This has gone beyond ridiculous. They are terrorizing these women simply because they are women who game, discuss gaming, or develop games.
With the feds listening to everything we say and watching everything we do, you'd think these people would have been caught by now*.
LINK (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/15/gamergate-feminist-video-game-critic-anita-sarkeesian-cancels-utah-lecture-after-threat-citing-police-inability-to-prevent-concealed-weapons-at-event/)
QuoteFeminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian was forced to cancel a talk that would have taken place tonight at Utah State University after the university received a terror threat from someone claiming they would commit "the deadliest school shooting in American history" if Sarkeesian gave her lecture.
The threat, e-mailed to Utah State staff by someone purporting to be a student, stated, "I have at my disposal a semi-automatic rifle, multiple pistols, and a collection of pipe bombs," according to the Standard Examiner. The letter-writer warned of an attack like the Montreal massacre targeting lecture attendees, faculty, staff and the university's women's center and claimed university efforts to step up security would be fruitless.
"One way or another, I'm going to make sure they die," the letter-writer claimed.
Sarkeesian is a blogger and critic who founded the Web site Feminist Frequency, where she discusses sexist and misogynistic tropes in video games and critiques gamer culture. As escalating threats of death and rape marked Sarkeesian's tenure as a video game vlogger, she's been adamant about not allowing them to silence her.
The Utah State threat is just the latest one in the ongoing saga of Gamergate, an increasingly nasty culture war between video-game crtics like Sarkeesian and a mob of gamers. (See this post by the Post's Caitlin Dewey for more.) Sarkeesian isn't the only woman who has received death threats in connection with Gamergate. On Friday, game developer Brianna Wu left her home after alerting police that she received a death threat that included her home address. Zoe Quinn, an independent developer who was the original target of Gamergate, was also forced to leave her home because of death threats. In August, the threats grew so severe that Sarkeesian was forced to flee her home too.
Typically, Sarkeesian does not back out of events because of threats — last month, someone threatened to bomb the Game Developers Choice Awards if they honored Sarkeesian. They proceeded anyway, under caution — and Tuesday night she clarified her reasoning for canceling the event at Utah State.
This instance was different because of Utah's concealed carry law: Anyone in the state, including college students, can carry a concealed weapon as long as they have a permit for the gun.
"To be clear: I didn't cancel my USU talk because of terrorist threats," she tweeted. "I canceled because I didn't feel the security measures were adequate."
According to university spokesman Tim Vitale, the university formulated a security plan when they knew Sarkeesian was coming, prior to her arrival. "We were going to not allow bags in at all," Vitale said. Once the threat was sent, "We added officers, both uniform and undercover, and we were going to empty the room and sweep the room [for bombs]."
However, the university didn't plan to use metal detectors or institute a temporary gun ban restricted to the confines of the lecture space. Utah State is a publicly-funded university.
When Sarkeesian arrived in Utah, campus police Capt. Steve Milne "explained by state law if someone has a legal concealed carry permit, that they were allowed by law to have that," Vitale said. "In the end, it caused her to decide to cancel the event."
The Gamergate crowd responded to news stories reporting Sarkeesian alerted authorities with accusations that she was fabricating threats to serve herself and her message. She wasn't, and law enforcement confirmed they were investigating the threats against Sarkeesian, which prompted the involvement of the FBI.
Wu was also accused of making up the threats against her, which has become a tactic to discredit the very women who are being targeted.
"I am a professional developer," Wu told Kotaku. "The quickest way I could think of to end my career and destroy my credibility would be making something like this up and getting arrested for filing a false police report."
Vitale said Milne was overwhelmed Tuesday coordinating with the Logan, Utah, police force, as well as the FBI's cyberterrorism task force and behavioral analysis unit, to track down the source of the threat and assess the probability the perpetrator would act on it.
"I've been here 17 years and I can't remember anything in this realm before," Vitale said. "We've never seen anything like this before. Logan, Utah, is a very bucolic valley. It's a quiet, peaceful place to be. We're not used to these kind of pointed and ugly threats. We don't have our heads in the sand about violence, but this is new."
*Before anyone jumps up and down and screams hyperbole, I'm joking. I know that's not what's going on. :rolleyes:
No idea who this gal is but it smells like a hoax.
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 09:24:54 AM
No idea who this gal is but it smells like a hoax.
QuoteThe Utah State threat is just the latest one in the ongoing saga of Gamergate, an increasingly nasty culture war between video-game critics like Sarkeesian and a mob of gamers. (See this post by the Post's Caitlin Dewey for more.) Sarkeesian isn't the only woman who has received death threats in connection with Gamergate. On Friday, game developer Brianna Wu left her home after alerting police that she received a death threat that included her home address. Zoe Quinn, an independent developer who was the original target of Gamergate, was also forced to leave her home because of death threats. In August, the threats grew so severe that Sarkeesian was forced to flee her home too.
That's a lot of unrelated people who are participating in a hoax. I guess possible but is "gamergate" important enough for people to want to do that?
Oh wait is gamergate just the name for all of these recent threats/online attacks?
This whole thing has gone beyond silly. Death threats are nothing new on the internet, but when you target people at their home adress, it denotates more seriousness in the intent.
And for what? Because a woman is concerned about the treatment of women in video games?
Gee, talk about giving us gamers a good rep. These idiots are just confirming the stereotype of immature young male gamers who commit violent crimes.
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2014, 09:29:45 AM
Oh wait is gamergate just the name for all of these recent threats/online attacks?
yes.
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 09:24:54 AM
No idea who this gal is but it smells like a hoax.
no, it ain't, sadly, and it's not only one gal and one event.
Sounds like "gamergate" is a 'about' group of particularly nasty and vile trolls who have found the absolute perfect victims (from their perspective): feminist computer game theorists.
Quote from: Malthus on October 15, 2014, 09:43:03 AM
Sounds like "gamergate" is a 'about' group of particularly nasty and vile trolls who have found the absolute perfect victims (from their perspective): feminist computer game theorists.
The Jew says with a sigh of relief.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2014, 09:51:02 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 15, 2014, 09:43:03 AM
Sounds like "gamergate" is a 'about' group of particularly nasty and vile trolls who have found the absolute perfect victims (from their perspective): feminist computer game theorists.
The Jew says with a sigh of relief.
:lol:
I'd be a lot less likely to give the trolls the public attention they clearly crave, though.
Wow, that's quite some nastiness being shown there; no person deserves that, irrespective of their views.
Indeed people expressing unpopular or contrary views are important both for exercising our common rights and in moving/directing public discourse.
Quote from: mongers on October 15, 2014, 10:21:22 AM
Wow, that's quite some nastiness being shown there; no person deserves that, irrespective of their views.
Indeed people expressing unpopular or contrary views are important both for exercising our common rights and in moving/directing public discourse.
STFU
Gamergate is the brilliant idea that ethnics and morals on the internet should be policed by an unaccountable and irresponsible mob. And they wonder why it spirals out of control.
"goes off the deep end" implies it was ever a rational "movement" to begin with.
It is not. It's been batshit from day one.
Quote from: Malthus on October 15, 2014, 09:43:03 AM
Sounds like "gamergate" is a 'about' group of particularly nasty and vile trolls who have found the absolute perfect victims (from their perspective): feminist computer game theorists.
Eh there are people who have better motives who do think "gaming journalists" (aka: bloggers) should be held to an ethical standard. Of course that is impossible. Even so, their solution is possibly the worst one imaginable. People are being convicted of ethics violations without the ability to fairly defend themselves and mobs of idiots are trying to punish them...and choosing the ones who most upset them emotionally. It is kind of sad and funny to see them trying to defend this predictable train wreck. It is not so funny to see mob justice at work though.
Quote"I am a professional developer," Wu told Kotaku. "The quickest way I could think of to end my career and destroy my credibility would be making something like this up and getting arrested for filing a false police report."
But it's OK because you're on LinkedIn.
Quote from: mongers on October 15, 2014, 10:21:22 AM
Wow, that's quite some nastiness being shown there; no person deserves that, irrespective of their views.
Angry mobs are not really about fair and just punishments. You are either one of the righteous are you will be destroyed. I read a lot about the French Revolution so believe my I know :P
Quote from: Valmy on October 15, 2014, 10:36:18 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 15, 2014, 09:43:03 AM
Sounds like "gamergate" is a 'about' group of particularly nasty and vile trolls who have found the absolute perfect victims (from their perspective): feminist computer game theorists.
Eh there are people who have better motives who do think "gaming journalists" (aka: bloggers) should be held to an ethical standard. Of course that is impossible. Even so, their solution is possibly the worst one imaginable. People are being convicted of ethics violations without the ability to fairly defend themselves and mobs of idiots are trying to punish them...and choosing the ones who most upset them emotionally. It is kind of sad and funny to see them trying to defend this predictable train wreck. It is not so funny to see mob justice at work though.
Some kerfuffle about gamer journalists may be how this started, but by now it seems to me it is mostly continuing because some pretty nasty trolls are getting a kick out of it.
Mind you, that was probably true for most forms of vigilantism ... ;)
Quote from: Malthus on October 15, 2014, 10:42:22 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 15, 2014, 10:36:18 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 15, 2014, 09:43:03 AM
Sounds like "gamergate" is a 'about' group of particularly nasty and vile trolls who have found the absolute perfect victims (from their perspective): feminist computer game theorists.
Eh there are people who have better motives who do think "gaming journalists" (aka: bloggers) should be held to an ethical standard. Of course that is impossible. Even so, their solution is possibly the worst one imaginable. People are being convicted of ethics violations without the ability to fairly defend themselves and mobs of idiots are trying to punish them...and choosing the ones who most upset them emotionally. It is kind of sad and funny to see them trying to defend this predictable train wreck. It is not so funny to see mob justice at work though.
Some kerfuffle about gamer journalists may be how this started, but by now it seems to me it is mostly continuing because some pretty nasty trolls are getting a kick out of it.
Mind you, that was probably true for most forms of vigilantism ... ;)
I believe how it started was that one dude got dumped by a girl who is also an indie game developer. He responded like a whiny little bitch by posting allegations that she'd been sleeping with all these other guys, and that it was to get good reviews for her game. Neither of those allegations have been proven true, and the allegations of sex-for-positive-reviews were in fact shown to be untrue (the guy had never actually written a review for her game).
So while in theory there is some sort of "journalism ethics" banner being waved about (though, curiously, nothing about the thoroughly corrupt journalism surrounding AAA games, only stuff related to people who don't agree with the trolls), this whole thing started squarely with misogynistic trolling as far as I can see.
Quote from: Jacob on October 15, 2014, 11:00:00 AM
I believe how it started was that one dude got dumped by a girl who is also an indie game developer. He responded like a whiny little bitch by posting allegations that she'd been sleeping with all these other guys, and that it was to get good reviews for her game. Neither of those allegations have been proven true, and the allegations of sex-for-positive-reviews were in fact shown to be untrue (the guy had never actually written a review for her game).
So while in theory there is some sort of "journalism ethics" banner being waved about (though, curiously, nothing about the thoroughly corrupt journalism surrounding AAA games, only stuff related to people who don't agree with the trolls), this whole thing started squarely with misogynistic trolling as far as I can see.
I believe Quinn admitted to having a relationship with a game reviewer from Kotaku (but, of course, so what - consenting adults and all that), but agree that the sex-for-reviews thing is proven untrue since the fellow never wrote a review of her game.
Quote from: Malthus on October 15, 2014, 10:42:22 AM
Some kerfuffle about gamer journalists may be how this started
It is funny how anecdotal that was to. Just one woman who had her games reviewed by some people who knew her boyfriend or something. Even if there was some kind of conflict of interest going on, that is just one unproven anecdotal allegation. Hardly evidence of systemic problems. Yet they claim there is this big conspiracy going on...because they are becoming radicalized because that is what happens when you do vigilante mob justice.
I'm having to get caught up on all this. I had no idea what gamergate is or was. Anyway man, that Quinn girl is homely. Who would sacrifice their professional integrity to sleep with her??
I thought all this was over one of her online pieces on how video games positive female characters, and have game development and narrative were all directed at a single market of consumer, the adolescent male. Or is that a different female that was threatened?
Forbes article summarising the history of this internecine spat. http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/
It boils down to a lot of people who should have (taken a deep breath, counted to 10, etc.) before acting. With a thin veneer of something to be genuinely concerned about (the cosy relationship between game reviewers and developers) but that has been a pretty well known fact for 20 plus years.
I stopped reading video game reviews back in the days of the magazine and the Spectrum 128 when it became rather obvious that page count, and the amount of text was directly related to the size of the score. No "proper" review ever gave a bad rating; it was nothing more than semi-covert advertising.
QuoteGamerGate: A Closer Look At The Controversy Sweeping Video Games
It all started with a blog post.
Jilted ex-boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a long treatise on the alleged infidelity of his ex-girlfriend, video game developer Zoe Quinn. Members of the video game industry and press were implicated.
This led to an initial outcry over corruption in the video game press. Sex for positive coverage was the spark that fueled what has now become a huge gamer backlash against the video game press under the hashtag #GamerGate. While the initial concerns were quickly proven to be all smoke and no fire, the revelations led to further questions by many gamers, and so the #GamerGate movement was born.
The Streisand Effect
Gjoni posted his treatise on August 16th. Within days it had taken the internet by storm, though few video game publications felt comfortable writing about the deeply personal affairs of the people implicated in the piece. This perceived radio silence on the part of the press led to early grumblings of 'censorship' among gamers crying foul play.
Radio silence wasn't the only thing encouraging cries of censorship. Moderators on forums at reddit and 4chan deleted posts and comments related to the Quinn controversy. One YouTube commentator, Mundane Matt, had a video on the subject removed after receiving a DMCA takedown notice, apparently issued by Quinn herself. (I have reached out to Quinn and asked her about this and other questions and will update if and when she replies.)
The DMCA takedown caused well-known YouTuber TotalBiscuit (John Bain) to comment on the matter on Twitter. And while he maintained a fairly neutral stance, noting clearly that the facts were not all in, he was quickly lashed out against by members of the indie game scene such as Fez developer Phil Fish and others. Fish called TotalBiscuit a "gross nerd" setting the tenor for what snowballed into a much bigger debate.
Battle lines were drawn. Silence from the gaming press and apparent censorship at major forums only stoked the flames. The DMCA takedown notice fanned them higher. And as Bain warned in his initial comments on the matter, the Streisand Effect began to take place.
The Fine Young Capitalists
During all of this gamers began to dig, with much of the organized effort stemming from 4chan. Zoe Quinn isn't a new face to disgruntled gamers. She'd been in a dust-up with Wizardchan already, a forum for male virgins, who she claimed in 2013 harassed her over her game Depression Quest.
Then, in February of 2014 Quinn and PR rep Maya Kramer spoke out publicly on Twitter against a new game jam/charity known as The Fine Young Capitalists, or TFYC for short.
TFYC is a charity competition designed to get women with no experience in the industry involved in making a video game, with proceeds of the money raised going to the contest, the contestants, and a charity.
Disagreements over the nature of the project led Quinn and Kramer to lash out at TFYC on Twitter, ultimately leading to TFYC's website crashing in what was, essentially, an accidental DDOS attack, something Quinn joked about on Twitter at the time.
The disagreement between Quinn and TFYC is a little difficult to parse. Quinn claimed on Twitter that she disliked TFYC's stance on transgender people; others allege she saw TFYC as competition for her own game jam. Quinn also seemed to take offense at the idea that the women involved would be working without being paid; TFYC claims that the women were only doing conceptual work to begin with since contestants weren't actually game developers rather than spending months actually developing a game. TFYC's game designers would be doing the bulk of actual work.
Either way, bad blood between TFYC and Quinn grew out of the mess months ago.
This is where things get even more difficult to track. As Quinn came under fire, developers like Phil Fish came to her defense. When one developer, Wolf Wozniak, stated that he had been sexually harassed by Quinn on Twitter, Fish and others lashed out at him, and he quickly retracted his statement.
The battle heated up, and soon Fish claimed that his website and Twitter accounts had been hacked and personal information stolen and revealed to the public, presumably by people angry with him over his defense of Quinn. Fish is now selling the rights to Fez as well as his studio, Polytron, after the hacking.
Not long after this, the TFYC IndieGoGo website was hacked as well, apparently as a counter(counter?)-retaliation for the Fish hack and online harassment of Quinn.
The hacking took the guise of an official IndieGoGo takedown, with a message directed to /v/, the video game forum at 4chan:
Dear /V/,
We think it is abhorrent what you are doing to Zoe Quinn and other indie devs. Indiegogo does not support hacking or any other illegal activity that comes from your message board. We are shutting this fundraiser down before things get more out of hand.
Sincerely,
The Indiegogo Team
The hack wasn't an official IndieGoGo takedown, however, and ended up wiping the entire campaign and all its donations.
But why would anyone hack the TFYC crowdfunding effort in retaliation for Fish and Quinn and then address a message to /v/?
Because, dear reader, this rabbit hole is insanely deep. /v/ is widely seen as a hostile place for women, gay people, and basically anyone who isn't a part of the /v/ gaming culture. 4chan in general is widely viewed as a nasty sort of place for anyone not straight and male.
So it was strange when /v/ rallied behind TFYC, raising $17,000 for the game jam partly in order to spite Quinn and partly in order to mess with everyone's preconceptions of the forum. TFYC even agreed to use a /v/ designed female mascot for the winning game, the now infamous Vivian James. An "every-girl" of sorts, and maybe not what you'd expect from 4chan:
So we have TFYC, a self-described "radical feminist" group aligned with 4chan. Strange bedfellows indeed, though my conversations with the organizers of TFYC reveal deep dividing lines between many mainstream feminists and the concepts of this particular group.
Suffice to say, at this point trenches had been dug. (Though TFYC and Quinn have since made peace, at least officially.)
Accusations of harassment and hacking began flying from both sides. Both Quinn and YouTuber Anita Sarkeesian reported death threats forcing them to leave their homes. One game developer went so far as to pen an open letter against harassment of women in the industry, garnering hundreds of signatures. (Though petitions against harassment sound about as effective as wars against terrorism. Abstract ideas and random actions can't be stopped via wars or wishes. Update: I should note here that much of the online harassment we see against women is very troubling. I'm just not sure anyone, including myself, knows how to put an end to it.)
But I digress. Let's simply note that at this point, gamers were up in arms, actively trying to connect dots that may or may not exist to prove corruption in the industry between media and developers, and many in the media and development community were silent on the issue or lashing back at the mob.
Gamers are Over
It was during this rising crescendo of malcontent that a sudden chorus of articles were published from numerous gaming outlets claiming, more or less, that the age of the "gamer" was over. Gamers as we knew and stereotyped them—white, male nerds with deep-seeded fears of both reality and women—were going extinct, and all this backlash over the Quinn scandal was a reaction to this fact. Foremost among these was a piece by Gamasutra's Leigh Alexander.
Game writers claimed that all cries of corruption in media were merely thin veils to give cover to what was, essentially, a misogynistic movement. In less than two days more than ten such articles appeared around the internet, on the one hand preaching to the choir, and on the other leading many already-upset gamers to cry foul even louder. This many articles at once all saying the same thing seemed fishy to many, though I would argue it had nothing to do with coordination and everything to do with like minds feeding off of one another.
I wrote a piece on the notion as well, criticizing both sides of the controversy: Game journalists for condescending their audiences and gamers themselves for their lack of diligence in how they critique the press and their insistence on focusing on Social Justice Warriors.
Interlude – Definitions
1. Social Justice Warriors
It's here that we should pause and take a look at this term: Social Justice Warrior. So much of the debate in #GamerGate hinges upon definitions. Terms like "misogynerd" and "SJW" help label opponents on either side of the aisle, but often do more harm than good in how we think about and view each other, muddying the debate rather than elucidating it.
So what is a Social Justice Warrior? There are two definitions. First, the definition as it's applied by those who use it and second the definition as it's received by those who it's used against.
First: Someone who uses social justice issues like sexism, homophobia, etc. to push a political agenda and personally benefit (i.e. from pageviews, ad dollars, etc.)
Second: What you're called whenever you talk about social justice issues when writing about games, even if you don't mean to push an agenda or personally benefit.
Language, it turns out, is quite the double-edged sword. And the fact is, both definitions can be true at once.
What it boils down to is many people feeling upset that the video game space has been so heavily politicized with a left-leaning, feminist-driven slant. I've heard from many readers claiming they have no problem with more women and gay people represented in games; they simply don't want every game to be critiqued based on these factors. I've heard from others who readily admit that they miss the days when games were more male-centric. One reader emailed to say that he has no problem with women, but video games were a nice boys club of sorts, a refuge from women where the boys could play for a while undisturbed.
Meanwhile, I suspect that many so-called SJWs simply do care about how girls are treated in the video game world. Especially Japanese-developed games can be seen as deeply sexist by many writers in the West, thanks to a fairly deep and wide cultural divide. So we have many left-leaning members of the press writing about issues that matter to them—maybe sometimes doing it to bait readers, but often likely doing it because these are issues they actually care about—and a strong reader backlash because many readers don't want to be told what's good or bad about a game's social politics, they just want to hear about the game itself.
All of these things are true, mainly because they are all about perception. And all of these things are lies for the same reason.
2. Misogynerds
The Social Justice Warriors aren't the only side given an unfairly broad label. The same forces behind the "Gamers are Over" campaign have batted about plenty of labels to describe their opponents in recent days and weeks. "Gross nerd" evolved quickly into "Misogynerd" which is a super convenient way to label a large and diverse group of people as both icky nerds and misogynists.
Once again, while there are plenty of true-blue misogynists polluting video games, it's a ridiculous term to describe everyone involved in this debate. Ridiculous mainly because members of the press should be above such name-calling and mud-slinging.
But here, at least, we have a glimpse at just how much each side of the equation loathes the other, how each side has labeled the other in order to dehumanize them. Whatever truth belongs to each label, simply utilizing these sorts of terms in any debate is more about propaganda than it is about digging for answers.
/End Interlude
#GamerGate is Born
With definitinos and labels out of the way, we can move on to the hashtag itself: #GamerGate.
As all the ugliness between gamers and the press grew, various theories about media corruption blossomed. Writers at various gaming websites had been donating money to game developers via the website Patreon and this was seen as a conflict of interest. Some sites, like Kotaku, decided to put an end to the practice. Others, like Polygon, made a rule that full disclosure of any donations would be mandatory going forward.
Other apparent breaches of trust were uncovered, such as writers giving positive coverage to friends or roommates in the industry.
Kotaku editor-in-chief Stephen Totillo wrote:
We've long been wary of the potential undue influence of corporate gaming on games reporting, and we've taken many actions to guard against it. The last week has been, if nothing else, a good warning to all of us about the pitfalls of cliquishness in the indie dev scene and among the reporters who cover it. We've absorbed those lessons and assure you that, moving ahead, we'll err on the side of consistent transparency on that front, too.
We appreciate healthy skepticism from critics and have looked into—and discussed internally—concerns. We agree on the need to ensure that, on the occasion where there is a personal connection between a writer and a developer, it's mentioned. We've also agreed that funding any developers through services such as Patreon introduce needless potential conflicts of interest and are therefore nixing any such contributions by our writers
Relationships between various indie developers, the press, and PR representatives led to more questions and theories on everything from the validity of the IGF awards, to the overall nature of the relationship between the press and the industry it covers, which many see as far too cozy. Lots of YouTube videos have been made about this. Lots of screenshots of tweets and various websites with lines drawn between various members of the press and the industry have also been created. It's a maze of allegations and connections without a solid destination.
Whether any of these theories hold water is an open question and one that, in my mind, is secondary to one very big fact: Readers have grown deeply distrustful of the gaming press.
That's why the uproar here, over something so nebulous in so many ways, is so uproarious.
This is not really a story about Zoe Quinn and it's not really a story about corruption either. It's about mistrust and the way both sides are feeding into that mistrust, whether through over-the-top reactions to the Quinn affair, or a bevy of articles proclaiming that an entire group of people is now irrelevant. Trust is the casualty here.
And where trust no longer exists, politics rules the day.
The #GamerGate hashtag took off when conservative actor and Firefly veteran Adam Baldwin began tweeting about the controversy. Suddenly an entirely new audience cast its eyes on what was going on in the otherwise obscure video game world.
Quickly the gamer vs. journalist/developer conflict grew into something much bigger: #GamerGate is now a political controversy more than anything.
#GamerGate Is Being Co-Opted By Politics
Milo Yiannopoulos of Breitbart London entered the fray with the most inflammatory piece yet, proclaiming in his headline that "Feminist Bullies" are "Tearing The Video Game Industry Apart."
As you can imagine with such a headline, whatever kernels of truth Yiannopoulos may have included in his article were glazed over heavily by a deeply conservative, anti-feminist bias.
