terrible responses and nitpick before, but a mod just said that ad hominem is a-ok so…. my bad?
shitty internet neckbeards
[…]
You don’t even lift. I can tell.
Don’t do this, please. Body shaming does nothing but give them more “LOOK AT HOW EVUL THE SJW ARE” ammunition, and it will inevitably come back to bite the people you’re trying to protect. The advantage of liberalism is that the facts are on your side, so use those. Don’t stoop to their level of meaningless ad hominem attacks.
Erm… neither of those things are “bodyshaming.” ‘Do you even lift’ is meme shorthand for “do you even know what you’re talking about” and “neckbeard” is a pretty standard slang for MRAs/Redditors, meaning someone who doesn’t shave/take care of themselves in lieu of being online.
Honestly, I have to say I’m also petty uncomfortable with “neckbeard” as shorthand for MRAs etc. Equating physical features with general badness is pretty ick, and calling one’s opponents disparaging names that have nothing to do with why they’re wrong is a pretty childish, unbearably tribalistic way to talk about political issues. Just because it’s very common doesn’t mean it’s therefore fine.
I’ve… honestly never thought of it that way. I guess I read as more a commentary on like, bathing habits than on looks? I do see where you’re coming from. Hm.
I *have* thought about that and I believe it’s true. Neckbeard has become like a postmodern slur, similar to using names of various illnesses/disabilities as insults. I happily use it because being slovenly and unkempt and etc is in most cases one’s own fault and could’ve been easily fixed (unlike most other words used as insults). In the few cases where that’s not true, well tough.
Its attributed meaning also includes considering a moderately well off, straight, white dude in 13-40 range as the default human being by which everything else should be judged against, so it’s a relevant insult for this topic here.
being slovenly and unkempt and etc is in most cases one’s own fault and could’ve been easily fixed
And why does being slovenly and unkempt have any relevance to what you’re arguing? What bearing does it have on moral character or your opponent’s beliefs? Yes, goodness is arbitrarily associated with beauty and cleanliness in our culture. Consider what the implications of that are. Who benefits from that standard, and who loses?
When you use slurs like that, you’re validating the culture that birthed and values those standards. And the people who will be hurt by that validation and perpetuation aren’t your targets. The people who are predominately hurt by such an obsession with appearance and cleanliness are women, transgenders, poor people – all the marginalized groups who you claim to be supporting and who are trying to buck the toxic culture. It may be tempting to give the oppressors a taste of their own medicine, but doing so validates those toxic values and keeps them afloat. Ask yourself: are you really overturning the broken systems that created Gamergate and allow them to spread suffering, or are you just co-opting them for your own benefit? Do you want to win the battle, or do you want to win the war?
If your opponents’ philosophies are really so flimsy and abhorrent, attack those. Going on irrelevant tangents just distracts from the real issue, which only works to their benefit.
(And can I just say it’s really weird in particular to do this over a medium where you can’t even see the other person’s appearance? Even if beauty = goodness was valid, using it is pure supposition here. That just strikes me as incredibly silly.)
And why does being slovenly and unkempt have any relevance to what you’re arguing?
Because it arose as a way of sniping at the sort of men who complain women are superficial for ignoring their great personality, even though they were only interested in hot women who put reasonable to major work into that look. “Neckbeard” is shorthand for “another guy is whining he can’t get laid because he believes he’s owed attractive women without putting in any effort on his side”. It isn’t a simple as just “let’s try to make men neurotic about their appearance in revenge, mwahahaha”, but a slur that highlights the discrepancy in both the larger culture and the subculture they hail from.
(Cleanliness has stuff going for it beyond just cultural inertia, also.)
I can see the basic idea that we should all aim for a higher level of discourse, but I think you’re being alarmist about this.
Eh, I’m with Wright on this one. If the best way you can come up with to attack your opponent’s point of view is to go after their appearance, I’d say it’s best to rethink your aguments.
Neckbeard is a state of mind. If the target does have the tragic disease of lacking fucks to give for shaving properly, that’s just bonus damage.
What happens when your opponent’s POV is already tangled up appearance, though? Like I said, it’s not an all-men target but one for groups that are usually being hypocritical on this subject, unlike older insults about basement dwelling, fatness and virginity that were aimed at fandom in general.
The neckbeard term has already been diluted in some circles into meaning “guy I don’t like, or talks a lot on the internet about shit I don’t care about”. Granted those circles are basically one step removed from the chans, but people are using it even on men who don’t act like they’re owed all the tail just for being born with a penis.
Hmmm… I was going to say at first I still didn’t consider it very constructive, but now I’m thinking there’s merit in forcing a hypocrite to confront their own beliefs firsthand.
I’ll get back to you on this. :-P For the record, though, I don’t think it would matter if it were a general offense against men. :-)
Gamergate attempted a boycott over a review of Bayonetta 2 where the reviewer said it was an awesomely fun action game but while playing it he kept being put off by the gratuitous T&A the game insisted on thrusting in his face just when he was getting really into it. That sounds to me like exactly the kind of review you say you wouldn’t have a problem with: praises the gameplay, but also points out the gratuitous male gaze that he feels is a serious detriment to his ability to enjoy it. How do you feel about this disconnect between your views and the actions of the Gamergate movement?
If a review doesn’t talk about gameplay, I think the reader can figure out on their own that if they want to know whether the gameplay is fun they should look elsewhere. And contrary to your assertion that gameplay is king, that’s only your assessment of what’s important – plenty of people play video games for their stories or still other aspects and would much rather read reviews about that than about the gameplay. Look at people who enjoy visual novels, for instance – the gameplay is virtually nonexistent, but the stories they tell and the characters they create can clearly appeal to people anyway. Who are you to say all reviews should cater to you instead of them? If you care mostly about gameplay and not really about story or characters, then read reviewers who emphasize the things that are important to you, which as it happens is most game reviewers – don’t complain that there exist some who comment on things you don’t care about.
I quite literally said that story and character development was a close second, and personally I’m on the opinion that almost 100% pure VNs with no interaction other than choices for routes and stuff don’t really count as games as much as being more akin to videos/books and such.
That doesn’t change the fact that “gameplay is what matters most” is your opinion, and one that is not shared by everyone. I, for one, do still consider VNs games, and feel that there are a lot of games for which the story is clearly intended to come first (many jRPGs, for instance). Reviews aren’t objective, and they’re not supposed to be. It’s your responsibility to take biases into account and make an informed decision, not for reviewers to remove their biases for you (which is impossible).
I also think that gameplay is what matters the most, and I still prefer reviews that try to cover all of a game’s aspects, since that additional information can (and often does) inform whether I want to buy said game or not.
Hell, all of my dislike for “Castlevania: Symphony of the Night” stems from its plot, not its graphics, music or gameplay (all of which are top-notch).
Really, the idea that reviews shouldn’t cover “subjective” issues is entirely ludicrous.
I just don’t understand like, semantically, how a review could be “objective.” It’s really bothering me linguistically that this is a thing that’s being argued. It’s like someone arguing that when you mean “figuratively” is the best time to use “literally.” /ninjacomment
By “things you don’t care about” I meant things like sexism (apparently), not story and character development in general.
And even dismissing VNs with little or no interaction, there are still plenty of people for whom gameplay only matters insofar as it doesn’t prevent them from enjoying the story. Look at people who watch commentary-less Let’s Plays of a game instead of playing it themselves, because they want to experience the story of the game but don’t mind not experiencing the gameplay at all. Clearly gameplay isn’t the most important aspect of a game to them. Would they want to read reviews that focus only on gameplay?
