But back to that first bit, I look at (what little I've seen of) gamergaters the same way I look at people who suddenly became very politically vocal when a black guy got elected. You can say misogyny has nothing to do with this, but where was all this rage and activism a couple years ago, when reviewers were still being pressured and rewarded over reviews? Why did it take girls speaking out about issues in gaming, or a girl (supposedly, but not really) boning a reviewer for this to become The Most Important Issue? We can say it's the straw that broke the camel's back...but why was it this straw in particular? Do we really expect anybody to believe it was random?
The thing is what started this wasn't even as bad as the Gamer Gaters believe. Zoe Quinn didn't sleep with a reviewer for good reviews, he was an ex that said a sentence in a review praising her and her game Depression Quest was free. It's just an excuse they've been waiting for to lash out. They're silent when the big developers do obvious corrupt marketing/reviewing like Shadow of Mordor and You Tube debacle, which shows where their priorities lie.
So, following @PixieJenni on twitter has been enlightening. She started a blog where she polled the hashtag for answers to questions and there was a point at the start where things looked like they might become okay, there were some reasonable answers and she might have been getting through to some people, but then gamergate got mad at her because she made them look bad (by posting answers as is) or the answers weren't representing them (because they advised people not to take her poll because she was "going to misrepresent GamerGate") or she didn't agree with them so she's a shill (because you either agree with gamergate or you have ulterior motives) so things haven't exactly gone swimmingly but they've also gone pretty much like you'd expect. So you can look there if you want a better idea of what GGers actually think, though of particular interest are the sections giving a brief run-down of what gamergate's accomplished and what gamergate continually gets wrong.
But back to that first bit, I look at (what little I've seen of) gamergaters the same way I look at people who suddenly became very politically vocal when a black guy got elected. You can say misogyny has nothing to do with this, but where was all this rage and activism a couple years ago, when reviewers were still being pressured and rewarded over reviews? Why did it take girls speaking out about issues in gaming, or a girl (supposedly, but not really) boning a reviewer for this to become The Most Important Issue? We can say it's the straw that broke the camel's back...but why was it this straw in particular? Do we really expect anybody to believe it was random?
The thing is what started this wasn't even as bad as the Gamer Gaters believe. Zoe Quinn didn't sleep with a reviewer for good reviews, he was an ex that said a sentence in a review praising her and her game Depression Quest was free. It's just an excuse they've been waiting for to lash out. They're silent when the big developers do obvious corrupt marketing/reviewing like Shadow of Mordor and You Tube debacle, which shows where their priorities lie.
A game being free doesn't mean that reviews have no effect on it. It can still get more or less hits and downloads and such depending on who talks about it favorably. However it sounds like no one actually wrote anything anyway which is the main point.
I think the main problem with the whole debacle now is people are still referring to this movement as a "they." There is no organized cohesion. It didn't start structures and nice and get invaded. It started as a shitty thing and then a bunch of do-gooders who didn't research quite enough latched on and all hell broke loose.
Everyone keeps saying things like "because they advised people not to take her poll because she was 'going to misrepresent GamerGate'" and who is they? There's no organized gamergateaction.org or anything. Its just people who throw a hashtag out and yell and a giant group of people who think they're helping (or are actively trolling) throw in with it.
Basically I'm just annoyed at everyone for not doing some very basic research before throwing up pitchforks. Oh, and also the horrifying death threats and anti-women shit. That's also bad.
+2
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
I feel like a real journalism outlet should call Intel's PR office tomorrow and ask them if this is the company line, or if it was taken out of context / fabricated.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
+8
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I'm honestly a little surprised that people are still talking about Gamergate. It's doomed to flare out because there is no coherent goal or even a coherent target of outrage.
Actually, the reason it keeps going despite all logic and reason is because it doesn't have a coherent goal, statements, leadership or anything else. Other than attacking certain women and general feminist viewpoints, GG lacks any kind of coherent position that would suggest what the "conclusion" is. This kind of strategy is used by right wing politics more and more often, but GG having no centralised leadership is possibly the best example of it. Just rile up a group of people and then let them continue the fight on for you.
GG is ongoing because there is actually no goal to be accomplished and not even individual GGers have any coherent idea what it looks like. There really isn't any real end to this in sight. That's the sad part.
So there was an article on Breitbart today that I'm not gonna link, because they don't deserve a single ad hit, but there was an interesting quote in it:
Make no mistake: they are winning. Gawker and Vox writers can play at smear campaigns all they like--and it's all they have left to do, because they cannot argue the case on merit--but their own advertisers are seeing through the sneering and starting to ask whether they want to be associated at all with such wildly unpleasant attitudes.