I'm not against bias or opinion, per se, but far too many gamers who felt under-represented by the gaming press latched on to the piece as an example of "real journalism." Just because you agree with something, or just because a piece gives more of "your side" of the argument, doesn't make it unbiased or objective. It certainly doesn't make it "journalism."
Just like my own Op/Ed pieces are not straight-up reporting, neither is the Breitbart piece. This is opinion writing and should be treated as such.
Yiannopoulos begins his piece by admitting that he's mocked gamers as "dorky loners in yellowing underpants" in the past, and then goes on to speak at great length about how feminists and Social Justice Warriors are destroying the industry and culture. (His description of gamers is oddly similar to the description offered by so many of the "gamers are over" pieces.)
It's obvious from the get-go that Yiannopoulos cares more about undermining and vilifying his political opponents than he does about video games or the video game industry. So he takes on the sacred cows with glee.
Speaking of prominent female critics in the industry he writes:
There is a platoon of irritants in the media whose talents are vanishingly slight, but who generate column inches by the thousand for victimising innocents and manipulating their way around an over-sensitive industry. Some of them, such as Anita Sarkeesian, have no discernible higher purpose in life, except to bother innocent games developers.
These women purposefully court – and then exploit – boisterous, unpleasant reactions from astonished male gamers and use them to attract attention to themselves. What's remarkable is how deeply unpleasant the skeletons lurking in their own closets often are, how completely those skeletons give the lie to their public image, and how uncritically their claims are repackaged by credulous games journalists.
If there is truth to these claims, it is drowned in the rhetoric—rhetoric every bit as over the top as any used by the "other side" and designed precisely to inflame and bait.
(On a side note: "Innocent game developers" is an atrocious thing to say, as though anyone creating art is too "innocent" to face criticism. Everyone should face criticism. It's how you respond that matters. There is not some great, horrible bogey-critic eating your firstborn children if you ignore their critique.)
Whether or not some people are capitalizing on a culture of victimhood is a matter largely of opinion, and not something that can simply be stated as fact any more than alleged, unverified death threats against anyone ought to be reported as fact. So much of this is mired in speculation and partisanship at this point that it's almost impossible to see the forest for the trees. Anyone selling you simple answers is likely ripping you off.
Yiannopolous claims that the enduring effect of #GamerGate will be a gaming media that "has destroyed its reputation and its relationship with readers, who will never again trust it on any issue beyond which power-up is most likely to get you past level 17."
I disagree. In many ways this was already the issue before #GamerGate came into existence, and is more complicated than some "feminist bullies" and their dreaded agenda.
Rather, the enduring effect of #GamerGate will be the further politicization of video games. With rightwing activists like Baldwin, Yiannopoulos and even political blogger Ed Morrissey dipping into the fight, we now have entirely new lines being drawn.
These newcomers to the video game scene are being hailed as heroes by many gamers, but gamers should be just as distrustful of them—if not more so—than the Social Justice Warriors they decry.
If a Social Justice Warrior is using video games to push an agenda, you can rest assured that these rightwing non-gamers suddenly swooping into the scene with inflammatory anti-feminist headlines are doing the same thing, only from the other side of the political spectrum. If you care more about your political viewpoint than you do about video games, by all means welcome them as heroes. But if you truly care about video games, I can only suggest that these are not the droids you're looking for. At least the dreaded SJWs have been writing about games day in and day out for years, not merely at this opportune moment.
These are not people who want to talk about video games, let alone play them. This is the co-opting of video games to push political agendas—the exact same thing gamers are accusing SJWs of doing. The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.
All that being said, if gamers want more conservative commentary on video games, they should push for that. My most frequent encounters with conservatives speaking on video games has been talk of censorship due to sex and violence, so I'm not sure this is a great idea.
But some mainstream libertarian voices like Penn Jillette and John Stossel have been reasonable on video games.
In Sum
I haven't touched on all the strands. Readers will undoubtedly be disappointed that I haven't taken a harder stance on one side or the other. They will point out details that I left out, either consciously or because there are simply too many at this point to include in one article or because I personally find them too flimsy to include. Readers will link to heavily subjective and slanted YouTube videos that make claims far too bold for mainstream journalism. We will define the word "fact" differently. Miniature rhetorical wars will be fought.
What I come away with here is not "feminist bullies" destroying the industry or "misogynistic neckbeards" out to scare away all the women.
What I come up with is three-fold:
First, we have a young industry that began, like so many others, as a male-driven industry on both the producer and consumer side now experiencing growth pains. The media is even younger than the industry itself and it's experiencing growth pains, too. These growth pains have resulted in some raw, open wounds that fester whenever controversy erupts, and risk being infected further by politicized forces that care less about video games and more about political agendas. (All of this is a distraction from the real business of reporting on the video game industry and critiquing video games, though I think there is plenty of room for cultural commentary with political slants here as well, just like in TV, film, etc.)
Second, we have deep mistrust between consumers and the video game industry thanks to years of bad DRM and other poor business practices. That mistrust is now being cast on the press that's supposed to be covering the industry to protect the consumer. Consumers (gamers) have increasingly viewed the press as "in bed" with the industry rather than working for consumers. This is enforced by stories of chummy developers and journalists, lavish AAA publisher-thrown parties, high-scoring games that aren't particularly good, and so forth.
Finally, we have a video game press with a largely left-leaning political bias in some ways alienating itself from much of its readership. This seeps into the first two problems and complicates the matter, but isn't in and of itself an invalid complaint. If the video game press were deeply conservative, you'd have a lot of left-leaning voices decrying it as well. The tenor of the discussion has become so "us vs. them" at this point, that many gamers simply feel unrepresented and condescended.
Add all three pieces together and you have a recipe for disaster.
Ultimately #GamerGate is the third in a trilogy of video game related scandals.
Act I was all about Mass Effect 3 when gamers were largely derided as "entitled" for wanting a better ending. The same derision was cast on gamers (though without as much fanfare) when the Devil May Cry reboot was released. DmC was not a very good game, but gamers were again labeled as "entitled" when they complained about it. (There was also #DoritoGate, come to think of it, so maybe this is less a trilogy and more an ongoing mini-series?)
Now we have the Zoe Quinn scandal, which has become much bigger than any one person, which focuses on the indie scene rather than AAA games, and which is as much a symbol of mistrust as it is anything else.
Readers may claim that I'm white-washing the entire thing, that scandal and conspiracy really do lurk beneath all of this. And maybe they do. I continue to follow all the details and revelations. But what I've seen so far points more to rotting sea of mistrust embedded in yet another culture war battle than a smoking gun.
Of course, these problems are faced in other areas of journalism as well, whether covering politics or smartphones. Video games are unique partly because video game journalism invariably focuses so much on narrative. Because games have stories with political messages and because smart critics want to discuss all elements of a video game, it's pretty much impossible to just avoid ever talking about these issues. And why should we?
Controlling Your Own Destiny
The answer isn't to turn to conservative outsiders to provide "fair and balanced" coverage, though maybe conservative gamers can find their own voice.
It isn't to turn to YouTubers who have even fewer ethical restraints than members of the press (many YouTubers engage in financial deals with the industry while still attending the same events and parties as online games press, while having absolutely no oversight from an actual publication.)
The answer, my friend, is blowing in the proverbial wind.
#GamerGate doesn't have an end goal. Some are crying for more ethical journalism while embracing completely biased and one-sided coverage of the event so long as it conforms to their own biases. Others simply don't want to be talked down to by the press, which I think is a reasonable request without a clear solution.
Ultimately, I think it's a matter of everyone involved creating their own future. It's time to stop complaining that the game press is biased and corrupt, or at least to stop thinking that complaining is the final step. If you don't like what you're reading, go start your own game publication.
I don't mean this in the "if you don't like this video game why don't you make your own" sort of way. I think starting your own publication is a perfectly reasonable and attainable goal. I bet you could Kickstart the whole thing. Likewise, if you don't care about the social justice issues but only want more ethical journalism, start a site with very clear ethical guidelines and don't participate in the sorts of things that compromise that.
Cheaper still, read only the sites you believe in and trust. If you don't like a site because it writes about social justice issues, don't read it. If someone writes a post about social justice issues or records a feminist YouTube video, you can simply ignore it—the way I ignore the Men's Rights movement.
The market is at the heart of all of this. But the invisible hand only works if people are willing to take risks and invest time and money into something and/or vote with their wallet. Of course that's only one part of the equation. The other part is being open to discussion and never, ever engaging in censorship or harassment.
What irks me most about both sides of the debate is their unwillingness to simply accept that the other side might have valid, or at least sincere, points. As human.
As I said in my last note on the subject: "Bring me a chorus of voices, of opinions. I want them all. I want a loud cacophony of differing viewpoints. Agreement is the death of creativity."
It's up to all of us to make this happen.
#GamerGate isn't about conspiracies. It isn't about scandal and corruption. It isn't about feminists or misogynists. It isn't about any of these things, and it's about all of them all at once.
In the end, it's about gamers upset with the status quo and demanding something better. It's about a group of consumers and enthusiasts not simply feeling that their identity is threatened, but believing that they're being poorly represented by an industry and press that grow more and more cliquish and remote every year. And it's about the ad hoc, messy series of uncoordinated events that got us here.
Perhaps none of this is the answer. Perhaps the only answer is to encourage honest debate between people who truly care about video games. A conversation is a powerful thing.
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 11:11:51 AM
I'm having to get caught up on all this. I had no idea what gamergate is or was. Anyway man, that Quinn girl is homely. Who would sacrifice their professional integrity to sleep with her??
Just stay ignorant it is a giant waste of everybody's time.
Maybe Quinn is good conversation.
Jeez, Spicy, where did you leave your empathy?
Oh, wait, with your party membership.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2014, 11:17:48 AM
I thought all this was over one of her online pieces on how video games positive female characters, and have game development and narrative were all directed at a single market of consumer, the adolescent male. Or is that a different female that was threatened?
Different. That is Anita Sarkeesian. That is a hilarious clusterfuck as well. Anita is a prudish sex-neg type that I find particularly annoying but damn it is sad how self-righteous in their rage these people get over simply posting some Youtube videos. As an activist this is probably great for Anita, even if probably shit personally. Here is the evidence of evil male oppression and a toxic male culture of video games is right out there and she exposed it. Feminist hero and martyr forever and I suspect an inspiration to young activists around the world. Way to go trolls.
Quote from: Agelastus on October 15, 2014, 11:17:59 AM
I stopped reading video game reviews back in the days of the magazine and the Spectrum 128 when it became rather obvious that page count, and the amount of text was directly related to the size of the score. No "proper" review ever gave a bad rating; it was nothing more than semi-covert advertising.
The last straw for me was when Black and White got a perfect score way back in the 90s. That was a WTF? Moment.
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 11:11:51 AM
I'm having to get caught up on all this. I had no idea what gamergate is or was.
Same here. I don't follow the right twitter feeds or facebook pages or something. To me, gamergate is a badly-run Paradox Entertainment game-sales site.
QuoteAnyway man, that Quinn girl is homely. Who would sacrifice their professional integrity to sleep with her??
These are "journalists." There is no integrity to sacrifice.
Quote from: Valmy on October 15, 2014, 11:27:04 AM
The last straw for me was when Black and White got a perfect score way back in the 90s. That was a WTF? Moment.
But it was brilliant! Revolutionary! An achievement in game design! Not Tekken!
Quote from: grumbler on October 15, 2014, 11:29:29 AM
Same here. I don't follow the right twitter feeds or facebook pages or something. To me, gamergate is a badly-run Paradox Entertainment game-sales site.
Rather you do follow the right ones. The only reason I know about it is because I am following the Pillars of Eternity development. I just wish it would go away.
Quote from: Barrister on October 15, 2014, 11:08:03 AM
I believe Quinn admitted to having a relationship with a game reviewer from Kotaku (but, of course, so what - consenting adults and all that), but agree that the sex-for-reviews thing is proven untrue since the fellow never wrote a review of her game.
Yeah, but so what? People break up all the time and people have sex with people all the time. There's no scandal there, and frankly, who fucks whom in SF's indie game dev scene is not really anyone else's business.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2014, 11:17:48 AM
I thought all this was over one of her online pieces on how video games positive female characters, and have game development and narrative were all directed at a single market of consumer, the adolescent male. Or is that a different female that was threatened?
That stuff is all being conflated into one hyperfocussed misogynistic howl of shit-fuelled rage. Any woman in games saying anything about women in games in any shape or form in a public space right now is getting targeted by a coterie of hyperactive trolls.
Quote from: Jacob on October 15, 2014, 11:32:31 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 15, 2014, 11:08:03 AM
I believe Quinn admitted to having a relationship with a game reviewer from Kotaku (but, of course, so what - consenting adults and all that), but agree that the sex-for-reviews thing is proven untrue since the fellow never wrote a review of her game.
Yeah, but so what? People break up all the time and people have sex with people all the time. There's no scandal there, and frankly, who fucks whom in SF's indie game dev scene is not really anyone else's business.
I see you are part of the vast conspiracy to cover it all up Jake.
Quote from: Valmy on October 15, 2014, 11:42:20 AM
I see you are part of the vast conspiracy to cover it all up Jake.
Actually, there is a scandal - the scandal is that some whiny emo chump couldn't handle being dumped by his girlfriend and posted an emo rant on the internet; and that a bunch of idiots decided that somehow meant something other than that the whiny emo chump was a whiny emo chump.
Quote from: Jacob on October 15, 2014, 11:34:16 AM
That stuff is all being conflated into one hyperfocussed misogynistic howl of shit-fuelled rage. Any woman in games saying anything about women in games in any shape or form in a public space right now is getting targeted by a coterie of hyperactive trolls.
Aren't you glad you work in this industry?
Quote from: Valmy on October 15, 2014, 11:46:28 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 15, 2014, 11:34:16 AM
That stuff is all being conflated into one hyperfocussed misogynistic howl of shit-fuelled rage. Any woman in games saying anything about women in games in any shape or form in a public space right now is getting targeted by a coterie of hyperactive trolls.
Aren't you glad you work in this industry?
Indeed.
Quote from: Jacob on October 15, 2014, 11:00:00 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 15, 2014, 10:42:22 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 15, 2014, 10:36:18 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 15, 2014, 09:43:03 AM
Sounds like "gamergate" is a 'about' group of particularly nasty and vile trolls who have found the absolute perfect victims (from their perspective): feminist computer game theorists.
Eh there are people who have better motives who do think "gaming journalists" (aka: bloggers) should be held to an ethical standard. Of course that is impossible. Even so, their solution is possibly the worst one imaginable. People are being convicted of ethics violations without the ability to fairly defend themselves and mobs of idiots are trying to punish them...and choosing the ones who most upset them emotionally. It is kind of sad and funny to see them trying to defend this predictable train wreck. It is not so funny to see mob justice at work though.
Some kerfuffle about gamer journalists may be how this started, but by now it seems to me it is mostly continuing because some pretty nasty trolls are getting a kick out of it.
Mind you, that was probably true for most forms of vigilantism ... ;)
I believe how it started was that one dude got dumped by a girl who is also an indie game developer. He responded like a whiny little bitch by posting allegations that she'd been sleeping with all these other guys, and that it was to get good reviews for her game. Neither of those allegations have been proven true, and the allegations of sex-for-positive-reviews were in fact shown to be untrue (the guy had never actually written a review for her game).
So while in theory there is some sort of "journalism ethics" banner being waved about (though, curiously, nothing about the thoroughly corrupt journalism surrounding AAA games, only stuff related to people who don't agree with the trolls), this whole thing started squarely with misogynistic trolling as far as I can see.
Oh my. That's even lamer than I had suspected. :lol:
Quote from: Jacob on October 15, 2014, 11:32:31 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 15, 2014, 11:08:03 AM
I believe Quinn admitted to having a relationship with a game reviewer from Kotaku (but, of course, so what - consenting adults and all that), but agree that the sex-for-reviews thing is proven untrue since the fellow never wrote a review of her game.
Yeah, but so what? People break up all the time and people have sex with people all the time. There's no scandal there, and frankly, who fucks whom in SF's indie game dev scene is not really anyone else's business.
So are you agreeing with me or what?
You even used the same words I used - "but so what"?
Quote from: Barrister on October 15, 2014, 12:01:32 PM
So are you agreeing with me or what?
You even used the same words I used - "but so what"?
I think YOU are agreeing with ME! :P
:hug:
Quote from: Barrister on October 15, 2014, 12:01:32 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 15, 2014, 11:32:31 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 15, 2014, 11:08:03 AM
I believe Quinn admitted to having a relationship with a game reviewer from Kotaku (but, of course, so what - consenting adults and all that), but agree that the sex-for-reviews thing is proven untrue since the fellow never wrote a review of her game.
Yeah, but so what? People break up all the time and people have sex with people all the time. There's no scandal there, and frankly, who fucks whom in SF's indie game dev scene is not really anyone else's business.
So are you agreeing with me or what?
You even used the same words I used - "but so what"?
All your motives are suspect! :ph34r:
Quote from: Valmy on October 15, 2014, 11:18:39 AM
Just stay ignorant it is a giant waste of everybody's time.
I think you're right. I was just caught off guard by the whole thing as I haven't paid much attention to the "gaming world" lately.
Quote from: Norgy on October 15, 2014, 11:20:07 AM
Jeez, Spicy, where did you leave your empathy?
Oh, wait, with your party membership.
Empathy for whom? Please help me understand my lack of empathy in this case.
Quote from: Jacob on October 15, 2014, 11:34:16 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2014, 11:17:48 AM
I thought all this was over one of her online pieces on how video games positive female characters, and have game development and narrative were all directed at a single market of consumer, the adolescent male. Or is that a different female that was threatened?
That stuff is all being conflated into one hyperfocussed misogynistic howl of shit-fuelled rage. Any woman in games saying anything about women in games in any shape or form in a public space right now is getting targeted by a coterie of hyperactive trolls.
So if I'm understanding these new (to me) terms correctly you are firmly on the Social Justice Warrior side in the struggle against the Misogynerds.
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 12:14:50 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 15, 2014, 11:34:16 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2014, 11:17:48 AM
I thought all this was over one of her online pieces on how video games positive female characters, and have game development and narrative were all directed at a single market of consumer, the adolescent male. Or is that a different female that was threatened?
That stuff is all being conflated into one hyperfocussed misogynistic howl of shit-fuelled rage. Any woman in games saying anything about women in games in any shape or form in a public space right now is getting targeted by a coterie of hyperactive trolls.
So if I'm understanding these new (to me) terms correctly you are firmly on the Social Justice Warrior side in the struggle against the Misogynerds.
derspicey, I know your instincts are the same as mine, but trust me, don't bother expending one ounce of energy defending these "gamers". Whatever you think of Zoe Quinn, or Anita Sarkeesian (and to be clear I'd never heard of either of them until this "story" broke), they didn't deserve what's happened to them.
Here's Quinn's own account of what it was like (written for cracked.com, because, well, fuck you that's why (seriously I have no idea)):
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-i-learned-as-internets-most-hated-person/
Quote from: Barrister on October 15, 2014, 12:20:42 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 12:14:50 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 15, 2014, 11:34:16 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2014, 11:17:48 AM
I thought all this was over one of her online pieces on how video games positive female characters, and have game development and narrative were all directed at a single market of consumer, the adolescent male. Or is that a different female that was threatened?
That stuff is all being conflated into one hyperfocussed misogynistic howl of shit-fuelled rage. Any woman in games saying anything about women in games in any shape or form in a public space right now is getting targeted by a coterie of hyperactive trolls.
derspicey, I know your instincts are the same as mine, but trust me, don't bother expending one ounce of energy defending these "gamers". Whatever you think of Zoe Quinn, or Anita Sarkeesian (and to be clear I'd never heard of either of them until this "story" broke), they didn't deserve what's happened to them.
Here's Quinn's own account of what it was like (written for cracked.com, because, well, fuck you that's why (seriously I have no idea)):
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-i-learned-as-internets-most-hated-person/
So if I'm understanding these new (to me) terms correctly you are firmly on the Social Justice Warrior side in the struggle against the Misogynerds.
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 12:11:02 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 15, 2014, 11:18:39 AM
Just stay ignorant it is a giant waste of everybody's time.
I think you're right. I was just caught off guard by the whole thing as I haven't paid much attention to the "gaming world" lately.
Yeah, it's only worth paying attention to if it affects you personally or professionally, or if you're into internet culture wars for a laugh. Otherwise, you're best off ignoring it IMO.
Hmm, seems like this is a win for her. Assuming her skin is thick enough to absorb the abuse she's taken (which I still do not understand the motivation for but whatever), she has gone from a nobody who hasn't really done anything to a celebrity victim. Not something I'd relish, but for her I'm guessing it will create some opportunities-- possibly lucrative.
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 12:14:50 PM
So if I'm understanding these new (to me) terms correctly you are firmly on the Social Justice Warrior side in the struggle against the Misogynerds.
Do you even have to ask? :lol:
But yeah, to use your terms - while I have some quibbles and bones to pick with the Social Justice Warrior crowd re: videogames, the Misogynerds are so egregiously obnoxious that those disagreements are set aside for some other time.
Mostly I've been ignoring the whole debacle to the best of my ability, but it does kind of affect my business and my social space to some extent, so I have to pay a bit of attention.
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 12:28:35 PM
Hmm, seems like this is a win for her. Assuming her skin is thick enough to absorb the abuse she's taken (which I still do not understand the motivation for but whatever), she has gone from a nobody who hasn't really done anything to a celebrity victim. Not something I'd relish, but for her I'm guessing it will create some opportunities-- possibly lucrative.
I don't see how.
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 12:28:35 PM
Hmm, seems like this is a win for her. Assuming her skin is thick enough to absorb the abuse she's taken (which I still do not understand the motivation for but whatever), she has gone from a nobody who hasn't really done anything to a celebrity victim. Not something I'd relish, but for her I'm guessing it will create some opportunities-- possibly lucrative.
It may generate some opportunities, but given that it started because someone couldn't handle her breaking up with them, it is at best a sliver lining to a shit-coloured storm cloud. It's kind of like "hey, you may have some PR opportunities after the KKK burned down your house. Good for you!"
As for Sarkeesian, she set out to do some criticism of games. Like I said, I have some bones to pick with her analyses and general approach from what I've seen so far, but that pales in comparison with the thoroughly terrible response she has generated from some quarters. Unfortunately, the responses have proven her rather pedestrian point and the points of a number of people way more to the left of her as well. If you can't even talk about "hey, a bunch of the stuff in games is kind of sexist and unfriendly to women" without getting death-threats and getting stalked, then that seems to rather prove the need of having those conversations, even if I'm not a super fan of the messenger or how she delivers her points.
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 12:28:35 PM
Hmm, seems like this is a win for her. Assuming her skin is thick enough to absorb the abuse she's taken (which I still do not understand the motivation for but whatever), she has gone from a nobody who hasn't really done anything to a celebrity victim. Not something I'd relish, but for her I'm guessing it will create some opportunities-- possibly lucrative.
While I strongly doubt this is the road to any sort of riches, there is something in it potentially for both sides - the trolls get access to the publicity and attention that they crave; the feminist gender warrior gamers get their theories validated by the mass Misogynerd attack, and also publicity for said theories.
The big losers are us, for spending any time thinking about it. :P
Quote from: Jacob on October 15, 2014, 12:30:04 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 12:14:50 PM
So if I'm understanding these new (to me) terms correctly you are firmly on the Social Justice Warrior side in the struggle against the Misogynerds.
Do you even have to ask? :lol:
But yeah, to use your terms - while I have some quibbles and bones to pick with the Social Justice Warrior crowd re: videogames, the Misogynerds are so egregiously obnoxious that those disagreements are set aside for some other time.
Mostly I've been ignoring the whole debacle to the best of my ability, but it does kind of affect my business and my social space to some extent, so I have to pay a bit of attention.
I can appreciate the Misogynerds and why they are the way they are, I really do.
After all, most of them--I said most, Jacob--were the outsiders, the dweebs, the outcasts, the ones that would rather spend a week at Computer Camp or play AD&D while the Alpha Betas beat their asses after Phys Ed because they couldn't climb the ropes.
The guys that never got dates, never went to homecoming or even prom, sucking down a liter of Mountain Dew and some Ho-Hos at lunch while plucking away at their coding, huddled together at a corner table in the cafeteria because there was safety in numbers. Plotting.
There was an understanding that these guys were going to have their own industry, one built upon servers and coding and other assorted nerdstuff that only they understood, and it was freely given by the very jocks that abused them and the girls that scorned them because, yeah, Versailles was wrong. But now, giving away an entire technology to them at Munich, we see the true misogynistic monsters they've are, fueled by the perceived wrongs and slights of the past, all of them are having their revenge and there is no way to stop their war machine now.
No Girls Allowed in the
Wolfsschanze's data center. And they mean it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2014, 12:38:29 PM
I can appreciate the Misogynerds and why they are the way they are, I really do.
