Well... it's a hashtag on the internet, and not formally organized in any way. You're right in feeling its not concrete.
-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
#GamerGate thread 2: it's about feminism in games journalism
- Thread starter ModBot
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Well... it's a hashtag on the internet, and not formally organized in any way. You're right in feeling its not concrete.
What's the general consensus on Thunderf00t's videos, specifically his "Feminism vs Facts" video? Do people actually support Anita because after watching these videos and the generally unbiased rebuttals made against her claims I find it hard for anyone to be serious in that regard
P.S. I'm not too sure if this is related to the GamerGate issue but I know it's connected to the feminism aspect
Here's a good look at one of those videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N-tkrxAEWw
And as mentioned, thunderf00t has made claims that those being threatened are fabricating those threats or being big whining babies for being frightened by them. He was removed from FreeThought Blogs for his constant anti-feminism and just plainly unacceptable behavior. He is not impartial or clear headed when it comes to the issues Anita discusses.
so never pre-order, buy early access, or contribute to a crowd-funded project?
none of that makes sense to me. reviewers are fans of games. if a reviewer thinks highly enough of a project/developer/genre to put money toward its development that is simply a reinforcement of their positive opinion. if they're prohibited from doing any of that they're still going to say the same shit.
yes, there should never be any money changing hands between a writer and the subject they're covering. under any circumstance.
"if a reviewer thinks highly enough of a project/developer/genre to put money toward its development that is simply a reinforcement of their positive opinion. "
that's exactly the issue i think. you've already shown positive bias to the point where you're going to become an investor for a project. any "review" that you do is going to be tainted by that.
D
Deleted member 126221
Unconfirmed Member
What's the general consensus on Thunderf00t's videos, specifically his "Feminism vs Facts" video? Do people actually support Anita because after watching these videos and the generally unbiased rebuttals made against her claims I find it hard for anyone to be serious in that regard
P.S. I'm not too sure if this is related to the GamerGate issue but I know it's connected to the feminism aspect
EDIT: By "unbiased" i mean primarily the points brought up in the "Feminism vs Facts (Re Damsels in Distress)" video
"Unbiased" and "objective" does not mean what a loooot of people think it means. I almost think we'll need to put a definition in the OP or something...
EDIT: Read the second message. "Unbiased" does not mean "having the same opinion as you", sorry.
partyphone
Banned
yes, there should never be any money changing hands between a writer and the subject they're covering. under any circumstance.
"if a reviewer thinks highly enough of a project/developer/genre to put money toward its development that is simply a reinforcement of their positive opinion. "
that's exactly the issue i think. you've already shown positive bias to the point where you're going to become an investor for a project. any "review" that you do is going to be tainted by that.
bias isn't a bad thing, you know.
and how do you get anything to review ever? can you only ever review free code? that is an untenable position.
Lalalandia
Member
They are.She strongly believes that men and women are naturally equal even though we live in a world with sexual dimorphism and it's well recorded findings but ignores these and would call it sexist myths.
You're not ad-libbing you're creating a strawmanHer idea that (adlibbing) half of all the suspected "good female characters" are infact sexist because they're just masquerading as men and don't follow her very strict 4 good feminine traits of which "self-controlling", "strong", and "rational" among others are not a part of.
The woman is the ball the men fight over, her punching the final Boss is an insult to him because she is a woman. She did not defeat the boss the men did they just gave her a 'pity punch'.Her ability to view anything that can vaguely be viewed as sexist to be such even if there's much more evidence supporting not sexism. Double Dragon Neon for example, a woman is outnumbered and sucker punched then abducted by men then her boyfriend and his friend go out to get her back because they love her. Then at the end, the girlfriend delivers the final blow to the big bad with a strong punch right to the reproductive organs... but apparently this all just objectifies women.
There are many here that disagree with her on some points or completely (I'm not one obviously) but we're discussing GG here.Her definition of "objectifying" and how by it, hospitals are just "objectifying centers" because any attempt to help or save is acting upon another like an object.
I mean, I've seen internet trolls with more sound logic.
Do you think that GG is about AS? If so what about the 'ethics in journalism angle' applies to a social commentator/critic?
yes, there should never be any money changing hands between a writer and the subject they're covering. under any circumstance.
"if a reviewer thinks highly enough of a project/developer/genre to put money toward its development that is simply a reinforcement of their positive opinion. "
that's exactly the issue i think. you've already shown positive bias to the point where you're going to become an investor for a project. any "review" that you do is going to be tainted by that.
an investor gets a return on their money. patreon isn't that.
Neoriceisgood
Member
She strongly believes-
I mean, I've seen internet trolls with more sound logic.
I'm just gonna ask but ... do you have any direct quotes on any of this?
bias isn't a bad thing, you know.
and how do you get anything to review ever? can you only ever review free code? that is an untenable position.
for people in games media, they would be either sent a review copy which they could then raffle off for charity (like ArsTechnica does) or, if not provided a review copy, their company would purchase it for them.
I'm just gonna ask but ... do you have any direct quotes on any of this?
Her "Damsels in Distress" video series, unless she don't actually support those claims
partyphone
Banned
for people in games media, they would be either sent a review copy which they could then raffle off for charity (like ArsTechnica does) or, if not provided a review copy, their company would purchase it for them.
but that's money changing hands!
yes, there should never be any money changing hands between a writer and the subject they're covering. under any circumstance.
"if a reviewer thinks highly enough of a project/developer/genre to put money toward its development that is simply a reinforcement of their positive opinion. "
that's exactly the issue i think. you've already shown positive bias to the point where you're going to become an investor for a project. any "review" that you do is going to be tainted by that.
If a movie reviewer states they will buy a movie on DVD, can they review that director's movies in the future?
partyphone
Banned
look. all snark aside. what's the specific ethical problem with a writing supporting a patreon? you can't just wave your hands and say money.
but that's money changing hands!
not between the reviewer and the subject. which is what i stated earlier. it's for the same reason that writers at these companies and their marketing teams don't generally interact with each other. they want the writers to be as impartial as possible and not worry about who is paying the bills for the company, in the case where they need to go and shit on the company's product.
Neoriceisgood
Member
Her "Damsels in Distress" video series, unless she don't actually support those claims
I've watched all of her videos and several podcasts she's appeared in.
You've worded whatever positions you're critical of so oddly I barely even know what half of them are references to.
an investor gets a return on their money. patreon isn't that.
Return/profit has nothing to do with this.
If a writer wants to donate money to a developer (even if he eventually doesn't) shows that he has a positive bias towards said developer, that he views him favorably without even seeing the final product. Which means his review is likely to be more positive than if he reviewed a game made by some one he doesn't know at all.
They are.
You're not ad-libbing you're creating a strawman
The woman is the ball the men fight over, her punching the final Boss is an insult to him because she is a woman. She did not defeat the boss the men did they just gave her a 'pity punch'.
There are many here that disagree with her on some points or completely (I'm not one obviously) but we're discussing GG here.
Do you think that GG is about AS? If so what about the 'ethics in journalism angle' applies to a social commentator/critic?
Even those there's documented evidence (that has references so no need for that "oh, it's just wikipedia, that doesn't prove anything" attitude) shown in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism#Humans
-
I was adlibbing on the part of the "half", the rest was incredibly close to what she actually said.
-
That's one way to look at it
-
Nothing to say here
-
I believe there is some overlap between the two especially since AS provides journalistic entries on the subject of video games
partyphone
Banned
not between the reviewer and the subject. which is what i stated earlier. it's for the same reason that writers at these companies and their marketing teams don't generally interact with each other. they want the writers to be as impartial as possible and not worry about who is paying the bills for the company, in the case where they need to go and shit on the company's product.
how does paying money for something preclude you from that? if anything wouldn't it make you more likely to shit on something if you paid for it and it was awful? you seem to think money is a corrupting influence regardless of the direction it is flowing or the relationship between the two parties exchanging it.
D
Deleted member 126221
Unconfirmed Member
I've watched all of her videos and several podcasts she's appeared in.
