Support NeoGAF

[partyphone]

What did Boogie say exactly to get banned? I watched his post-ban video and he seemed to be pretty reasonable there and had, what I thought, was a pretty balanced view on the whole thing.

Instead of generalizing everyone on one side of the debate and attacking them, people should focus on making the community better for everyone, while attacking the few individuals who are actually causing harm.

When we take the extreme crazy posts on some obscure Tumblr blog, and paint all feminists that way. Or take some incredibly offensive twitter remarks from some random person and paint all gamers that way.. well that just adds fuel to the fire on both sides. Everyone moves into defensive mode, and it incites more of them to go on the attack.

this would be a nice sentiment if gamergate was a legitimate movement with a few bad apples. it's a rebranded hate campaign from the assholes who have been harassing people like Anita and Zoe for years. they don't have real complaints or goals. time and time again their claims of corruption have been debunked. the only decent thing to do is to categorically denounce them.

 

[Marsyas]

Hi. Been lurking around and reading this thread for a while.

Reading up on the whole gamergate thing has made me exceptionally angry about the idiocy of pro-gg types. How can a group of people claim their "movement" is about ethics and corruption in games journalism when it's been clearly shown that not only has that been not the case, but it's been shown time and time again that it's been about harassing and verbally abusing "enemies" of gaming and being a wretched hive of right wing paranoia?

The "ethics and corruption in journalism"-angle becomes even more ludicrous once you realize that it only applies to outspoken feminist writers and the publications that give them a platform.

People who don't write or talk about social issues can do whatever they want without being accused of unethical conduct.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

I'm wondering, is it demonstrably true through its actions and figureheads that #Gamergate is unavoidably a branch of Men's Rights Activism? I sort of feel like it is. Gamergate, for all of its varied voices and demands, ceases to be Gamergate if you remove the MRA-ey parts right? It's far too large a portion of the mass.

What I'm getting at is, if we put aside all extremism and any accusations of persons being explicit shitheads and assume we're only addressing the well-intended moderate-to-upset/concerned Gamergate folk, do any of them deny that the hashtag is inescapably linked to MRA (without any pejorative extremist implications, just as a political leaning)? I want to think not, but I'm sort of doubtful. Are they largely all aware of this? Or, conversely, is the MRA link just an unspoken obvious thing? I don't see it get pointed out to them too often. And I don't mean in an accusatory fashion, just as a sort of clarification, to make sure they're aware of it.

I think the issue is that there's not a full overlap between outright MRA & Anti-SJ.

GG's anti-sj roots are extremely easily shown and essentially ingrained within the entire movement.

GG and MRA ... some MRA proponents like GG, but I've not seen an outright overlap outside of MRAs generally being anti-SJ as well.

 

[Lalalandia]

What did Boogie say exactly to get banned? I watched his post-ban video and he seemed to be pretty reasonable there and had, what I thought, was a pretty balanced view on the whole thing.

Instead of generalizing everyone on one side of the debate and attacking them, people should focus on making the community better for everyone, while attacking the few individuals who are actually causing harm.

When we take the extreme crazy posts on some obscure Tumblr blog, and paint all feminists that way. Or take some incredibly offensive twitter remarks from some random person and paint all gamers that way.. well that just adds fuel to the fire on both sides. Everyone moves into defensive mode, and it incites more of them to go on the attack.

A Boogie tweet where he attempts to divorce the harassment Brianna Wu and others have been facing was posted on page 207, he came in by page 210 or so I think. He then proceeded to proclaim that he was being attacked and called a monster (he wasn't we just disagree) and made several alarming statements about self harm because people disagree with him. Combine that with his past posting of gross stuff such as defending the use of the word 'fag' and really ugly posts during the sexual harassment of that journalist by a dev and the mods had enough.

Even if you choose to excuse the posts that led to his ban the statements about self harm were highly alarming and it's clear that he can't handle people disagreeing so a ban is probably best for him.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

Its incredible how the GG supporters have been painted with this bus-sized brush as being misogynistic, sexist e.t.c while Anti-GG supporters are somehow now the victims (not to say that a number of Anti-GG supporters have not been victimized). Its sadder that different forums have taking sides and dug in, and the mods for these forums are allowing no middle ground whatsoever. I think we all agree that there are shitty people in the GG movement but using that to condemn it is quite unfair (Considering any movement has radical groups in it), we are regressing back to days when gamers were painted with a train-sized brush but this time its not just the media (Gaming and mainstream) doing it, it's gamers themselves doing it against one another. This will accomplish nothing, infact this new divide that is being created might end up destroying this industry but the shortsightedness of both developers, gamers, journalists and even moderators in forums (from all sides mind you) will not allow them to see it. Gaming controversies flare up and die in days, but the fact that this has persisted for weeks is a source of concern. Hopefully this is resolved and we all go back as one community of gamers, until then however their needs to be open discussion from both sides. Do not shut people down for their support of one group or the other, all that does is further discord between different gamers and that unfortunately further rips apart the gaming community (not that we were ever agreeable but this new political slanted divide is dangerous).