After all, most of them--I said most, Jacob--were the outsiders, the dweebs, the outcasts, the ones that would rather spend a week at Computer Camp or play AD&D while the Alpha Betas beat their asses after Phys Ed because they couldn't climb the ropes.
The guys that never got dates, never went to homecoming or even prom, sucking down a liter of Mountain Dew and some Ho-Hos at lunch while plucking away at their coding, huddled together at a corner table in the cafeteria because there was safety in numbers. Plotting.
There was an understanding that these guys were going to have their own industry, one built upon servers and coding and other assorted nerdstuff that only they understood, and it was freely given by the very jocks that abused them and the girls that scorned them because, yeah, Versailles was wrong. But now, giving away an entire technology to them at Munich, we see the true misogynistic monsters they've are, fueled by the perceived wrongs and slights of the past, all of them are having their revenge and there is no way to stop their war machine now.
No Girls Allowed in the Wolfsschanze's data center. And they mean it.
The misogynerds aren't really the developers of games, though, they're one subset of the consumers of games (plus a few culture war media trolls in it for professional reasons).
I don't care, I just wanted to write that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2014, 12:43:32 PM
I don't care, I just wanted to write that.
I appreciated the craftsmanship and narrative structure, tbh.
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 12:28:35 PM
Hmm, seems like this is a win for her. Assuming her skin is thick enough to absorb the abuse she's taken (which I still do not understand the motivation for but whatever), she has gone from a nobody who hasn't really done anything to a celebrity victim. Not something I'd relish, but for her I'm guessing it will create some opportunities-- possibly lucrative.
:mellow:
Someone called a University and threatened mass murder if they allowed one of these women to have a talk there. These women's home addresses are handed out like Halloween candy. They are getting calls to their personal phones with threats of murder and rape, making sure that they mention the women's addresses in the calls so that they know that the callers are serious. Two women, gaming journalists, had to quit their careers due to fear for themselves and their families.
This is a hate group unhinged. This isn't just some obnoxious trolling.
it's hateful and ugly, I won't deny that.
Saarkeesian has a legit hustle, get money from being the angry femcunt via donations, the attention that hog Quinn is getting for sleeping with all those moist-eyed herbs for her shitty "game" is baffling to me, on the other hand. Maybe just gas the entire Tumblr user base and call it a day? :hmm:
This is a pretty good summary of the course of events: http://deadspin.com/the-future-of-the-culture-wars-is-here-and-its-gamerga-1646145844
Quote from: Legbiter on October 15, 2014, 12:59:33 PM
Saarkeesian has a legit hustle, get money from being the angry femcunt via donations, the attention that hog Quinn is getting for sleeping with all those moist-eyed herbs for her shitty "game" is baffling to me, on the other hand. Maybe just gas the entire Tumblr user base and call it a day? :hmm:
If I ever wondered whether or not I could stomach you as a human being, this post just answered the question.
Quote from: Legbiter on October 15, 2014, 12:59:33 PM
Saarkeesian has a legit hustle, get money from being the angry femcunt via donations, the attention that hog Quinn is getting for sleeping with all those moist-eyed herbs for her shitty "game" is baffling to me, on the other hand. Maybe just gas the entire Tumblr user base and call it a day? :hmm:
Uhm... Quinn didn't sleep with "all those" guys. And she's only getting attention because some people couldn't shut up about how unfair it is that she's getting attention. Outside of a small indie game clique and the misogynerd haters, no one had heard about her until the idiots decide there's a scandal because Quinn's whiny ex can't handle being dumped.
I haven't been paying even passing attention to these attention whores and I refuse to do so. Gas Tumblr, call it a day.
Quote from: Legbiter on October 15, 2014, 01:07:54 PM
I haven't been paying even passing attention to these attention whores and I refuse to do so. Gas Tumblr, call it a day.
Yet you feel free to call people cunts and attention whores, though you have no idea what's going on?
Seems like you're the attention whore.
Stating a possibly uninformed opinion is not necessarily attention-whoring.
Quote from: Jacob on October 15, 2014, 12:44:26 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2014, 12:43:32 PM
I don't care, I just wanted to write that.
I appreciated the craftsmanship and narrative structure, tbh.
I also enjoyed it.
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 01:25:00 PM
Stating a possibly uninformed opinion is not necessarily attention-whoring.
Nah, but Legbiter's a well known troll when it comes to women. Seems one of them hurt him once or something.
:D
Jacob, you're a floating ball of light, thanks for the update.
Quote from: Maximus on October 15, 2014, 01:27:47 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 01:25:00 PM
Stating a possibly uninformed opinion is not necessarily attention-whoring.
Nah, but Legbiter's a well known troll when it comes to women. Seems one of them hurt him once or something.
is it a troll if he means it?
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 01:36:34 PM
Quote from: Maximus on October 15, 2014, 01:27:47 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 01:25:00 PM
Stating a possibly uninformed opinion is not necessarily attention-whoring.
Nah, but Legbiter's a well known troll when it comes to women. Seems one of them hurt him once or something.
is it a troll if he means it?
I vote no. Then he's just an ass.
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2014, 01:27:52 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 15, 2014, 01:27:12 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 15, 2014, 12:44:26 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2014, 12:43:32 PM
I don't care, I just wanted to write that.
I appreciated the craftsmanship and narrative structure, tbh.
I also enjoyed it.
Me, too. :)
:yes:
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2014, 01:38:27 PM
Then he's just an ass.
But that's one of my best features. :cry:
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2014, 01:40:05 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2014, 01:38:27 PM
Then he's just an ass.
But that's one of my best features. :cry:
:lol:
He's not a pretty ass, like yours is, dear. :hug:
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 01:36:34 PM
is it a troll if he means it?
It's possible he's just stupid.
Quote from: Maximus on October 15, 2014, 01:27:47 PM
Nah, but Legbiter's a well known troll when it comes to women. Seems one of them hurt him once or something.
Mom?
Quote from: Jacob on October 15, 2014, 11:00:00 AM
I believe how it started was that one dude got dumped by a girl who is also an indie game developer. He responded like a whiny little bitch by posting allegations that she'd been sleeping with all these other guys, and that it was to get good reviews for her game. Neither of those allegations have been proven true, and the allegations of sex-for-positive-reviews were in fact shown to be untrue (the guy had never actually written a review for her game).
So while in theory there is some sort of "journalism ethics" banner being waved about (though, curiously, nothing about the thoroughly corrupt journalism surrounding AAA games, only stuff related to people who don't agree with the trolls), this whole thing started squarely with misogynistic trolling as far as I can see.
If this is true, what a jack ass that dude was! His efforts at getting some kind of even rather than deal with things, and it all blew up to where there are death threats and possible violence. Man, what a catch he would be for some future "lucky" gal! :thumbsdown:
No shit, right? There are always more fish in the sea, as Mom always says. Especially the ones floating on the surface.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2014, 01:58:05 PM
No shit, right? There are always more fish in the sea, as Mom always says. Especially the ones floating on the surface.
Great quote, especially about the ones on the surface....
And on a related note, good to see Languish's women contingent (all Two of you), posting several threads over the last couple of days. :cool:
Quote from: mongers on October 15, 2014, 02:23:52 PM
And on a related not, good to see Languish's women contingent (all Two of you), posting several threads over the last couple of days. :cool:
:hug:
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2014, 02:24:23 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 15, 2014, 02:23:52 PM
And on a related not, good to see Languish's women contingent (all Two of you), posting several threads over the last couple of days. :cool:
:hug:
Yeah. :hug:
I tried to word that sentence so it couldn't be misconstrued, but I think some languishite will be along in a while, to pick whole with it. :)
SUGARTITS
Quote from: Legbiter on October 15, 2014, 12:59:33 PM
Saarkeesian has a legit hustle, get money from being the angry femcunt via donations, the attention that hog Quinn is getting for sleeping with all those moist-eyed herbs for her shitty "game" is baffling to me, on the other hand. Maybe just gas the entire Tumblr user base and call it a day? :hmm:
:huh: What the fuck? "femcunt?" "That hog Quinn?" Your misogyny baffles me. What the fuck is wrong with you? What makes you think your point is enhanced by attaching this kind of spew? If you have a point, make it without the hysterical hyperbole. If you can't, then you should probably just STFU.
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 01:25:00 PM
Stating a possibly uninformed opinion is not necessarily attention-whoring.
However, when you lace it with expressions like Leggy did it's pretty clearly attention whoring.
Quote from: mongers on October 15, 2014, 02:26:34 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2014, 02:24:23 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 15, 2014, 02:23:52 PM
And on a related not, good to see Languish's women contingent (all Two of you), posting several threads over the last couple of days. :cool:
:hug:
Yeah. :hug:
I tried to word that sentence so it couldn't be misconstrued, but I think some languishite will be along in a while, to pick whole with it. :)
I saw it and thought how sexist.
And in related news, this shit-storm is now hitting people I'm professionally close to :(
Quote from: Jacob on October 15, 2014, 12:41:01 PM
The misogynerds aren't really the developers of games, though, they're one subset of the consumers of games (plus a few culture war media trolls in it for professional reasons).
Based on all the "gender inequality in the tech industry" whining I hear about, coupled with the not baseless assertion that these trends exist in games due to more than just pandering to their audience, it sure seems like a lot of them are. The games industry is one of the two places I associate most heavily with the "brogrammer" stereotype.
Quote from: grumbler on October 15, 2014, 02:30:40 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on October 15, 2014, 12:59:33 PM
Saarkeesian has a legit hustle, get money from being the angry femcunt via donations, the attention that hog Quinn is getting for sleeping with all those moist-eyed herbs for her shitty "game" is baffling to me, on the other hand. Maybe just gas the entire Tumblr user base and call it a day? :hmm:
:huh: What the fuck? "femcunt?" "That hog Quinn?" Your misogyny baffles me. What the fuck is wrong with you? What makes you think your point is enhanced by attaching this kind of spew? If you have a point, make it without the hysterical hyperbole. If you can't, then you should probably just STFU.
Okay, maybe it was a troll :hmm:
Quote from: mongers on October 15, 2014, 02:26:34 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2014, 02:24:23 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 15, 2014, 02:23:52 PM
And on a related not, good to see Languish's women contingent (all Two of you), posting several threads over the last couple of days. :cool:
:hug:
Yeah. :hug:
I tried to word that sentence so it couldn't be misconstrued, but I think some languishite will be along in a while, to pick whole with it. :)
My takeaway from your post was that posting is usually too complicated a thing for the delicate feminine mind and that you were patronizingly congratulating them managing to do something we men do all the time. Pig :angry:
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 02:47:30 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 15, 2014, 02:26:34 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2014, 02:24:23 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 15, 2014, 02:23:52 PM
And on a related not, good to see Languish's women contingent (all Two of you), posting several threads over the last couple of days. :cool:
:hug:
Yeah. :hug:
I tried to word that sentence so it couldn't be misconstrued, but I think some languishite will be along in a while, to pick whole with it. :)
My takeaway from your post was that posting is usually too complicated a thing for the delicate feminine mind and that you were patronizingly congratulating them managing to do something we men do all the time. Pig :angry:
:yes:
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2014, 02:48:29 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 02:47:30 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 15, 2014, 02:26:34 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2014, 02:24:23 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 15, 2014, 02:23:52 PM
And on a related not, good to see Languish's women contingent (all Two of you), posting several threads over the last couple of days. :cool:
:hug:
Yeah. :hug:
I tried to word that sentence so it couldn't be misconstrued, but I think some languishite will be along in a while, to pick whole with it. :)
My takeaway from your post was that posting is usually too complicated a thing for the delicate feminine mind and that you were patronizingly congratulating them managing to do something we men do all the time. Pig :angry:
:yes:
Truth be told, I was alluding to 'our' undercurrent of misogyny, that seems to have driven away all but two of our female colleagues, both of whom must be quite robust characters.
It may not be in your face, but I wouldn't characterise this as a female friendly or neutral place, hell I've invited a fair few women here and none seemed to have 'stuck' on the place.
Quote from: mongers on October 15, 2014, 02:53:26 PM
Truth be told, I was alluding to 'our' undercurrent of misogyny, that seems to have driven away all but two of our female colleagues, both of whom must be quite robust characters.
It may not be in your face, but I wouldn't characterise this as a female friendly or neutral place, hell I've invited a fair few women here and none seemed to have 'stuck' on the place.
Misogyny didn't drive away charliebear, Michigan did.
Who is going to win this thing? The neckbeards or the SJW's? My money would be on the neckbeards, they've been training their whole lives to fight evil playing video games. :hmm: Tenacious lot.
Quote from: mongers on October 15, 2014, 02:53:26 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2014, 02:48:29 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 02:47:30 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 15, 2014, 02:26:34 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2014, 02:24:23 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 15, 2014, 02:23:52 PM
And on a related not, good to see Languish's women contingent (all Two of you), posting several threads over the last couple of days. :cool:
:hug:
Yeah. :hug:
I tried to word that sentence so it couldn't be misconstrued, but I think some languishite will be along in a while, to pick whole with it. :)
My takeaway from your post was that posting is usually too complicated a thing for the delicate feminine mind and that you were patronizingly congratulating them managing to do something we men do all the time. Pig :angry:
:yes:
Truth be told, I was alluding to 'our' undercurrent of misogyny, that seems to have driven away all but two of our female colleagues, both of whom must be quite robust characters.
It may not be in your face, but I wouldn't characterise this as a female friendly or neutral place, hell I've invited a fair few women here and none seemed to have 'stuck' on the place.
I think they are the wrong kind of women. If I thought they were up for chatting endlessly on a message board, I've several female friends of the right temperament.
Also, Languish was generated from a pretty phallo-centric board.
Quote from: Jacob on October 15, 2014, 02:35:31 PMAnd in related news, this shit-storm is now hitting people I'm professionally close to :(
... as in their name being spread around the internet and people trying to dox them, all for the temerity of posting in a private message group (much like languish, only closed to the public) about how this gamergate thing is BS.
Quote from: mongers on October 15, 2014, 02:53:26 PM
Truth be told, I was alluding to 'our' undercurrent of misogyny, that seems to have driven away all but two of our female colleagues, both of whom must be quite robust characters.
Did we ever have more than 2 or 3 here at a given time? How many have we had total? 4??
QuoteIt may not be in your face, but I wouldn't characterise this as a female friendly or neutral place,
No shit. It's basically a locker room here. I don't know why any woman in her right mind would want to hang out with us, though I am grateful that Meri and Brazen are sticking through it :)
Quotehell I've invited a fair few women here and none seemed to have 'stuck' on the place.
:huh: What did these poor women do to you to deserve that??
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2014, 02:55:52 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 15, 2014, 02:53:26 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2014, 02:48:29 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 02:47:30 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 15, 2014, 02:26:34 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2014, 02:24:23 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 15, 2014, 02:23:52 PM
And on a related not, good to see Languish's women contingent (all Two of you), posting several threads over the last couple of days. :cool:
:hug:
Yeah. :hug:
I tried to word that sentence so it couldn't be misconstrued, but I think some languishite will be along in a while, to pick whole with it. :)
My takeaway from your post was that posting is usually too complicated a thing for the delicate feminine mind and that you were patronizingly congratulating them managing to do something we men do all the time. Pig :angry:
:yes:
Truth be told, I was alluding to 'our' undercurrent of misogyny, that seems to have driven away all but two of our female colleagues, both of whom must be quite robust characters.
It may not be in your face, but I wouldn't characterise this as a female friendly or neutral place, hell I've invited a fair few women here and none seemed to have 'stuck' on the place.
I think they are the wrong kind of women. If I thought they were up for chatting endlessly on a message board, I've several female friends of the right temperament.
Also, Languish was generated from a pretty phallo-centric board.
Well invite them then.
Though to be fair I think most of the women I invited here, it was for the purpose of giving them an insight into a part of me, for better and worse. But two or three really would have fitted in here and have benefited from the atmosphere here.
No, I think Paradox OT was eurowennie/y personified, lots of super opinionated just post-teenagers with theoretical knowledge of, but not too much experience of the real world.
Quote from: mongers on October 15, 2014, 03:00:20 PM
Well invite them then.
I don't think they would want to be here which is what I think just said. :P
Quote from: mongers on October 15, 2014, 03:00:20 PM
No, I think Paradox OT was eurowennie/y personified, lots of super opinionated just post-teenagers with theoretical knowledge of, but not too much experience of the real world.
None of which negates the fact that it was primarily a sausage fest.
Zoe Quinn as the Helen of Troy of SJW-dom is darkly funny though. :lol:
I tried getting CF to post again recently, that lasted a whole day before she got bored.
Quote from: Jacob on October 15, 2014, 02:56:47 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 15, 2014, 02:35:31 PMAnd in related news, this shit-storm is now hitting people I'm professionally close to :(
... as in their name being spread around the internet and people trying to dox them, all for the temerity of posting in a private message group (much like languish, only closed to the public) about how this gamergate thing is BS.
God, I'm sorry, Jacob. This isn't going to go well for them, if history holds. Here's to hoping that no one "outs" their personal information.
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 15, 2014, 03:08:26 PM
I tried getting CF to post again recently, that lasted a whole day before she got bored.
My wife refuses to have anything to do with this place, and assumes I am risking my life associating with the lot of you. ;)
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 11:11:51 AM
I'm having to get caught up on all this. I had no idea what gamergate is or was. Anyway man, that Quinn girl is homely. Who would sacrifice their professional integrity to sleep with her??
2/10, Spice. Try harder.
This the group Jacob?
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/09/addressing-allegations-of-collusion-among-gaming-journalists/
Quote from: mongers on October 15, 2014, 03:00:20 PM
No, I think Paradox OT was eurowennie/y personified, lots of super opinionated just post-teenagers with theoretical knowledge of, but not too much experience of the real world.
wich is about what most of us where 14 years ago?
Mrs B knows about this place, registered here like 10 years ago, but thinks the stuff we talk about is boring.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 15, 2014, 03:13:11 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 11:11:51 AM
I'm having to get caught up on all this. I had no idea what gamergate is or was. Anyway man, that Quinn girl is homely. Who would sacrifice their professional integrity to sleep with her??
2/10, Spice. Try harder.
2/10 on what?
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 02:58:03 PM
Did we ever have more than 2 or 3 here at a given time? How many have we had total? 4??
Charliebear, Princesa, CF, Korea, Brazen, me, Korea's friend (can't remember her name), and a handful of others over the years, but I'm terrible with names
Quote
No shit. It's basically a locker room here. I don't know why any woman in her right mind would want to hang out with us, though I am grateful that Meri and Brazen are sticking through it :)
You're all not so bad. Some are... not so nice... as others, but in general, you're all pretty decent fellows. It may be like a locker room around here, but at least it doesn't smell like one, and only a handful of guys feel a need to try to make it a "men only" room.
Quote from: Jacob on October 15, 2014, 11:32:31 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 15, 2014, 11:08:03 AM
I believe Quinn admitted to having a relationship with a game reviewer from Kotaku (but, of course, so what - consenting adults and all that), but agree that the sex-for-reviews thing is proven untrue since the fellow never wrote a review of her game.
Yeah, but so what? People break up all the time and people have sex with people all the time. There's no scandal there, and frankly, who fucks whom in SF's indie game dev scene is not really anyone else's business.
Now, Jake, let's not overreach. It is the State's business.
Quote from: Spice2/10 on what?
:lol:
Quote from: viper37 on October 15, 2014, 03:13:37 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 15, 2014, 03:00:20 PM
No, I think Paradox OT was eurowennie/y personified, lots of super opinionated just post-teenagers with theoretical knowledge of, but not too much experience of the real world.
wich is about what most of us where 14 years ago?
Sadly, no. :(
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2014, 03:14:41 PM
Korea's friend (can't remember her name)
Ugh. Just remembering that she exists makes me feel stupider.
Quote from: Malthus on October 15, 2014, 03:18:23 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 15, 2014, 03:13:37 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 15, 2014, 03:00:20 PM
No, I think Paradox OT was eurowennie/y personified, lots of super opinionated just post-teenagers with theoretical knowledge of, but not too much experience of the real world.
wich is about what most of us where 14 years ago?
Sadly, no. :(
I was 14. :)
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2014, 03:10:28 PM
God, I'm sorry, Jacob. This isn't going to go well for them, if history holds. Here's to hoping that no one "outs" their personal information.
We're working on getting the information taken down ASAP, but who knows. Some of the people on the list have already gotten abuse as a result of this.
Quote from: Barrister on October 15, 2014, 03:13:27 PM
This the group Jacob?
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/09/addressing-allegations-of-collusion-among-gaming-journalists/
Nope, this is stuff that happened today. I'm not going to give specifics, because I frankly don't want to spread the information any further. I'll tell you about it over beer when you're in town next.
Man, It took me a while to figure out they weren't talking about the Swedish digital download service.
Quote from: Barrister on October 15, 2014, 03:14:12 PM
Mrs B knows about this place, registered here like 10 years ago, but thinks the stuff we talk about is boring.
Frau Spiess would die of boredom here unless every thread was about David Bowie, fashion, or Walking Dead.
A few years ago she became concerned that it was a gay forum because she kept seeing rufweed's (?) avatar when she walked by.
Quote from: Jacob on October 15, 2014, 03:24:48 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2014, 03:10:28 PM
God, I'm sorry, Jacob. This isn't going to go well for them, if history holds. Here's to hoping that no one "outs" their personal information.
We're working on getting the information taken down ASAP, but who knows. Some of the people on the list have already gotten abuse as a result of this.
:(
Quote from: Ideologue on October 15, 2014, 03:15:24 PM
Quote from: Spice2/10 on what?
:lol:
Still have no idea what you're talking about.
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2014, 03:18:27 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2014, 03:14:41 PM
Korea's friend (can't remember her name)
Ugh. Just remembering that she exists makes me feel stupider.
OMG was that the "shake that laffy taffy" girl?? I remember her now.
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 03:44:18 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2014, 03:18:27 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2014, 03:14:41 PM
Korea's friend (can't remember her name)
Ugh. Just remembering that she exists makes me feel stupider.
OMG was that the "shake that laffy taffy" girl?? I remember her now.
Yep. :D
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2014, 03:45:54 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 03:44:18 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2014, 03:18:27 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2014, 03:14:41 PM
Korea's friend (can't remember her name)
Ugh. Just remembering that she exists makes me feel stupider.
OMG was that the "shake that laffy taffy" girl?? I remember her now.
Yep. :D
Great. Now we can all share in that feeling of increased stupidity. ;)
I think we will see the end of internet anonymity in the next decade or so.
Everybody will be issued a unique login / password and will only be able to participate online under real name (or at least with the name readily available to the authorities).
Quote from: Malthus on October 15, 2014, 03:49:03 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2014, 03:45:54 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 03:44:18 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2014, 03:18:27 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2014, 03:14:41 PM
Korea's friend (can't remember her name)
Ugh. Just remembering that she exists makes me feel stupider.
OMG was that the "shake that laffy taffy" girl?? I remember her now.
Yep. :D
Great. Now we can all share in that feeling of increased stupidity. ;)
Sharing, caring. :hug:
Quote from: Martinus on October 15, 2014, 03:49:58 PM
I think we will see the end of internet anonymity in the next decade or so.
Everybody will be issued a unique login / password and will only be able to participate online under real name (or at least with the name readily available to the authorities).
Okay, Ide. On a related note, I believe facebook just rolled back that policy after a lot of heat from drag queens.
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 02:45:05 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 15, 2014, 02:30:40 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on October 15, 2014, 12:59:33 PM
Saarkeesian has a legit hustle, get money from being the angry femcunt via donations, the attention that hog Quinn is getting for sleeping with all those moist-eyed herbs for her shitty "game" is baffling to me, on the other hand. Maybe just gas the entire Tumblr user base and call it a day? :hmm:
:huh: What the fuck? "femcunt?" "That hog Quinn?" Your misogyny baffles me. What the fuck is wrong with you? What makes you think your point is enhanced by attaching this kind of spew? If you have a point, make it without the hysterical hyperbole. If you can't, then you should probably just STFU.
Okay, maybe it was a troll :hmm:
Maybe, but it doesn't seem like a troll, and Legbiter has said this kind of stuff (not at this level) before. Maybe he thought sounding like one of the dudes in the story was clever, and I just missed the subtlety. Still, he should add a sarcasm smiley if he wants me to decode his words as sarcasm.
Legbiter is a freaking liar, all pretending he knows nothing about it when clearly he knows all about it. Why he is doing it I have no idea but it is pretty pathetic.
Quote from: Jacob on October 15, 2014, 03:24:48 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2014, 03:10:28 PM
God, I'm sorry, Jacob. This isn't going to go well for them, if history holds. Here's to hoping that no one "outs" their personal information.
We're working on getting the information taken down ASAP, but who knows. Some of the people on the list have already gotten abuse as a result of this.
Have they learned all about professional ethics as a result?
Quote from: Valmy on October 15, 2014, 03:59:46 PM
Legbiter is a freaking liar, all pretending he knows nothing about it when clearly he knows all about it. Why he is doing it I have no idea but it is pretty pathetic.
Yeah. I'm all for misogyny, as long as it is grallon-style. But spewing nasty crap about women and then going back home to fuck one like a little cunt slave is pretty lame. :D
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2014, 03:52:10 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 15, 2014, 03:49:58 PM
I think we will see the end of internet anonymity in the next decade or so.
Everybody will be issued a unique login / password and will only be able to participate online under real name (or at least with the name readily available to the authorities).
Okay, Ide. On a related note, I believe facebook just rolled back that policy after a lot of heat from drag queens.
Which I thought was preposterous. Stupid drag queens.
Quote from: Martinus on October 15, 2014, 04:05:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2014, 03:52:10 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 15, 2014, 03:49:58 PM
I think we will see the end of internet anonymity in the next decade or so.
Everybody will be issued a unique login / password and will only be able to participate online under real name (or at least with the name readily available to the authorities).
Okay, Ide. On a related note, I believe facebook just rolled back that policy after a lot of heat from drag queens.
Which I thought was preposterous. Stupid drag queens.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Martinus on October 15, 2014, 04:05:02 PM
Yeah. I'm all for misogyny, as long as it is grallon-style. But spewing nasty crap about women and then going back home to fuck one like a little cunt slave is pretty lame. :D
I live but to serve the mistress of the precious.
Quote from: Valmy on October 15, 2014, 04:09:30 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 15, 2014, 04:05:02 PM
Yeah. I'm all for misogyny, as long as it is grallon-style. But spewing nasty crap about women and then going back home to fuck one like a little cunt slave is pretty lame. :D
I live but to serve the mistress of the precious.
It's fine, my point is that misogyny only works for gays, for everyone else it is hypocritical.
Quote from: Martinus on October 15, 2014, 04:10:50 PM
It's fine, my point is that misogyny only works for gays, for everyone else it is hypocritical.
Misogynistic Lesbians are conflicted. What about misogynistic transmen?
Quote from: Martinus on October 15, 2014, 04:10:50 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 15, 2014, 04:09:30 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 15, 2014, 04:05:02 PM
Yeah. I'm all for misogyny, as long as it is grallon-style. But spewing nasty crap about women and then going back home to fuck one like a little cunt slave is pretty lame. :D
I live but to serve the mistress of the precious.
It's fine, my point is that misogyny only works for gays, for everyone else it is hypocritical.
Spoken like a true homosexual. The independently wealthy aren't likely to be passionate about the minimum wage, either.
:P
If there is another scandal at that Watergate can we call it Watergategate?
Quote from: Valmy on October 15, 2014, 05:19:21 PM
If there is another scandal at that Watergate can we call it Watergategate?
I think we did those jokes a few years back. :P
If one of the next few White house intruders is Bill Gates and he drives through to the East portico unchallenged, we could call it gatesgatesgate.
Quote from: Martinus on October 15, 2014, 03:49:58 PM
I think we will see the end of internet anonymity in the next decade or so.
Everybody will be issued a unique login / password and will only be able to participate online under real name (or at least with the name readily available to the authorities).
I wish. There needs to be a way to punch people in the mouth over the internet.
Quote from: mongers on October 15, 2014, 04:58:16 PM
Hang on, sorry to revert to 'type' but didn't she have a nice rack? :cool:
I'm so ashamed to have said that. :blush: :blush: :blush:
Correct, and I for one forgive you. :)
Quote from: Razgovory on October 15, 2014, 06:29:54 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 15, 2014, 03:49:58 PM
I think we will see the end of internet anonymity in the next decade or so.
Everybody will be issued a unique login / password and will only be able to participate online under real name (or at least with the name readily available to the authorities).
I wish. There needs to be a way to punch people in the mouth over the internet.
Tim would be one giant wound.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 15, 2014, 05:01:14 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 15, 2014, 04:10:50 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 15, 2014, 04:09:30 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 15, 2014, 04:05:02 PM
Yeah. I'm all for misogyny, as long as it is grallon-style. But spewing nasty crap about women and then going back home to fuck one like a little cunt slave is pretty lame. :D
I live but to serve the mistress of the precious.
It's fine, my point is that misogyny only works for gays, for everyone else it is hypocritical.
Spoken like a true homosexual. The independently wealthy aren't likely to be passionate about the minimum wage, either.
:P
No it is actually someone trying hard to imitate what he's seen gays should act like.
Quote from: Barrister on October 15, 2014, 03:13:27 PM
This the group Jacob?
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/09/addressing-allegations-of-collusion-among-gaming-journalists/
Once upon a time, the only thing journalists would do together would just drink, play cards and keep the inside bullshit amongst themselves.
The Boys On The Bus they ain't.
Isn't gamergate an online game store?
Quote from: Neil on October 15, 2014, 08:29:38 PM
Isn't gamergate an online game store?
That would be gamersgate.
Ah.
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 02:58:03 PM
No shit. It's basically a locker room here.
If this was a locker room I would be ignoring all of you and hurrying as fast as I could to wash up and get out.
Quote from: Neil on October 15, 2014, 08:29:38 PM
Isn't gamergate an online game store?
I cannot tell you how confusing that was in the early stages of this. I was like 'why is everybody talking about Gamersgate...wasn't that shut down?'
Quote from: Valmy on October 15, 2014, 09:48:56 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 02:58:03 PM
No shit. It's basically a locker room here.
If this was a locker room I would be ignoring all of you and hurrying as fast as I could to wash up and get out.
And we'd be snapping towels at you as you high tail it out.
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 09:51:22 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 15, 2014, 09:48:56 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 02:58:03 PM
No shit. It's basically a locker room here.
If this was a locker room I would be ignoring all of you and hurrying as fast as I could to wash up and get out.
And we'd be snapping towels at you as you high tail it out.
I'd totally lay the homoeroticism on you to make you uncomfortable. Just because it'd be funny.
I admit that I'd just be standing around watching.... and comparing, erm, attributes. :perv:
Quote from: Valmy on October 15, 2014, 09:49:36 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 15, 2014, 08:29:38 PM
Isn't gamergate an online game store?
I cannot tell you how confusing that was in the early stages of this. I was like 'why is everybody talking about Gamersgate...wasn't that shut down?'
Looks like they are still up. But here's something: Paradox said they weren't going to be releasing their content for Crusader Kings 2 on there anymore (which was weird by its self since Paradox stated up Gamersgate). Everyone who used that service was encouraged to use steam. So I typed in every stupid game code into Steam to register it. I look at their front page and they're selling the most recent DLC right now.
While I completely agree that death threats on that magnitude (School shooting threats? Seriously? I hope you get your protein rectally through 3 buttfucks a day in jail) demand the hammer be dropped...
I couldn't stop myself from that initial thought of how oddly coincidental it is, since Anita Sarkeesian's play of the victim card is what's largely driven her career the past couple of years. :blush:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 15, 2014, 06:44:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 15, 2014, 03:13:27 PM
This the group Jacob?
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/09/addressing-allegations-of-collusion-among-gaming-journalists/ (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/09/addressing-allegations-of-collusion-among-gaming-journalists/)
Once upon a time, the only thing journalists would do together would just drink, play cards and keep the inside bullshit amongst themselves. The Boys On The Bus they ain't.
Heh. I like that his response is to something written by someone from the Breitbart website (that Derspeiss brought to us and has in turned brought us such gems as the doctored ACORN videos). Naturally our conservative friends see a conspiracy here.
How does one "play the victim card" in this scenario? By saying, "Because I said this game was sexist against women, I'm being threatened with rape, torture, and murder. Oh, and now an entire university is being threatened, too."? Is that "playing the victim card" or is it reporting what's actually happening to her simply because she says, "This game isn't socially acceptable."? ie voicing an opinion that others don't like.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2014, 10:28:46 PM
I couldn't stop myself from that initial thought of how oddly coincidental it is, since Anita Sarkeesian's play of the victim card is what's largely driven her career the past couple of years. :blush:
Well you have to admit if you are an activist trying to expose sexism in the gaming industry you would be an idiot not to play up getting death and rape threats. It seems to weird to call doing what is logical for an activist to do 'playing a card'. I guess dogs 'play the barking card' and parrots 'play the squawking card'.
I wish people would stop considering anal sex a bad thing. I'm looking at you "bisexual" Carrot and "gay" Martina.
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2014, 10:31:46 PM
How does one "play the victim card" in this scenario? By saying, "Because I said this game was sexist against women, I'm being threatened with rape, torture, and murder. Oh, and now an entire university is being threatened, too."? Is that "playing the victim card" or is it reporting what's actually happening to her simply because she says, "This game isn't socially acceptable."? ie voicing an opinion that others don't like.
This incident is newsworthy because it's the exception, not the rule. "Play the victim card" was poor composition on my part- Sarkeesian's talks and articles mostly center on her amazing ability to find sexism in nearly any comment and then be disturbed by how "commonplace" sexism is in the gamer community.
She tends to focus on smack talk directed at female gamers and get all upset while completely ignoring that it happens to male gamers, too.
Quote from: garbon on October 15, 2014, 10:38:49 PM
I wish people would stop considering anal sex a bad thing. I'm looking at you "bisexual" Carrot and "gay" Martina.
Hyperbolic language about anal rape being unenjoyable != "anal sex is a bad thing."
In fact, I frequently Ask for Anal(TM).
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2014, 10:31:46 PM
How does one "play the victim card" in this scenario? By saying, "Because I said this game was sexist against women, I'm being threatened with rape, torture, and murder. Oh, and now an entire university is being threatened, too."? Is that "playing the victim card" or is it reporting what's actually happening to her simply because she says, "This game isn't socially acceptable."? ie voicing an opinion that others don't like.
If somebody gets death threats they should be quiet to protect the death threaters. They at least owe them that much.
But again um if you have a cause you would be a freaking idiot not to use these attacks to advance it. Her harassers are proving her right. Anybody who didn't think sexism is a huge problem amongst the male population are being shown otherwise. Anybody who didn't think gaming culture wasn't violently misogynistic have to reconsider. It is amazing how counter-productive the efforts of the Legbiter community are.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2014, 10:41:38 PM
She tends to focus on smack talk directed at female gamers and get all upset while completely ignoring that it happens to male gamers, too.
Because that is not her job? She is not some sort of supernatural being smiting all wrongs she is a Feminist Activist. She will do things Feminist activists do. That is as big of a failing as farmers completely ignoring ranching.
'My plumber tends to focus on my plumbing but completely ignores my electrical system'
Quote from: Valmy on October 15, 2014, 10:52:39 PM
If somebody gets death threats they should be quiet to protect the death threaters. They at least owe them that much.
This was a valid concern, and I never said that it wasn't.
QuoteBut again um if you have a cause you would be a freaking idiot not to use these attacks to advance it. Her harassers are proving her right. Anybody who didn't think sexism is a huge problem amongst the male population are being shown otherwise. Anybody who didn't think gaming culture wasn't violently misogynistic have to reconsider. It is amazing how counter-productive the efforts of the Legbiter community are.
It's the exception that proves the rule, I guess. And Legbiter? My first thought was 4Chan, honestly. It's the kind of casual, completely disproportionate "response" that's de rigeur for 4Chan posters.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2014, 10:57:43 PM
It's the exception that proves the rule, I guess. And Legbiter? My first thought was 4Chan, honestly. It's the kind of casual, completely disproportionate "response" that's de rigeur for 4Chan posters.
I was just pulling his chain. Yes Anime fans do have quite an unsavory reputation.
Quote from: Valmy on October 15, 2014, 09:48:56 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 02:58:03 PM
No shit. It's basically a locker room here.
If this was a locker room I would be ignoring all of you and hurrying as fast as I could to wash up and get out.
Siege would be leaving tons of his nasty ass nappy Arab hair in clumps in the shower, just to find out it's his Jew pubes.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2014, 10:57:43 PM
It's the exception that proves the rule, I guess. And Legbiter? My first thought was 4Chan, honestly. It's the kind of casual, completely disproportionate "response" that's de rigeur for 4Chan posters.
Well it's not the exception, it happens all the time. Lots of people are getting death threats over this shit. I know several, just today.
Check this out: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maureen-ryan/anita-sarkeesian_b_5993082.html
Internet trolls of the level need to put in the gaol.
Get on it BB.
It's the stuff that makes you feel ashamed to identify as "gamer."
Quote from: Razgovory on October 15, 2014, 10:21:50 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 15, 2014, 09:49:36 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 15, 2014, 08:29:38 PM
Isn't gamergate an online game store?
I cannot tell you how confusing that was in the early stages of this. I was like 'why is everybody talking about Gamersgate...wasn't that shut down?'
Looks like they are still up. But here's something: Paradox said they weren't going to be releasing their content for Crusader Kings 2 on there anymore (which was weird by its self since Paradox stated up Gamersgate). Everyone who used that service was encouraged to use steam. So I typed in every stupid game code into Steam to register it. I look at their front page and they're selling the most recent DLC right now.
They also "sell" Total War Games. I assume they work on commission from Steam since what you are actually purchasing is the Steam version with Steam activation codes...so you still need to install that piece of crap software.*
There's no GamersGate version.
*which now brings up a message every time I load CK2 that I need to input "this code" when asked. I have never been asked for this code but am always forced to alt-tab into the Steam screen to get rid of the message that obscures the start button. It's minor but very annoying...
Or you could just deactivate the Steam overlay for the game in its properties. And I've never had those messages bother me after I clicked "Don't show this again" when the screen pops up in game.
Quote from: Syt on October 16, 2014, 05:00:29 AM
Or you could just deactivate the Steam overlay for the game in its properties. And I've never had those messages bother me after I clicked "Don't show this again" when the screen pops up in game.
I've been leaving them up just in case it actually asks me for them, no matter how annoying it is; I originally brought CK2 on Gamersgate and got the Steam codes in the transfer. I keep expecting the game to tell me that it's never been properly activated after Steam itself updates (which it does quite regularly.)
Probably a little technophobic that, on reflection... :hmm:
Those registration code pop ups usually are only relevant if a game makes you register it either for multiplayer (e.g. the Wargame series) or if the developers make you register the game with them, too (e.g. Ubisoft). And then you'll only need it once, too. :)
You can deactivate them, and if a game actually asks for them, you can still look up the code in your library.
Quote from: Barrister on October 15, 2014, 12:20:42 PM
...
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-i-learned-as-internets-most-hated-person/
I read her account and it convinced me all the more that my disdain for social media is well founded.
G.
Quote from: Valmy on October 15, 2014, 10:52:39 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 15, 2014, 10:31:46 PM
How does one "play the victim card" in this scenario? By saying, "Because I said this game was sexist against women, I'm being threatened with rape, torture, and murder. Oh, and now an entire university is being threatened, too."? Is that "playing the victim card" or is it reporting what's actually happening to her simply because she says, "This game isn't socially acceptable."? ie voicing an opinion that others don't like.
If somebody gets death threats they should be quiet to protect the death threaters. They at least owe them that much.
But again um if you have a cause you would be a freaking idiot not to use these attacks to advance it. Her harassers are proving her right. Anybody who didn't think sexism is a huge problem amongst the male population are being shown otherwise. Anybody who didn't think gaming culture wasn't violently misogynistic have to reconsider. It is amazing how counter-productive the efforts of the Legbiter community are.
Certainly. Though, being trolls, one naturally wonders if they aren't equal-opportunity haters - that is, if their chosen victims' sensitivity is to misogeny, they are misogynists to the (absurd) max; if their chosen victims were Jewish activists, and so sensitive to anti-Semitism, they would be neo-Nazis to the max; if their chosen victims were gay, homophobic lunatics; etc.
In short, that the trolls are taking on the persona necessary to get a rise out of their victims. Which isn't to say misogyny, anti-semitism, and homophobia aren't major issues, or that these trolls do not have some (or all ) of these traits, only that it is most unwise to judge their relative prevelence in the population at large by the activities of trolls.
Quote from: Jacob on October 15, 2014, 10:08:34 PM
I'd totally lay the homoeroticism on you to make you uncomfortable. Just because it'd be funny.
I bet you would. But it probably takes more to make me uncomfortable than you think.
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2014, 08:44:38 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 15, 2014, 10:08:34 PM
I'd totally lay the homoeroticism on you to make you uncomfortable. Just because it'd be funny.
I bet you would. But it probably takes more to make me uncomfortable than you think.
Just how far will these two go to prove a point?
Stay tuned! [Boom-chica-wow-wow]
Quote from: Malthus on October 16, 2014, 08:12:50 AM
Certainly. Though, being trolls, one naturally wonders if they aren't equal-opportunity haters - that is, if their chosen victims' sensitivity is to misogeny, they are misogynists to the (absurd) max; if their chosen victims were Jewish activists, and so sensitive to anti-Semitism, they would be neo-Nazis to the max; if their chosen victims were gay, homophobic lunatics; etc.
I don't think that's the case, and I think it's not just a matter of "trolls". There's been a growing segment of the MRA "men as victims" crowd that has been growing increasingly louder, and enough of that shit is perfectly earnest. I've had enough real life conversations with actual people who are buying into parts of the rhetoric; it's not just "this is absurd, I'll pretend I mean it. Lolz!"
In short, I think your hypothesis is incorrect.
QuoteIn short, that the trolls are taking on the persona necessary to get a rise out of their victims. Which isn't to say misogyny, anti-semitism, and homophobia aren't major issues, or that these trolls do not have some (or all ) of these traits, only that it is most unwise to judge their relative prevelence in the population at large by the activities of trolls.
I don't really care about the "relative prevalence" of trolls. What I care about is that their activities are spilling over from mean words on message boards and out into the real world, with real world consequences. When people get harassing phone calls, when death threats are being called in to threaten public speakers, when peoples personal details are being spread across large networks with calls to harass them, then dismissing them as "equal opportunity trolls who are just out to get a rise out of people" is an inadequate response.
Quote from: Jacob on October 16, 2014, 10:00:51 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 16, 2014, 08:12:50 AM
Certainly. Though, being trolls, one naturally wonders if they aren't equal-opportunity haters - that is, if their chosen victims' sensitivity is to misogeny, they are misogynists to the (absurd) max; if their chosen victims were Jewish activists, and so sensitive to anti-Semitism, they would be neo-Nazis to the max; if their chosen victims were gay, homophobic lunatics; etc.
I don't think that's the case, and I think it's not just a matter of "trolls". There's been a growing segment of the MRA "men as victims" crowd that has been growing increasingly louder, and enough of that shit is perfectly earnest. I've had enough real life conversations with actual people who are buying into parts of the rhetoric; it's not just "this is absurd, I'll pretend I mean it. Lolz!"
In short, I think your hypothesis is incorrect.
That could well be the case. I can't say I've studied the matter.
Edit: though this assumes that the people trolling, harrassing, and making terroristic threats are simply a subset of those earnest people who are into that MRA stuff. Which may or may not be the case.
QuoteI don't really care about the "relative prevalence" of trolls. What I care about is that their activities are spilling over from mean words on message boards and out into the real world, with real world consequences. When people get harassing phone calls, when death threats are being called in to threaten public speakers, when peoples personal details are being spread across large networks with calls to harass them, then dismissing them as "equal opportunity trolls who are just out to get a rise out of people" is an inadequate response.
Of course people who make death threats and the like should be policed. You seem to be reacting as if that was in dispute, which it is not.
That's rather orthogonal to my point, which was (if you will recall) that you can't take the activities of these people as evidence that the theories of the folks they are threatening or harrasing are
generally true, as their activities gain publicity out of all proportion to their actual numbers - which is true whether they genuinely believe the shit they spew (your opinion, which may be correct), or whether many if not most of them are completely indifferent to the content of the shit they are spewing, and are simply taking the opportunity to spew shit.
Quote from: Syt on October 16, 2014, 05:19:23 AM
Those registration code pop ups usually are only relevant if a game makes you register it either for multiplayer (e.g. the Wargame series) or if the developers make you register the game with them, too (e.g. Ubisoft). And then you'll only need it once, too. :)
You can deactivate them, and if a game actually asks for them, you can still look up the code in your library.
Yeah sounds like the real problem here is that Age is a very silly man. :D
Quote from: Malthus on October 16, 2014, 10:12:22 AM
That could well be the case. I can't say I've studied the matter.
Edit: though this assumes that the people trolling, harrassing, and making terroristic threats are simply a subset of those earnest people who are into that MRA stuff. Which may or may not be the case.
I'm paying a fair amount of attention, for professional and personal reasons.
I can't speak to whether the individuals are the same, but the rhetoric and lines of reasoning have some similarity. There's a whole bunch of "cultural marxism"/Jewish conspiracy things mixed into it as well, which makes it fairly uncharming. Except, of course, this time it's "evil feminists" who are manipulating the mainstream media for their foul ends, rather than Jews.
Quote from: From a GamerGate ManifestoWe believe that games are an art form that should be allowed to flourish and evolve naturally and freely and should thus be protected from the dogmatic rhetoric of a clique of totalitarian ideologues who seek only to reign over an intellectually monolithic empire.
Quote from: MalthusOf course people who make death threats and the like should be policed. You seem to be reacting as if that was in dispute, which it is not.
Ok, we're on the same page on this then :hug:
QuoteThat's rather orthogonal to my point, which was (if you will recall) that you can't take the activities of these people as evidence that the theories of the folks they are threatening or harrasing are generally true, as their activities gain publicity out of all proportion to their actual numbers - which is true whether they genuinely believe the shit they spew (your opinion, which may be correct), or whether many if not most of them are completely indifferent to the content of the shit they are spewing, and are simply taking the opportunity to spew shit.
Okay, fair enough. I guess my response to that point is that it doesn't really matter to me whether they believe it or not when I'm still dealing with the fallout. I do, on occasion, have some academic interest in figuring out what's going on inside someone's head and what might have pushed them to say and do the things they said and did, but at this point the motivations for trolling and harassment are of less concern than the repercussions.
But if you want try to delve into the motivations, here are a few bits to delve into:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FdBh9ISQ.png&hash=141413670fec05c2534f284a08986cdd03154881)
Here's a manifesto to enjoy: http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/printthread.php?t=217525
And here are a couple of counterpoints:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/16/of-gamers-gates-and-disco-demolition-the-roots-of-reactionary-rage.html
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/gamergate-is-an-attack-on-ethical-journalism/
To me - and I obviously have my own sets of bias etc - it doesn't seem to be primarily trolling, but rather a reactionary mob with a few bits of legitimate complaint mixed into a giant ball of incoherent rage.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2014, 10:15:34 AM
Quote from: Syt on October 16, 2014, 05:19:23 AM
Those registration code pop ups usually are only relevant if a game makes you register it either for multiplayer (e.g. the Wargame series) or if the developers make you register the game with them, too (e.g. Ubisoft). And then you'll only need it once, too. :)
You can deactivate them, and if a game actually asks for them, you can still look up the code in your library.
Yeah sounds like the real problem here is that Age is a very silly man. :D
I prefer "single-minded". :contract:
:P
Quote from: Jacob on October 16, 2014, 11:30:20 AM
But if you want try to delve into the motivations, here are a few bits to delve into:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FdBh9ISQ.png&hash=141413670fec05c2534f284a08986cdd03154881)
Here's a manifesto to enjoy: http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/printthread.php?t=217525
Both of these just leave me scratching my head. They're total
non sequiturs - the arguments have absolutely nothing to do with what the #gamergate people are doing,
Quote from: Jacob
And here are a couple of counterpoints:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/16/of-gamers-gates-and-disco-demolition-the-roots-of-reactionary-rage.html
But this just seems bizarre. It's trying to connect #gamergate to the anti-disco backlash of the late 70s. That's from just the beginning of my pop culture awareness, but I didn't recall any such racial bias in favour of (white) rock over (black) disco. It was just one of those cultural things - disco had become so popular, so fast, that it ceased to be cool. It's just a really tortured analogy.
Quote from: Jacob
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/gamergate-is-an-attack-on-ethical-journalism/
This. This I agree with. It's not about journalistic ethics. It's about wanting to dictate what can and can not be discussed.
Quote from: Jacob
To me - and I obviously have my own sets of bias etc - it doesn't seem to be primarily trolling, but rather a reactionary mob with a few bits of legitimate complaint mixed into a giant ball of incoherent rage.
I guess you and I are in agreement then. It's not trolling - it's not being done "for the lulz". There's enough people spending an inordinate amount of time on this there's some genuine emotion bound up in it. But it's just emotion that has no reasoned, ethical basis for it's justification.
http://reason.com/archives/2014/10/12/gamergate-part-i-sex-lies-and-gender-gam
:ph34r:
Quote from: Jacob on October 16, 2014, 11:30:20 AM
To me - and I obviously have my own sets of bias etc - it doesn't seem to be primarily trolling, but rather a reactionary mob with a few bits of legitimate complaint mixed into a giant ball of incoherent rage.
Here's a compromise - let's have the authorities arrest the people making death threats etc. - and then, at their trials, we can ask them. ;)
I tried but I still can't find enough strength in me to feel an interest in this.
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2014, 03:21:47 PM
I tried but I still can't find enough strength in me to feel an interest in this.
Why in Hods name would you try to feel an interest in something this stupid?
Quote from: Valmy on October 16, 2014, 03:36:46 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2014, 03:21:47 PM
I tried but I still can't find enough strength in me to feel an interest in this.
Why in Hods name would you try to feel an interest in something this stupid?
I still find myself unsure of which side is "gamergate" and un-motivated to find out.
Sorry if this is making people you know unhappy, Jake. It seems the veriest storm in a tea cup.
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2014, 02:16:17 PM
http://reason.com/archives/2014/10/12/gamergate-part-i-sex-lies-and-gender-gam
:ph34r:
Reasonably written. I disagree with a number of points and interpretations, but it's certainly reasonably written. The problem with gamergate is that any semblance of reasonable points is being drowned out by a whole bunch of vile shit. The signal to noise ration is very very low.
Basically, your link says "it's not about this toxic shit, it's about these important things." The problem is that the vast majority of the stuff coming out of gamergate is either toxic or non-sensical like the stuff I linked above. And the rage about "credibility" and "SJW" and "corruption" is completely misdirected in terms of things that have an actual impact on the game industry.
A good summary here: https://plus.google.com/+DavidHillJr/posts/fT3tNRVWL3o
QuoteA couple of days ago, I posted an email from the San Francisco Police Department verifying a police report placed by Anita Sarkeesian. Why? Because a muckraker accused her of lying, and drummed up a BUNCH of hate. His message had over six hundred reshares. His thread had dozens of people talking about how she needs to be imprisoned, how she needs to be shot, and how she's... you get the picture. So, I fact-checked. And I posted the results of that fact-checking. Did I get six hundred people recanting their threats, insults, and accusations? No. I got a couple dozen people threatening me, and a fuckton of people insulting me for DARING to fact-check a journalist. When, mind you, the Gamergate movement is supposedly about holding journalists accountable. Do you know how many messages came up to the effect of, "Oh. I shouldn't have jumped the gun and accused her without the facts?" None. None at all.
So understand why a lot of us say, "This group of people is toxic." It's because a large majority of what we're experiencing is people doing very toxic things. There are some reasonable voices. But from where we stand, they're a stark minority. The movement is about accountability and ethics in journalism, yet the ONLY reaction I got from fact-checking a journalist was hate, denial, threats, and insults. From where I stand, calling Gamergate toxic and hateful isn't a far stretch at all, because it appears to be doing toxic and hateful things.
Quote from: Malthus on October 16, 2014, 02:26:48 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 16, 2014, 11:30:20 AM
To me - and I obviously have my own sets of bias etc - it doesn't seem to be primarily trolling, but rather a reactionary mob with a few bits of legitimate complaint mixed into a giant ball of incoherent rage.
Here's a compromise - let's have the authorities arrest the people making death threats etc. - and then, at their trials, we can ask them. ;)
Or, we could not bother to ask them at their trial. That would work for me, as well.
Quote from: Barrister on October 16, 2014, 02:04:59 PM
Both of these just leave me scratching my head. They're total non sequiturs - the arguments have absolutely nothing to do with what the #gamergate people are doing,
It does have a lot to do with what gamergate is doing, in that it's representative of the incoherent arguments they're putting out for their theoretically non-hateful points.
Quote from: JacobBut this just seems bizarre. It's trying to connect #gamergate to the anti-disco backlash of the late 70s. That's from just the beginning of my pop culture awareness, but I didn't recall any such racial bias in favour of (white) rock over (black) disco. It was just one of those cultural things - disco had become so popular, so fast, that it ceased to be cool. It's just a really tortured analogy.
I didn't think I'd find a lot of takers for that here :lol:
... and I'm not completely sold on it myself.
QuoteThis. This I agree with. It's not about journalistic ethics. It's about wanting to dictate what can and can not be discussed.
I guess you and I are in agreement then. It's not trolling - it's not being done "for the lulz". There's enough people spending an inordinate amount of time on this there's some genuine emotion bound up in it. But it's just emotion that has no reasoned, ethical basis for it's justification.
Yeah, same page here.
Quote from: Malthus on October 16, 2014, 02:26:48 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 16, 2014, 11:30:20 AM
To me - and I obviously have my own sets of bias etc - it doesn't seem to be primarily trolling, but rather a reactionary mob with a few bits of legitimate complaint mixed into a giant ball of incoherent rage.
Here's a compromise - let's have the authorities arrest the people making death threats etc. - and then, at their trials, we can ask them. ;)
Sure!
Quote from: grumbler on October 16, 2014, 03:55:01 PM
I still find myself unsure of which side is "gamergate" and un-motivated to find out.
Sorry if this is making people you know unhappy, Jake. It seems the veriest storm in a tea cup.
Yeah, it really should just be dumb-ass internet drama, but when it starts into pretty average people getting hatemail and death threats it kind of crosses a line for me. As long as it's just people calling each other names on twitter and FB and whatever I don't really care, but when there's doxxing and harassing emails and phonecalls etc it's at a new level, especially when it gets directed at people I'm close to.
Quote from: grumbler on October 16, 2014, 03:56:06 PM
Or, we could not bother to ask them at their trial. That would work for me, as well.
That also works for me!
I do not understand "gamer" culture at all. Not least because there is a "gamer" culture. Hell, When I was in middle school I tended to keep my interest in computer games secret lest I be mocked for it.
Quote from: Jacob on October 16, 2014, 11:30:20 AM
But if you want try to delve into the motivations, here are a few bits to delve into:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FdBh9ISQ.png&hash=141413670fec05c2534f284a08986cdd03154881)
I know I'm not the smartest guy here, so maybe it's just me, but that makes no sense. I can't even follow the logic.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 16, 2014, 04:02:11 PM
I do not understand "gamer" culture at all. Not least because there is a "gamer" culture. Hell, When I was in middle school I tended to keep my interest in computer games secret lest I be mocked for it.
I grew up in an earlier time and in Appalachia, but I never noticed any stigma toward computer gamers either in elementary, junior high, or high school. In fact, computer classes were some of the most popular because you sometimes got to play games.
There were geeks that were heavily into computer games, but also plenty of jocks and other normal people.
IIRC, the only stigmatized groups were the trailer trash and band geeks.
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2014, 04:31:40 PM
I grew up in an earlier time and in Appalachia, but I never noticed any stigma toward computer gamers either in elementary, junior high, or high school. In fact, computer classes were some of the most popular because you sometimes got to play games.
There were geeks that were heavily into computer games, but also plenty of jocks and other normal people.
IIRC, the only stigmatized groups were the trailer trash and band geeks.
That people play computer games is completely expected in the school where I teach. Some love it more than others (there is a Smash Brothers club, whatever Smash Brothers are) but the kids who put on the school plays are as likely to try to ask me if I have ever played GTA as the SBC kids (it's pretty common knowledge I play Elder Scrolls and Fallout games). That there is a separate group of people who consider themselves the standard-bearers of some kind of "game culture" just strike me as weird. It's like some group deciding they are the arbiters of "TV culture" or "music culture."
Maybe there is a subset of games that are "real games," as opposed to what we are familiar with. I've certainly never heard of a "Depression Game."
These days, playing computer games is pretty ubiquitous. Never thought of there being a particular "gamer culture".
Quote from: Malthus on October 16, 2014, 05:16:16 PM
These days, playing computer games is pretty ubiquitous. Never thought of there being a particular "gamer culture".
I have gotten confused when someone has said to me - oh you play video games? With a very judgmental tone. I don't really think of it as an identity.
People stare at me when I wear my Das Reich T-Shirt.
Quote from: grumbler on October 16, 2014, 05:10:46 PMMaybe there is a subset of games that are "real games," as opposed to what we are familiar with. I've certainly never heard of a "Depression Game."
There are a whole bunch of strands of this stuff that's mixed together. I'll lay it out for you, in case you're interested.
So, the ground zero for this is one Zoe Quinn and her bitter ex-boyfriend, Eron Gjoni.
Quinn makes (made) indie games, including this one called "Depression Quest" which got some critical recognition in some indie game dev circles. It's not, I think, the kind of game anyone here would care about (including me), being part of a fairly low-production value artsy sometimes political fringe of game development. She's also, I believe fairly pugnacious and somewhat political in a way that people like Legbiter would find particularly unworthy.
Gjoni, bitter about the up, apparently spends a bunch of time crafting a character assassination post for Quinn, getting kicked off a bunch of boards before finding fertile grounds on one of the chan boards. Part of the character assassination post is an allegation that she fucked reviewers for good reviews and professional gain (since debunked). On that board, they decide to go after Quinn hard, which they do, and some notice is taken outside
A few game review sites of some substance write articles about the gamer identity being dead - the point being that games are now so mainstream that people outside what's usually considered the traditional gamer audience (so that includes us here on languish, I'd say) now play games and the harassment of Quinn is a terrible thing.
This is (mis-)interpreted as being an "attack on gamers". At this point, the focus of the gamergate talking point shifts on to being about "corruption in game journalism" and general culture wars stuff as a handful of minor celebrities and Breitbart bloggers join in to stoke the fires, and various other people jump in to denounce the gamergate people etc. From there it basically explodes on to a giant internet shitstorm, spilling into the regular news and out into actual life as well (death threats, the USU threat against Sarkeesian, etc).
None of us would have heard of "Depression Quest" if it wasn't for this debacle. When people speak of "real games" they seem to mean things like Call of Duty, EA Sports Games, GTA, and our strategy games etc.
And if anyone is interested, here's an interview with the bitter ex who triggered the whole thing: http://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/the-man-who-sparked-gamergate-regrets-the-harassment-but-say#1c890yf
He seems kind of confused to me to be honest.
And here's a bunch of caps of the ground zero of the initial campaign against Quinn, which pretty clearly show the origins to be about harassment and misogyny: https://storify.com/EffNOVideoGames/stopgamergate-it-has-always-been-a-spin
A couple of choice ones:
Gjoni discussing what he wrote and how:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0F3VReCEAAMD-3.png:large)
The good people of the board plan out their strategy for breaking the story and harassing Quinn:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0F42sGCMAAMAkN.png:large)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0F56LyCIAAYNPN.png:large)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0F5UtMCIAAiguK.png:large)
... and then it blossomed out from there. Probably more stuff than you're interested in, but hey.
Quote from: Malthus on October 16, 2014, 05:16:16 PM
These days, playing computer games is pretty ubiquitous. Never thought of there being a particular "gamer culture".
Well, apparently there's enough of one and it feels under attack enough that there are death threats against the likes of Anita Sarkeesian.
I hope y'all noticed I've kept my normal misyogny sthick out of this thread.
I'm a damn saint.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 16, 2014, 06:05:45 PM
I hope y'all noticed I've kept my normal misyogny sthick out of this thread.
I'm a damn saint.
:hug:
Quote from: Jacob on October 16, 2014, 05:57:47 PM
This is (mis-)interpreted as being an "attack on gamers". At this point, the focus of the gamergate talking point shifts on to being about "corruption in game journalism" and general culture wars stuff as a handful of minor celebrities and Breitbart bloggers join in to stoke the fires, and various other people jump in to denounce the gamergate people etc. From there it basically explodes on to a giant internet shitstorm, spilling into the regular news and out into actual life as well (death threats, the USU threat against Sarkeesian, etc).
So would it be fair to say that a bunch of guys (maybe guys and gals) are really venting over the fact that they aren't unique any more, since gaming has become mainstream?
It seems to me that there was a bit of this when games stopped being the sort of thing SSI came out with, and more the sort of thing Sony came out with. It wasn't this toxic, though.
Quote from: grumbler on October 16, 2014, 06:32:22 PM
So would it be fair to say that a bunch of guys (maybe guys and gals) are really venting over the fact that they aren't unique any more, since gaming has become mainstream?
It seems to me that there was a bit of this when games stopped being the sort of thing SSI came out with, and more the sort of thing Sony came out with. It wasn't this toxic, though.
Basically yes, with a giant mish-mash of culture war things thrown in and rage about corruption in games media.
Quote from: Jacob on October 16, 2014, 06:35:47 PM
Basically yes, with a giant mish-mash of culture war things thrown in and rage about corruption in games media.
The culture war thing I get (it's everywhere, and doesn't have fuck-all to do with games), but the "corruption in games media" bit escapes me. Did "depression quest" sell so well that it is distorting the development of other types of games, because its developer corrupted so much of the media? Or are these "gamergate" types just pissed because they spent money on a game that got unfairly hyped in a review? Or is the whole issue just a cover for something else?
Or, am i just over-estimating the goals of the "gamergate" types (other than the kooks, of course) and they really aren't talking about the global picture, but just their own personal debates in their own tiny world, and they don't care about this IRL any more than I care about whether a poster here thinks I am a "coward?"
This whole thing is stupid. Trolls and the like hide behind electronic anonymity and then are complete assholes.
Still, does this mean I can't slag Tim any more? If so, I am gonna have to hate on this lady.
Quote from: grumbler on October 16, 2014, 06:45:30 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 16, 2014, 06:35:47 PM
Basically yes, with a giant mish-mash of culture war things thrown in and rage about corruption in games media.
The culture war thing I get (it's everywhere, and doesn't have fuck-all to do with games), but the "corruption in games media" bit escapes me. Did "depression quest" sell so well that it is distorting the development of other types of games, because its developer corrupted so much of the media? Or are these "gamergate" types just pissed because they spent money on a game that got unfairly hyped in a review? Or is the whole issue just a cover for something else?
Or, am i just over-estimating the goals of the "gamergate" types (other than the kooks, of course) and they really aren't talking about the global picture, but just their own personal debates in their own tiny world, and they don't care about this IRL any more than I care about whether a poster here thinks I am a "coward?"
The bolded part.
Depression Quest is a free game. It's not much of a game, apparently, being a "walking simulator" (whatever that is - I'm guessing it's a point and click type thing).
The "ethics" thing was cooked up by the bitter boyfriend. During/after the breakup, apparently Quinn slept with a guy who's a game journalist. The bitter ex alleged she did it for good reviews and added that she'd slept with a bunch of other guys for good treatment. The channers ran with that (never mind the fact that the guy never reviewed her game) as cover for their attacks on the game dev. As the thing grew bigger, they kept coming back to the ethics thing, about the corruption in game media; yet all they ever did was throw shit at women in general and feminists in particular (and people who disagreed with them). They haven't in any way acted against the actual corruption that exists in game media whatsoever, and seem to conflate the "corruption" with a "feminist war on men and gamers".
So yeah, to me it looks like a cover. Though at this point it also seems there are a bunch of people going "gamers aren't sexists! Don't call me a sexist because I like games" who are hitching themselves to the "movement", giving it continued life. On that, then, it seems to me it's a convenient way to grab a marginalized-us-outsiders-against-the-world position and run with it for a while.
Quote from: PDH on October 16, 2014, 06:53:15 PM
This whole thing is stupid. Trolls and the like hide behind electronic anonymity and then are complete assholes.
Still, does this mean I can't slag Tim any more? If so, I am gonna have to hate on this lady.
You can always slag on Tim. Don't worry :hug:
Quote from: Jacob on October 16, 2014, 06:53:44 PM
Depression Quest is a free game. It's not much of a game, apparently, being a "walking simulator" (whatever that is - I'm guessing it's a point and click type thing).
I just looked it up. Looks like an online text adventure about a depressed person.
Quote from: garbon on October 16, 2014, 06:58:47 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 16, 2014, 06:53:44 PM
Depression Quest is a free game. It's not much of a game, apparently, being a "walking simulator" (whatever that is - I'm guessing it's a point and click type thing).
I just looked it up. Looks like an online text adventure about a depressed person.
Yeah, that's it.
Some people liked it, and it got an honorable mention in some indie developer competition or something, for being mildly clever in illustrating depression.
... and that, apparently, undermines gaming and is a feminist conspiracy etc etc
Seems like there is a good deal of nastiness going in both directions, though some sources only seem to mention what the misogenerds are doing.
jacob, gamergate stems more from backlash over "social justice warriors" (SJW) and perceived influence SJWs have on videogames development/reviews. SJWs = tumblr feminists. it's been a pretty slow buildup for several years. reviewers raving over Gone Home, cherry-picked articles discussing perceived misogyny in character development, etc., helped add to the perception that these SJWs have a sort of control over the industry.
IIRC, the very start of gamersgate occurred over a dispute between zoe quinn and some kickstarter game (Fine Young Capitalists). 4chan got involved with promoting the game because they saw it as anti-SJW. the ex-boyfriend post very much added to the fire, but i don't know if that's conclusively where the "anti-corruption in the industry" mantra originated.
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2014, 07:19:11 PM
Seems like there is a good deal of nastiness going in both directions, though some sources only seem to mention what the misogenerds are doing.
Yeah? What's some of the nastiness going on towards the gamergate crew?
Quote from: LaCroix on October 16, 2014, 07:21:24 PM
jacob, gamergate stems more from backlash over "social justice warriors" (SJW) and perceived influence SJWs have on videogames development/reviews. SJWs = tumblr feminists. it's been a pretty slow buildup for several years. reviewers raving over Gone Home, cherry-picked articles discussing perceived misogyny in character development, etc., helped add to the perception that these SJWs have a sort of control over the industry.
IIRC, the very start of gamersgate occurred over a dispute between zoe quinn and some kickstarter game (Fine Young Capitalists). 4chan got involved with promoting the game because they saw it as anti-SJW. the ex-boyfriend post very much added to the fire, but i don't know if that's conclusively where the "anti-corruption in the industry" mantra originated.
I don't doubt that's a thing that's been brewing for a while.
My personal take on that is that it's a giant crock of shit. I mean, I don't doubt that a bunch of people dubbed "SJW" are obnoxious and annoying and so on. But their influence is minimal outside their own insular circles. I mean... does anyone have a single example of a AAA game being influenced in any way by SJW shenanigans?
And if you are talking about "corruption" in the industry, why focus on the marginal influence that "SJW" types have rather than the access control, paid junkets, and straight up advertising-as-bribes that characterize most mainstream video game reviews?
I don't doubt that it did not spring up fully formed in response to Quinn's and Gjoni's breakup; I'm sure the various strand have been weaving for a while, so to speak. But the rage against SJW re: games is just as big a crock of shit as the more recent particulars precipitating this particular shit tornado. When it comes to AAA development, SJW influence is entirely non-existent.
Not sure how this will play out on the larger scale in the next little while. I don't really see how the industry could move much further away from SJW concerns, ever for people who find them obnoxious or outright hate them, and I do think this debacle will move some industry people to take them more seriously. Personally I've moved from basically ignoring Sarkeesian to thinking what she's doing is important given where we apparently are at.
Quote from: Jacob on October 16, 2014, 06:53:44 PM
Depression Quest is a free game. It's not much of a game, apparently, being a "walking simulator" (whatever that is - I'm guessing it's a point and click type thing).
LOL seriously? The massive amounts of corruptions swindling gamers into downloading a free game they might not like.
Quote from: Valmy on October 16, 2014, 08:22:18 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 16, 2014, 06:53:44 PM
Depression Quest is a free game. It's not much of a game, apparently, being a "walking simulator" (whatever that is - I'm guessing it's a point and click type thing).
LOL seriously? The massive amounts of corruptions swindling gamers into downloading a free game they might not like.
You laugh, V, but the struggle is real. Time wasted is money wasted, brah.
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2014, 07:19:11 PM
Seems like there is a good deal of nastiness going in both directions, though some sources only seem to mention what the misogenerds are doing.
Oh? How many sources have you read? How have you gotten this vague seeming type feeling? Think for that juicy nugget.
Quote from: Jacob on October 16, 2014, 07:47:19 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2014, 07:19:11 PM
Seems like there is a good deal of nastiness going in both directions, though some sources only seem to mention what the misogenerds are doing.
Yeah? What's some of the nastiness going on towards the gamergate crew?
She's pointing her breasts at them. Filthy whore.
Quote from: Jacob on October 16, 2014, 07:47:19 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2014, 07:19:11 PM
Seems like there is a good deal of nastiness going in both directions, though some sources only seem to mention what the misogenerds are doing.
Yeah? What's some of the nastiness going on towards the gamergate crew?
Things seem a certain way to him, his Spicey sense is tingling.
So disappointed in you Spicey I told it was idiotic and not to bother.
Jeez, why so nasty Valmy?
Even the mild-mannered Valmy gets fed up with derfetus's war on wymmyn from time to time.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2014, 09:00:40 PM
Jeez, why so nasty Valmy?
Exhausted really. I have been in midterm exams mode for three straight weeks and going on just a few hours sleep. Also Spicey post was idiotic and he just tossed in there like a troll bomb. Vague claims of 'both sides being bad' along with accusations that anonymous 'sources' are being unfair? Please.
Quote from: LaCroix on October 16, 2014, 07:21:24 PM
jacob, gamergate stems more from backlash over "social justice warriors" (SJW) and perceived influence SJWs have on videogames development/reviews. SJWs = tumblr feminists. it's been a pretty slow buildup for several years. reviewers raving over Gone Home, cherry-picked articles discussing perceived misogyny in character development, etc., helped add to the perception that these SJWs have a sort of control over the industry.
IIRC, the very start of gamersgate occurred over a dispute between zoe quinn and some kickstarter game (Fine Young Capitalists). 4chan got involved with promoting the game because they saw it as anti-SJW. the ex-boyfriend post very much added to the fire, but i don't know if that's conclusively where the "anti-corruption in the industry" mantra originated.
#gamergate started with Quinn's ex-boyfriend. The reason it took off was because there were enough people already pissed off at her because of her in-your-face claims about misogyny and abuse by other gamers. The FYC thing was pulled out of obscurity in order to show Quinn as this lying hack, and as a "social justice" thing that 4chan supported to say, "See?! We're really great people and Quinn is really a bitch."
Which it sounds like she is. But disliking a person and what they have to say doesn't okay treating her - or a myriad of others perceived to be like her - the way that the #gamergate crew are treating her. And the way that they went about it was pure intentional character assassination because they disagreed with her message. Again, not acceptable.
Quote from: Valmy on October 16, 2014, 09:09:40 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2014, 09:00:40 PM
Jeez, why so nasty Valmy?
Exhausted really. I have been in midterm exams mode for three straight weeks and going on just a few hours sleep. Also Spicey post was idiotic and he just tossed in there like a troll bomb. Vague claims of 'both sides being bad' along with accusations that anonymous 'sources' are being unfair? Please.
I've seen plenty of examples of this kind of stuff: http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/10/16/the-top-four-mens-rightsiest-things-said-about-the-recent-threats-against-anita-sarkeesian/
But I haven't seen stuff going the other way. I wouldn't be surprised if someone's done something stupid like that in the opposite direction, but so far I haven't seen anything actually documented.
Wait the plan to show that her message was wrong was to fulfill it? Behead all those to say Islam is violent eh?
This is pretty interesting. It's written from a woman who has been harassed for a decade due to her writing about the tech world. What's most interesting is that she gives a sort of check-point list of how to destroy a person on the internet, which was done to her. And point-by-point, it's what's being done to Sarkeesian and Quinn.
I'm only posting the first part of it - it's a pretty long blog post - but it gives the jist of it. The rest can be read here (http://seriouspony.com/trouble-at-the-koolaid-point/).
QuoteTrouble at the Koolaid Point
October 7, 2014
[Note: I didn't want to have to write this. But here it is. I'm not linking it to the blog, and it won't likely stay up long *(*Update Oct. 8** I'll be taking it down soon, but a copy has been placed on Wired** ) It is long and rambling and unedited and one of the few things I've written that I wrote mostly for myself. It is all I ever hope to have to say about it. Also? Content warning.]
This month is the 10-year anniversary of my first online threat. I thought it was a one-off, then. Just one angry guy. And it wasn't really THAT bad. But looking back, it was the canary in the coal mine... the first hint that if I kept on this path, it would not end well. And what was that path? We'll get to that in a minute.
Later I learned that the first threat had nothing to do with what I actually made or said in my books, blog posts, articles, and conference presentations. The real problem — as my first harasser described — was that others were beginning to pay attention to me. He wrote as if mere exposure to my work was harming his world.
But here's the key: it turned out he wasn't outraged about my work. His rage was because, in his mind, my work didn't deserve the attention. Spoiler alert: "deserve" and "attention" are at the heart.