Act, one of the bloggers here, felt constantly degraded and insulted by the sexism of Bravely Default to the point where she couldn’t stand to play it anymore. Does that aspect not deserve space in her reviews because gameplay is king, even though her basic enjoyment of the gameplay was completely negated by her anger and frustration with the treatment of women? To me at least, that sounds pretty absurd. Gameplay just isn’t most important to everyone, and even when it generally is, problems with other aspects can overshadow good gameplay.
Okay, look. I know you probably don’t believe women are really into video games despite 49% of game sales being to women (hey, moms gotta buy their sons something for Christmas, amirite?), and as such don’t think women’s feelings matter in this situation, but let me say this as clearly as I possibly can:
Being told that you are a subhuman piece of shit over and over really fucking sucks. It is not something you mention in passing and then put aside and go, “But aside from that this game rocked!!!” Having your value and humanity called into question every five fucking minutes is frustrating, humiliating, degrading, and scary. Games that do this to people should be dragged through the mud because they’re horrible for it.
I understand that as a probably-white dude, this is something you literally will never experience. I really do; that’s not sarcasm. But that’s all the more reason to freaking listen to the people who do have to deal with it. Gaming is no longer just about you. Fuck, as far as I’m concerned, it never really was (imagine my shock when, as a kid, I graduated from S/NES to PSX and realized that everyone hated me), but that’s neither here nor there. No one is obligated to only do things that make you feel fuzzy. No one is obligated to only address issues you think are important.
Get over yourself. These are the throes of a dying beast, and your ilk are the only ones sad to see it go.
That’s a completely wrong assumption of your part. I am a WoW raider, my guild has multiple female raiders in our main team as well as the guild leader being one, and I don’t care about a player’s gender or sexuality. Me and my fellow riders are, excuse me for the japanese word used but nakama is the word that would define us best. We were well into some of the current game content last expac, and now that the new raids have opened we don’t plan on falling behind. My most lasting DnD campaigns were with an almost 50/50 gender proportion group. Also, I’m latino fyi, with probably some white blood into the mix but w/ever. PS: I didn’t like Bravely Default, the fight system was terribly annoying and obnoxious for me (I downloaded the demo and deleted it after a couple of fights).
You’re defense here is the equivalent of, “I have a black friend”? Really? What are you looking for me to say? “Oh, well, as long as you don’t actively harass women in WoW and grant them the privilege of your company, support as many violent anti-women groups as you want!”?
Also, I don’t care a damn how you feel about the fight mechanics in Bravely Default, the first line of that review was, “Sexism is not my fucking power fantasy.” I don’t even know how you miss what my issues with that game were.
Look, you sound like you might be really young so I’m trying not to viciously tear into the things you’re saying, but you really need to listen to the things women say about how they’re treated and try to understand why we’re not okay with how things are. Consider for a second how the dominant culture makes women feel, and then ask yourself if you’d like to be treated that way. Do you think women are lying about the sexism and harassment? Why? Do you think they should “just get over it”? Why? I think you haven’t considered these issues very much and are spouting off from a point of ignorance, so educate yourself before trying to get into conversations with people who are affected.
I am a WoW raider, my guild has multiple female raiders in our main team as well as the guild leader being one, and I don’t care about a player’s gender or sexuality
And if your guild also had multiple male raiders who did care a lot about a player’s gender, what would you do?
If one of the female raiders was being harassed by one of the male raiders, who would you side with? Would you kick the male raider out if he wouldn’t stop, or would you ask the female raider to put up with it? If the female raider started fighting back after getting this abuse, would you say that, well, both sides are equally bad and she’s just as much at fault here?
Do all of the female raiders think videogames are currently perfect? Could some of them feel uncomfortable but not talk about it because they worry they’ll be attacked for it? If one of the female raiders did say they disliked X about the game because it was sexist, would you tell them they shouldn’t say that, or support them because they’re your friend?
“Not caring about gender and sexuality” goes beyond allowing people into the clubhouse. You also have to afford them the same protections everyone else gets. What happens right now is that a lot of them are told that sorry, they have to obey clubhouse rules about what they’re allowed to say, and only other people get to make the clubhouse rules.
As someone who, while doesn’t interact in social networks much (other than to see fandom fanarts and stuff), but supports gamergate
While I am baffled by the fact you appear to have just said, “As somehow who has no idea what Gamergate does or who it’s targeting or how, I support Gamergate.”
At any rate, for previous complaints on sexism in gaming, please see
http://dragon-quill.blogspot.com/search/label/assassin%27s%20creed
http://dragon-quill.blogspot.com/search/label/Bionic%20Heart
http://dragon-quill.blogspot.com/search/label/Clock%20of%20Atonement
http://dragon-quill.blogspot.com/search/label/bravely%20default
http://dragon-quill.blogspot.com/search/label/fable%20series
http://dragon-quill.blogspot.com/search/label/Mermaid%20Swamp
http://dragon-quill.blogspot.com/search/label/Planet%20Stronghold
http://dragon-quill.blogspot.com/search/label/Pokemon%20Black%202
http://dragon-quill.blogspot.com/search/label/Pokemon%20Black
http://dragon-quill.blogspot.com/search/label/Pokemon%20Blue
http://dragon-quill.blogspot.com/search/label/Pokemon%20X
http://dragon-quill.blogspot.com/search/label/Pokemon%20X%26Y
http://dragon-quill.blogspot.com/search/label/Re%3A%20Kinder
http://dragon-quill.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20God%20of%20Crawling%20Eyes
http://dragon-quill.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Void
As a side note on why we may seem bitter about this, I personally have never even bothered checking out a game I’d already heard was sexist to see how bad it was. I often go out of my way to avoid things I think might be sexist. And yet look at how often I find it anyway.
I know what Gamergate is about, my lack of interaction means that I don’t normally speak about what I’m thinking, what I meant as interaction was a mutual input and output of information, and since my output was null, I wasn’t really interacting as much as I was observing. Also, I know there is sexism in some games, eg Shirou from F/SN. The fact that he is sexist doesn’t prevent me from liking him, though.
The fact that he is sexist doesn’t prevent me from liking him, though.
I am sincerely glad it didn’t hurt your enjoyment of the game. It does hurt other people’s enjoyment of the game, so unless the fact he was sexist was why you liked him, having him not be sexist would mean you and Act both got to like the character.
http://www.shortpacked.com/comics/2012-12-31-sexybatmanddr.png
Also, try to picture every game you played being like this. Would you be totally okay with that, or would you say that you’d like other options?
Well, after sitting here for a while, I decided to say a bit. Hasn’t information always been biased? I mean, I’ve read about Matthew Brady recently, and those photos of the Civil War? They tended to be propped up or manipulated (true it’s because daguerreotypes take time to process, but propping up a dead body to replicate a battle scene is really pushing it). Or one could bring up Paul Revere making many of the iconic pictures of the Boston Massacre (which turned out to be a lot less vicious than people thought it was). So in a sense objective journalism has not been around for a long time, because there is always a slant, a particular perspective or goal when handing this information to audiences.
Time to get myself in trouble, but can’t we just say both sides of the argument are bad? I mean, yes, fundamentally good intentions, but horrible behavior, while the big corporations are still there. With all the talk about ‘if one can’t fight corruption how can bigger problems be solved’ why not focus the same energy on big issues? There are a lot more ‘bad guys’ out there that need to be focused on.
[but can’t we just say both sides of the argument are bad?]
One of them is threatening to shoot up schools and rape women while one is just asking not to be threatened with murder and rape, so I’m going to say no on that.
Oh I heard the other side has been threatening people also, hence why I said that. I do apologize though; it was what I thought at the moment, and I heard both sides have been harassing the other, which doesn’t sound much different (degrees of harassment do matter, but sometimes I get annoyed and just want all harassment to stop because regardless of degree it still sucks).
I mean, you definitely always get people who are assholes because people, and anyone who harasses someone else under the guise of “anti-GG” (which I’m sure has happened) is terrible, but the key difference is that the GG movement is literally built around harassing women while being “anti-GG” just means you’d like that to stop, please.
Fair enough. Thank you for your response. Man these last two months have been disappointing; so much is going wrong for the minorities.
No prob. Unfortunately sometimes you need bad things to happen to people in order to provoke change. Let’s hope that’s what all this does.
This is a bit of a tangent, but I am kind of worried that the poor behavior and lack of policing on the social justice side is going to lead to a greater backlash against progressivism and set back a lot of good causes in the future. I mean, the “seemingly levelheaded” guy Farla talked about last post has totally snapped by now, but he has gone on record saying “I don’t ‘feel threatened because games are becoming more diverse’, I feel threatened because people have said they wanted me dead.” I think that’s an angle worth considering. While there are always going to be a lot of lost causes who will hate you no matter what, swaying neutrals is very important to any war of words and I fear that the current social justice movement (the tumblr flavor especially) is losing ground on that front. I’ve seen a lot of obsession with unrealistic levels of ideological purity and autoimmune attacks that spiral out of control thanks to tumblr’s format of publicizing everything, potentially weakening or excluding even their own members. You do have to self-police to make sure a movement remains on target, but I think a lot of people have gotten really trigger-happy recently, and in turn there’s been a lot of disillusionment among supporters. I can understand why (marginalized people grow bitter and want to vent/lash out), but I think it is something to be concerned about. One of Gamergate’s big arguments is “Come to the dark side, we’re jerks too but at least we’re honest about it!” That’s working even though it sounds like nonsense to us, and I think internet social justice needs to organize itself better as a movement if it wants the power it needs to create real change.
See, the thing is Gamergate IS on the ebb: the more public faces have been dropping off, infighting and disagreements over the Ferguson debacle have been splintering the core. Heck, just last week, Internet Aristocrat (who successfully proved you can fund a harassment campaign through Patreon) left GG, claiming it had grown “too moderate” and that the movement “had always been about kicking sjws and tumblrettes in the teeth” before bowing out with a cheerfully racist comment.
The only time public figures side with GG is because they’re conservative figures who want to use it to prop themselves up – you’ll notice there’s been less of that recently, too – even if they had earlier decried videogames, particularly the beloved AAA, as the root of social ills as early as the Elliot Rodger shootings of last May. Only one videogame company and two reviewing sites support the movement, and two of the groups are so small they’re obviously doing it for the visibility.
GG’s one public victory that wasn’t about driving the “corrupt interlopers” (by which I mean female indy developers or game writers who are freelance) out of the industry – getting Intel to remove ads from Gamasutra – was undone. The movement is failing.
I guess I’m just not really sure what point you’re trying to make? Like I said, shitty people exist everywhere and will act shitty no matter what. Tumblr has a reputation for being fundamentalist and is also full of 15-year-olds, which is a bad combination. I’m just not sure how, “Well, sometimes people who agree with you act like asses,” is a counterargument to, “Harassment of women in tech needs to stop.” One of those things is a part of being human and one if a widespread problem that ruins people’s lives just because they were born a certain way.
Like, sitting here, there’s nothing I can do about how individuals on tumblr act? I don’t even have a tumblr. If someone here started being a jerk or harassing someone in the midst of a civil conversation under the guise of ~social justice~ I would tell them to stop. But taking my energy away from fighting for equality and safety and turning it to hunting down every idiot who’s ever said something assy on tumblr is just not worthwhile to me.
And, really, it’s *not* working. The media response to this has been hugely in favor of, “Holy shit what’s wrong with these people.” From Cracked to the Onion to Rolling Stone, every single major publication recognizes how ridiculous this is. A lot of loud, pissed of white dudes are trying to shout over them, but it’s not working. They’re trying to shout louder to compensate, but all it’s getting them is more negative press. I don’t really care where some “impartial” white dudes and women with an internalized misogyny problem align themselves. I care about the daughters I might have one day. I care about my friends who just want to be treated equally. I care about my little brother and the messages he gets from the media. Those people are my focus, not the fringe loonies halfway across the internet, and absolutely certainly not the men threatening to oppose me if I don’t placate them.
I’m just not sure how, “Well, sometimes people who agree with you act like asses,” is a counterargument to, “Harassment of women in tech needs to stop.”
Oh, it’s certainly not a counterargument, just some musings on how things could improve.
But thanks. Things seem to be better than I thought. I guess I haven’t been getting very good news on this; tumblr is ablaze with doomsday ravings and confusing arguments so that probably skewed my perception.
I guess my point is just to be a good person and understand the consequences of your words. I think everyone here is already pretty good at that, though.
It’s really about two separate issues.
Tumblr’s SJ is full on W, and this has been known and discussed on fandom’s side for quite a while. It isn’t attacking them any harder than it does other feminists or anything else that gets too close to the insanity black hole.
They’re not an organized movement. There really is no “anti-GG” to point to and say how can you be part of something that acts like that, because “anti-GG” is a bunch of people saying they don’t like Gamergate – it’s ironically the very decentralized no one in charge group of individuals Gamergate claims to be all for.
[They’re not an organized movement.]
This is the point I’ve been trying to get at but I don’t words well. Trying to blame “anti GG” for something is like demanding all people who don’t beat their spouses answer for some random guy doxxing an abuser. Just because you have in common you’re not into wifebeating doesn’t make you part of a “movement,” it’s just the default not-shitty position.
That was a shitty analogy, but you get my point. I definitely don’t get paid to write for a living nope.
Oh, is it time to post funny videos?? My turn!
Now, now, that’s just uncalled-for, Act.
I mean, Monty Python is so much funnier than that dreck that comparing the two is overkill.
For shame.
I am constantly surprised that people can even look at the YouTube thumbnails of these videos without cringing in second-hand embarrassment for this dude. The least you can do if you’re trying to present yourself as the objectively reasonable party exposing feminist corruption is try to make your takedowns not look like a thirteen-year-old’s first attempt at Photoshop. If I were on the other side and thought these videos actually made amazing points, I’d attach hefty “Okay, I know this looks like a parody of teenage YouTubers pretending to know something about politics, but…” disclaimers whenever I posted them.
I am baffled as to what you think posting this accomplishes.
I think you’re supposed to watch a bunch of 30-minute videos that pick at Sarkeesian’s nits, clearly ignoring that her own videos are meant to show a trend and that her getting a couple things wrong doesn’t disprove her point, and be illuminated into the righteousness of their side.
It proves that he’s a bad internet nerd. Only a bad internet nerd would think anyone would watch half an hour of video as a valid argument for anything.
I saw a talk Sarkeesian gave where she mentioned a man had posted dozens of videos attacking her. The bit that really stuck in my head was that one of the videos clocked in at over four hours. Just four hours of this guy rambling about how much he hated her. What’s it like in these people’s heads?
I’d say it’s some sort of escheresque hellscape filled with disembodied breasts shouting mean things. I’d feel sorry for them if it wasn’t an illusion they’re choosing to cling to.
If mainstream games are largely shit, does that make “Gamers” maggots? They do tend to mindlessly consume the things put in front of them, and when they grow up they are incredibly annoying and vomit all over everything they touch.
Search results for ‘they’ in the article: 48. Search results for ‘journalist’: 5.
Okay, so it’s a ‘they vs us’ article that doesn’t even touch the origin of this mess: the fact that videogame journalism is rotten to the core.
It makes a ton of good points, sure, but as far as I’m concerned, they’re all off topic.
Still a good read though. I suppose that doing the best to keep the lead you have is a natural response but, when it starts to hurt others…
Oh God they used pronouns! NOT PRONOUNS!!! Oh shit I just used a pronoun. I just used another one! I keep using them! NOOOOO.
People like you keep the pronounarchy alive.
I went kind of overboard but I starting laughing at my own jokes and then couldn’t stop, and here we are.
I also may be a bit tired.
edit: I still can’t stop laughing at this thread, I think I need to go lie down.
Results for “the”: 167. I think we know who the real enemies are, articles.
“There is a magick word. It powers all magick. Every time it is spoken, magick’s flow gets a tiny push. This word starts with ‘th’ and ends with ‘e’. No word is more common. If you never speak it, magick cannot affect you.”
So English speaking people are the root of all evil?
Given that English was created by mugging other languages in dark alleys for their words, it shouldn’t be a surprise.
That’s a bit unfair. English is more of a Frankenstein’s monster of assorted languages that mugged it in dark alleys.
えいごはやみです。
Gesundheit.
Okay, there’s something I didn’t consider. There are 286 instances of articles, but prepositions are much more varied. There’s 31 mentions of “for” alone, clearly indicating that the article is “for” something, and 26 of “with,” which indicates their willingness to align “with” a certain side (the evil one). Just two prepositions account for more than a fifth of the representation of articles! This insidious use of prepositions will have to be studied further, but it clearly indicates trickery on the part of the author. I’ll report back with more as it comes to light.
Prepositions: the monomorphemic killer.
OH MAN THANK YOU. I now understand what the GamerGate mess is about! I’ve been trying but man, I have been nothing short of confused until I read that. And I agree, the gamerGate hashtag can stuff it. People have different tastes, and if a game has something triggering in it, the public deserves to know, no matter who’s publishing the game.
…You’re just the same person under a different name, aren’t you?
Yup.
I am actually not sure that person pretends otherwise. Melissa -> Ellis is pretty obvious.
So maybe it’s just a re-branding.
Or they just think we’re idiots. :-D
You realize no one’s actually watching the videos here, right?
I am fairly sure it’s here for other Gamergaters so they could get their fix without switching tabs.
As terrible of an idea as this is I may as well chime in. Gamergate is complicated, and it’s very hard to discuss it without fueling the narratives that support the many bad actors involved in this twitstorm.
The first thing is that it’s not actually about ethics in games journalism. There are things people under the #hashtag point out that I can see people being legitimately upset about, but nothing remotely worth this much nonsense.
The actually reason we are still talking about this three months after the fact it is that a bunch of “game journalism” websites all ran articles condemning not just everyone who was upset about the non-controversy but pretty much anyone who wore the label gamer in extremely strong terms. Given the original reason people were upset is that they felt games journalism didn’t represent them but rather some secretive clique opposed to there interests, what looked like a coordinated smear campaign against them personally went over exactly as well as you’d expect. (gamers as a class of people don’t really do outrage well)
This is the point where the conservative movement gets involved. The usually suspects realized a war between “gamers” and “social justice warriors” is hells rad for their overall cause of fighting movements against social inequality. So that’s how they famed the issue.
Then of course this whole thing spilled onto twitter, and the esuing twitstorm became it’s own justification. Lot’s of otherwise reasonable people got dragged in under the #hashtag, often because the first they heard of the controversy was someone in the games journalism industry telling them to drop dead. Then suddenly a movement that shouldn’t have had legitimate grievances suddenly gained them when a bunch of otherwise inoffensive people got harassed and doxxed for supporting Gamergate
Of course the people who lost hard in this were the people in the gamer community who happened to actually be minorities. Since suddenly the people who should by all rights be supporting them were suddenly denying that they exist while claiming to speak for them. Which led to the #notyoursheild #hashtag. Which in a truly excellent stroke of irony has further empowered the bad actors in all this by giving them ready made human shields to hid behind.
Basically the short of it is that #gamergate is actually about hostage taking. So It’s really important that we not shoot the hostages because it epowers the efforts of people who want to discredit ideas I happen to like, such as feminism and social justice
The actually reason we are still talking about this three months after the fact it is that a bunch of “game journalism” websites all ran articles condemning not just everyone who was upset about the non-controversy but pretty much anyone who wore the label gamer in extremely strong terms.
Which proves the point. The parts of Gamergate that aren’t pure misogyny have been “wait, you’re doing something other than exclusively catering to me I AM BEING OPPRESSED I MUST DESTROY EVERYONE ELSE TO STOP THIS FROM EVER HAPPENING AGAIN!!!” The fact gamers can’t handle this sort of thing like pretty much any other group can is why people call them entitled babies. If people are willing to support this incredible level of bigotry on the basis someone wrote an article critical of a group they’re in and treat it on the level of being shot, then fuck them. They’re not hostages, they’re supporters.
Anyone who throws this level of tantrum over articles not saying a widespread movement obviously doesn’t reflect on gamers as a whole proves that it absolutely does.
Here’s the problem though, not acknowledging the moderate voices in the movement is partially what keeps this thing going and what keeps the conversation toxic.
Talking about the bad actors in the movement and pretending the moderates in the movement don’t exist hasn’t worked, it has only made the real bad guys in this more powerful.
No.
There’s a difference between “more moderate than” and “moderate”.
The people who are not threatening to shoot random college women to teach feminists that they’re not oppressed are more moderate than the people who are threatening that.
The people who decided getting offended an article pointing out the fact their hobby is a pit of misogynist vipers is a bigger deal than threatening to shoot random college women are not actually moderate.
Some people may decide that we are so desperate for anything to make the threats and hate and doxing stop that it’s worth it to coddle self-centered, misogynist entitled babies like that and tell them that no, their constant passive support and willingness to step that up to active support the moment anyone suggests they’re less than paragons of virtue doesn’t make them part of this at all, and that they don’t spit on every women they pass means they deserve so many, many cookies and Not Sexist badges.
Luckily, I don’t involve myself in gamer communities so I only have to deal with the self-centered misogynist entitled babies sometimes and can say that no, fuck those people and the pony they put stilts on.
Here’s the problem I am involved in gamer communities, so I sort of resent that you think what you’ve read on the internet trumps my personal experience.
My primary concern is getting the internet misogyny brigade out of my backyard and making the gaming communities more friendly towards women, and as far is I can tell nothing has hurt my cause more than backlash against gamergate. Gamergate may be boosting the signal of female gamers for all the wrong reasons but that’s way better than erasing their existence when not outright harassing them.
I’ve long stopped caring about who right in all this. I just want the nightmare to end. Using the internet misogyny brigade as a pretext to attack anyone who identifies as a gamer is not helping.
We need to realize why this nonsense has escalated far beyond anything reasonable. Because it’s happening on twitter. Someone using #Gamergate says something misogynistic you better believe that it’s going to be retweeted everywhere, and not by Gamergate supporters but by people who are anti-GG. Same thing whenever someone on the anti-side calls for genocide against gamers. All this outrage and rallying to the flag only serves to empower the voices everyone involved would rather see silent.
To be honest I don’t know what the hell to do about it. “We must do something about this toxic feedback loop on social media that is hurting everyone involved” isn’t nearly as trendy of a narrative as “we must fight the horrible gamer misogynists” or “we must fight the corrupt gaming press which uses feminism as a shield”
Here’s the problem I am involved in gamer communities, so I sort of resent that you think what you’ve read on the internet trumps my personal experience.
What I’ve read on the internet are gamer communities, which is the reason I’ve never been involved in them despite playing videogames for most of my life. I don’t think they’re misogynist because someone else told me.
My primary concern is getting the internet misogyny brigade out of my backyard and making the gaming communities more friendly towards women, and as far is I can tell nothing has hurt my cause more than backlash against gamergate.
“No no, see, when you say you don’t like them insulting you, they start hurting you and when you say you don’t like them hurting you, they start killing you! So really you’re the ones making horrible things happen, and if you just stop provoking them by objecting to them doing horrible things, things will get better! Don’t you want things to get better? You’re the real problem! YOU’RE THE ONES HURTING WOMEN BY ASKING FOR BETTER TREATMENT AND FORCING THEM TO HURT WOMEN IN RETALIATION!!!”
Gamergate may be boosting the signal of female gamers for all the wrong reasons but that’s way better than erasing their existence when not outright harassing them.
You know, for someone who’s supposedly been involved in gaming communities you’re sure fucking dim to think that letting women talk so long as they read the exact script they were handed and then shut up again is some new innovation there. But then, you’re also pretty fucking dim if you missed the part where they regularly create fake accounts to say whatever they want, so at least you’re consistent here.
Also, did you not realize you just agreed gaming communities don’t let women speak? Because if they’re not shitpiles of misogyny that hate women speaking, there’d be no big deal to make of letting a couple women say they support the group.
But right, right, obviously the movement trying to stop a woman from posting youtube videos or speaking in public is the one that champions woman’s voices!
I’ve long stopped caring about who right in all this. I just want the nightmare to end.
And by that, you mean the people objecting to death threats should shut up, rather than that maybe the people sending death threats and their cheerleading squad should shut up.
But hey, hearing people say gamers are behaving badly is so upsetting. That’s exactly like having hundreds of people telling you to get raped to death because you said something about videogames. Exactly like it! So who cares which side “started it” and which side “threatened school shootings” and which side “is technically not going to fucking stop until they get what they want through terrorism”? Who cares! What matters is it’s sad people are arguing about who’s wrong. Therefore the other side should shut up, because who knows or cares who’s to blame, so the other side needs to shut up.
I mean, sure, technically this whole thing would stop if Gamergate stopped, but why ask them to stop when who knows who’s wrong, really.
And the evil anti-GG organization shutting up is such a great idea, because everyone knows Gamergate only appeared in response to the hatred aimed at Gamergate and not for some sort of other goal or purpose.
“We must do something about this toxic feedback loop on social media that is hurting everyone involved” isn’t nearly as trendy of a narrative as “we must fight the horrible gamer misogynists” or “we must fight the corrupt gaming press which uses feminism as a shield”
In conclusion, just what the fuck is wrong with you.
What the fuck is wrong with you? You don’t quote people posts that dishonsetly by accident that’s for sure.
Once again,
“We need to realize why this nonsense has escalated far beyond anything reasonable. Because it’s happening on twitter. Someone using #Gamergate says something misogynistic you better believe that it’s going to be retweeted everywhere, and not by Gamergate supporters but by people who are anti-GG. Same thing whenever someone on the anti-side calls for genocide against gamers. All this outrage and rallying to the flag only serves to empower the voices everyone involved would rather see silent.”
That’s why we are still talking about this months later. Spewing more bile does not solve the problem, it only means there’s more bile. Of course neither side is fully aware of the bile on there side only the instances of harassment and vitriol directed at their side lovingly preserved and repackaged in order to rally them to the flag.
While I agree there is a whole lot of bile spewed by people from both sides, when one side says “Gamers are a bunch of mysoginistic jerks” and the other says “These women should be raped until they learn their place”, the “quality” of the bile is different by orders of magnitude.
I mean, assholes are assholes regardless of their ideological statements, but some assholes smell even worse than others, and saying all assholes should just stop spewing crap isn’t the same as wiping.
I’d like to know where the hell you the idea that was even a widely held position. But If we’re judging broadly defined social movements by the actions the actions of the worst possible people involved in the controversy then both sides cap out at “disturbingly vivid death threats” and are thus equally bad.Of course characterizing this flustercluck as having clear sides is pretty dubious at this point. I’m pretty sure the wall of monstrous tweets that both sides like to pass around is 80% trolls.
As far as I’m concerned there’s no “side” in this issue that doesn’t saddle me with people I find abhorrent. My hatred from Breitbart burns far brighter than anything I could ever feel for a bunch of video game bloggers. On the other hand the behavior of the anti-gamergate side has filled me with the indescribable feeling you get when you see people arguing for your treasured causes in the most counterproductive and hateful way possible.
I just can’t buy into the narratives people have used to define this travesty. The idea the the Escapist getting a new ethics policy is a “victory” for misogyny is as laughable as the idea that gawker media getting Itel’s sponsorship back is a “victory” for feminism.
I’d like to know where the hell you the idea that was even a widely held position.
Oh, so it’s a matter of numbers? As long as only, I don’t know, 10% of GamerGate adherents say this kind of awful stuff, it’s all cool? Should we also ignore that the whole thing started out because self-proclaimed “gamers”, for some unfathomable reason, took an unhealthy interest in a female game designer’s sex life? Because that’s what’s truly important in this whole mess, that websites about videogames start adhering to some sort of higher journalistic standards, right? Because games are VERY important, and gaming magazines are also VERY important.
It’s more a matter of evaluating claims based on the validity of those claims rather than by who is the most terrible person you can associate with them. Which is something I feel the need to stand for as a progressive, because “discredit a movement by highlighting the most dubious people within it” is usually a reactionary tactic. So the causes that I like would be better off if noone ever did that.
“The most dubious people” or “the basis of the movement”? Or do you honestly believe GamerGate didn’t have its origins in a bafflingly mysoginistic reaction to some guy whining on the internet about his girlfriend who just happens to be an indie game designer?
Also, let me reiterate that death and rape threats should NEVER be considered acceptable, regardless of ideological affiliations. The reaction to that should never be “Well, they’re assholes, but I agree that [whatever subject is at hand] is important”. I’m honestly baffled something like that even needs to be said.
But people in Gamergate have also gotten equally credible threats of death and rape, your heuristic condemns both sides to the same degree. Why are you supporting people who you consider so unacceptable?
The reason why this nonsense exploded to the point we’re still talking about it months later is that Quinn responded to the bullshit accusations with a media blackout that potentially violated federal law and everyone who complained about it was shouted down in the public square as misogynists.
Here’s the thing: there is no such thing as an “anti-GamerGate” side except in the sense of various people criticizing the movement. GamerGate, on the other hand, is an actual ideological collective founded by mysoginists.
Or, to put it another way: there’s a VAST difference between saying “I care about gaming magazines adhering to higher journalistic standards” and “I’m aligned with GamerGate”. With one, you’re stating an ideology which just happens to coincide with GamerGate’s own SUPPOSED ideology; with the other, you’re deliberately colluding with mysoginistic assholes.
