VibratingDonkey
Member
I'm actually not sure what this part is trying to say, dudes stand with their butts up against walls so you can't look at them? Is this a thing?
Regardless: http://gamebutts.club/
Good article. Made me feel a bit more hopeful.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
#GamerGate thread 2: it's about feminism in games journalism
- Thread starter ModBot
- Start date
- Status
Regardless: http://gamebutts.club/
Good article. Made me feel a bit more hopeful.
Absolutely. But the tag line kinda paints her as someone who picked that battle or that's all they're about. Obviously tag line's are brief by definition, but maybe reference her original efforts and intent instead?
Lalalandia
Member
Yeah I had a similar reaction at first but if I think about it 'crusade' isn't a bad term for what was thrust upon her. She may have started as someone who just wanted to put out videos highlighting the obvious weirdness of gender politics in games but her enemies have made her the central figure in gender politics in games. She didn't want to be but she is now. For outsiders this is probably the best shorthand for explaining what she's trying to do, I've seen so many instances of GG et al deliberately misinterpreting her words that I've developed a tendency to want to cram every sentence with lots of nuance and detailed explanation but that's not a strapline.
Zomba13
Member
Well you have people here on Neogaf saying that they choose female characters in games when they can because they don't like to look at the backside of a man when playing.
No clue what she means about first person games letting you look at women's asses and not men's asses though.
I'm guessing that's some sort of weird misquote from a writer who doesn't know much about games. I never thought about it before but for third person games for guys the camera angle is usually mid upper back / over one shoulder while for women the perspective is typically pulled further back and centered mid body or low. Huh.
Fantastapotamus
Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
I feel like I'm the weirdo here for not checking out the ass of my virtual character wether it's male or female. Maybe that's because I always try to make my character as ugly as possible, to make romance scenes even more hilarious.
Yeah, I suppose when you take into account her more high-profile engagements (Cobert etc) abuse and harassment is unfortunately what her name has become more synonymous with to the wider audience.
But I think that tag line, combined with the whole cover just rubbed me the wrong way. I can see it being taken as anti-videogames/fun which is a label Anita has fought for a long time but won't go away.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I haven't played a lot of games lately to compare, the the zoom-in-on-the-ass thing goes back to Tomb Raider, and I think the developer even commented on it at some point, to the effect of "if I am going to be looking at the backside of a character it might as well be a woman." <---- not an actual quote and also pulled from memory, so, caveats.
Yeah I have a problem with the concept of actual blacklist in general especially when it comes to silencing opinions of people who have not participated in harassment.
Or just dared to follow someone on twitter that is known to be an asshole hell I follow douche-bags on twitter, that scares the hell out of me that we have reached the point that we are now using social media in this way, I don't care if it's sjw or gg this is fundamentally wrong.
This has police state mentality all over it and that scares me and yes all of the people on your list are douchebags no question but blocking any followers they might have who do not necessarily agree with them in their opinions, but just follow them for a variety of reasons is wrong.
I am interested in politics and I am a democrat but I also follow republicans on twitter even the really loony ones if I was to get blocked by the democrats because I dared to follow the republicans you see what I am getting at here this is dangerous territory we are heading into here.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
It's opt in. Nobody is being silenced, except by people for themselves.
this is hilarious to me. you don't want to ever be blocked on twitter? then don't use twitter. people automating group blocking functionality isn't a blacklist and isn't a police state, you are wildly misusing those terms.
grow up
same.
Updated my post read it again why this concerns me
you do not have the right to force other people to see your twitter posts. i don't care what your reasons are for following those people, if anyone decides that's enough to block you then you need to understand this is someone who wouldn't have wanted to talk to you anyway.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I think you misunderstand how it works and who is likely to use it.
Ok but then you are saying that I am guilty of harrasment because I follow certain people who have done it or that I am feminist because I follow feminists even though all I personally want is too see it for myself and I don't want one person doing my thinking for me.
So if certain people don't want to talk to me because of who I follow on twitter then they are saying that I am guilty by association, it's the same if I get a phone call from democrats wanting to have nothing to do with me because I follow republicans.
More_Badass
Member
No one is saying that you're guilty of anything. No one is doing your thinking for you.
They just don't want to see your Tweets
using a blocklist does not say anyone is guilty of harassment
using a blocklist says "i do not want to communicate with a group of people"
saying that using it is morally wrong is saying that you should be able to make people talk to you. this isn't the case in meatspace and it's not the case on twitter either. get over it.
I hope you run your e-mail without any kind of heuristic-based spam filtering.