How do I know? Because I've spent the last fortnight quietly soliciting the opinions not only of senior executives at AAA video game publishers, but also at some of the companies linked to GamerGate's boycotts and activism, such as Intel, Mercedes and BMW.
Perhaps it won't surprise you to learn that microchip manufacturers and car companies are pretty sympathetic to the concerns of male consumers. But some of the things said to me--all, sadly, on condition of anonymity--have been nothing short of remarkable.
There's the Intel vice president who told me via email that GamerGate was "doing great work" and that he was "sick of slander and self-loathing from the press". He was talking about male journalists who do misandrist feminists' work for them.
"I am pressing that team, it's not mine, but I am exerting influence when I can, to stop spending money with people who hate themselves and hate our clients," he added by phone later.
So if you thought Intel might have pulled ads based on a misunderstanding, well, maybe rethink that position.
Eh, I still don't have a problem with it. Alexander's article, which is what got Intel's campaign pulled, stated that someone who went to a con and visited an Intel booth and was genuinely curious about what was coming out is shitty, and their entitled, white male consumerist views can fuck off because her glorious people's revolution is going to wipe them from the board, and Intel said, "Hmm, maybe that isn't the sort of view we should finance, considering we actually like it when people like our products."
Gamergate is dogshit, and people have been talking about game journalism issues for years (Kane and Lynch review, special review events put on by publishers, YouTube agreements without identification, DMCA takedowns, etc, etc, etc) without the need for bringing in people's weird personal drama about ex-girlfriends that has no substantial impact, but that doesn't automatically mean that people who are on the other side aren't terrible for the video games industry.
I'm rather unimpressed with this whole situation, and I'd love to see everyone engaged in threats and harassment arrested, and everyone engaged in making video games look like shit to the general populace shunned.
I'm honestly a little surprised that people are still talking about Gamergate. It's doomed to flare out because there is no coherent goal or even a coherent target of outrage.
Actually, the reason it keeps going despite all logic and reason is because it doesn't have a coherent goal, statements, leadership or anything else. Other than attacking certain women and general feminist viewpoints, GG lacks any kind of coherent position that would suggest what the "conclusion" is. This kind of strategy is used by right wing politics more and more often, but GG having no centralised leadership is possibly the best example of it. Just rile up a group of people and then let them continue the fight on for you.
GG is ongoing because there is actually no goal to be accomplished and not even individual GGers have any coherent idea what it looks like. There really isn't any real end to this in sight. That's the sad part.
I'd liken it to OWS in some ways, except that there's no park to clear out.
I'm honestly a little surprised that people are still talking about Gamergate. It's doomed to flare out because there is no coherent goal or even a coherent target of outrage.
Actually, the reason it keeps going despite all logic and reason is because it doesn't have a coherent goal, statements, leadership or anything else. Other than attacking certain women and general feminist viewpoints, GG lacks any kind of coherent position that would suggest what the "conclusion" is. This kind of strategy is used by right wing politics more and more often, but GG having no centralised leadership is possibly the best example of it. Just rile up a group of people and then let them continue the fight on for you.
GG is ongoing because there is actually no goal to be accomplished and not even individual GGers have any coherent idea what it looks like. There really isn't any real end to this in sight. That's the sad part.
I'd liken it to OWS in some ways, except that there's no park to clear out.
Structurally yeah. But waaaaaaaaay stupider.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The thing is there isn't an "other side" to this particular thing, @programjunkie.
Like if I were to start burning down the homes of news anchors
the "other side" of that wouldn't be that the 24-hour news cycle produces less informative stories.
I'd say this comes down to about four groups of people:
1. (Mostly misogynist) criminals engaged in threats and harassment. Arrest these people.
2. People attached to Gamergate that aren't above. These people should be regarded with bemusement.
3. Journalists and critics who are reporting issues in a non-sensationalist, understated manner in a genuine good faith desire to see the gaming community improve itself. These people should get clicks.
4. Journalists and critics furiously circlejerking or clickbaiting in ways that generate international news that makes everyone who plays video games look like shit over what is, while fucked up, ultimately a handful of misdemeanors (well, depending on the state). These people should not get clicks.
I think that's the most even handed representation of the situation, personally. I'm not saying "both sides!" so much as saying that there are various people who should all be addressed as individuals, from criminals who should be treated like criminals, and shitty writers, who should be treated like shitty writers.
I'm honestly a little surprised that people are still talking about Gamergate. It's doomed to flare out because there is no coherent goal or even a coherent target of outrage.
Actually, the reason it keeps going despite all logic and reason is because it doesn't have a coherent goal, statements, leadership or anything else. Other than attacking certain women and general feminist viewpoints, GG lacks any kind of coherent position that would suggest what the "conclusion" is. This kind of strategy is used by right wing politics more and more often, but GG having no centralised leadership is possibly the best example of it. Just rile up a group of people and then let them continue the fight on for you.
GG is ongoing because there is actually no goal to be accomplished and not even individual GGers have any coherent idea what it looks like. There really isn't any real end to this in sight. That's the sad part.
I'd liken it to OWS in some ways, except that there's no park to clear out.
Structurally yeah. But waaaaaaaaay stupider.
Occupy Centralia, PA!
Also, that Breitbart guy is the same one who went on a tear because the police said they had no knowledge of an investigation into threats made against Sarkeesian, only to have it come out the next day that case had been turned over to the FBI.
GG response was that the FBI might be investigating her for wire fraud after soliciting donations with the faked death threats. #cantmakethisshitup
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
+1
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I dunno, man. The way I handle shitty writers is to not read what they write. Seems to work pretty well. I don't try to prevent other people from reading them.
Like as much of a liar and scumbag as Milo Yiannopoulos is, I'm not trying to get him to never speak in public again.
Although as far as Eron Gjoni goes, I think he really needs to start obeying that restraining order like yesterday. But he's not a journalist, he's just a crazy ex.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
I dunno, man. The way I handle shitty writers is to not read what they write. Seems to work pretty well. I don't try to prevent other people from reading them.
Like as much of a liar and scumbag as Milo Yiannopoulos is, I'm not trying to get him to never speak in public again.
Although as far as Eron Gjoni goes, I think he really needs to start obeying that restraining order like yesterday. But he's not a journalist, he's just a crazy ex.
The problem with your strategy is that you do not live on an island. Sure, you might not be reading his toxic viewpoint - but other people are, and it's having a real effect. You're falling into the Broderite trap - just because someone has a position doesn't mean that it merits respect.
Quick question, as someone who has barely followed this whole shit parade:
When I was still in the gaming industry (developer side), Gamasutra was this cool website that had a ton of articles on development and resources for developers and aspiring developers to use to pursue their careers. It is weird to see that name as prty of some massive controversy. Admittedly, my familiarity with them is from about eight years ago.
Did something happen there? Why are they allegedly the devil now?
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Quick question, as someone who has barely followed this whole shit parade:
When I was still in the gaming industry (developer side), Gamasutra was this cool website that had a ton of articles on development and resources for developers and aspiring developers to use to pursue their careers. It is weird to see that name as prty of some massive controversy. Admittedly, my familiarity with them is from about eight years ago.
Did something happen there? Why are they allegedly the devil now?
Also, Kyle Orton needs to grow a fucking spine. The only proper response to a Breitbrat "journalist" opining on ethics involves a lengthy stream of urine.
Also, Kyle Orton needs to grow a fucking spine. The only proper response to a Breitbrat "journalist" opining on ethics involves a lengthy stream of urine.
Yeah I know it's having a real effect. But what exactly is a moral way to negate that? Granted there should be a way to bring someone to task for lying copiously and calling it journalism, but just as far as his toxic opinion goes? Even a KKKer has the human right to say shitty bullshit, no matter how much I disagree with them.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
The thing is there isn't an "other side" to this particular thing, @programjunkie.
Like if I were to start burning down the homes of news anchors
the "other side" of that wouldn't be that the 24-hour news cycle produces less informative stories.
I'd say this comes down to about four groups of people:
1. (Mostly misogynist) criminals engaged in threats and harassment. Arrest these people.
2. People attached to Gamergate that aren't above. These people should be regarded with bemusement.
3. Journalists and critics who are reporting issues in a non-sensationalist, understated manner in a genuine good faith desire to see the gaming community improve itself. These people should get clicks.
4. Journalists and critics furiously circlejerking or clickbaiting in ways that generate international news that makes everyone who plays video games look like shit over what is, while fucked up, ultimately a handful of misdemeanors (well, depending on the state). These people should not get clicks.
I think that's the most even handed representation of the situation, personally. I'm not saying "both sides!" so much as saying that there are various people who should all be addressed as individuals, from criminals who should be treated like criminals, and shitty writers, who should be treated like shitty writers.
I see what you're saying more clearly now.
I think everyone who plays videogames should catch flak for this. The longer you've played games, the more embarrassed and responsible you should feel.
This what we've built. Virulent harassment of women doesn't come out of the amateur yodeling community or home cooking enthusiasts.
The idea that international news looking at us and saying "people who play games are despicable" is somehow an issue of them not doing their research instead of us looking like violent, terrible people because of our history of tolerating awful people is silly. There's only so much level of detail you can expect from news organizations that do not share your desire to make yourself feel good. The fact that they might be "attempting to be seen by many people" is not somehow a slight against them. That's what news organizations do.
Like I love the PA forums, they've been a nice place to be for a long time. I think people here are great about most everything. But this is a corner of a larger community, and the larger community is pretty troubled.
Also just to clarify "the 'other side' of that wouldn't be that the 24-hour news cycle produces less informative stories." comment:
The implication was supposed to be that one of the valid critiques of 24-hour news is that it produces very bad content.
Burning down the homes of journalists would not change that fact.
Just because a legitimate complaint exists at the same time as a terrible violent action doesn't mean that therefore the reasonable part of that violent action is that well there is a legitimate complaint. If I toss a Molotov cocktail on your car, and you were double parked, that doesn't make my action more reasonable. It's just another, separate fact.
Quick question, as someone who has barely followed this whole shit parade:
When I was still in the gaming industry (developer side), Gamasutra was this cool website that had a ton of articles on development and resources for developers and aspiring developers to use to pursue their careers. It is weird to see that name as prty of some massive controversy. Admittedly, my familiarity with them is from about eight years ago.
Did something happen there? Why are they allegedly the devil now?
That's still mostly what they do (they had an article not too far back about the most ridiculous code hacks that ended up working, for example). The reason they got trapped in this shit mire is because one of their writers wrote a very strongly worded opinion piece on gamer culture.
My reading of that article, personally, is the writer was super angry when she wrote it, but simultaneously, it pretty much said a lot of people who post here are shit weasels, so it really depends on what your tolerance of people using broad brush attacks out of frustration is.
+1
Options
simonwolfi can feel a differencetoday, a differenceRegistered Userregular
Quick question, as someone who has barely followed this whole shit parade:
When I was still in the gaming industry (developer side), Gamasutra was this cool website that had a ton of articles on development and resources for developers and aspiring developers to use to pursue their careers. It is weird to see that name as prty of some massive controversy. Admittedly, my familiarity with them is from about eight years ago.
Did something happen there? Why are they allegedly the devil now?
That's still mostly what they do (they had an article not too far back about the most ridiculous code hacks that ended up working, for example). The reason they got trapped in this shit mire is because one of their writers wrote a very strongly worded opinion piece on gamer culture.
My reading of that article, personally, is the writer was super angry when she wrote it, but simultaneously, it pretty much said a lot of people who post here are shit weasels, so it really depends on what your tolerance of people using broad brush attacks out of frustration is.
Quick question, as someone who has barely followed this whole shit parade:
When I was still in the gaming industry (developer side), Gamasutra was this cool website that had a ton of articles on development and resources for developers and aspiring developers to use to pursue their careers. It is weird to see that name as prty of some massive controversy. Admittedly, my familiarity with them is from about eight years ago.
Did something happen there? Why are they allegedly the devil now?
That's still mostly what they do (they had an article not too far back about the most ridiculous code hacks that ended up working, for example). The reason they got trapped in this shit mire is because one of their writers wrote a very strongly worded opinion piece on gamer culture.
My reading of that article, personally, is the writer was super angry when she wrote it, but simultaneously, it pretty much said a lot of people who post here are shit weasels, so it really depends on what your tolerance of people using broad brush attacks out of frustration is.
Except if you actually read the article, it sounds like she's saying the exact opposite of that?
It’s clear that most of the people who drove those revenues in the past have grown up -- either out of games, or into more fertile spaces, where small and diverse titles can flourish, where communities can quickly spring up around creativity, self-expression and mutual support, rather than consumerism.
^ ie, gamers AREN'T just shit weasels, look at all these amazing spaces (like Penny Arcade!) that now exist for games.
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Quick question, as someone who has barely followed this whole shit parade:
When I was still in the gaming industry (developer side), Gamasutra was this cool website that had a ton of articles on development and resources for developers and aspiring developers to use to pursue their careers. It is weird to see that name as prty of some massive controversy. Admittedly, my familiarity with them is from about eight years ago.
Did something happen there? Why are they allegedly the devil now?
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Quick question, as someone who has barely followed this whole shit parade:
When I was still in the gaming industry (developer side), Gamasutra was this cool website that had a ton of articles on development and resources for developers and aspiring developers to use to pursue their careers. It is weird to see that name as prty of some massive controversy. Admittedly, my familiarity with them is from about eight years ago.
Did something happen there? Why are they allegedly the devil now?
That's still mostly what they do (they had an article not too far back about the most ridiculous code hacks that ended up working, for example). The reason they got trapped in this shit mire is because one of their writers wrote a very strongly worded opinion piece on gamer culture.
My reading of that article, personally, is the writer was super angry when she wrote it, but simultaneously, it pretty much said a lot of people who post here are shit weasels, so it really depends on what your tolerance of people using broad brush attacks out of frustration is.
You know why she was so intemperate? Because she, like many other female voices in the industry, has been threatened with rape and death. Just because she talked about the industry she loves.
Also, Kyle Orton needs to grow a fucking spine. The only proper response to a Breitbrat "journalist" opining on ethics involves a lengthy stream of urine.
Yeah I know it's having a real effect. But what exactly is a moral way to negate that? Granted there should be a way to bring someone to task for lying copiously and calling it journalism, but just as far as his toxic opinion goes? Even a KKKer has the human right to say shitty bullshit, no matter how much I disagree with them.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from repercussions of speech. And just because someone has the right to speak their mind without government interference doesn't mean that the rest of us need to give them a platform.
We must not have read the same thing; I thought Leigh Alexander's article couldn't have been more spot on.
She's not saying that gamers are bad people, she's saying that gamers are now far more than what our old idea of what a gamer is, and that the industry should adapt and be more inclusive, and stop catering exclusively to that old stereotypical gamer and stop feeding that stereotype.
Also, Kyle Orton needs to grow a fucking spine. The only proper response to a Breitbrat "journalist" opining on ethics involves a lengthy stream of urine.
Yeah I know it's having a real effect. But what exactly is a moral way to negate that? Granted there should be a way to bring someone to task for lying copiously and calling it journalism, but just as far as his toxic opinion goes? Even a KKKer has the human right to say shitty bullshit, no matter how much I disagree with them.
And I have the right to call him a stupid pudding head for saying it. The freedom of speech only restricts the government. I am under no obligation to listen, and if I own the venue, I am not required to let them speak.
The moral way to negate their bullshit is to call them on it promptly and publicly. It shouldn't be too hard in this case. I'm not even adverse to a little mean-spirited mockery in this case...but only because anyone who uses the word "fortnight" outside the presence of his dungeon master is trying way too hard to sound intelligent.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
+2
Options
simonwolfi can feel a differencetoday, a differenceRegistered Userregular
Just wanted to point out that in Australia (and many commonwealth countries) the term "fortnight" is used pretty regularly by most people
so uh
+17
Options
GreasyKidsStuffMOMMM!ROAST BEEF WANTS TO KISS GIRLS ON THE TITTIES!Registered Userregular
I tweeted this tonight, mainly out of genuine curiosity but also hoping to court some passionate responses:
Feel free to click through and read the convo that ensued; I have to assume that the other guy went to bed or something, but I was hoping I'd get some kind of response to my last point. Still, I think this is illustrative of the problem a lot of GGers have—they just don't understand cultural criticism and its implications.
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Also, Kyle Orton needs to grow a fucking spine. The only proper response to a Breitbrat "journalist" opining on ethics involves a lengthy stream of urine.
Yeah I know it's having a real effect. But what exactly is a moral way to negate that? Granted there should be a way to bring someone to task for lying copiously and calling it journalism, but just as far as his toxic opinion goes? Even a KKKer has the human right to say shitty bullshit, no matter how much I disagree with them.
And I have the right to call him a stupid pudding head for saying it. The freedom of speech only restricts the government. I am under no obligation to listen, and if I own the venue, I am not required to let them speak.
The moral way to negate their bullshit is to call them on it promptly and publicly. It shouldn't be too hard in this case. I'm not even adverse to a little mean-spirited mockery in this case...but only because anyone who uses the word "fortnight" outside the presence of his dungeon master is trying way too hard to sound intelligent.
I don't think we're disagreeing at all. Milo Y. is full of shit, he's using his new gamer audience for clicks and monetary gain while utterly despising them. He's as massive an asshole as the internet can produce.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
The thing is there isn't an "other side" to this particular thing, programjunkie.
Like if I were to start burning down the homes of news anchors
the "other side" of that wouldn't be that the 24-hour news cycle produces less informative stories.
I'd say this comes down to about four groups of people:
1. (Mostly misogynist) criminals engaged in threats and harassment. Arrest these people.
2. People attached to Gamergate that aren't above. These people should be regarded with bemusement.
3. Journalists and critics who are reporting issues in a non-sensationalist, understated manner in a genuine good faith desire to see the gaming community improve itself. These people should get clicks.