And oh my God, will you people just educate yourselves and stop whining about your God-given right to discuss a woman’s sexual life?! Seriously, “media blackout that potentially violated federal law”? Here, check this site out about your precious “media blackout”: http://geekparty.com/zoe-quinn-the-quinnspiracy-and-the-media-blackout-that-never-actually-happened/
All of this mess is kept alive by a bunch of pretentious, entitled brats who think they’re owed something by the world and lash out in the most horrific ways after finding out that no, you have to earn things first, and even then there’s no guarantee you’ll get what you want.
Your article doesn’t mention the “media blackout” that people are actually upset about. Which is the mass purge on reddit along with takedowns of content on several smaller sites. The part where this is supposedly violated federal law is that a false DMCA was filed in Zoe Quinn’s name.
You know what screw you for making me take the asshole side in this because assholes do have the right to discuss a women’s sexual life on the internet. They can even be as disgusting and abhorrent as they want about it as long as they aren’t actually harassing anyone or calling for illegal action. Freedom of Speech can’t always be all sunshine and puppies, sometimes it requires allowing speech you absolutely detest.
Which is once again why this nonsense spiraled out of control. “Freedom of Speech” on the internet is far more a normative thing than it is actually enforced by law. Which is why even the appearance of censorship whips the internet mod into a frenzy. Because that fact that people get upset about these things is the what keeps these norms in existence.
Oh, you fucking coward. You CHOSE to take the side of assholes, just like you chose to put your personal convenience above the fact they threatened others with rape and death (“I just want this whole thing to stop”, weren’t those your words? Yeah, why can’t the people threatened just shut up and let it go, it would be so much more convenient for you!).
“Freedom of speech” does not supersede personal responsibility in any way, you cowardly, entitled brat.
The people who were threatened should contact the police not rally up a twitter mob. Giving that kind of asshole publicity just encourages more assholes because that’s what they want, that’s their goal. Outrage, grief, and attention.
I didn’t chose the gamergate side, almost every bad thing I’ve ever said about the opposition applies in equally strong terms to gamergate itself. Only worse because they don’t even have the excuse of noble cause. “Kotaku delenda est” was always a stupid battlecry and everyone still complaining about that shit should shut the hell up.
Hell I wish the games press really was secretly colluding to promote progressive causes in video games culture. Maybe then they would actually be good at it. If they actually were the catastrophe would have never happened.
Hell I wish the games press really was secretly colluding to promote progressive causes in video games culture. Maybe then they would actually be good at it. If they actually were the catastrophe would have never happened.
Yeah it’s not like the continual shitstorm that birthed this was explicitly and solely caused by people thinking any mention of females and games at the same time was the press being corrupt. It’s totally the press’ fault for not being better and not the fact gamers react to every improvement by throwing a tantrum at the idea women are anything more than walking vaginas.
You know I can try to unpack that, but honestly it sort of boggles my mind that anyone can believe that let alone write it. It illustrates so deep a chasm between our understandings of reality that I wonder if my aim to communicate with you via disqus comments was simple folly.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that these sorts of happen because of some faceless masses of evil people. I happen to disagree with this assessment of the world. In fact I am extremely wary of people using that sort of model to argue for any cause no matter how noble. I find seeing problems as structural makes finding solutions both easier and more humane.
“The people who were threatened should contact the police not rally up a twitter mob.”
So hey, when was the last time a woman told the cops “I’ve been threatened with rape!” and they actually believed her? Oh, right, never. They always go “what were you wearing?” and “Oh, you must have provoked them somehow.” They even do that when she has been raped and they have evidence for it!
So no, a twitter mob is actually more likely to protect the woman, in this case.
When’s the last time the fire brigade actually showed up when we called them? Clearly the only thing to do is pour more gasoline on the bonfire.
Unless you can actually find anonymous death threat guy starting a twitter mob just gives him what he wants, A lot of people are outraged and upset and maybe more people will follow in the first guys footsteps since his plan was such a stunning success,
“Oh, this is but one part of a systemic problem? Just give up entirely! Stop trying to solve problems! Stop! WHY WON’T YOU STOP TRYING TO FIX THINGS, DON’T YOU KNOW THAT’S THE ONLY WAY TO FIX THINGS????”
At least the fire brigade still tries to save everyone, and not tell you “oh you must have provoked the fire somehow” and “it’s your fault, you started it.”
And the death threats are hardly anonymous. Many of them come with usernames attached. Twitter doesn’t work like tumblr.
The accounts that make the death threats tend to be ones created for that purpose and then quickly abandoned when they’re banned. It’s not strict anonymity but it’s essentially the same thing.
The solution to our arson problem is to start catching the people throwing matches, it’s ultimately their fault and they do it because the don’t believe that they will be punished for it. In the interim though it might be prudent to avoid throwing gasoline on the fires. The arsonists goal is as large a blaze as possible, let’s not assist them in this.
You keep clinging to your analogy. While I agree that a higher level of discourse is something to strive for, saying that fighting back does nothing but pour oil on the fire is a gross oversimplification. Keeping their resistance vocal and public may feed the trolls, but it also keeps this horror in the public eye. It makes people sit up and pay attention to an issue society has been turning a blind eye to for too long. It’s not completely pointless; certainly it’s not any less effective than ignoring it while attempting quiet little solutions that probably won’t do anything. And the two things aren’t mutually exclusive; writing a letter to the FBI might do something, but the chances are improved if they’ve been seeing the bonfire and how serious it’s gotten. Publicity doesn’t just benefit trolls.
Yeah everyone involved in this wants publicity. Unfortunately the incentive structures are broken, thus gamergate.
If something about games journalism bothers you, you can just write a blog post about it and noone will care. Or you can post about it under the #hashtag. Then someone will flame you for being a misogynist, other people will flame those people, and ultimately your post will have gotten way more publicity than it otherwise would. (This is basically the only reason non-crazy people existed in gamergate)
Likewise if you just write a post about how harassment in games culture is terrible people will just agree with you and go on with their lives. If you instead write a piece about how harassment in games culture proves that gamers are double nazis and need to be ended, your message is will be spread across the internet by angry gamers.
People are optimizing for publicity and unfortunately that means civility and effective rhetoric are getting thrown under the bus.
Now the solution that people have tried is to use twitter outrage to impose social punishments on people identifying with gamergate. This has not been very successful, hence why we are talking about this months later.
(This is basically the only reason non-crazy people existed in gamergate)
Oh, well, they just wanted publicity for their own beliefs, that makes it a-ok that they chose to side with mysoginistic jerks!
Likewise if you just write a post about how harassment in games culture is terrible people will just agree with you and go on with their lives.
…Have you ever actually done that? Written a post about how harassment in gaming culture is terrible? Because I have, and let me tell you, most of the commenters did not agree with me; the responses were mostly in the range of “Not another post about Sarkeesian!”, “Well, at least it wasn’t about Quinn”, “Seriously, how is this post relevant at all?”, “Nearly-naked chicks with big tits sell games, it’s all about the money!” and “If girls don’t like those kinds of games, that’s their problem, they should just play girly games!”.
See, you probably just didn’t write the post the right way. You know, by opening saying that OF COURSE anything the gamer reader does don’t count as harassment, OF COURSE Sarkeesian in particular is a lying liar who lies and so that harassment doesn’t exist, OF COURSE it’s not harassment to yell at fake geek girls demanding games cater to their stupid girl feelings, and OF COURSE the PC police need to stop calling harmless jokes harassment and OF COURSE it happens to everybody equally and not minority groups more. But actual harassment is bad and shouldn’t happen. So really, aren’t people’s reactions really all your fault?