People deciding that they don't want to be heckled and abused does not have a "police state mentality" at all.
I do not see what you are getting at. Please explain it in full.
Nobody is saying anything about you as a person.
This is a resource to make things easier for people who are being shouted at constantly. It's for their own mental health and general well being. It has so little to do with the people on the list and everything to do with the people who are using it.
The idea that placing your emotional safety ahead of the ambiguous pride of total strangers could somehow be immoral is baffling.
That is silencing opinion if they don't want to talk to people on twitter then don't post on twitter I have had many discussions with people on twitter who I disagree with, if these people can't handle another persons opinions then why the fuck are they on twitter to begin with ?
The blocking is ridiculous and if you don't like twitter or just want to talk to people who agree with you then stop using twitter and find something else there are plenty of ways online to talk to people who just agree with you.
it's functionality that's built into the site and the service's API. blocklists are part of twitter.
how about YOU stop using the service if you can't stand the idea of people not wanting to see your tweets?
No one owes you a conversation, and no one owes you their views on your tweets. They aren't silencing you, they're just not listening to you. They aren't forcing anyone to adopt the block list. I am also on one of the block lists, and that's fine. No one's required to read my tweets. People who want to, can, people who don't want to can either not follow me, mute me, or block me.
Lots of people enjoy twitter but don't want to see or deal with particular issues on twitter, so they create block lists of people discussing those issues or responding to people who are discussing those issues.
But fundamentally, no one owes you anything simply by being on Twitter. If they want to block you, for good reasons or bad, that's their prerogative.
Right to prevent abusers so by your logic everyone who is blocked is an abuse all 10 000 of them every single one is a horrible person ?
If the democrats started a mass block of people on twitter of people who are democrats but also follow the republicans there would have been a shitstorm, but we are accepting this because all of these people on the list are 100% assholes and harrassers ? and we have to prove that every single one of them are not and then they are whitelisted.
If that is okay to you in a country that has free speech then god help us because what's the next thing we are gonna start silencing people on ???
Where does it end ?
More_Badass
Member
No one is silencing you. You can post whatever the hell you want on Twitter
No one has to listen to you or read what you post. Or want to see what you post
Nope. And not everyone blocked by my heuristic spam filter is a spammer. But enough are that the trade-off is worthwhile.
We're accepting this because people have an absolute right to ignore others.
This has nothing at all to do with free speech. Free speech does not entitle you to a platform and it does not entitle you to an audience.
If they don't want too see the posts then why the hell bother with the whitelist ?
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I really, really think you misunderstand the concept.
Twitter has a block function. Users use it individually.
A mob of people started harassing other people. Somebody came up with an admittedly flawed tool that allows people to block said mob *for themselves only*, although they will also end up blocking some people who don't belong there.
People getting harassed may choose to use the tool as the cost of blocking some people like you.
Twitter has a block function. Users use it individually.
A mob of people started harassing other people. Somebody came up with an admittedly flawed tool that allows people to block said mob *for themselves only*, although they will also end up blocking some people who don't belong there.
People getting harassed may choose to use the tool as the cost of blocking some people like you.
HarryHengst
Member
You don't understand what free speech means. Free speech means the government does not have to right to jail/fine/otherwise retaliate against you for your speech. Nothing else. Any private entity including other people or business have absolute right to ignore you, or fire you, or refuse to serve you for your speech.
And if democrats did that it would be a shitstorm because their own party members would object, but they would have the absolute right to do so.
Nobody is being 'Silenced'. If you don't understand a word you shouldn't be throwing it around. Also 'Blacklist'. Also 'Labelling'.
Someone on the blocklist is just not being listened to by whoever feels the need to use the blocklist.
It is becoming negligibly less likely they will see any of your tweets. There was a tiny chance they would anyway. Now there is no chance.
If I put my headphones in while I walk down the street I'm not silencing anyone.
Someone on the blocklist is just not being listened to by whoever feels the need to use the blocklist.
It is becoming negligibly less likely they will see any of your tweets. There was a tiny chance they would anyway. Now there is no chance.
If I put my headphones in while I walk down the street I'm not silencing anyone.
I guess it bears repeating that no one has said that. I'm sure not everyone of the 10000 people are horrible people. However if you want to subscribe to the opinions of people like PlayDangerously, RogueStar or Mr. Fart, then I don't think we have enough in common to want your post appear in my feed.