You've worded whatever positions you're critical of so oddly I barely even know what half of them are references to.
You haven't seen the part where she talks about hospital as objectifying centers? It's right there in the video!
Lalalandia
Member
Her "Damsels in Distress" video series, unless she don't actually support those claims
She didn't say what you claimed and her example showed exactly what she said it did.
partyphone
Banned
Return/profit has nothing to do with this.
If a writer wants to donate money to a developer (even if he eventually doesn't) shows that he has a positive bias towards said developer, that he views him favorably without even seeing the final product. Which means his review is likely to be more positive than if he reviewed a game made by some one he doesn't know at all.
why is that? it doesn't make any sense. wouldn't it be the other way around completely? you pay money for something and it's shit what incentive do you have to pretend that it's good?
Return/profit has nothing to do with this.
If a writer wants to donate money to a developer (even if he eventually doesn't) shows that he has a positive bias towards said developer, that he views him favorably without even seeing the final product. Which means his review is likely to be more positive than if he reviewed a game made by some one he doesn't know at all.
So they shouldn't let Jim Sterling review Warriors/Musou games because it's known that he tends to view the series a lot more favorably than most critics? Should people only review series/genres that they're completely ambivalent towards?
I mean, assuming your problem is with bias and not the actual transaction.
You haven't seen the part where she talks about hospital as objectifying centers? It's right there in the video!
I'm simply drawing conclusions from what she puts forth then filtering it through my mind like she draws conclusions from what video game developers put forth then filters it through her mind.
So if a reviewer publicly says someone is a great developer, director, or writer - inside the body of a review or not - they shouldn't be allowed to review things that person makes?Return/profit has nothing to do with this.
If a writer wants to donate money to a developer (even if he eventually doesn't) shows that he has a positive bias towards said developer, that he views him favorably without even seeing the final product. Which means his review is likely to be more positive than if he reviewed a game made by some one he doesn't know at all.
It shows they have a positive bias, and return/profit has nothing to do with it.
look. all snark aside. what's the specific ethical problem with a writing supporting a patreon? you can't just wave your hands and say money.
Your bias might cause you to be overly positive because you've invested your own money into a project. Your bias might also cause you to be overly negative because you've invested your own money into a project and are personally disappointed. So it's really twice as biased as normal conflicts of interests.
partyphone
Banned
Your bias might cause you to be overly positive because you've invested your own money into a project. Your bias might also cause you to be overly negative because you've invested your own money into a project and are personally disappointed. So it's really twice as biased as normal conflicts of interests.
*gasp* the rare double bias!
then don't call it investing. words have meaning, use the right ones.Return/profit has nothing to do with this.
everyone has bias toward developers and is extremely open about it. how many people were anticipating destiny because of bungie's track record? how many reviews were more negative than they otherwise would have been because of the gap between expectations and reality? writers are fans, fans are biased. asking for things to be otherwise is the wish of a child.If a writer wants to donate money to a developer (even if he eventually doesn't) shows that he has a positive bias towards said developer, that he views him favorably without even seeing the final product. Which means his review is likely to be more positive than if he reviewed a game made by some one he doesn't know at all.
Return/profit has nothing to do with this.
If a writer wants to donate money to a developer (even if he eventually doesn't) shows that he has a positive bias towards said developer, that he views him favorably without even seeing the final product. Which means his review is likely to be more positive than if he reviewed a game made by some one he doesn't know at all.
That doesn't make any sense. Reviewers in all genres like things they cover. A review is an explanation of why they like or don't like a thing.
Felix Lighter
Member
not between the reviewer and the subject. which is what i stated earlier. it's for the same reason that writers at these companies and their marketing teams don't generally interact with each other. they want the writers to be as impartial as possible and not worry about who is paying the bills for the company, in the case where they need to go and shit on the company's product.
At what point can a reviewer personally buy a game? Also, after they buy a game from a given publisher do the forfeit their ability to ethically review another game released by that publisher? I'm trying to figure out where lines are drawn. What about preorders?
*gasp* the rare double bias!
positive statements in the review would be accompanied by superlatives! it would be the end times for certain!
D
Deleted member 126221
Unconfirmed Member
I'm simply drawing conclusions from what she puts forth then filtering it through my mind like she draws conclusions from what video game developers put forth then filters it through her mind.
Yup. He asked you if you had direct quotes of what you were saying, and you said it was right there in the video.
You are right in saying that you're filtering what she said through your mind, as what you presented is pretty different from what's in the videos.
It's bad because you'll give something a good review if you like it and a bad review if you don't like it?Your bias might cause you to be overly positive because you've invested your own money into a project. Your bias might also cause you to be overly negative because you've invested your own money into a project and are personally disappointed. So it's really twice as biased as normal conflicts of interests.
MHWilliams
Member
yes, there should never be any money changing hands between a writer and the subject they're covering. under any circumstance.
"if a reviewer thinks highly enough of a project/developer/genre to put money toward its development that is simply a reinforcement of their positive opinion. "
that's exactly the issue i think. you've already shown positive bias to the point where you're going to become an investor for a project. any "review" that you do is going to be tainted by that.
So, here's an example: Bethesda didn't send me a copy of The Evil Within. So I bought a copy, reviewed the game and expensed it. Those expenses come back in the next paycheck, far after the review.
Am I biased towards the game since I purchased it? Does that bias go away once I get my expenses?
People tend not to realized that while reviewers are assigned review copy, a number either step up to review certain titles or assigned games that already fit in their expertise (generally genres and franchises they like). Go to USgamer and pick an Assassin's Creed review. It was probably written by me, because I enjoy the series. Is that bias, even though money did not change hands in those reviews?
What about the opposite? We frequently get the "you're not a true fan of X game, so you should have been on the review". Is that a correct thought?
They are.
This is not a particularly productive or relevant argument.
Steven Pinker said:
I'm not actually familiar enough with the femfreq vids to comment on whether or not they endorse the Blank Slate hypothesis to any degree. Is that even a factually true point on which to hang criticism?
how does paying money for something preclude you from that? if anything wouldn't it make you more likely to shit on something if you paid for it and it was awful? you seem to think money is a corrupting influence regardless of the direction it is flowing or the relationship between the two parties exchanging it.
money CAN BE a corrupting influence and so monetary transactions between a writer and their subject should be avoided for that reason. you'll see people taking this to extremes in the posts above with comments in the vein of "then writers can't review works that they've said they're fans of" etc. it's obviously not going to be possible to get someone 100% impartial to do reviews on games but that doesn't mean that you should shed all propriety when dealing with the writer/subject relationship.
five months ago, i don't think there would have been any question that financial transactions between a writer and subject should be discouraged. is this only being supported now because it's an argument that gamergate has made and people are just doing the opposite?
I'm simply drawing conclusions from what she puts forth then filtering it through my mind like she draws conclusions from what video game developers put forth then filters it through her mind.
Since you can't seem to provide any direct quotes, I have to ask.
Have you actually watched her videos, or have you only watched Thunderf00t's videos about her?
MHWilliams
Member
money CAN BE a corrupting influence and so monetary transactions between a writer and their subject should be avoided for that reason. you'll see people taking this to extremes in the posts above with comments in the vein of "then writers can't review works that they've said they're fans of" etc. it's obviously not going to be possible to get someone 100% impartial to do reviews on games but that doesn't mean that you should shed all propriety when dealing with the writer/subject relationship.
five months ago, i don't think there would have been any question that financial transactions between a writer and subject should be discouraged. is this only being supported now because it's an argument that gamergate has made and people are just doing the opposite?
No, I merely wonder if you're taking the "financial transactions" part a bit stringently in your statement.
Just so we're all on the same page here. We're denying sexual dimorphism, correct?
Nope, that would be the strawman people are talking about. That's never been in contention. Saying "our entertainment could acknowledge that men and women play the same games" is not the same thing as what you're trying to present.
It's bad because you'll give something a good review if you like it and a bad review if you don't like it?