I bet Marisa has written tons of posts like that which everyone agreed with and weren’t controversial at all. We could learn so much about gaining social capital!
Did anyone actually say they supported the harassment? The thing that’s controversial not “is harassment bad” but “what is appropriate response”.
Their response was “there is no issue”. Yours is “stop complaining”.
Hm, not much difference, there.
No my response is “giving attention to the assholes making death threats only encourages them”. You deal with trolling by reporting and ignoring.
Trolling is one thing, death threats are quite another. Not everyone is just doing this for publicity, some are purposefully trying to terrorize and silence people. Silencing yourself is giving them exactly what they want; feeding the trolls, as you would say.
I never suggested people silence themselves. People should do exactly what they were going to do anyway without giving the assholes the acknowledgment they desire.
I never suggested people silence themselves.
Uh…
You deal with trolling by reporting and ignoring.
By implication, I assume this means you think people should not respond directly – or in other words, silence themselves. You also criticize “twitter mobs” and other means of bringing harassment into the public eye. You want people to stop feeding the trolls – that means ignoring them, bearing the death threats in silence, and trying to deal with it privately by working inside the system, if at all. You are advocating that victims silence themselves while the perpetrators are given free reign to say whatever they want on the off chance that they’ll get silence themselves for us. But yes, I’m sure they’ll get bored of harassing women eventually, it’s not like this is something the community has kept up for years with no incentive. Nope, just a passing fad.
People should do exactly what they were going to do anyway without giving the assholes the acknowledgment they desire.
And this… just… what? I can’t even parse this. Do you not realize how you are contradicting yourself within the same sentence now? I’m starting to believe you really are a troll, in which case congratulations, this has been some impressive nonsense.
The problem is you can’t silence anonymous assholes with a twitter mob. Actual law enforcement agencies discourage people from publicizing this sort of thing because it does not help.
This makes perfect sense because as we know, groups of people on the internet have never accomplished things.
The amount of meaningless jargon you’re using is really bizarre– “twitter mob,” “social capital,” “rhetoric” (the last one isn’t meaningless, but you’re completely misusing it). Where are you regurgitating all this from, I wonder.
Where are you regurgitating all this from, I wonder.
I suspect Kazerad. He’s a psychology hobbyist who wrote a lot of essays on Gamergate that sound suspiciously similar to this person’s posts.
Yeah, it sounds pretty familiar. But maybe it’s just that this is how a bunch of Gamergate talks, and it’s only we’re most familiar with it through him?
To be honest I’ve pretty much been writing off the cuff. Still If I have to cite someone it would probably be David Auerbach. I’d suggest reading his article on how to end gamergate.
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/10/how_to_end_gamergate_a_divide_and_conquer_plan.html
I recently spoke to a number of vocally anti-Gamergate people and asked them how they planned to end Gamergate. Nobody knew. The standard reply was, “Gamergate should stop harassing people,” which is not an answer.
Well, I guess now I see where you’re getting the whole “the people against Gamergate are the ones to hold accountable for everything Gamergate does”. Responsibility is literally for other people.
There’s a VAST difference between “throwing gasoline on the fire” and crying out “Fire! Fire!”.
The arsonists goal is as large a blaze as possible, let’s not assist them in this.
So go tell the people cheering for the blaze (GG, remember) to stop fucking cheering, and let’s see if that stops them, not the people getting lit on fire.
And yet you are here telling us to shut up, because only misogynists get free speech and it’s okay to demand everyone else be quiet because we wouldn’t want to get them mad. Just like how apparently the only way to end gaming misogyny is to be quiet little mousies, because god knows that method was working so great until the GG backlash RUINED EVERYTHING how dare we.
If you’re so upset that this is “forcing” you to take the GG side, why don’t you go ask GG (you know, the actual organized movement) to stop and see if they agree with you. It shouldn’t take long before you’ll be “forced” right into supporting the insanest SJWs. Problem solved!
It always perplexes me that whenever I say we might be better off not pouring metaphorical gasoline on the metaphorical bonfire that’s burning down the house people immediately assume I am pro-bonfire.
Ahem.
“No no, see, when you say you don’t like them insulting you, they start hurting you and when you say you don’t like them hurting you, they start killing you! So really you’re the ones making horrible things happen, and if you just stop provoking them by objecting to them doing horrible things, things will get better! Don’t you want things to get better? You’re the real problem! YOU’RE THE ONES HURTING WOMEN BY ASKING FOR BETTER TREATMENT AND FORCING THEM TO HURT WOMEN IN RETALIATION!!!”
I find it interesting that people often say such things when it comes to women’s rights, but probably wouldn’t even think twice about condemning the very same things if the subject were, say, slavery.
I mean, just imagine how it would look like: “Slavery is bad, but you trying to run away or fight against the slavers isn’t helping anything! Stop trying to run away and just hope the slavers stop whipping you and forcing you into back-breaking labour!”
People totally did say that!
But now we all mostly accept slavery is wrong, so it’s “okay maybe the police are a little murdery BUT protesting isn’t helping” instead. Just like we generally accept women can own property.
The fact the people saying STOP STRUGGLING YOU’RE JUST MAKING IT WORSE on every single other point in history were the horrible bigots holding back progress just flies over everyone’s head.
It’s depressingly amazing how little humans have learned from our own History, indeed.
Indeed, remember kids you can never object to activism on grounds of effectiveness or pragmatism, because that makes you just as bad as people who promote oppression.
I have to admit, I’m increasingly curious.
You said you’ve been working on getting misogyny out of gamer communities for a long time. What, exactly, are your effective and pragmatic methods of doing it that objecting to Gamergate is screwing up? Can you link us to anything?
Condemning harassment specifically instead of attacking gamers generally is a good start. Sure posting inflammatory pieces about how gamers are dead get’s people talking, but the signal to noise ratio get’s thrown completely out of wack.
Of all the people involved I’d say the Escapist handled this twitstorm the best. They unambiguously condemned the harassment, made token changes to their ethics policy, and allowed discussion of the issue on their forums under strict moderation. This generated enough social capital, such that pretty much noone cared when a bunch of the articles they posted on the subject were by people who were anti-gg. Unfortunately nothing the Escapist did was controversial so people aren’t really talking about them.
“Women can talk about their oppression all they want! Just not angrily or in a way that blames men and hurts their feelings.”
Internalized misogyny is so freaking depressing.
(Also, for the love of all things holy, stop pluralizing with apostrophes. It’s like being stabbed in the eye.)
(Also also, what the fuck is “social capital” and why do you keep talking about it like it’s at all important. Right now the only way it makes sense is if you’re using it as a euphemism for “positive feefees for the menfolk” but I have no idea where it even comes from.)
What the hell, we’re talking about doing activism here. The point of activism is to get people to change their points of view. If we go into this sort of thing contemptuously dismissing the idea that the feelings of people who don’t already share our views have value we’re going to have a way harder time manipulating them into agreeing with us.
Gah, need to stop posting at 11pm. Night folks
Social capital = Gamergate sort of listens to them so long as they’re repeating what Gamergate just said!
And like anything that can only be gotten by rolling over and doing what Gamergate wants, social capital with Gamergate is the thing we need to care deeply about.
This has been so vague I’m assuming guy calling himself Marisa because it’s so oppressive how feminists ignore everything you say about how they need to shut up when you have a male name even though you’re just being moderate. If nothing else, internalized misogyny should’ve at least given us reference to their own experiences by now to prove it’s not that bad.
Mother of mercy gamergate doesn’t want anything. It’s a hastag that people have been using to signal boost. We need social capital with the non-assholes using the hashtag because we want them to stop doing it.
Once the non-assholes are gone the movement will asshole itself out of existence. However that requires acknowledging that there are people using the hashtag to promote things other than misogyny.
“No.
There’s a difference between “more moderate than” and “moderate”.
The people who are not threatening to shoot random college women to teach feminists that they’re not oppressed are more moderate than the people who are threatening that.
The people who decided getting offended an article pointing out the fact their hobby is a pit of misogynist vipers is a bigger deal than threatening to shoot random college women are not actually moderate.
Some people may decide that we are so desperate for anything to make the threats and hate and doxing stop that it’s worth it to coddle self-centered, misogynist entitled babies like that and tell them that no, their constant passive support and willingness to step that up to active support the moment anyone suggests they’re less than paragons of virtue doesn’t make them part of this at all, and that they don’t spit on every women they pass means they deserve so many, many cookies and Not Sexist badges.
Luckily, I don’t involve myself in gamer communities so I only have to deal with the self-centered misogynist entitled babies sometimes and can say that no, fuck those people and the pony they put stilts on.”
tl dr
THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE I CONDEMN. WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS REPREHENSIBLE AND I REFUSE TO BE THREATENED INTO SAYING OTHERWISE.
However that requires acknowledging that there are people using the hashtag to promote things other than misogyny.
Just because misogynists say they’re not misogynist doesn’t make it fact. For further examples, see your entire posting history here.
It must be very upsetting that when you say, “BUT THIS IS WHAT YOU SHOULD DO AND THINK” for some reason we didn’t drop everything we were doing and obey you. In fact, we’re arguing with you and expecting reasons that have to do with us and not how the fighting makes you personally sad. Very upsetting. So it’ll probably be very upsetting when I go on to say, no, seriously, I fully mean to include you in my condemnation of gamers so stop whining about how the rhetoric is “accidentally” hitting “innocent” gamers.
I am objecting to your rhetoric on the grounds that it isn’t very persuasive. If you disagree with my assessment of your rhetoric please tell me why you believe otherwise.
Like I said, I consider the purpose of activism to persuade people who do not already agree to change their views. Certainly if you set out to offend everyone who does not already share your beliefs you won’t win many converts.
And as should be blindingly obvious, I don’t. It’s as if I get to make decisions too and we don’t just have to sit quietly while you tell us the only thing we get to think!
My goal is to make people who side with misogynists understand that I think they’re scum. That I do not care about how sad they are people judge them as scum for their actions rather than throwing them a good person parade because they can point to even worse scum and say, “But I didn’t do that!”
My goal is to not tolerate people who think terrorism is understandable because wow, it hurts them so much when you point out they’re hurting people.
I’ve noticed you keep doing this thing where you interpret any objection to your rhetoric as an oppressive demand to be silent. This makes having an honest dialog about said rhetoric very difficult.
Also how does telling faceless people of the internet that you think they are scum them help anyone? That was sort of my initial point gamergate feeds on your outrage. This is the internet the more you hate on something here the stronger it gets.
Anyway we’re done here, I don’t see any constructive dialog incoming.
You said, My primary concern is getting the internet misogyny brigade out of my backyard and making the gaming communities more friendly towards women
And I asked, What, exactly, are your effective and pragmatic methods of doing it that objecting to Gamergate is screwing up? Can you link us to anything?
Because so far, you’ve just been sounding like a concern troll whose idea of activism is getting people opposing Gamergate to shut up and let them do what they want.
So what did you ever do to make gaming communities more friendly to women before this, and how is Gamergate currently derailing all your wonderful activism?
Because supposedly you care about misogyny in gaming communities, so you can’t possibly mean that the misogyny has spontaneously generated post-Gamergate. Therefore you must have something, anything at all, that doesn’t have to do with how we should hug it out with the movement and predates the current shitstorm.
Well?
The internet misogyny brigade is in my backyard because the outrage cycle allows them to be assholes under a veil of legitimacy. You don’t see how under these conditions I might have a problem with the outrage cycle too.
“Because supposedly you care about misogyny in gaming communities, so you can’t possibly mean that the misogyny has spontaneously generated post-Gamergate. Therefore you must have something, anything at all, that doesn’t have to do with how we should hug it out with the movement and predates the current shitstorm.
Well?”
The message I try to send is “we should aim for a more inclusive gamer community”. It is oddly enough not a very controversial messaged no one has ever disagreed with it at (least until gamergate happened).
From the perspective of a lot of people involved it seemed like a bunch of otherwise progressive games bloggers took the wrong side in this issue. They loudly defined “gamer” as exclusively “white, straight, and male” followed by a whole host of pejoratives. A lot of people objected to this whole “let’s erase the minority presence in this community in order to better demonize it” thing.
The message I try to send is “we should aim for a more inclusive gamer community”. It is oddly enough not a very controversial messaged no one has ever disagreed with it at (least until gamergate happened).
Jesus h christ so no, your actual definition of activism is “something no one disagrees with and isn’t controversal”.
Seriously. Links.
No, equating “sitting down and shutting up” with “effective pragmatism” is what makes you nearly as bad as the people who promote oppression.
What the hell noone has killed anyone over this, let’s keep things in perspective here we’re dealing with internet trolls not double Hitler.
I never said that we should do nothing, I said we should do different things because the things we are doing seem counter productive. Instead of pouring more vitriol onto the internet, we could maybe muster up a letter writing campaign asking the FBI to take death threats against internet feminists more seriously.
we could maybe muster up a letter writing campaign asking the FBI to take death threats against internet feminists more seriously.
What part of systemic inequality are you confused about?
You know the FBI really is investigating the threats against Ms. Sarkeesian. I find it difficult to believe this is not an achievable goal.
So you’re saying it’s wrong to think writing letters to the FBI is highly unlikely to change anything anything because it is, in fact, completely impossible it’d change anything.
That sure makes it sound like a better use of our time.
Out of curiosity, why did the FBI decide to investigate this? Was it that there was a previous letter-writing storm, or was it connected to the extreme publicity generated by the backlash against Gamergate?
I’m saying that if we get a bunch of people to ask the FBI to look into instances of harassment they’ll probably do it.
Also I feel like our harassment response protocol is better off without “have vitriolic internet argument that drags on for months, destroys social capital, and involves a whole bunch of people getting harassed and doxxed.” This is the sort of thing we want to avoid.
Two things:
1) No one has the right to discuss a woman’s sexual life to anyone else unless she has 100% agreed to it. Seriously, how would you feel if one day you woke up and found that your sex life is all what the biggest websites have been talking about without your knowledge or consent? It’s a breach of privacy. Boyfriends who talk about their girlfriends’ and ex-girlfriends’ sex lives are considered to be the most worst. Why should strangers be held less accountable?
2) Freedom of Speech is allowed until it assaults someone’s human/unalienable rights. Then it’s slander and that’s illegal in the US. If it’s written, then it’s libel and you can get jail time! So no, Freedom of speech has nothing to do with this. Everything the “assholes,” as you so call them, are doing is illegal. Threats to someone’s life (i.e. rape, murder, torture) are illegal any way you look at it, and that’s the law, if not common sense.