Like the national Do Not Call List, I'm sure maybe a few of those telemarketers really are trying to sell me something that will improve my life, but I don't want them calling me anyways. Like any form of communication there are filters so that you can you is how you wish.
partyphone
Banned
the idea of the blocktool is simple. there are certain lighting rods in the gamergate movement who have a high follower count which they use to dogpile onto people they don't like. automatically blocking their followers negates this tactic.
and before any sealion tries to complain that this only serves to ignore contrary opinions let me tell you that you are wrong. firstly, it is easy to keep track of what these people are saying through tools like twitter lists and archiving. secondly the people specifically targeted by this blocklist never have anything valuable to say. they are professional trolls, sociopaths or just plain fucking monsters.
and before any sealion tries to complain that this only serves to ignore contrary opinions let me tell you that you are wrong. firstly, it is easy to keep track of what these people are saying through tools like twitter lists and archiving. secondly the people specifically targeted by this blocklist never have anything valuable to say. they are professional trolls, sociopaths or just plain fucking monsters.
plagiarize
Banned
You don't have a right to be heard.
This is like people criticizing Anita for not debating or engaging them in the manner they want to be engaged in. She's apparently silencing them to not let them comment on her videos. People sharing a black list are apparently silencing GamerGate people.
If you can still publically share your opinion and will not suffer any legal repercussions for it... you aren't being silenced.
Allowing extremist opinions to be marginalized is part of the engine that makes free speech a good thing for society, and part of what makes it the case that we don't need to write laws banning this opinion or that opinion.
Society will decide, for itself, what is and isn't appropriate, and the crazy opinions will not be given the same platform as the sane ones. Stupid crap will get marginalized. That's how it works.
That's the very process the government shouldn't fuck with.
Messofanego
Banned
I feel like there should be a new rule about people who mention free speech and don't know what that means.
You can't forbid people from listening to whoever they want. You may think it's unfair that you're being grouped with some horrible people, and it may very well be, but then there are others who want to stay clear from all that noise.
Comparing it to a police state is ridiculous. No one is restricting your rights to say whatever you want to say or associate with anybody; they are instead acting upon their right to completely ignore you for doing that.
Someone you didn't even know existed or cared about doesn't want to listen to the people who follows the same guys you do. Of course you have to take it personally and make a lot of noise demanding that your voice be heard, even though you follow some assholes and/or may say assholish things yourself, because "freedom of speech". That's the reasonable way, and totally not part of the reason why people wanted to block others in the first place!
plagiarize
Banned
They don't understand what it means. They don't understand why it exists. They don't understand how it works. They don't understand why it's good for society.
There's an awful lot people don't understand about free speech.
hobblygobbly
Member
Free speech is not free from consequence.
Preach.
Lalalandia
Member
On the internet it's always xkcd o'clock.
chaobreaker
Member
Well shit, I'm not on the list. I though following Johnathon Blow and Phil Fish was enough to get me on the list but I guess my twitter-fu is too weak. I only evoked the GG hashtag once to shit talk the movement but didn't get the droves of sealions like I thought I would.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
In Warplock's defense, he's not American. He may not get the idea.
And there is a growing concern that in media in general, people are segregating themselves into zones which only agree with them (choice of news, friends on facebook). But I don't think that really applies to this.
And there is a growing concern that in media in general, people are segregating themselves into zones which only agree with them (choice of news, friends on facebook). But I don't think that really applies to this.
LiegeWaffle
Member
I kind of agree that compiling blocklists by follower list is a suboptimal approach, but I see why it works. It just has too many false positives, and I would be uncomfortable releasing myself a blocklist which works solely on that principle.
People are definitely welcome to blocklist whoever they want and however they want, but the maintainers of the blocklist are responsible to get it right if they suggest that other people use it. If it says "GG autoblocker", it should aim to block GG.
People are definitely welcome to blocklist whoever they want and however they want, but the maintainers of the blocklist are responsible to get it right if they suggest that other people use it. If it says "GG autoblocker", it should aim to block GG.
Every autoblock generator has false positives. If you use any email service that you aren't hosting on your own Linux box, you already have auto-genned blocklists protecting your account. And they have false positives. Which is why even big companies will ask you to add their email domains to your whitelists.
The internet runs on filters, otherwise the internet wouldn't work.
The internet runs on filters, otherwise the internet wouldn't work.
Ugh. This sort of reaction is virtually identical the "gamers are dead" reaction. Completely devoid of critical thinking, just a perception of a direct attack on one's self.
No one is saying you, in particular, are a horrible person.
They're saying if people don't want to deal with #GG's incessant nonsense, and find it tedious to block users manually, here's a blocklist to ignore a swath of people who may be part of it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll