Hey J in the off chance when you moan about "why do people think I'm a troll I don't want to be like a robot I want to be a friend to you all" you are being serious
this is a prime example of you coming across like a huge troll who is stirring the pot for lulz while hiding behind a facade of robot beep boopery
im leaving work to go to the gym now but thanks for the preemptive ab workout
there is a Chrome extension out there that changes "SJW" or to "skeleton" in any displayed web-page and it makes reading stupid Gater garbage kind of amazing:
Infiltration?
These people are paranoid and delusional.
i dunno skeletons are super spooky
there's a skeleton in you right now
When you get right down to it, a person is just a skeleton covered in meat, biding it's time til it becomes a ghost.
Hey J in the off chance when you moan about "why do people think I'm a troll I don't want to be like a robot I want to be a friend to you all" you are being serious
this is a prime example of you coming across like a huge troll who is stirring the pot for lulz while hiding behind a facade of robot beep boopery
"Yeah but... is this really a problem? I mean, I don't see it happen. I'm not doubting it's existence, guys, I'm just saying... is it really that bad?"
Yes, yes it is, or at the very least we believe it is or we wouldn't be so dang fired up about it, so when you ask that question it never comes across in good faith, it comes across as a way of you shrugging your shoulders and kind of being in denial of the issue or minimizing the outrage because it doesn't affect you or you're not seeing what all the fuss is about.
And I kind of wish you'd just... stop doing that?
Like either take in good faith that people are mad for a reason, or believe that they are not because you have a good reason not to
don't just take a default position of doubting them because you think you ought to.
Will asks a reasonable question.
Pony gets on his soapbox.
Will is not the unreasonable one. But everyone seems to be jumping on him, because righteous indignation, or something.
Like I wholly support wider use of debating standards but I think most of the confusion here _J_ is how you could possibly internet for however long you have without having seen this sort of thing.
One thing that people find horrible is the posting of addresses.
I do find this reprehensible. The thing is given someones name, general living area and possibly a picture or just enough time you can dig up someones address, phone number, work address and probably even frequently visited places.
Part of this is because we give this info out constantly via apps, social media and other parts is it just ends up in the public domain through the internet like the old phone book.
It is part of the new world.
Your information is not private.
And in many ways we as a society have not adapted this.
Posting or use of addresses tends to be one of the things that police use to separate crank threats from ones that may represent a legitimate threat of physical violence. It shows a degree of per-meditation and red flags that just saying you'll kill someone. But it's easier to find that information in this day and age and that is likely going to have to adjust how we view threats. The problem is that the only reasonable response right now is that more crank threats will have to be viewed as threats that represent a legitimate chance to commit physical harm.
I suspect that we will see an increase anonymization services. Use of shell companies to hide property ownership, dropbox mailing services for addresses and so forth. A lot of these already exist and are used for these reasons but I expect we'll see an expansion.
one of the worst things about the internet is how protecting yourself from someone willing to devote even a single afternoon to finding out everything about you requires a fuckload more than a single afternoon of effort, it requires constant vigilance and if you slip up even once, all your efforts were for nothing
Hey J in the off chance when you moan about "why do people think I'm a troll I don't want to be like a robot I want to be a friend to you all" you are being serious
this is a prime example of you coming across like a huge troll who is stirring the pot for lulz while hiding behind a facade of robot beep boopery
"Yeah but... is this really a problem? I mean, I don't see it happen. I'm not doubting it's existence, guys, I'm just saying... is it really that bad?"
Yes, yes it is, or at the very least we believe it is or we wouldn't be so dang fired up about it, so when you ask that question it never comes across in good faith, it comes across as a way of you shrugging your shoulders and kind of being in denial of the issue or minimizing the outrage because it doesn't affect you or you're not seeing what all the fuss is about.
And I kind of wish you'd just... stop doing that?
Like either take in good faith that people are mad for a reason, or believe that they are not because you have a good reason not to
don't just take a default position of doubting them because you think you ought to.
Will asks a reasonable question.
Pony gets on his soapbox.
Will is not the unreasonable one. But everyone seems to be jumping on him, because righteous indignation, or something.
Opinions, everybody has them.
+1
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
I don't always agree with Pony (ok I seldom agree with Pony) but I fucking agree with Pony
fyi
hth
smd
(suck my dick)
(i hope that catches on)
(i'm a tastemaker)
i never know how to take statements like this
especially from people i like
it's like
have i said things to give them the wrong impressions about what i feel or believe or think
has there been large misunderstandings in the past between us
or have i really mischaracterized what i know of them
just that i dont agree with you on some of the things you say
that's ok
I don't agree with deebs, or syndalis, or will, or people i know in real life all the time and like to think i get on fairly well with on regular basis
hell i disagree with beast a lot
don't take it as anything but that i agreed with you
For example, one of the fighting game subreddits I read refuses to ban a poster who does nothing but post misogynist bullshit and got himself banned from all fighting game events in Canada/U.S for threatening to rape female players.
You think PA would let something like that fly? Really?
A post on gamergate, or rather, the discussion of gamergate:
Like any nascent critical theory, games journalism is rife with problems; and like any art world, fans of games tend towards insularity and barrier-construction (see: film/music crit and fandom in the early 20th century; anything written by adorno and the implicit rebukes by sontag; basically all art world theory ever before the 20th century)
These are two intertwining problems that produce polarized camps on what is "real" in both the criticism and the art, and force such polarization even where the ideological fit isn't perfect. This occurs mostly because it's nearly impossible to find a space that's sufficiently removed from the discussion to where it's a relevant and reasonable topic. Passion and niche semi-public discussion spheres don't mix well.
In criticism, a search for legitimacy results in establishing ethics through commentator-artist separation and a more "objective" reporting, for a truly removed critique and discussion. The various and wildly disparate elements of those who identify as gamers and game journalists mostly/all to some degree agree with this ideal. The litmus method to determine this objectivity, unfortunately, for some of these elements, is to become paranoid of Others pushing in and inherently tainting this legitimacy - thus some in this field hate women and corporate guest commentators for, in their eyes, inherently being unable to separate themselves from the product. [Chat] has discussed at length the reasons and self-perpetuating nature of this reactionary worldview in other fields, and those are applicable here. This particular litmus test is blatantly sexist, because they assume sexual favors and favoritism, assume and then resent possible male gaze-based popularity, and/or otherwise assume that women can't be "true" critics due to video games being a man's sphere (carved, of course, from a man's world and worldview). This underlied and continues to underlie a lot of gender-based discrimination in critical spheres of all mediums and fields.
Other fans solely, or in addition, believe that quid-pro-quo promotion between YouTube casters and game publishers is despicable and counter to the construction of any ethics, particularly so in the digital age where it's not obvious who is getting paid for what, and that there is a betrayal of trust inherent to the act. This litmus test has more solid ground to stand on, and I think it's something to think about. This concern is not obviously related to and does not justify the previously examined sexist basis of protesting games journalism. However, because of the polarizing nature of ideological discussions, some people who share this latter concern decide to pick the side that seems the most fervent. I feel like a few people in this group are riiiight before the precipice where they start saying "I didn't leave the Republican party, the Republican party left me". Unfortunately, it's hard to tell where the concern trolling ends and the legitimate frustrations begin, which makes it really easy to conflate them with the rest of their ostensible allies.
The reason I ultimately support the backlash rendered against the gamergate movement writ large (apart from the knee-jerk reaction against loudly misogynistic internet denizens), despite my misgivings about conflating all of the people in the group with the death threateners, is that video game crit theory is ridiculously stunted. It's a completely new medium, with fans who don't frequently intersect with traditional tools and methods of discourse, and the backlash creates divisions within previously unified groups of convenience. It will hopefully make people who have to defend death threateners and hateful criminals think about why they are supporting these people, and what parts of their arguments they actually agree with. This is all of course wildly optimistic, and it's more than likely that more people will double down on their tenuously-hinged allies, but this at least creates clear new multiplicites in a field where the divisions were previously very reductable and thus easily polarizing in a witch-hunt. You bring a burgeoning niche sphere into an intersecting public discussion and it's going to go through a lot of interesting changes. It's important to understand why you feel the ways you do, as I've said so many times in the past few days regarding sexism and racism; and understanding is a giant step towards gaining and expressing a self-identity and not having one plastered on you by polarization.
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
+1
Options
Blameless Cleric An angel made of sapphires each more flawlessly cut than the last Registered Userregular
omg when pony and i first started hanging out he was a bit meaner and i was a LOT easier to mess with and he had a ball of a time teasing me it was awful
So is it also not terrible that it happened to someone else or what? Seriously, what is the point you're trying to get at here?
The point such of Sarkeesian receiving threats being a story is that receiving threats is unusual in a public or semi-public figure and that such threats prove her central thesis.
The central thesis is one I am actually largely/generally in support of (that video games as an industry are pretty sexist). But if one accepts that threats do not indicate the message is particularly important or reveals relatively little about the industry by its primary consumers, then the story doesn't really pop. Given that Sarkeesian's primary method of activism is producing sensationalistic and not particularly honest videos, it doesn't feel particularly real or noteworthy.
And its only treated as newsworthy in little gamer/SJW treehouses until death threats are issued - and even then its like 10 paragraphs on the web only edition of the Times and a tweet by a C list celebrity or three because oh those weirdo kids with their twitters and vidja game. But in those treehouses its treated as something huge that needs more and more focus and attention. And more and more shit gets stirred over ... Not the portrayal of women in video games, or whether the supply is creating the demand or even how to get more women in STEM and therefore into game design.
Its just more and more energy expended on melodrama that only matters to people who substantially define their personal identity as a "gamer" (and thus may feel attacked and is going to be less open to the central thesis of "the gaming industry tends to have a lot of sexist elements and that's bad") and "activist" (who already go to the blogs and now just have something to focus on other than the daunting and difficult challenge of enacting change). Its ultimately - in my eyes - a lot of sound and fury signifying.. not nothing per se but misguided focus on the wrong part of what is already a really niche issue. Sexism in games is not going to be on anyone's political platform or what anyone remembers this era for. Its not a big enough issue to thrive while circle jerking
Oh okay.
So your concern is bunk.
People can be concerned about all of those things at once. I'm doing it right this second.
Yeah, I concur, the whole "economy of attention" argument is bogus.
It's like saying "Why spend money on NASA when there are people who starve to death?"
I can't believe people actually fall for Gamersgate
if you guys gave even the slightest shit about integrity in the games industry, your hobby horse would be payouts tied to metacritic scores
that is the money-in-politics of video games, and likely the source of most of the under the table shenanigans that exists
override367 on
+3
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
There are lots of bad people in gamergate. Lots of bad stuff has gone down. It doesn't invalidate the actual calls for changes in games journalism. And, while it is ABSOLUTELY true that there are bigger fish to fry than indies, the whole thing where journalists support the patreons of indy developers and then review the games is certainly suspect.
I am actually sympathetic to the "SJW" thing even. As I posted last thread (not about gamergate, but relevant) there is a difference between things that seem to be aggressively about a social issue and games that happen to handle a social issue well. To use an example from comics, the most recent Captain Marvel book felt very "rah, rah, women's empowerment" and to me, it rang hollow and ruined the book (and I love the character). By contrast, there is an x-men book that is all female and doesn't feel like it is about a social issue. It is just a collection of very awesome female characters doing what any x-men team would do, and it is a great comic. I can totally understand why people would not like to see more of the former type of media created. If anyone takes issue with the latter type though, then they are just bigotted.
0
Options
TTODewbackPuts the drawl in ya'llI think I'm in HellRegistered Userregular
Chat, start talking about good stuff instead of self imploding.
Like penii, boobs, estrogen, and hockey guy's raucous belly laugh
Bless your heart.
+1
Options
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
Watching Castle. The fuck is a cronut?
Also this pathologist just pronounced debriding "de-breed-ing"
omg when pony and i first started hanging out he was a bit meaner and i was a LOT easier to mess with and he had a ball of a time teasing me it was awful
One thing that people find horrible is the posting of addresses.
I do find this reprehensible. The thing is given someones name, general living area and possibly a picture or just enough time you can dig up someones address, phone number, work address and probably even frequently visited places.
Part of this is because we give this info out constantly via apps, social media and other parts is it just ends up in the public domain through the internet like the old phone book.
It is part of the new world.
Your information is not private.
And in many ways we as a society have not adapted this.
Posting or use of addresses tends to be one of the things that police use to separate crank threats from ones that may represent a legitimate threat of physical violence. It shows a degree of per-meditation and red flags that just saying you'll kill someone. But it's easier to find that information in this day and age and that is likely going to have to adjust how we view threats. The problem is that the only reasonable response right now is that more crank threats will have to be viewed as threats that represent a legitimate chance to commit physical harm.
I suspect that we will see an increase anonymization services. Use of shell companies to hide property ownership, dropbox mailing services for addresses and so forth. A lot of these already exist and are used for these reasons but I expect we'll see an expansion.
Oh yeah. I know they do.
I do know most of the government agencies I have worked for do use dropbox or po box mail system.
I do not think people will start with their personal ends yet. In some ways I am not sure it will happen in a grand scheme.
like one time he was like 'oh my handwriting sucks' and i was like 'haha mine too!' and he looked at me and he said 'my handwriting is awful because i had a stroke cass' and i thought he hated me but he was just teasing me and i rolled up into the fetal position and rested in a rain gutter for the rest of my life im posting from there now actually
+3
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
omg when pony and i first started hanging out he was a bit meaner and i was a LOT easier to mess with and he had a ball of a time teasing me it was awful
Posts
im leaving work to go to the gym now but thanks for the preemptive ab workout
from my deep, raucous belly laugh
NNID: Hakkekage
i never know how to take statements like this
especially from people i like
it's like
have i said things to give them the wrong impressions about what i feel or believe or think
has there been large misunderstandings in the past between us
or have i really mischaracterized what i know of them
impossible!
it's pretty clear to me at this point I shoulda rolled arch1-4 and left the rest of these scrubs on the beach
maybe they just don't share your opinions
Ugh.
Will asks a reasonable question.
Pony gets on his soapbox.
Will is not the unreasonable one. But everyone seems to be jumping on him, because righteous indignation, or something.
Get me in the game next time, coach.
Coach I'm ready.
one of the worst things about the internet is how protecting yourself from someone willing to devote even a single afternoon to finding out everything about you requires a fuckload more than a single afternoon of effort, it requires constant vigilance and if you slip up even once, all your efforts were for nothing
(Boat fever is a hell of a thing)
I'm talking to human resources about this
Opinions, everybody has them.
just that i dont agree with you on some of the things you say
that's ok
I don't agree with deebs, or syndalis, or will, or people i know in real life all the time and like to think i get on fairly well with on regular basis
hell i disagree with beast a lot
don't take it as anything but that i agreed with you
NNID: Hakkekage
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
no wait wait, we found you a dagger
things are looking up
You think PA would let something like that fly? Really?
Like any nascent critical theory, games journalism is rife with problems; and like any art world, fans of games tend towards insularity and barrier-construction (see: film/music crit and fandom in the early 20th century; anything written by adorno and the implicit rebukes by sontag; basically all art world theory ever before the 20th century)
These are two intertwining problems that produce polarized camps on what is "real" in both the criticism and the art, and force such polarization even where the ideological fit isn't perfect. This occurs mostly because it's nearly impossible to find a space that's sufficiently removed from the discussion to where it's a relevant and reasonable topic. Passion and niche semi-public discussion spheres don't mix well.
In criticism, a search for legitimacy results in establishing ethics through commentator-artist separation and a more "objective" reporting, for a truly removed critique and discussion. The various and wildly disparate elements of those who identify as gamers and game journalists mostly/all to some degree agree with this ideal. The litmus method to determine this objectivity, unfortunately, for some of these elements, is to become paranoid of Others pushing in and inherently tainting this legitimacy - thus some in this field hate women and corporate guest commentators for, in their eyes, inherently being unable to separate themselves from the product. [Chat] has discussed at length the reasons and self-perpetuating nature of this reactionary worldview in other fields, and those are applicable here. This particular litmus test is blatantly sexist, because they assume sexual favors and favoritism, assume and then resent possible male gaze-based popularity, and/or otherwise assume that women can't be "true" critics due to video games being a man's sphere (carved, of course, from a man's world and worldview). This underlied and continues to underlie a lot of gender-based discrimination in critical spheres of all mediums and fields.
Other fans solely, or in addition, believe that quid-pro-quo promotion between YouTube casters and game publishers is despicable and counter to the construction of any ethics, particularly so in the digital age where it's not obvious who is getting paid for what, and that there is a betrayal of trust inherent to the act. This litmus test has more solid ground to stand on, and I think it's something to think about. This concern is not obviously related to and does not justify the previously examined sexist basis of protesting games journalism. However, because of the polarizing nature of ideological discussions, some people who share this latter concern decide to pick the side that seems the most fervent. I feel like a few people in this group are riiiight before the precipice where they start saying "I didn't leave the Republican party, the Republican party left me". Unfortunately, it's hard to tell where the concern trolling ends and the legitimate frustrations begin, which makes it really easy to conflate them with the rest of their ostensible allies.
The reason I ultimately support the backlash rendered against the gamergate movement writ large (apart from the knee-jerk reaction against loudly misogynistic internet denizens), despite my misgivings about conflating all of the people in the group with the death threateners, is that video game crit theory is ridiculously stunted. It's a completely new medium, with fans who don't frequently intersect with traditional tools and methods of discourse, and the backlash creates divisions within previously unified groups of convenience. It will hopefully make people who have to defend death threateners and hateful criminals think about why they are supporting these people, and what parts of their arguments they actually agree with. This is all of course wildly optimistic, and it's more than likely that more people will double down on their tenuously-hinged allies, but this at least creates clear new multiplicites in a field where the divisions were previously very reductable and thus easily polarizing in a witch-hunt. You bring a burgeoning niche sphere into an intersecting public discussion and it's going to go through a lot of interesting changes. It's important to understand why you feel the ways you do, as I've said so many times in the past few days regarding sexism and racism; and understanding is a giant step towards gaining and expressing a self-identity and not having one plastered on you by polarization.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
I'd love it if you took a look at my art and my PATREON!
yes but the opinions of feminist communities are almost always terrible.
yeah it did
Yeah, I concur, the whole "economy of attention" argument is bogus.
It's like saying "Why spend money on NASA when there are people who starve to death?"
It's a nonsense argument.
As a student of logic...
if you guys gave even the slightest shit about integrity in the games industry, your hobby horse would be payouts tied to metacritic scores
that is the money-in-politics of video games, and likely the source of most of the under the table shenanigans that exists
I am actually sympathetic to the "SJW" thing even. As I posted last thread (not about gamergate, but relevant) there is a difference between things that seem to be aggressively about a social issue and games that happen to handle a social issue well. To use an example from comics, the most recent Captain Marvel book felt very "rah, rah, women's empowerment" and to me, it rang hollow and ruined the book (and I love the character). By contrast, there is an x-men book that is all female and doesn't feel like it is about a social issue. It is just a collection of very awesome female characters doing what any x-men team would do, and it is a great comic. I can totally understand why people would not like to see more of the former type of media created. If anyone takes issue with the latter type though, then they are just bigotted.
Like penii, boobs, estrogen, and hockey guy's raucous belly laugh
Also this pathologist just pronounced debriding "de-breed-ing"
WAT IS HAPPEN
i am just as mean
you are just tougher
Oh yeah. I know they do.
I do know most of the government agencies I have worked for do use dropbox or po box mail system.
I do not think people will start with their personal ends yet. In some ways I am not sure it will happen in a grand scheme.
I do know a lot of celebs use this now as well.
more like streets behind
I wonder if the Smash Brothers community follows this form, or if it's a more accepting one.
I find it difficult to imagine a guy playing as Kirby, and spouting misogynistic nonsense.
old cass was struggling
new cass tells the world "suck my clit"
i actually really like them too