4. Journalists and critics furiously circlejerking or clickbaiting in ways that generate international news that makes everyone who plays video games look like shit over what is, while fucked up, ultimately a handful of misdemeanors (well, depending on the state). These people should not get clicks.
I think that's the most even handed representation of the situation, personally. I'm not saying "both sides!" so much as saying that there are various people who should all be addressed as individuals, from criminals who should be treated like criminals, and shitty writers, who should be treated like shitty writers.
I see what you're saying more clearly now.
I think everyone who plays videogames should catch flak for this. The longer you've played games, the more embarrassed and responsible you should feel.
That's the most ridiculous thing I've read today. A person's ability to meaningfully intervene between what one person they've never met said to another person they've never met that they weren't present to hear is limited.
This what we've built. Virulent harassment of women doesn't come out of the amateur yodeling community or home cooking enthusiasts.
And is there non-anecdotal empirical evidence to support the assertion that video game produce an unusual amount of criminal harassment?
Just because something has 50 articles written about it that you've read this month doesn't mean it is 50 times more prevalent than the thing that you read one article about.
The idea that international news looking at us and saying "people who play games are despicable" is somehow an issue of them not doing their research instead of us looking like violent, terrible people because of our history of tolerating awful people is silly. There's only so much level of detail you can expect from news organizations that do not share your desire to make yourself feel good. The fact that they might be "attempting to be seen by many people" is not somehow a slight against them. That's what news organizations do.
It's ebola sensationalism, but for sexism in video games.
I think Leigh Alexander's article is mostly okay but some parts of it are kinda harsh, like this paragraph which makes anyone wearing Nintendo merch sound like a consumer zombie:
[Game culture is] young men queuing with plush mushroom hats and backpacks and jutting promo poster rolls. Queuing passionately for hours, at events around the world, to see the things that marketers want them to see. To find out whether they should buy things or not. They don’t know how to dress or behave. Television cameras pan across these listless queues, and often catch the expressions of people who don’t quite know why they themselves are standing there.
I do think it's a little strange that Polygon, Kotaku, Gamasutra, Ars Technica, and Buzzfeed all posted articles on the same day about the "gamer" identity/stereotype becoming a thing of the past, but I don't think it's some sort of sinister media conspiracy or a breach of journalistic ethics. These articles were partially or totally covering the harassment and false allegations against Zoe Quinn and how that reflects poorly on the gaming community. That is a totally legitimate thing for a games website (and also, Ars and Buzzfeed don't even qualify as games journalists in my opinion) to write about!
I think Leigh Alexander's article is mostly okay but some parts of it are kinda harsh, like this paragraph which makes anyone wearing Nintendo merch sound like a consumer zombie:
[Game culture is] young men queuing with plush mushroom hats and backpacks and jutting promo poster rolls. Queuing passionately for hours, at events around the world, to see the things that marketers want them to see. To find out whether they should buy things or not. They don’t know how to dress or behave. Television cameras pan across these listless queues, and often catch the expressions of people who don’t quite know why they themselves are standing there.
I do think it's a little strange that Polygon, Kotaku, Gamasutra, Ars Technica, and Buzzfeed all posted articles on the same day about the "gamer" identity/stereotype becoming a thing of the past, but I don't think it's some sort of sinister media conspiracy or a breach of journalistic ethics. These articles were partially or totally covering the harassment and false allegations against Zoe Quinn and how that reflects poorly on the gaming community. That is a totally legitimate thing for a games website (and also, Ars and Buzzfeed don't even qualify as games journalists in my opinion) to write about!
Posts
The thing is what started this wasn't even as bad as the Gamer Gaters believe. Zoe Quinn didn't sleep with a reviewer for good reviews, he was an ex that said a sentence in a review praising her and her game Depression Quest was free. It's just an excuse they've been waiting for to lash out. They're silent when the big developers do obvious corrupt marketing/reviewing like Shadow of Mordor and You Tube debacle, which shows where their priorities lie.
Double don't trust them on Gamergate because one of their staff is an outspoken supporter.
They love page views and would gladly make this part of the culture wars.
I wouldn't be surprised if they see this as an avenue to feed anti liberal outrage into some angry young men and hope to turn them R for life.
I also wouldn't be surprised if they are deliberate lies because their side of the movement is eating so many publicity losses.
an outspoken supporter who held contempt for gamers up until he saw a revenue stream
3DS: 2019-9671-8106 NNID: RamblinMushroom
Twitter/Tumblr
I think the main problem with the whole debacle now is people are still referring to this movement as a "they." There is no organized cohesion. It didn't start structures and nice and get invaded. It started as a shitty thing and then a bunch of do-gooders who didn't research quite enough latched on and all hell broke loose.