I would say, if someone has focused interest in a particular topic, and is giving Patreon-style monetary support toward someone creating future games along those lines, I would have some reservations about taking their recommendations of the resulting work at face value. But it's also the role of the audience to be aware of it an react accordingly, assuming the info is available. Unless someone is doing this whole process surreptitiously, it's a silly accusation.
Just so we're all on the same page here. We're denying sexual dimorphism, correct?
No, you disingenuous doofus. Saying that men and women should be given equal rights, respect, and treatment doesn't require a person to deny sexual dimorphism.
D
Deleted member 126221
Unconfirmed Member
Just so we're all on the same page here. We're denying sexual dimorphism, correct?
Sexual dimorphism explains and justifies sexism in videogames? Seriously?
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
I'm cracking up at this constant rebuttal of "sexual dimorphism" in a conversation about equal opportunity and respect.
Sexual dimorphism explains and justifies sexism in videogames? Seriously?
Woah, you're putting words in my mouth, both of you, I'm just asking a question.
MHWilliams
Member
I would say, if someone has focused interest in a particular topic, and is giving Patreon-style monetary support toward someone creating future games along those lines, I would have some reservations about taking their recommendations of the resulting work at face value. But it's also the role of the audience to be aware of it an react accordingly, assuming the info is available. Unless someone is doing this whole process surreptitiously, it's a silly accusation.
This is where I stand. Disclosure is important. It's why we have a section on USgamer review where we tell you if we bought the game ourselves or if the company sent it over. It's about giving you the information to determine if the review aligns with your thoughts and feelings.
Woah, you're putting words in my mouth, both of you, I'm just asking a question.
You answer is "no", if you couldn't tell.
Lalalandia
Member
Your bias might cause you to be overly positive because you've invested your own money into a project. Your bias might also cause you to be overly negative because you've invested your own money into a project and are personally disappointed. So it's really twice as biased as normal conflicts of interests.
I disagree with a 'No Patreon' policy but I agree this is a thing and an actual point worth debating. For me disclosure is enough as there is no direct financial reward involved. A lot of the arts have the same problem that the people who are best placed to comment on the arts are often close friends with those who produce the works. As 'distributed patronage' wasn't a thing until recently there hasn't been a direct precedence in those fields.
Art critics often own large collections of art themselves and frequently focus on young artists both because they are passionately interested in new art and they're far more affordable for someone on an art critics income. This automatically gives them a stake in the artists success both financially and personally because they have chosen this person as an exemplar if everyone disagrees then their opinion is in a way devalued which threatens their livelihood. Yet we don't demand that art critics not buy art, instead we expect that they disclose that they own a piece or pieces of an artists art.
There are no perfect parallels because we are dealing with such a young art form, in my example a Patreon backer gets a digital good that is essentially worthless as it can't be traded and has no more unique value than a copy bought today (unlike early artists works or first editions of books). In fact part of the reason that I have less of a problem with video games journalists backing Patreon campaigns than with other product reviewers buying the goods they do is that the rewards from Patreon are largely worthless in a financial sense.
Felix Lighter
Member
money CAN BE a corrupting influence and so monetary transactions between a writer and their subject should be avoided for that reason. you'll see people taking this to extremes in the posts above with comments in the vein of "then writers can't review works that they've said they're fans of" etc. it's obviously not going to be possible to get someone 100% impartial to do reviews on games but that doesn't mean that you should shed all propriety when dealing with the writer/subject relationship.
five months ago, i don't think there would have been any question that financial transactions between a writer and subject should be discouraged. is this only being supported now because it's an argument that gamergate has made and people are just doing the opposite?
In what industry do reviewers avoid buying the products that they review to avoid a monetary transaction with the companies involved with creating these products? Cars, tech, books, movies, etc, etc. The reviewers of these products almost certainly own and payed for items that were created by the companies whose products they review.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
Can you explain the connection? Because as it comes off with what we know, it seems like you mistakenly believe feminism/equality requires complete neutrality or something.Woah, you're putting words in my mouth, both of you, I'm just asking a question.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.