A year later, I wrote a light-hearted article about "haters" (the quotes matter) and something I called The Koolaid Point. It wasn't about harassment, abuse, or threats against people but about the kind of brand "trolls" you find in, say, Apple discussion forums. My wildly non-scientific theory was this: the most vocal trolling and "hate" for a brand kicks in HARD once a critical mass of brand fans/users are thought to have "drunk the Koolaid". In other words, the hate wasn't so much about the product/brand but that other people were falling for it.
I was delighted, a few weeks' later, to see my little "Koolaid Point" in Wired's Jargon Watch column.
The me of 2005 had no idea what was coming.
Less than two years later, I'd learn that my festive take on harmless brand trolling also applied to people. And it wasn't festive. Or harmless. Especially for women.
I now believe the most dangerous time for a woman with online visibility is the point at which others are seen to be listening, "following", "liking", "favoriting", retweeting. In other words, the point at which her readers have (in the troll's mind) "drunk the Koolaid". Apparently, that just can't be allowed.
From the hater's POV, you (the Koolaid server) do not "deserve" that attention. You are "stealing" an audience. From their angry, frustrated point of view, the idea that others listen to you is insanity. From their emotion-fueled view you don't have readers you have cult followers. That just can't be allowed.
You must be stopped. And if they cannot stop you, they can at least ruin your quality of life. A standard goal, in troll culture, I soon learned, is to cause "personal ruin". They aren't all trolls, though. Some of those who seek to stop and/or ruin you are misguided/misinformed but well-intended. They actually believe in a cause, and they believe you (or rather the Koolaid you're serving) threatens that cause.
But the Koolaid-Point-driven attacks are usually started by (speculating, educated guess here, not an actual psychologist, etc) sociopaths. They're doing it out of pure malice, "for the lulz." And those doing it for the lulz are masters at manipulating public perception. Master trolls can build an online army out of the well-intended, by appealing to The Cause (more on that later). The very best/worst trolls can even make the non-sociopaths believe "for the lulz" is itself a noble cause.
But I actually got off easy, then. Most of the master trolls weren't active on Twitter in 2007. Today, they, along with their friends, fans, followers, and a zoo of anonymous sock puppet accounts are. The time from troll-has-an-idea to troll-mobilizes-brutal-assault has shrunk from weeks to minutes. Twitter, for all its good, is a hate amplifier. Twitter boosts signal power with head-snapping speed and strength. Today, Twitter (and this isn't a complaint about Twitter, it's about what Twitter enables) is the troll's best weapon for attacking you. And by "you", I mean "you the server of Koolaid." You who must be stopped.
It begins with simple threats. You know, rape, dismemberment, the usual. It's a good place to start, those threats, because you might simply vanish once those threats include your family. Mission accomplished. But today, many women online — you women who are far braver than I am — you stick around. And now, since you stuck around through the first wave of threats, you are now a much BIGGER problem. Because the Worst Possible Thing has happened: as a result of those attacks, you are NOW serving Victim-Flavored Koolaid.
And Victim-Flavored Koolaid is the most dangerous substance on earth, apparently. And that just can't be allowed.
There is only one reliably useful weapon for the trolls to stop the danger you pose and/or to get max lulz: discredit you. The disinformation follows a pattern so predictable today it's almost dull: first, you obviously "fucked" your way into whatever role enabled your undeserved visibility. I mean..duh. A woman. In tech. Not that there aren't a few deserving women and why can't you be more like THEM but no, you are NOT one of them.
You are, they claim, CLEARLY "a whore". But not the sex-worker kind, no, you are the Bad Kind of Whore. Actually TWO kinds: an Attention/Fame Whore and an Actual Have Sex In Exchange For Jobs, Good Reviews, Book Deals Whore. I mean, could there be ANY other explanation for your visibility? But the sex-not-merit meme is just their warm-up, the lowest-hanging-fruit in a discredit/disinfo campaign.
Because what the haters MOST want the world to know is this: what you're serving your audience? It's NOT EVEN ACTUAL KOOLAID. "Snake oil", the trolls insist. You're a "proven liar". Or, as I was referred to yet again just yesterday by my favorite troll/hater/harasser: "a charlatan". And there is "evidence". There is always "evidence". (there isn't, of course, but let's not let that get in the way.)
And the trolls aren't stupid. The most damaging troll/haters are some of the most powerful people (though they self-describe as outcasts). Typically, the hacker trolls are technically-talented, super smart white men. They're not just hackers. They are social engineers. They understand behavioral psych. They know their Kahneman. They "get" memes. They exploit a vulnerability in the brains of your current and potential listeners.
How? By unleashing a mind virus guaranteed to push emotional buttons for your real, NOT-troll audience. In my specific case, it was my alleged threat to a free and open internet. "She issued DMCA takedowns for sites that criticized her." Yes, that one even made it's way into a GQ magazine article not long ago, when the writer Sanjiv Bhattacharya interviewed weev and asked about — get this — the "ethics" of doxxing me. Weev's explanation was just one more leveling up in my discredit/disinfo program: DMCA takedowns. I had, apparently, issued DMCA takedowns.
If you are in the tech world, issuing a DMCA takedown is worse than kicking puppies off a pier. But what I did? It was (according to the meme) much much worse. I did it (apparently) to stifle criticism. If a DMCA takedown is kicking puppies, doing it to "stifle criticism" is like single-handedly causing the extinction of puppies, kittens, and the constitution. Behold my awesome and terrible power. Go me.
But here's the thing. I never did that. I never did anything even a teeny tiny nano bit like that. But sure enough, even on my last day on Twitter, there it was again: Kathy did DMCA's. And it wasn't even a troll saying it, it was another woman in tech who believed the meme because she believed weev. Because in twisted troll logic, it makes sense. She must have done something pretty awful to deserve what, according to weev, "she had coming."
After the GQ story came out, the one where weev "justified" the harassment of me by introducing the DMCA fiction, I asked him about it on Twitter. "Where, seriously, where exactly did I ever issue a DMCA?" His answer? Oh, right, he didn't have an answer. Because it didn't happen. But see? he doesn't have to. He's already launched the Kathy-does-DMCA-takedowns meme. Evidence not required. For that matter, common sense not required.
(For the record, far as most people have been able to determine, most of what happened to me long ago was triggered by a blog comment I made that said "I'm not moderating my blog comments, but I support those who do and here's why." That's right, Blog. Comment. Moderation. Just a tiny hop, really, from that to full-blown DMCA takedowns. Easy mistake.)
For me, the hot button to rally the army (including the Good People) against me was my (totally fictional) legal threat to freedom. But there are so many other hot buttons to use against women in tech. So. Many.
A particularly robust troll-crafted hot button meme today is that some women are out to destroy video games (shoutout to #gamergaters). Another is that they are taking jobs from men. Men who are, I mean obviously, more deserving. "If women/minorities/any oppressed group are given special treatment, that's not equality," they argue "I guess you don't believe in equality, feminists." Quickly followed by, "wait, did I say 'oppressed group'? There's no such thing as an oppressed group I just meant Professional Victims Who Pretend To Be Oppressed And Serve Social Justice Warrior Koolaid."
Life for women in tech, today, is often better the less visible they are. Less visible means fewer perceived Koolaid drinkers.
Quote from: Valmy on October 16, 2014, 11:26:36 PM
Wait the plan to show that her message was wrong was to fulfill it? Behead all those to say Islam is violent eh?
That's racist against Muslims! :o
That's a really good article Meri. Thanks for sharing.
Do these guys really have nothing better to do with their time?
Does that article mention how it happens to both sides? If not that gives Spicey bad feelings.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 16, 2014, 11:42:13 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 16, 2014, 11:26:36 PM
Wait the plan to show that her message was wrong was to fulfill it? Behead all those to say Islam is violent eh?
That's racist against Muslims! :o
Maybe those Muslims should stop saying Islam is violent then.
Quote from: Jacob on October 16, 2014, 11:45:25 PM
That's a really good article Meri. Thanks for sharing.
And here I was, thinking how comparing their behavior to 1930's brown shirts was too hyperbolic.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2014, 11:59:39 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 16, 2014, 11:45:25 PM
That's a really good article Meri. Thanks for sharing.
And here I was, thinking how comparing their behavior to 1930's brown shirts was too hyperbolic.
Nope. Seems pretty apt, actually.
Quote from: grumbler on October 16, 2014, 03:55:01 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 16, 2014, 03:36:46 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 16, 2014, 03:21:47 PM
I tried but I still can't find enough strength in me to feel an interest in this.
Why in Hods name would you try to feel an interest in something this stupid?
I still find myself unsure of which side is "gamergate" and un-motivated to find out.
Sorry if this is making people you know unhappy, Jake. It seems the veriest storm in a tea cup.
What I find particularly unappealing is that both sides seem to be treating this like an internet flamewar, calling each other names and flinging hyperbolic shit. Reading someone else's flamewar is never fun, no matter which side is right.
Quote from: Jacob on October 16, 2014, 06:53:44 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 16, 2014, 06:45:30 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 16, 2014, 06:35:47 PM
Basically yes, with a giant mish-mash of culture war things thrown in and rage about corruption in games media.
The culture war thing I get (it's everywhere, and doesn't have fuck-all to do with games), but the "corruption in games media" bit escapes me. Did "depression quest" sell so well that it is distorting the development of other types of games, because its developer corrupted so much of the media? Or are these "gamergate" types just pissed because they spent money on a game that got unfairly hyped in a review? Or is the whole issue just a cover for something else?
Or, am i just over-estimating the goals of the "gamergate" types (other than the kooks, of course) and they really aren't talking about the global picture, but just their own personal debates in their own tiny world, and they don't care about this IRL any more than I care about whether a poster here thinks I am a "coward?"
The bolded part.
Depression Quest is a free game. It's not much of a game, apparently, being a "walking simulator" (whatever that is - I'm guessing it's a point and click type thing).
The "ethics" thing was cooked up by the bitter boyfriend. During/after the breakup, apparently Quinn slept with a guy who's a game journalist. The bitter ex alleged she did it for good reviews and added that she'd slept with a bunch of other guys for good treatment. The channers ran with that (never mind the fact that the guy never reviewed her game) as cover for their attacks on the game dev. As the thing grew bigger, they kept coming back to the ethics thing, about the corruption in game media; yet all they ever did was throw shit at women in general and feminists in particular (and people who disagreed with them). They haven't in any way acted against the actual corruption that exists in game media whatsoever, and seem to conflate the "corruption" with a "feminist war on men and gamers".
So yeah, to me it looks like a cover. Though at this point it also seems there are a bunch of people going "gamers aren't sexists! Don't call me a sexist because I like games" who are hitching themselves to the "movement", giving it continued life. On that, then, it seems to me it's a convenient way to grab a marginalized-us-outsiders-against-the-world position and run with it for a while.
Maybe this Quinn is a really bad person, though?
Quote from: Martinus on October 17, 2014, 12:29:40 AM
Maybe this Quinn is a really bad person, though?
Maybe my house is made out of candy canes. Maybe the moon is made of cheese.
So what? Her entire role in this nonsense was that she had sex with some dude so far as I can tell. If that makes you a bad person I guess you are fucked.
Quote from: Martinus on October 17, 2014, 12:22:05 AM
What I find particularly unappealing is that both sides seem to be treating this like an internet flamewar, calling each other names and flinging hyperbolic shit. Reading someone else's flamewar is never fun, no matter which side is right.
Then why are you here reading it? I thought you tried to care and couldn't. You just want to keep reminding us you are not interested?
Quote from: merithyn on October 17, 2014, 12:16:46 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 16, 2014, 11:59:39 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 16, 2014, 11:45:25 PM
That's a really good article Meri. Thanks for sharing.
And here I was, thinking how comparing their behavior to 1930's brown shirts was too hyperbolic.
Nope. Seems pretty apt, actually.
Really? People posting stuff online is an apt comparison to people mugging other people and breaking windows? :D
Quote from: Valmy on October 17, 2014, 12:33:02 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 17, 2014, 12:29:40 AM
Maybe this Quinn is a really bad person, though?
Maybe my house is made out of candy canes. Maybe the moon is made of cheese.
So what? Her entire role in this nonsense was that she had sex with some dude so far as I can tell. If that makes you a bad person I guess you are fucked.
Her ex is accusing her of sleeping with many other people - while she was dating him - to get good game reviews. He could be telling the truth, or he could be lying. We don't know.
Quote from: Valmy on October 17, 2014, 12:34:19 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 17, 2014, 12:22:05 AM
What I find particularly unappealing is that both sides seem to be treating this like an internet flamewar, calling each other names and flinging hyperbolic shit. Reading someone else's flamewar is never fun, no matter which side is right.
Then why are you here reading it? I thought you tried to care and couldn't. You just want to keep reminding us you are not interested?
Well, this is one of the most active threads on Languish at the moment. Also, out of morbid curiosity.
Quote from: Martinus on October 17, 2014, 12:40:16 AM
Her ex is accusing her of sleeping with many other people - while she was dating him - to get good game reviews. He could be telling the truth, or he could be lying. We don't know.
And how is it any of your business?
Quote from: Martinus on October 17, 2014, 12:37:27 AM
Really? People posting stuff online is an apt comparison to people mugging other people and breaking windows? :D
Wow. I can only assume you are either unbelievably stupid or a troll. Since you already played the whole 'both sides are bad blah blah' card I assume the latter. Fuck off.
What an asshole.
Quote from: Valmy on October 17, 2014, 12:34:19 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 17, 2014, 12:22:05 AM
What I find particularly unappealing is that both sides seem to be treating this like an internet flamewar, calling each other names and flinging hyperbolic shit. Reading someone else's flamewar is never fun, no matter which side is right.
Then why are you here reading it? I thought you tried to care and couldn't. You just want to keep reminding us you are not interested?
Marty is trolling right now, more aptly than Legbiter's attempt.
Quote from: Martinus on October 17, 2014, 12:40:49 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 17, 2014, 12:34:19 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 17, 2014, 12:22:05 AM
What I find particularly unappealing is that both sides seem to be treating this like an internet flamewar, calling each other names and flinging hyperbolic shit. Reading someone else's flamewar is never fun, no matter which side is right.
Then why are you here reading it? I thought you tried to care and couldn't. You just want to keep reminding us you are not interested?
Well, this is one of the most active threads on Languish at the moment. Also, out of morbid curiosity.
Most people can't manage more than a :yawn: in the Ebola thread but some random blogger getting death threats from Internet trolls has them worked up. It's a puzzlement.
I don't understand any of this. I don't know why people would care if she cheated on her boyfriend or not outside of her immediate circle of friends. I could see how that would break up some friendships, but beyond that?
Quote from: Valmy on October 17, 2014, 12:53:55 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 17, 2014, 12:37:27 AM
Really? People posting stuff online is an apt comparison to people mugging other people and breaking windows? :D
Wow. I can only assume you are either unbelievably stupid or a troll. Since you already played the whole 'both sides are bad blah blah' card I assume the latter. Fuck off.
What an asshole.
Wow. You are really being abrasive in this thread, quite out-of-character for you. The fact that you managed to keep your cool in threads about wars, riots, epidemics, rapes and politics, but cannot do that in a thread about a flamewar between bloggers is doubly puzzling. What the hell, Valmy?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 17, 2014, 01:43:50 AM
I don't understand any of this. I don't know why people would care if she cheated on her boyfriend or not outside of her immediate circle of friends. I could see how that would break up some friendships, but beyond that?
I don't care either. The cheated ex-boyfriend probably does. But then the other side is calling the ex-boyfriend names and presenting this chick as a victim of his attack. If we do not care about a spat between ex-lovers, we shouldn't give voice to either side, no?
This thread delivers!
*pops popcorn*
I think Jacob and Valmy should stop fighting over who's the biggest, most outraged White Knight of them all. Seriously, I glanced more at this psychodrama yesterday and felt a cold chill through my soul. :yuk:
Gas tumblr.
Quote from: Legbiter on October 17, 2014, 05:14:42 AM
I think Jacob and Valmy should stop fighting over who's the biggest, most outraged White Knight of them all. Seriously, I glanced more at this psychodrama yesterday and felt a cold chill through my soul. :yuk:
Gas tumblr.
I know. It is really bizarre.
Incidentally, I would be interested in Brazen's perspective on this. She is a woman writing about technology. Considering the level of death threats other women in the industry are apparently getting, she probably should be under a witness protection programme right now. :P
Quote from: Jacob on October 16, 2014, 08:08:31 PMI don't doubt that's a thing that's been brewing for a while.
My personal take on that is that it's a giant crock of shit. I mean, I don't doubt that a bunch of people dubbed "SJW" are obnoxious and annoying and so on. But their influence is minimal outside their own insular circles. I mean... does anyone have a single example of a AAA game being influenced in any way by SJW shenanigans?
And if you are talking about "corruption" in the industry, why focus on the marginal influence that "SJW" types have rather than the access control, paid junkets, and straight up advertising-as-bribes that characterize most mainstream video game reviews?
it's 4chan, what do you expect. :P
the other stuff is well known, but it doesn't fit quite as well with the us v. them mentality.
Quote from: merithyn#gamergate started with Quinn's ex-boyfriend.
i guess it depends on "started with." aside from glancing at the board every now and then, i don't frequent 4chan all too often. the hashtag probably did appear after the ex-boyfriend rant. i think the quinn hate and FYC stuff blew up a month or two before that, though -- that's more what i meant. but i'm going off a vague recollection, so i could very well be wrong.
Quote from: Valmy on October 16, 2014, 09:09:40 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 16, 2014, 09:00:40 PM
Jeez, why so nasty Valmy?
Exhausted really. I have been in midterm exams mode for three straight weeks and going on just a few hours sleep. Also Spicey post was idiotic and he just tossed in there like a troll bomb. Vague claims of 'both sides being bad' along with accusations that anonymous 'sources' are being unfair? Please.
I guess you didn't read the reason.com link I posted. Since you're short on time due to midterms and all, I'll save you the time. From that link:
QuoteThe TFYC hacking was just one of many disturbing incidents directed at GamerGate supporters. In late September, there was a "doxxing"—net-speak for public release of private information—directed at six prominent GamerGate supporters including Yiannopoulous and Baldwin, with their "crimes" listed alongside their home addresses. Yiannopoulous also received a jiffy bag in the mail containing a syringe. Oliver Campbell, a black male videogame journalist, has written about being harassed and threatened on Twitter after he spoke out in support of GamerGate.
A young female gamergater who wanted to be identified only as Lizzy F.—she says there have been attempts to hack into her email and Twitter account—wrote to me in an email that she has experienced a stream of harassment:
I have been told to drop dead on multiple occasions, and received a threat of "I hope your windows are secure." The last statement was sent from someone who also threatened to release the home address of another female supporter. I have been called a gender traitor, a "token," all off the female derogatory slurs in the book, and even had my "woman card" revoked, somehow.
I'm kind of surprised that you assumed the nastiness would have been completely one-sided. Even if the Misogenerds were the ones who started it, you have to think that some from the other side are going to retaliate in kind.
Anyway, Valmy-- have a Snickers. You're just not yourself when you're hungry :hug:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adweek.com%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Fnode-blog%2Fblogs%2Fsnickers_joe_pesci.jpg&hash=47416de0d195286ffb0ccd6b439fe18a2ffd9adc)
Quote from: Valmy on October 17, 2014, 12:33:02 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 17, 2014, 12:29:40 AM
Maybe this Quinn is a really bad person, though?
Maybe my house is made out of candy canes. Maybe the moon is made of cheese.
So what? Her entire role in this nonsense was that she had sex with some dude so far as I can tell. If that makes you a bad person I guess you are fucked.
With Five Guys, actually :D
Quote from: derspiess on October 17, 2014, 09:05:35 AM
I guess you didn't read the reason.com link I posted. Since you're short on time due to midterms and all, I'll save you the time. From that link:
Why would anyone read a "Reason" article?
Quote from: Martinus on October 17, 2014, 12:37:27 AM
Really? People posting stuff online is an apt comparison to people mugging other people and breaking windows? :D
Biggest indication that you don't know what's actually going on.
If it were left on the internet, I wouldn't be nearly as upset about this. Since it's gone "real world" into serious threats of bodily harm (with their home addresses attached), murder, the loss of careers, etc., I'm going to go with yeah, the Brown shirts are a pretty apt description.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 17, 2014, 09:18:44 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 17, 2014, 09:05:35 AM
I guess you didn't read the reason.com link I posted. Since you're short on time due to midterms and all, I'll save you the time. From that link:
Why would anyone read a "Reason" article?
Because they're interested in reading a libertarian view on something?
Quote from: Martinus on October 17, 2014, 12:40:49 AM
Well, this is one of the most active threads on Languish at the moment. Also, out of morbid curiosity.
That's pretty much why I'm taking an interest. Plus I'm still trying to come to terms with how old and disconnected I am-- I had no idea this shitstorm was going on until Meri started this thread.
Quote from: derspiess on October 17, 2014, 09:29:17 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 17, 2014, 09:18:44 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 17, 2014, 09:05:35 AM
I guess you didn't read the reason.com link I posted. Since you're short on time due to midterms and all, I'll save you the time. From that link:
Why would anyone read a "Reason" article?
Because they're interested in reading a libertarian view on something?
I guess you're suddenly feeling some libertarian inclinations, eh?
Is it wrong that I have no idea what Gamersgate is (other than a paradox game portal) or that I have no clue what you guys are talking about?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2014, 09:50:58 AM
Is it wrong that I have no idea what Gamersgate is (other than a paradox game portal) or that I have no clue what you guys are talking about?
Nope, not wrong at all.
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2014, 09:48:47 AM
I guess you're suddenly feeling some libertarian inclinations, eh?
Been there for a while, my friend. I score right at 75% on the various "are you a libertarian" tests.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 17, 2014, 09:50:58 AM
Is it wrong that I have no idea what Gamersgate is (other than a paradox game portal) or that I have no clue what you guys are talking about?
It means you are an asshole and you hate women.
Quote from: derspiess on October 17, 2014, 09:09:10 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 17, 2014, 12:33:02 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 17, 2014, 12:29:40 AM
Maybe this Quinn is a really bad person, though?
Maybe my house is made out of candy canes. Maybe the moon is made of cheese.
So what? Her entire role in this nonsense was that she had sex with some dude so far as I can tell. If that makes you a bad person I guess you are fucked.
With Five Guys, actually :D
Pfft. Way more than that.
Oh, you are talking about the chick?
Quote from: derspiess on October 17, 2014, 09:55:35 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2014, 09:48:47 AM
I guess you're suddenly feeling some libertarian inclinations, eh?
Been there for a while, my friend. I score right at 75% on the various "are you a libertarian" tests.
Didn't realize that, but that makes sense.
Quote from: merithyn on October 17, 2014, 09:18:50 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 17, 2014, 12:37:27 AM
Really? People posting stuff online is an apt comparison to people mugging other people and breaking windows? :D
Biggest indication that you don't know what's actually going on.
If it were left on the internet, I wouldn't be nearly as upset about this. Since it's gone "real world" into serious threats of bodily harm (with their home addresses attached), murder, the loss of careers, etc., I'm going to go with yeah, the Brown shirts are a pretty apt description.
Did anyone actually carry out any of these threats? Finding someone's address is very easy these days - this is what 4chan trolls do. They think it is funny. It is fucked up but that does not mean it is comparable to nazi paramilitary groups actually carrying out acts of violence. :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on October 17, 2014, 10:44:27 AM
Did anyone actually carry out any of these threats? Finding someone's address is very easy these days - this is what 4chan trolls do. They think it is funny. It is fucked up but that does not mean it is comparable to nazi paramilitary groups actually carrying out acts of violence. :huh:
If someone called in bomb-threats against a gay pride parade or threatened to shoot up a university audience because they were listening to a gay speaker, would you think it warranted a serious reaction or dismissal?
I wonder if such a visible shit storm will give traction/leverage to those who wish to enforce greater control/regulations on the Net?
G.
Quote from: Grallon on October 17, 2014, 11:08:20 AM
I wonder if such a visible shit storm will give traction/leverage to those who wish to enforce greater control/regulations on the Net?
G.
I expect it will. And I expect it will also undermine some of the potential public support for pushing against that greater control and regulations.
Quote from: derspiess on October 17, 2014, 09:09:10 AM
With Five Guys, actually :D
Screwing hamburgers and french fries? :x
Hey, somebody's gotta pick the low-hanging fruit. Might as well be the short guy. :P
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 17, 2014, 11:34:11 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 17, 2014, 09:09:10 AM
With Five Guys, actually :D
Screwing hamburgers and french fries? :x
Hey, somebody's gotta pick the low-hanging fruit. Might as well be the short guy. :P
Yeah, that seems to be the tie-in joke that has been made (hence my capitalization :D )
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2014, 11:10:07 AM
I expect it will. And I expect it will also undermine some of the potential public support for pushing against that greater control and regulations.
I recently read the Daybreak Trilogy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_51_%28novel%29) which was about net created memes conditioning individuals to develop terror weapons to destroy modern civilization. Well after reading the article Meri linked this whole shit storm is becoming rather sinister. She described all the tropes used in the books and it's freaky to think she experienced them all in RL.
G.
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2014, 10:47:08 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 17, 2014, 10:44:27 AM
Did anyone actually carry out any of these threats? Finding someone's address is very easy these days - this is what 4chan trolls do. They think it is funny. It is fucked up but that does not mean it is comparable to nazi paramilitary groups actually carrying out acts of violence. :huh:
If someone called in bomb-threats against a gay pride parade or threatened to shoot up a university audience because they were listening to a gay speaker, would you think it warranted a serious reaction or dismissal?
So the only two possible choices are "dismissal" and "this is just like the nazis coming to power"?
Quote from: Martinus on October 17, 2014, 12:02:10 PM
So the only two possible choices are "dismissal" and "this is just like the nazis coming to power"?
No :huh:
Quote from: Jacob on October 17, 2014, 12:11:45 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 17, 2014, 12:02:10 PM
So the only two possible choices are "dismissal" and "this is just like the nazis coming to power"?
No :huh:
Martinalogies in action. :D
Is that a Bananalogism?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 17, 2014, 02:50:29 PM
Is that a Bananalogism?
I prefer to think of my inane pointing out of the obvious as Bananagrams. :contract:
Ask for banal.
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2014, 03:37:10 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 15, 2014, 03:14:12 PM
Mrs B knows about this place, registered here like 10 years ago, but thinks the stuff we talk about is boring.
Frau Spiess would die of boredom here unless every thread was about David Bowie, fashion, or Walking Dead.
A few years ago she became concerned that it was a gay forum because she kept seeing rufweed's (?) avatar when she walked by.
give my love.
Looking gaunt, bro. Need a bit more meat on those bones.
Quote from: merithyn on October 17, 2014, 09:18:50 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 17, 2014, 12:37:27 AM
Really? People posting stuff online is an apt comparison to people mugging other people and breaking windows? :D
Biggest indication that you don't know what's actually going on.
If it were left on the internet, I wouldn't be nearly as upset about this. Since it's gone "real world" into serious threats of bodily harm (with their home addresses attached), murder, the loss of careers, etc., I'm going to go with yeah, the Brown shirts are a pretty apt description.
Not until they actually follow through.
Quote from: garbon on October 22, 2014, 09:12:56 PM
Looking gaunt, bro. Need a bit more meat on those bones.
Manburger is by its very nature lean.
Stick around once in a while, ruf.
Quote from: derspiess on October 17, 2014, 09:09:10 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 17, 2014, 12:33:02 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 17, 2014, 12:29:40 AM
Maybe this Quinn is a really bad person, though?
Maybe my house is made out of candy canes. Maybe the moon is made of cheese.
So what? Her entire role in this nonsense was that she had sex with some dude so far as I can tell. If that makes you a bad person I guess you are fucked.
With Five Guys, actually :D
Let's say she did. All at once. And their dog too. Even worst, she took the "whore pill".
How does that justify death threats? Shouldn't a society that values freedom of speech be concerned that people are intimidated when they speak non conformist thoughts?
Quote from: viper37 on October 23, 2014, 09:37:06 AM
How does that justify death threats?
It doesn't :)
QuoteShouldn't a society that values freedom of speech be concerned that people are intimidated when they speak non conformist thoughts?
To a point, sure.
Quote from: rufweed on October 22, 2014, 08:16:00 PM
give my love.
Speak of the devil. Welcome back :cheers:
Quote from: viper37 on October 23, 2014, 09:37:06 AM
Shouldn't a society that values freedom of speech be concerned that people are intimidated when they speak non conformist thoughts?
I'm not sure why
your society is not concerned under those circumstances, but I don't believe your society is typical; I'd bet most societies are concerned when people are intimidated for non-conformist speech. In my society, there is a saying along the lines of "I don't agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."
Quote from: grumbler on October 23, 2014, 09:55:47 AM
I'm not sure why your society
My choice of word was poor. It's more about Derspiess, and some others, from what I see, sort of non care that people receive death threats for expressing non popular opinions.
Imho, it should raise some serious concerns that we have come to that point.
QuoteIn my society, there is a saying along the lines of "I don't agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."
A quote from Voltaire, I think?
Quote from: viper37 on October 23, 2014, 10:54:48 AM
My choice of word was poor. It's more about Derspiess, and some others, from what I see, sort of non care that people receive death threats for expressing non popular opinions.
Imho, it should raise some serious concerns that we have come to that point.
Wow, okay-- not sure where you got that notion. What do I need to do to demonstrate that I care? :unsure:
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2014, 10:59:09 AM
Wow, okay-- not sure where you got that notion. What do I need to do to demonstrate that I care? :unsure:
Not that I expect you like to take advice from me on this sort of thing - and this being languish it's probably even less likely to find a postive reception - but not taking smug potshots for laughs at the people being victimized would be a good start; some sort of "I don't care for the type of game she makes, and you know how I feel about feminism, but these kinds of death threats and this kind of violation of privacy are completely unacceptable" would be a good thing to follow up with.
Hmm. So unless I make an outright proclamation that I am against people making death threats, you guys have some reason to assume that I'm okay with it?
Seriously, how evil do you guys think I am :lol:
I suppose I should also announce that I am against murder and kicking puppies, lest you make the wrong assumption.
What I find interesting is how effective the neckbeards seem to be in going after the SJW advertisers, i.e. the people who write their checks. Gamergaters are spanking Gawker Media now. Hard. And hilariously enough, using the same online shaming tactics the SJW's mastered.
As to Quinn, eh, she was doxxing people left and right that she didn't like before she got a taste of her own medicine. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Being a sociopath is not illegal though, but it does leave her with *less* than full credibility to play the victim. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Legbiter on October 23, 2014, 11:40:11 AM
What I find interesting is how effective the neckbeards seem to be in going after the SJW advertisers, i.e. the people who write their checks. Gamergaters are spanking Gawker Media now. Hard. And hilariously enough, using the same online shaming tactics the SJW's mastered.
Yeah, I found that kind of amusing.
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2014, 11:42:18 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on October 23, 2014, 11:40:11 AM
What I find interesting is how effective the neckbeards seem to be in going after the SJW advertisers, i.e. the people who write their checks. Gamergaters are spanking Gawker Media now. Hard. And hilariously enough, using the same online shaming tactics the SJW's mastered.
Yeah, I found that kind of amusing.
It's funny the irritation with SJW's has been building up for years now but it seems to me that it wasn't so much that Quinn creature that finally broke the camel's back, it was the simultaneous coordination among all those various video game sites whiteknighting for her that outraged the gamers. :hmm:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTADCjtk.jpg&hash=74199c596b96587227712072f5665ee3acd72a6e)
As you can see, pleasing SJW's looks tricky. :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2014, 11:15:40 AM
Hmm. So unless I make an outright proclamation that I am against people making death threats, you guys have some reason to assume that I'm okay with it?
Seriously, how evil do you guys think I am :lol:
I suppose I should also announce that I am against murder and kicking puppies, lest you make the wrong assumption.
I'd say you are a moderate on the evil issue.
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2014, 11:15:40 AM
Hmm. So unless I make an outright proclamation that I am against people making death threats, you guys have some reason to assume that I'm okay with it?
Seriously, how evil do you guys think I am :lol:
I suppose I should also announce that I am against murder and kicking puppies, lest you make the wrong assumption.
Yeah, like I said - I didn't figure you were interested in taking advice from me. Carry on :)
Quote from: Jacob on October 23, 2014, 12:20:06 PM
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2014, 11:15:40 AM
Hmm. So unless I make an outright proclamation that I am against people making death threats, you guys have some reason to assume that I'm okay with it?
Seriously, how evil do you guys think I am :lol:
I suppose I should also announce that I am against murder and kicking puppies, lest you make the wrong assumption.
Yeah, like I said - I didn't figure you were interested in taking advice from me. Carry on :)
Don't let that deter you in the future, though. It's kind of fascinating.
Quote from: derspiess on October 23, 2014, 12:22:27 PMDon't let that deter you in the future, though. It's kind of fascinating.
I'm sure the mood will strike once in a while.
:lol:
http://boingboing.net/2014/10/22/adobe-walks-into-gamergate-st.html
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.boingboing.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F10%2FScreen-Shot-2014-10-22-at-12.06.36-PM.png&hash=ece2c502049964afd358c2d747dbfacf229def3b)
Wait, gawker?
I STAND WITH THE NECKBEARDS
Right.... it's all about integrity in journalism.... No war on women... don't be ridiculous...
LINK (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/23/felicia-days-public-details-online-gamergate)
QuoteGamer and actor Felicia Day has had her personal details posted online just minutes after making her first public statement about Gamergate – in which she expressed fear about saying anything at all, in case she was targeted as a result.
The publicising of her details was fiercely criticised by a former American football star Chris Kluwe who also criticised the group in the strongest possible terms this week, who pointed out the gender imbalance among those targeted.
The publication of Day's details is being seen as further strengthening the criticism that Gamergate's partcipants are pursuing an anti-woman agenda, which has seen female game developers and journalists harassed and threatened, while male critics have been almost untouched.
Day, who appeared in the TV series Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Supernatural, and rose to fame as the writer and lead of online gaming sitcom The Guild, had previously said little about the grassroots campaign against feminism in gaming, "aside from a few replies on Twitter that journalists have decided to use in their articles, siding me against the hashtag".
But, says Day, who has 2.3 million followers on Twitter, "I realised my silence on the issue was not motivated by some grand strategy, but out of fear that the issue has created about speaking out."
She explained that her major fear was being "doxxed" – having her personal information disseminated over the internet. "I have tried to retweet a few of the articles I've seen dissecting the issue in support, but personally I am terrified to be doxxed for even typing the words 'gamer gate'. I have had stalkers and restraining orders issued in the past, I have had people show up on my doorstep when my personal information was hard to get."
But just minutes after her post was made, a commenter with the username "gaimerg8" posted what they claimed was her address and personal email in the comment section below the post. The comment, and the entire comment section, have since been removed.
Many have pointed to the immediate doxxing received by Day to underscore the differing treatment experienced by men and women who speak out against gamergate. The former NFL star Chris Kluwe, whose own post against Gamergate went viral after he called members of the group "slackjawed pickletits", "slopebrowed weaseldicks" and a "basement-dwelling, cheetos-huffing, poopsock-sniffing douchepistol", made the point himself.
"None of you fucking #gamergate tools tried to dox me, even after I tore you a new one. I'm not even a tough target," he tweeted. "Instead, you go after a woman who wrote why your movement concerns her."
Random side note (as I think my opinion on this should be obvious enough) but I think the Guardian cheapened their article by noting so much on the reaction by Chris Kluwe. One he generally seems like an ass and two, in order to report on something that happened to a woman, does one need to note the reaction of a man?
Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2014, 10:09:18 PM
Random side note (as I think my opinion on this should be obvious enough) but I think the Guardian cheapened their article by noting so much on the reaction by Chris Kluwe. One he generally seems like an ass and two, in order to report on something that happened to a woman, does one need to note the reaction of a man?
Meh. It's The Guardian.
My point was that, as The Guardian says, it's only the women speaking up that are being "punished" by #Gamergate. The argument before was that this had nothing to do with any kind of attack on women, and everything to do with a group of people being upset about a lack of integrity in journalism.
Maybe not so much...
Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2014, 10:53:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 23, 2014, 10:09:18 PM
Random side note (as I think my opinion on this should be obvious enough) but I think the Guardian cheapened their article by noting so much on the reaction by Chris Kluwe. One he generally seems like an ass and two, in order to report on something that happened to a woman, does one need to note the reaction of a man?
Meh. It's The Guardian.
My point was that, as The Guardian says, it's only the women speaking up that are being "punished" by #Gamergate. The argument before was that this had nothing to do with any kind of attack on women, and everything to do with a group of people being upset about a lack of integrity in journalism.
Maybe not so much...
I wasn't disagreeing. :hug:
Of course they're focusing on the women. The women are the ones who they see as persecuting them.
article is wrong -- male critics have been attacked. phil fish, for example. i'm sure more women have been attacked than men, because that just makes sense. the movement erupted over intense hatred for a group that largely contains women. so, women who attack the movement would be seen as the enemy. it's more motivation for the individuals who do these sorts of things to spend time finding personal info on a female critic rather than some random male celebrity. plus, it's felicia day. tons of people on that site hate her.
Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2014, 10:04:59 PM
Right.... it's all about integrity in journalism.... No war on women... don't be ridiculous...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FCC1JFMZ.png%3F1&hash=3da2dd58ff63e0df5dee8b7b97cf675d2cece131)
:lol:
:huh:
Taking into account that I consider one's gender to be immutably set at birth, would I consider a trans woman to be a man or a woman? The language that all these people use with their 'cis' and their 'POC' escapes me.
Quote from: Neil on October 24, 2014, 08:18:09 AM
Taking into account that I consider one's gender to be immutably set at birth, would I consider a trans woman to be a man or a woman?
A man.
Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2014, 10:04:59 PM
Right.... it's all about integrity in journalism.... No war on women... don't be ridiculous...
There seems to be a large number of pro-#gamergate women, though. Are they at war with themselves? Oh, what's that term-- "internalized misogyny"?
Ugh, John Scalzi. What a fruitcake.
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2014, 08:30:20 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 23, 2014, 10:04:59 PM
Right.... it's all about integrity in journalism.... No war on women... don't be ridiculous...
There seems to be a large number of pro-#gamergate women, though. Are they at war with themselves? Oh, what's that term-- "internalized misogyny"?
Odd. I'd not heard any numbers on either side. I know that there are
some women pro-#gamergate, though I've only seen the names of less than a handful. It seems disingenuous to say there are a "large number" of them, however.
On the flip side, I've seen several women who claim to have at one time supported what they believed #gamergate to be about, only to give up on them with all of the doxxing and harassment going on. (Men, too, but you brought up the women.)
The reality is that the most damage is being done to women who are speaking out against them. I find it odd that anyone can or would argue that.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 24, 2014, 08:45:39 AM
Ugh, John Scalzi. What a fruitcake.
Why is Fred Brennan wearing a bib and a onesie?
Quote from: Neil on October 24, 2014, 08:18:09 AM
Taking into account that I consider one's gender to be immutably set at birth, would I consider a trans woman to be a man or a woman? The language that all these people use with their 'cis' and their 'POC' escapes me.
If you want to respect their identity, you consider them a woman.
If you want to make the point that you think they're full of shit and ridiculous, you consider them a man.
Quote from: merithyn on October 24, 2014, 10:49:03 AM
Odd. I'd not heard any numbers on either side. I know that there are some women pro-#gamergate, though I've only seen the names of less than a handful. It seems disingenuous to say there are a "large number" of them, however.
Sorry I don't have an exact figure. Just going by what I noticed. I suppose I should say relatively large numbers of women support #gamergate, given that it's supposedly an anti-woman movement. There is undoubtedly an anti-woman element of #gamergate, but by and large I don't see the "movement" or whatever as being anti-woman. Unless maybe opposing a radical feminist agenda makes one anti-woman.
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2014, 11:10:23 AM
Sorry I don't have an exact figure. Just going by what I noticed. I suppose I should say relatively large numbers of women support #gamergate, given that it's supposedly an anti-woman movement. There is undoubtedly an anti-woman element of #gamergate, but by and large I don't see the "movement" or whatever as being anti-woman. Unless maybe opposing a radical feminist agenda makes one anti-woman.
Is that what #gamergate is? Opposing a radical feminist agenda?
Quote from: Jacob on October 24, 2014, 11:12:06 AM
Is that what #gamergate is? Opposing a radical feminist agenda?
Seems to be part of it. It's an anti-establishment movement, and the Feminazi/SJW types seem to be part of the establishment, as it were.
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2014, 11:15:36 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 24, 2014, 11:12:06 AM
Is that what #gamergate is? Opposing a radical feminist agenda?
Seems to be part of it. It's an anti-establishment movement, and the Feminazi/SJW types seem to be part of the establishment, as it were.
I suppose that makes some sort of sense, even if the PoV is pretty damn alien to me.
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2014, 11:15:36 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 24, 2014, 11:12:06 AM
Is that what #gamergate is? Opposing a radical feminist agenda?
Seems to be part of it. It's an anti-establishment movement, and the Feminazi/SJW types seem to be part of the establishment, as it were.
The problem is that the anti-establishment movements are also part of the establishment. You can't get much more establishment than #gamergate.
That's deep, man.
Quote from: Jacob on October 24, 2014, 10:55:55 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 24, 2014, 08:18:09 AM
Taking into account that I consider one's gender to be immutably set at birth, would I consider a trans woman to be a man or a woman? The language that all these people use with their 'cis' and their 'POC' escapes me.
If you want to respect their identity, you consider them a woman.
If you want to make the point that you think they're full of shit and ridiculous, you consider them a man.
I don't think I'll ever encounter one of those types, so I'm just more concerned about how to decipher a phrase like 'trans woman'.
I think it means "pretend woman"
Quote from: Jacob on October 24, 2014, 11:12:06 AMIs that what #gamergate is? Opposing a radical feminist agenda?
yup, i brought this up awhile ago. it opposes radical feminism, not women in general. it's anti-tumblr nutso feminists, essentially. #gamergate is like the male version of it.
Who gives a flying fuck what gamers think?
Quote from: Neil on October 24, 2014, 12:38:10 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 24, 2014, 10:55:55 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 24, 2014, 08:18:09 AM
Taking into account that I consider one's gender to be immutably set at birth, would I consider a trans woman to be a man or a woman? The language that all these people use with their 'cis' and their 'POC' escapes me.
If you want to respect their identity, you consider them a woman.
If you want to make the point that you think they're full of shit and ridiculous, you consider them a man.
I don't think I'll ever encounter one of those types, so I'm just more concerned about how to decipher a phrase like 'trans woman'.
I wonder what the proper protocol is on Halloween.
Quote from: Neil on October 24, 2014, 12:38:10 PM
I don't think I'll ever encounter one of those types, so I'm just more concerned about how to decipher a phrase like 'trans woman'.
Trans woman = buddharhubarb
Quote from: Jacob on October 25, 2014, 12:46:31 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 24, 2014, 12:38:10 PM
I don't think I'll ever encounter one of those types, so I'm just more concerned about how to decipher a phrase like 'trans woman'.
Trans woman = buddharhubarb
I thought he was just a crossdresser?
Still, I guess if that's accurate, I always though of him as a man, so that would help remind me.
Quote from: Neil on October 25, 2014, 09:10:37 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 25, 2014, 12:46:31 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 24, 2014, 12:38:10 PM
I don't think I'll ever encounter one of those types, so I'm just more concerned about how to decipher a phrase like 'trans woman'.
Trans woman = buddharhubarb
I thought he was just a crossdresser?
Still, I guess if that's accurate, I always though of him as a man, so that would help remind me.
She has transitioned since leaving Languish.
A good summary:
http://www.clickhole.com/article/summary-gamergate-movement-we-will-immediately-cha-1241?utm_campaign=default&utm_medium=ShareTools&utm_source=facebook
I have decided who to support.
None of them. Between Scalzi, Kluwe, Gawker and ugly feminist fatties on one side and Vox Day, racist twit of the decade and angry virgin neck beards on the other, I decided to make fun of all of them.
I bet you'd put wheel locks on Brennan's hovercart, too. Bastard.
Quote from: Jacob on October 24, 2014, 11:12:06 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2014, 11:10:23 AM
Sorry I don't have an exact figure. Just going by what I noticed. I suppose I should say relatively large numbers of women support #gamergate, given that it's supposedly an anti-woman movement. There is undoubtedly an anti-woman element of #gamergate, but by and large I don't see the "movement" or whatever as being anti-woman. Unless maybe opposing a radical feminist agenda makes one anti-woman.
Is that what #gamergate is? Opposing a radical feminist agenda?
See, this is where my problem is. When someone goes on a rant about evil, sexist games, I kinda find it exaggerated, self-serving and attention seeking. But then when the other side says they are about "opposing a radical feminist agenda", I find it even more objectionable.
I think people love causes, and this is especially true on the internet, where clicktivism costs nothing but gives you a lot of fuel for your righteous rage.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 27, 2014, 05:15:29 PM
I have decided who to support.
None of them. Between Scalzi, Kluwe, Gawker and ugly feminist fatties on one side and Vox Day, racist twit of the decade and angry virgin neck beards on the other, I decided to make fun of all of them.
This is how I feel about the whole debacle too. I think in terms of actual views, I am probably more on the "ugly feminist fatties" side, but I refuse to engage in a tribal war. At best, I am contributing to a better society (because I think the modern tendency to divide every issue into two hostile camps, where one side must beat the other to pulp in order to "win" is not conductive to good debate) and at worst I am avoiding wasting my time.
Quote from: Neil on October 24, 2014, 12:38:10 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 24, 2014, 10:55:55 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 24, 2014, 08:18:09 AM
Taking into account that I consider one's gender to be immutably set at birth, would I consider a trans woman to be a man or a woman? The language that all these people use with their 'cis' and their 'POC' escapes me.
If you want to respect their identity, you consider them a woman.
If you want to make the point that you think they're full of shit and ridiculous, you consider them a man.
I don't think I'll ever encounter one of those types, so I'm just more concerned about how to decipher a phrase like 'trans woman'.
Now you sound like a dumb yokel. The part about never encountering "one of those types" makes you sound extra dumb - I can't count how many times I heard someone say this to me, but talking about gays. You may be making someone think of you not as an enemy, perhaps, but as a fool.
Quote from: Martinus on October 28, 2014, 01:07:44 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 24, 2014, 11:12:06 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 24, 2014, 11:10:23 AM
Sorry I don't have an exact figure. Just going by what I noticed. I suppose I should say relatively large numbers of women support #gamergate, given that it's supposedly an anti-woman movement. There is undoubtedly an anti-woman element of #gamergate, but by and large I don't see the "movement" or whatever as being anti-woman. Unless maybe opposing a radical feminist agenda makes one anti-woman.
Is that what #gamergate is? Opposing a radical feminist agenda?
See, this is where my problem is. When someone goes on a rant about evil, sexist games, I kinda find it exaggerated, self-serving and attention seeking. But then when the other side says they are about "opposing a radical feminist agenda", I find it even more objectionable.
I think people love causes, and this is especially true on the internet, where clicktivism costs nothing but gives you a lot of fuel for your righteous rage.
I think this is a reasonably fair interpretation of events.
I do think that the core feminist critique as it's coming from Sarkeesian et. al. - as annoying and attention seeking as it may seem - is pretty pedestrian. It's, like, Feminism 101. Why freak the fuck out about Feminism 101? Engage it on points of substance, as they may be, and ignore the rest, and you'll be fine (general you). Freaking the fuck out only makes the very basic level criticism seem ten times more topical and important.
Apparently gamergate was the subject of the Colbert Report tonight, and Anita was his guest.
Quote from: Martinus on October 28, 2014, 01:17:42 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 24, 2014, 12:38:10 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 24, 2014, 10:55:55 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 24, 2014, 08:18:09 AM
Taking into account that I consider one's gender to be immutably set at birth, would I consider a trans woman to be a man or a woman? The language that all these people use with their 'cis' and their 'POC' escapes me.
If you want to respect their identity, you consider them a woman.
If you want to make the point that you think they're full of shit and ridiculous, you consider them a man.
I don't think I'll ever encounter one of those types, so I'm just more concerned about how to decipher a phrase like 'trans woman'.
Now you sound like a dumb yokel. The part about never encountering "one of those types" makes you sound extra dumb - I can't count how many times I heard someone say this to me, but talking about gays. You may be making someone think of you not as an enemy, perhaps, but as a fool.
Of course, it would be just as unfair for someone to try and gauge someone's intelligence from the ability to discern the details of their obscure identity politics as it would for me to do the same over the minutiae of dreadnought battleships. Still, it's no big deal to me. I associate with the same group of two dozen or so people that I always do, and none of them think they're actually of the opposite gender. Or are gay for that matter.
Maybe I encounter one while they're working in a retail store or something, but I'm not going to talk to them about their foolish life choices, just like I don't say anything to those stupid kids with the discs rammed into their earlobes.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2014, 12:18:41 AM
Apparently gamergate was the subject of the Colbert Report tonight, and Anita was his guest.
(https://images.encyclopediadramatica.se/thumb/e/eb/Sarkeesian_Bike.jpg/326px-Sarkeesian_Bike.jpg)
Quote from: Neil on October 30, 2014, 08:15:15 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 28, 2014, 01:17:42 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 24, 2014, 12:38:10 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 24, 2014, 10:55:55 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 24, 2014, 08:18:09 AM
Taking into account that I consider one's gender to be immutably set at birth, would I consider a trans woman to be a man or a woman? The language that all these people use with their 'cis' and their 'POC' escapes me.
If you want to respect their identity, you consider them a woman.
If you want to make the point that you think they're full of shit and ridiculous, you consider them a man.
I don't think I'll ever encounter one of those types, so I'm just more concerned about how to decipher a phrase like 'trans woman'.
Now you sound like a dumb yokel. The part about never encountering "one of those types" makes you sound extra dumb - I can't count how many times I heard someone say this to me, but talking about gays. You may be making someone think of you not as an enemy, perhaps, but as a fool.
Of course, it would be just as unfair for someone to try and gauge someone's intelligence from the ability to discern the details of their obscure identity politics as it would for me to do the same over the minutiae of dreadnought battleships. Still, it's no big deal to me. I associate with the same group of two dozen or so people that I always do, and none of them think they're actually of the opposite gender. Or are gay for that matter.
Maybe I encounter one while they're working in a retail store or something, but I'm not going to talk to them about their foolish life choices, just like I don't say anything to those stupid kids with the discs rammed into their earlobes.
How are you sure that noone out of the two dozen of people you associate with are not gay?
Quote from: Martinus on October 30, 2014, 08:18:05 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 30, 2014, 08:15:15 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 28, 2014, 01:17:42 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 24, 2014, 12:38:10 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 24, 2014, 10:55:55 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 24, 2014, 08:18:09 AM
Taking into account that I consider one's gender to be immutably set at birth, would I consider a trans woman to be a man or a woman? The language that all these people use with their 'cis' and their 'POC' escapes me.
If you want to respect their identity, you consider them a woman.
If you want to make the point that you think they're full of shit and ridiculous, you consider them a man.
I don't think I'll ever encounter one of those types, so I'm just more concerned about how to decipher a phrase like 'trans woman'.
Now you sound like a dumb yokel. The part about never encountering "one of those types" makes you sound extra dumb - I can't count how many times I heard someone say this to me, but talking about gays. You may be making someone think of you not as an enemy, perhaps, but as a fool.
Of course, it would be just as unfair for someone to try and gauge someone's intelligence from the ability to discern the details of their obscure identity politics as it would for me to do the same over the minutiae of dreadnought battleships. Still, it's no big deal to me. I associate with the same group of two dozen or so people that I always do, and none of them think they're actually of the opposite gender. Or are gay for that matter.
Maybe I encounter one while they're working in a retail store or something, but I'm not going to talk to them about their foolish life choices, just like I don't say anything to those stupid kids with the discs rammed into their earlobes.
How are you sure that noone out of the two dozen of people you associate with are not gay?
Pretty sure. We're all a little old for that kind of nonsense now. Most of us are married or seriously dating at this point. Moreover, my group tends to be fairly socially liberal. I'm probably the most conservative, and even I wouldn't really have had a problem with gays if it wasn't for Paradox OT.
Quote from: Legbiter on October 30, 2014, 08:15:32 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2014, 12:18:41 AM
Apparently gamergate was the subject of the Colbert Report tonight, and Anita was his guest.
(https://images.encyclopediadramatica.se/thumb/e/eb/Sarkeesian_Bike.jpg/326px-Sarkeesian_Bike.jpg)
:lol:
That's awesome.
Ok, after watching Anita Sarkeesian on the Colbert Report, she seems quite alright. I was expecting someone much more dogmatic and much less likeable.
How agreeable is she?
Quote from: Martinus on October 30, 2014, 04:34:31 PM
Ok, after watching Anita Sarkeesian on the Colbert Report, she seems quite alright. I was expecting someone much more dogmatic and much less likeable.
You're just hypnotized by her eyebrows.
Quote from: Martinus on October 30, 2014, 04:34:31 PM
Ok, after watching Anita Sarkeesian on the Colbert Report, she seems quite alright. I was expecting someone much more dogmatic and much less likeable.
Are you saying the drooling crowd who think calling someone a social justice warrior is a good insult might not be entirely rational? Say it isn't so.
Quote from: Martinus on October 30, 2014, 04:34:31 PM
Ok, after watching Anita Sarkeesian on the Colbert Report, she seems quite alright. I was expecting someone much more dogmatic and much less likeable.
Really?
She's Jack Thompson with tits except more malevolent because of pathetic white knights. If you can understand Al Sharpton's revenue model, you understand hers.
Quote from: Legbiter on October 31, 2014, 08:04:15 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 30, 2014, 04:34:31 PM
Ok, after watching Anita Sarkeesian on the Colbert Report, she seems quite alright. I was expecting someone much more dogmatic and much less likeable.
Really?
She's Jack Thompson with tits except more malevolent because of pathetic white knights. If you can understand Al Sharpton's revenue model, you understand hers.
:lol:
:lol:
Quote from: Legbiter on October 31, 2014, 08:04:15 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 30, 2014, 04:34:31 PM
Ok, after watching Anita Sarkeesian on the Colbert Report, she seems quite alright. I was expecting someone much more dogmatic and much less likeable.
Really?
She's Jack Thompson with tits except more malevolent because of pathetic white knights. If you can understand Al Sharpton's revenue model, you understand hers.
I really didn't think much of her, but if she has you misogynists this worked up, she must have some good in her somewhere. :cheers:
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2014, 12:31:08 PMI really didn't think much of her, but if she has you misogynists this worked up, she must have some good in her somewhere. :cheers:
Yeah that's where I'm coming from too. Insofar as I was aware of her I thought her mildly annoying, and thought it silly that she was getting this kind of attention for basic media criticism 101. Yes, there's a bunch of sexist shit in video games. Is that really a shock to anyone?
Now, given the hysteric reaction from the Legbiterites Sarkeesian seems both topical and assured of a long and lucrative career doing what she's doing.
Quote from: Legbiter on October 31, 2014, 08:04:15 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 30, 2014, 04:34:31 PM
Ok, after watching Anita Sarkeesian on the Colbert Report, she seems quite alright. I was expecting someone much more dogmatic and much less likeable.
Really?
She's Jack Thompson with tits except more malevolent because of pathetic white knights. If you can understand Al Sharpton's revenue model, you understand hers.
Seriously? Jack Thompson was a crazy lawyer who kept suing people in frivolous lawsuits until he got disbarred. Sarkessian made some videos on the internet.
Quote from: Jacob on October 31, 2014, 01:53:53 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2014, 12:31:08 PMI really didn't think much of her, but if she has you misogynists this worked up, she must have some good in her somewhere. :cheers:
Yeah that's where I'm coming from too. Insofar as I was aware of her I thought her mildly annoying, and thought it silly that she was getting this kind of attention for basic media criticism 101. Yes, there's a bunch of sexist shit in video games. Is that really a shock to anyone?
Now, given the hysteric reaction from the Legbiterites Sarkeesian seems both topical and assured of a long and lucrative career doing what she's doing.
Well, she seems clever, to the point, reasonable, witty. Like Oscar Wilde, I tend to divide people into charming and tedious and she is not tedious. So I withdraw my objection.
I guess that makes Martinus a "pathetic white knight"?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 31, 2014, 02:52:37 PM
I guess that makes Martinus a "pathetic white knight"?
We are all familiar with Martinus' tendency to jump to the defence of women in the hopes of having sex with them.
The problem with the feminist critique of computer games is that it is very often quite selective and/or badly researched. For example, I saw one material where a scene from Dragon Age was deemed anti-woman because a woman was abused in it. But this is a game portraying a very dark Westeros-esque world where pretty much everyone who is not in power is abused - whether it is for being of an "inferior race", or "born this way" (as the case with those with magic talent) etc. I think a lot of rage comes from stuff like this.
Sure, there are many games out there where woman are portrayed in a non equal game, but surely Dragon Age is at the better end of the spectrum.
I've never watched the videos, though I do dislike how women are portrayed in games. I find it insulting that someone thinks to sell me a game you need to show off a pair of big pixelated jugs.
I agree that it's partially selective, but that doesn't mean there aren't problems.
Using T&A as lowest common denominator to sell games - yeah, that's cheap, and it's not like it isn't ridiculed enough these days. In the late 80s and early 90s, gaming magazines routinely had scantily clad women on their covers, and games ads or boxes weren't any better. I feel it's become better now, and gratuitous attempts at pulling something like that (without being openly satirical or ironical about it) is rightfully ridiculed (remember the ads about that one online strategy game that started off "normal" (knight/king or something) and moved to using ever less dressed women in suggestive poses and slogans?).
And we don't get to see "bikini" armor much, anymore, either. Will it ever go fully away? Doubtful. We still have exploitation flicks, and I presume a niche like this will remain in gaming.
Are there good, positive female characters in games? Sure. But as protagonists, I would estimate the ration is at least 80/20 in favor of males. White males, to be precise. I read somewhere that as audience women find it easier to follow and identify with a male protagonist than vice versa, and similar supposedly holds true for race. I dunno how scientific that finding is (or if real at all) but if it exists, then it's a hen and egg question - is the white male protagonist the default view point because it will allow identification for most people, or will it allow identification because it's the codified default?
At any rate, I again find that things are better than 20 years ago. The indie scene helps a lot with it, because they're not afraid of breaking or inverting tropes for fear of not appealing to the mass market.
Getting the open sexism and misogyny out of the system will happen slowly, over time, both in games, and in the gamer culture.
The less open one ... well. Think of how popular a genre romcoms are in movies. Yet it's a genre where in most cases the self worth of a woman is defined by her being in a relationship. (Which is why Brave was such a refreshing break from the "happily ever after" formula.) Is it female wish fulfillment or power fantasy? I dunno. But I find it mildly confusing that a type of movie that often stresses that life is incomplete for a woman if she's single draws so comparatively little criticism.
And don't get me started on commercials. How many commercials for household products (detergents, toilet paper, diapers, ...) are there where a male takes care of the work, and it's *not* played for laughs?
I am not saying these things are not true, Syt - as a gay male I see them more acutely and clearly than most heterosexual males because if you are not a minority you tend to overlook the heteronorm (which is largely written from the perspective of a white straight male).
I am just saying that if you do it in a poorly researched, selective manner you end up alienating a lot of people who might be otherwise sympathetic to your cause.
Edit: "you" in the above paragraphs was a general you, not addressed at you specifically, Syt.
Bioware is a good example of that - Dragon Age was one of the most groundbreaking games in the way women and sexual minorities were portrayed in a roleplaying fantasy game (one of the most conservative genres), allowing full equality of romance and playing a character who was male, female, straight or gay, as desired by the player. It also featured a number of strong complex female characters (such as the queen or Morrigan) that did not fall into the damsel or whore stereotype - and I am fairly sure that, when played as a female character, it would have easily passed the Behdel test.
So when a shot from Dragon Age is the first one used in a tv material featuring "sexist portrayal of women in games", I can see how people can get pissed off at "militant man-hating feminists".
And also, there seems to be a tendency from a portion of the feminist movement to mix sexism that exists in a medium at the meta level with sexism that exists as a part of the narrative. For example, to me SOIAF is one of the most feminist widely acclaimed fantasy series written by a man - yet I saw a feminist critique of it, saying that it is sexist, because it depicts a sexist, misogynistic society and, as this is a fantasy and not a historical fiction, the author could - but deliberately did not - make the society depicted in his books more equal and feminist.
Complaints like this make you go "wtf".
Sounds like a complaint made by a woman.
I did think the whole rapey thing in the City Elf origin was pretty stupid. I mean it was ridiculous how mustache-twirlingly evil the humans were, even the guards. Is this really the best way they could show that City Elves were discriminated against? Did nobles just ride into Jewish Ghettos and publicly grab a few Jewish women to rape back in the Middle Ages? Did the KKK just strut into a black church and rape a few ladies right there? Surely there are better ways of showing this sort of thing than something so absurd and over the top. Then of course after establishing that humans see you as subhuman scum only worthy of being used as an object they treat you with polite respect the entire rest of the game. It kind of made the rape wedding thing seem like it was almost put there for titillation.
Of course yeah this was not common for Dragon Age at all, it was rather out of place.
QuoteBioware is a good example of that - Dragon Age was one of the most groundbreaking games in the way women and sexual minorities were portrayed in a roleplaying fantasy game (one of the most conservative genres),
Huh. Weird I could have female heroes in fantasy games from the beginning. Sex even being an issue at all in these games was pretty new anyway (pretty much being invented by Bioware with BG2). I guess I hadn't noticed roleplaying games being super behind other genres or had anti-woman or sexual minority issues. Especially CRPGs. I mean the whole point is you can make any character you want.
QuoteAnd also, there seems to be a tendency from a portion of the feminist movement to mix sexism that exists in a medium at the meta level with sexism that exists as a part of the narrative. For example, to me SOIAF is one of the most feminist widely acclaimed fantasy series written by a man - yet I saw a feminist critique of it, saying that it is sexist, because it depicts a sexist, misogynistic society and, as this is a fantasy and not a historical fiction, the author could - but deliberately did not - make the society depicted in his books more equal and feminist.
There are loads of Feminists and some of them are awesome and some of them are morons.
Quote from: SytassBut I find it mildly confusing that a type of movie that often stresses that life is incomplete for a woman if she's single draws so comparatively little criticism.
Could it have something to do with it being held as trivially true, and for most people of both genders? :unsure:
Quote from: Syt on November 02, 2014, 03:02:57 AM
Think of how popular a genre romcoms are in movies. Yet it's a genre where in most cases the self worth of a woman is defined by her being in a relationship. (Which is why Brave was such a refreshing break from the "happily ever after" formula.) Is it female wish fulfillment or power fantasy? I dunno. But I find it mildly confusing that a type of movie that often stresses that life is incomplete for a woman if she's single draws so comparatively little criticism.
I think it is pretty standard fare in feminism to take issue with romantic comedies and generally the notion that a woman needs a man in order to get by.
Quote from: garbon on November 02, 2014, 04:13:48 PM
I think it is pretty standard fare in feminism to take issue with romantic comedies and generally the notion that a woman needs a man in order to get by.
I think they take it a little too...erm...strongly though. I mean I personally do need a pretty good support structure and I do need a partner in my life to really function at my peak. But that is not true for a lot of people. I guess the notion is that some women might need a partner and other women might not but there is nothing wrong with them either way. Instead we either get the extreme: 'a woman needs a man' and 'a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.'
It kind of depends on who the individual is and what their needs are.
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2014, 04:31:22 PM
I mean I personally do need a pretty good support structure and I do need a partner in my life to really function at my peak. But that is not true for a lot of people.
I think it's true for nearly everyone. Some just do a better job of fooling themselves.
Also if you gender flip the story and a damaged and lonely man who finds happiness because a woman shows up in his life then it is also sexist against women since this just shows women are nothing but objects to please men, devoid of their own goals and what have you. But that might just be John Green ranting against the 'Manic Pixie Dream Girl' thing and not a widespread feminist critique.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 02, 2014, 04:35:15 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2014, 04:31:22 PM
I mean I personally do need a pretty good support structure and I do need a partner in my life to really function at my peak. But that is not true for a lot of people.
I think it's true for nearly everyone. Some just do a better job of fooling themselves.
I don't really see how that's true. Certainly we all need other people in our lives but I don't see why we can't get on without a singular romantic partner.
In a porn, if one woman has sex with many men it's sexiss against women. If a man has sex with many women it's also sexiss against women.
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2014, 04:41:29 PM
Also if you gender flip the story and a damaged and lonely man who finds happiness because a woman shows up in his life then it is also sexist against women since this just shows women are nothing but objects to please men, devoid of their own goals and what have you. But that might just be John Green ranting against the 'Manic Pixie Dream Girl' thing and not a widespread feminist critique.
I know it was Legbiter (or was it? well some Languish misogynist) but I did like that combination chart that showed how every relationship except male homosexuality could be perceived misogynist. :lol:
Quote from: garbon on November 02, 2014, 04:45:28 PM
I don't really see how that's true. Certainly we all need other people in our lives but I don't see why we can't get on without a singular romantic partner.
To me it is about the level of intimacy and commitment. My buddies, though great, are not going to give me much thought on their day to day business. They have romantic partners and families and lives. I am not among the most important people in their lives. I really do better with a partner where we do have that level of investment in each other. So I would be very unhappy without that singular romantic partner. So that's why. Now how universal is that? Probably not as universal as PW thinks but who knows? Certainly those RomComs hit a cord with somebody.
I think about you every day, Valmy. :hug: I think, "Gosh, I hope Valmy's okay." "Valmy's getting a STEM degree." "I've never been there, but I understand on an intellectual level that Texas sucks, why does he live there?"
Quote from: Ideologue on November 02, 2014, 06:00:55 PM
I think about you every day, Valmy. :hug:
Awwwww :hug: Maybe I don't need some woman when I have my Languish.....nah.
QuoteI think, "Gosh, I hope Valmy's okay." "Valmy's getting a STEM degree."
He will be doing much better once that STEM degree is finished. 43 days 3 minutes and 15 seconds to go. Not that I am counting, I have a phone app that does that for me.
Quote"I've never been there, but I understand on an intellectual level that Texas sucks, why does he live there?"
Because Austin is a glorious place. Why do you live in South Carolina?
Quote from: Ideologue on November 02, 2014, 05:56:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2014, 04:41:29 PM
Also if you gender flip the story and a damaged and lonely man who finds happiness because a woman shows up in his life then it is also sexist against women since this just shows women are nothing but objects to please men, devoid of their own goals and what have you. But that might just be John Green ranting against the 'Manic Pixie Dream Girl' thing and not a widespread feminist critique.
I know it was Legbiter (or was it? well some Languish misogynist) but I did like that combination chart that showed how every relationship except male homosexuality could be perceived misogynist. :lol:
Actually I believe male homosexuality is as well - as we dispense with the need for females entirely. I think Camille Paglia called it something like an ultimate feat of male narcissism.
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2014, 05:57:04 PM
To me it is about the level of intimacy and commitment. My buddies, though great, are not going to give me much thought on their day to day business. They have romantic partners and families and lives. I am not among the most important people in their lives. I really do better with a partner where we do have that level of investment in each other. So I would be very unhappy without that singular romantic partner. So that's why. Now how universal is that? Probably not as universal as PW thinks but who knows? Certainly those RomComs hit a cord with somebody.
I mean I wasn't making a claim against you specifically but speaking to what PW said as far as everyone generally feeling that same way.
FWIW I love a good rom-com but it isn't because I'm waiting for my other half.
Speaking of Austin.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2817464/Go-ahead-call-cops-t-rape-Dash-cam-records-two-Texas-police-officers-joking-raping-woman-walking-car.html
Quote'Go ahead call the cops - they can't un-rape you': Dash cam records two Texas police officers joking about raping a woman walking by their car
Footage recorded May 24 in Austin, Texas
Two officers sitting in their car see a woman walk by
One yells out: 'Go ahead, call the cops - they can't unrape you'
The video was found by a lawyer who was investigating a car accident the officers had attending
Austin Police Department are now investigating the officers and whether they have had contact with 'victims of sexual assault'
An internal investigation has been launched at Austin Police Department after two officers were recorded on a dashboard camera video joking about raping a woman.
In the video - taken on May 24 - the officers can be heard discussing their day and a car accident they had just attended.
When a woman walks near the car, one officer points her out to the other, who blows his whistle and yells: 'Go ahead, call the cops - they can't unrape you.'
It's unclear whether the woman heard the call.
However the first officer then remarks that the second officer had left his camera on.
Seemingly wanting to distance himself from the disturbing conversation, the first officer asks the second: 'Are you insinuating something? Are you done?'
The second then appears to storm out of the car.
The video was happened upon by a lawyer who was handling the car accident the two officers had been discussing.
Austin Police Department have since confirmed the video is authentic and released a statement saying they were investigating the two officers.
The Austin Police Department has validated the video/audio publicly released pursuant to the Texas Open Records Act,' the statement, released to Raw Story, said.
'The officers in the video/audio have been identified as Austin Police officers.
'Upon learning of the video's contents, the Department immediately launched an internal investigation.
'The investigation will include a comprehensive audit of the involved officers' contacts with victims of sexual assault to ensure the actions taken during the contacts meet the expectations of the Department, the public and most importantly, the victims.
'Upon conclusion of the investigation, the Department will take appropriate corrective action.'
Both officers in the Austin video have been placed on leave pending the outcome of the investigation.
The lawyer who found the video, Drew Gibbs, said he was more disturbed by the way the first officer reacted to the 'un-rape' call - by questioning whether the camera was on.
'I would hope that when a police officer observes another officer acting inappropriately, or worse, illegally, that their initial reaction would be to correct that behavior and prevent its reoccurrence,' Gibbs told Raw Story.
'Instead, it seems that all too often the reaction of many otherwise good police officers is to hide any evidence of misconduct.'
:bash: :frusty:
I guess the Cops sometimes forget they are being recorded while they are on duty?
Please tell me you're not mis-characterizing my statement as suggesting that people have an "other half".
I think there is a basic human need for intimacy. A long term romantic partner is best suited for fulfilling this need, though I suppose having close familial relationships as well as casual sexual partners when the need arises can make do. (Probably best to keep those relationships separate).
Quote from: garbon on November 02, 2014, 06:24:03 PM
Speaking of Austin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bb1DTsxBOfE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bb1DTsxBOfE)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 02, 2014, 06:39:21 PM
Please tell me you're not mis-characterizing my statement as suggesting that people have an "other half".
I think there is a basic human need for intimacy. A long term romantic partner is best suited for fulfilling this need, though I suppose having close familial relationships as well as casual sexual partners when the need arises can make do. (Probably best to keep those relationships separate).
While that may have been unfair, I don't really see how that is substantially different as you are still positing that most people have an intrinsic need for a long term romantic partner and that most of those who think otherwise, are deluding themselves. Seems more like a nice to have rather than a necessity.
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2014, 01:17:03 PM
Huh. Weird I could have female heroes in fantasy games from the beginning. Sex even being an issue at all in these games was pretty new anyway (pretty much being invented by Bioware with BG2). I guess I hadn't noticed roleplaying games being super behind other genres or had anti-woman or sexual minority issues. Especially CRPGs. I mean the whole point is you can make any character you want.
How many games before Bioware allowed you to play a gay romance? Now, it is almost ubiquitous. Other genres, such as Sims, did that much earlier.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2014, 01:10:09 AM
How many games before Bioware allowed you to play a gay romance? Now, it is almost ubiquitous. Other genres, such as Sims, did that much earlier.
How many RPGs had romances between party members as part of the game before Bioware? I mean you could have made a gay couple in Wizardry in 1979 if you wanted.
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2014, 01:16:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2014, 01:10:09 AM
How many games before Bioware allowed you to play a gay romance? Now, it is almost ubiquitous. Other genres, such as Sims, did that much earlier.
How many RPGs had romances between party members as part of the game before Bioware? I mean you could have made a gay couple in Wizardry in 1979 if you wanted.
Geez, you are tedious. Obviously, I meant "before Bioware started including gay romance", not "before Bioware existed". They were the first (perhaps Fable had it before).
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2014, 01:28:10 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 03, 2014, 01:16:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2014, 01:10:09 AM
How many games before Bioware allowed you to play a gay romance? Now, it is almost ubiquitous. Other genres, such as Sims, did that much earlier.
How many RPGs had romances between party members as part of the game before Bioware? I mean you could have made a gay couple in Wizardry in 1979 if you wanted.
Geez, you are tedious. Obviously, I meant "before Bioware started including gay romance", not "before Bioware existed". They were the first (perhaps Fable had it before).
I see. My apologies I did not get that.
Well let's see...skipping the games that had no romances at all and expansions we have:
Baldur's Gate II (which had a romance for female characters)
Neverwinter Nights (did this, or its expansions, have romances?)
KOTOR
Jade Empire <-had gay romance, granted it was sorta Easter Eggy
But as far as I know Baldur's Gate II was the first RPG ever to have RPG romances as we think of them today. Granted RPGs are a conservative genre in the sense that RPG fans do not like a lot of innovations on our formula but I guess I never thought about it being conservative in the social sense.
Well, inclusion of gay romance in Dragon Age caused quite a backlash.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2014, 02:47:31 AM
Well, inclusion of gay romance in Dragon Age caused quite a backlash.
It was for Dragon Age 2, mainly because all characters were bisexual.
Before that, the 1st Mass Effect created a scandal because there was a "sex scene" (the quotes are necessary, because it was more kissing and fondling, nothing graphic, no nudity) between a male human and a female alien.
And before that, there were various scandals/backlash because some games or some mods allowed for nudity in a game.
There were gay romances in DA1. Not every character swung that way, but some did.
Quote from: sbr on November 06, 2014, 02:40:22 PM
There were gay romances in DA1. Not every character swung that way, but some did.
yeah, but I don't recall any huge backlash as in DA2.
Sex Games on the C64 had a group level that was not 100% hetero.
How the hell did Marti manage to gay-up my femi-nazi thread?? :ultra:
;)