Everyone keeps saying things like "because they advised people not to take her poll because she was 'going to misrepresent GamerGate'" and who is they? There's no organized gamergateaction.org or anything. Its just people who throw a hashtag out and yell and a giant group of people who think they're helping (or are actively trolling) throw in with it.
Basically I'm just annoyed at everyone for not doing some very basic research before throwing up pitchforks. Oh, and also the horrifying death threats and anti-women shit. That's also bad.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Actually, the reason it keeps going despite all logic and reason is because it doesn't have a coherent goal, statements, leadership or anything else. Other than attacking certain women and general feminist viewpoints, GG lacks any kind of coherent position that would suggest what the "conclusion" is. This kind of strategy is used by right wing politics more and more often, but GG having no centralised leadership is possibly the best example of it. Just rile up a group of people and then let them continue the fight on for you.
GG is ongoing because there is actually no goal to be accomplished and not even individual GGers have any coherent idea what it looks like. There really isn't any real end to this in sight. That's the sad part.
Eh, I still don't have a problem with it. Alexander's article, which is what got Intel's campaign pulled, stated that someone who went to a con and visited an Intel booth and was genuinely curious about what was coming out is shitty, and their entitled, white male consumerist views can fuck off because her glorious people's revolution is going to wipe them from the board, and Intel said, "Hmm, maybe that isn't the sort of view we should finance, considering we actually like it when people like our products."
Gamergate is dogshit, and people have been talking about game journalism issues for years (Kane and Lynch review, special review events put on by publishers, YouTube agreements without identification, DMCA takedowns, etc, etc, etc) without the need for bringing in people's weird personal drama about ex-girlfriends that has no substantial impact, but that doesn't automatically mean that people who are on the other side aren't terrible for the video games industry.
I'm rather unimpressed with this whole situation, and I'd love to see everyone engaged in threats and harassment arrested, and everyone engaged in making video games look like shit to the general populace shunned.
I'd liken it to OWS in some ways, except that there's no park to clear out.
Structurally yeah. But waaaaaaaaay stupider.
Like if I were to start burning down the homes of news anchors
the "other side" of that wouldn't be that the 24-hour news cycle produces less informative stories.
You say this as if it were possible for 24-hour news networks to produce less informative stories.
I'd say this comes down to about four groups of people:
1. (Mostly misogynist) criminals engaged in threats and harassment. Arrest these people.
2. People attached to Gamergate that aren't above. These people should be regarded with bemusement.
3. Journalists and critics who are reporting issues in a non-sensationalist, understated manner in a genuine good faith desire to see the gaming community improve itself. These people should get clicks.
4. Journalists and critics furiously circlejerking or clickbaiting in ways that generate international news that makes everyone who plays video games look like shit over what is, while fucked up, ultimately a handful of misdemeanors (well, depending on the state). These people should not get clicks.
I think that's the most even handed representation of the situation, personally. I'm not saying "both sides!" so much as saying that there are various people who should all be addressed as individuals, from criminals who should be treated like criminals, and shitty writers, who should be treated like shitty writers.
Occupy Centralia, PA!
Also, that Breitbart guy is the same one who went on a tear because the police said they had no knowledge of an investigation into threats made against Sarkeesian, only to have it come out the next day that case had been turned over to the FBI.
GG response was that the FBI might be investigating her for wire fraud after soliciting donations with the faked death threats. #cantmakethisshitup
- John Stuart Mill
Like as much of a liar and scumbag as Milo Yiannopoulos is, I'm not trying to get him to never speak in public again.
Although as far as Eron Gjoni goes, I think he really needs to start obeying that restraining order like yesterday. But he's not a journalist, he's just a crazy ex.
The problem with your strategy is that you do not live on an island. Sure, you might not be reading his toxic viewpoint - but other people are, and it's having a real effect. You're falling into the Broderite trap - just because someone has a position doesn't mean that it merits respect.
When I was still in the gaming industry (developer side), Gamasutra was this cool website that had a ton of articles on development and resources for developers and aspiring developers to use to pursue their careers. It is weird to see that name as prty of some massive controversy. Admittedly, my familiarity with them is from about eight years ago.
Did something happen there? Why are they allegedly the devil now?
It's entirely because Leigh Alexander wrote a piece on the site titled 'Gamers' don't have to be your audience. 'Gamers' are over.
That's the beginning and the end of it.
Yeah I know it's having a real effect. But what exactly is a moral way to negate that? Granted there should be a way to bring someone to task for lying copiously and calling it journalism, but just as far as his toxic opinion goes? Even a KKKer has the human right to say shitty bullshit, no matter how much I disagree with them.
I see what you're saying more clearly now.
I think everyone who plays videogames should catch flak for this. The longer you've played games, the more embarrassed and responsible you should feel.
This what we've built. Virulent harassment of women doesn't come out of the amateur yodeling community or home cooking enthusiasts.
The idea that international news looking at us and saying "people who play games are despicable" is somehow an issue of them not doing their research instead of us looking like violent, terrible people because of our history of tolerating awful people is silly. There's only so much level of detail you can expect from news organizations that do not share your desire to make yourself feel good. The fact that they might be "attempting to be seen by many people" is not somehow a slight against them. That's what news organizations do.
Like I love the PA forums, they've been a nice place to be for a long time. I think people here are great about most everything. But this is a corner of a larger community, and the larger community is pretty troubled.
Also just to clarify "the 'other side' of that wouldn't be that the 24-hour news cycle produces less informative stories." comment:
The implication was supposed to be that one of the valid critiques of 24-hour news is that it produces very bad content.
Burning down the homes of journalists would not change that fact.
Just because a legitimate complaint exists at the same time as a terrible violent action doesn't mean that therefore the reasonable part of that violent action is that well there is a legitimate complaint. If I toss a Molotov cocktail on your car, and you were double parked, that doesn't make my action more reasonable. It's just another, separate fact.
That's still mostly what they do (they had an article not too far back about the most ridiculous code hacks that ended up working, for example). The reason they got trapped in this shit mire is because one of their writers wrote a very strongly worded opinion piece on gamer culture.
My reading of that article, personally, is the writer was super angry when she wrote it, but simultaneously, it pretty much said a lot of people who post here are shit weasels, so it really depends on what your tolerance of people using broad brush attacks out of frustration is.
to be fair,
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Except if you actually read the article, it sounds like she's saying the exact opposite of that?
^ ie, gamers AREN'T just shit weasels, look at all these amazing spaces (like Penny Arcade!) that now exist for games.
Ah.
History's greatest monster, etc.
You know why she was so intemperate? Because she, like many other female voices in the industry, has been threatened with rape and death. Just because she talked about the industry she loves.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from repercussions of speech. And just because someone has the right to speak their mind without government interference doesn't mean that the rest of us need to give them a platform.
She's not saying that gamers are bad people, she's saying that gamers are now far more than what our old idea of what a gamer is, and that the industry should adapt and be more inclusive, and stop catering exclusively to that old stereotypical gamer and stop feeding that stereotype.
And I have the right to call him a stupid pudding head for saying it. The freedom of speech only restricts the government. I am under no obligation to listen, and if I own the venue, I am not required to let them speak.
The moral way to negate their bullshit is to call them on it promptly and publicly. It shouldn't be too hard in this case. I'm not even adverse to a little mean-spirited mockery in this case...but only because anyone who uses the word "fortnight" outside the presence of his dungeon master is trying way too hard to sound intelligent.
- John Stuart Mill
so uh
Feel free to click through and read the convo that ensued; I have to assume that the other guy went to bed or something, but I was hoping I'd get some kind of response to my last point. Still, I think this is illustrative of the problem a lot of GGers have—they just don't understand cultural criticism and its implications.
I don't think we're disagreeing at all. Milo Y. is full of shit, he's using his new gamer audience for clicks and monetary gain while utterly despising them. He's as massive an asshole as the internet can produce.
That's the most ridiculous thing I've read today. A person's ability to meaningfully intervene between what one person they've never met said to another person they've never met that they weren't present to hear is limited.
And is there non-anecdotal empirical evidence to support the assertion that video game produce an unusual amount of criminal harassment?
Just because something has 50 articles written about it that you've read this month doesn't mean it is 50 times more prevalent than the thing that you read one article about.
It's ebola sensationalism, but for sexism in video games.
Unlike ebola sensationalism sexism in video-games is very real.
It has way to much negative baggage, and trying to argue to other people are using it incorrectly or too broadly seems silly.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
But you can make Ebola sensational so easily because of how often it threatens to kill people.
I do think it's a little strange that Polygon, Kotaku, Gamasutra, Ars Technica, and Buzzfeed all posted articles on the same day about the "gamer" identity/stereotype becoming a thing of the past, but I don't think it's some sort of sinister media conspiracy or a breach of journalistic ethics. These articles were partially or totally covering the harassment and false allegations against Zoe Quinn and how that reflects poorly on the gaming community. That is a totally legitimate thing for a games website (and also, Ars and Buzzfeed don't even qualify as games journalists in my opinion) to write about!
There's your answer.