 

[partyphone]

the sad thing is gaming journalism has a long a proud tradition of corruption. where did we get our gaming news in the 80s and 90s? Nintendo Power.

even now one of the biggest publications is owned by one of the biggest game retailers. certainly no conflict of interest there!

 

[frequency]

I find it hard to believe that many people in GG are fighting for what they say they are when even Boogie, an otherwise nice enough guy, insults and berates the Polygon author for daring to give Bayonetta 2 a 7.5.

I believed he had good intentions but was misguided/misinformed but that series of tweets tells me otherwise. I can see why he is pro-GG and it's certainly not about kindness and love and whatever he says it is. I'm sure he believes that's what he's about but he could really use some self reflection.

People can change. Jim Sterling is a great example of this.

It's also hard to have a conversation with someone who repeatedly wishes for self harm and places responsibility on the other thread participants for somehow forcing him to respond to everything and "defend himself". He somehow decided he would stand for all GG and any negative comment about GG was a personal attack on him. He positioned himself to be a martyr and repeatedly asked for death since the other participants wouldn't accept GG the way he does.

While I don't understand all the moderation decisions--no ethics thread until this passes over (which seems will be never), certain bans (but the mods have more information than I do, like how a certain poster acts across multiple threads/time)--I think overall it has been excellent in keeping NeoGAF a safe and much more pleasant experience than the alternative boards out there.

 

[The Technomancer]

Ah, I see. Must have missed that. I pretty much digested the entire thing this morning and it's quite a large bite to chew.

Edit: On a semi-related note (?) Are permabans actually permanent around here? I'm still a new poster and all. Though I agree much of what he said was disturbing I still feel he's a good guy that will come around and have something of value to submit in the future.

They are pretty much permanent yeah. Also, not to freak you out or anything but as a junior member any ban you receive is permanent.

Its always kind of a difficult thing discussing bans and permanency and such. I've come around to the idea that its more important to create a safe(er) space for groups such as women, LGBTQ people, minorities, etc then it is to allow those with toxic or hateful positions space in hopes of "talking them around". Boogie wasn't that, I don't think, but his drama was kind of a weight on the discussion.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

(not that we were ever agreeable but this new political slanted divide is dangerous).

And how would you fix this "political slanted divide" that is so dangerous?

Its always kind of a difficult thing discussing bans and permanency and such. I've come around to the idea that its more important to create a safe(er) space for groups such as women, LGBTQ people, minorities, etc then it is to allow those with toxic or hateful positions space in hopes of "talking them around". Boogie wasn't that, I don't think, but his drama was kind of a weight on the discussion.

I saw a guy in a nintendo thread get permabanned for "not suiting gaf" before, he had similar issues to Boogie where he had extremely strong opinions but took any disagreement/criticism as personal attacks. If posters like that don't adapt to GAF's climate of discussion rapidly usually they get perma'd.

 

[Lalalandia]

Its incredible how the GG supporters have been painted with this bus-sized brush as being misogynistic, sexist e.t.c while Anti-GG supporters are somehow now the victims (not to say that a number of Anti-GG supporters have not been victimized). Its sadder that different forums have taking sides and dug in, and the mods for these forums are allowing no middle ground whatsoever. I think we all agree that there are shitty people in the GG movement but using that to condemn it is quite unfair (Considering any movement has radical groups in it), we are regressing back to days when gamers were painted with a train-sized brush but this time its not just the media (Gaming and mainstream) doing it, it's gamers themselves doing it against one another. This will accomplish nothing, infact this new divide that is being created might end up destroying this industry but the shortsightedness of both developers, gamers, journalists and even moderators in forums (from all sides mind you) will not allow them to see it. Gaming controversies flare up and die in days, but the fact that this has persisted for weeks is a source of concern. Hopefully this is resolved and we all go back as one community of gamers, until then however their needs to be open discussion from both sides. Do not shut people down for their support of one group or the other, all that does is further discord between different gamers and that unfortunately further rips apart the gaming community (not that we were ever agreeable but this new political slanted divide is dangerous).

You're right which is why none of those things is happening on this forum. There have been a lot of folks posting here in supoort of GG without being banned if you're curious as to why the most recent ban in this thread came about it starts from page 207 when boogie's tweet was posted here and his meltdown starts a few pages after.

Also GG is not a movement in the sense that 'FOV sliders for every game' is a movement it's a movement in the 'SJWs are destroying our games' sense. It was started by nasty misogynists to smear Zoe Quinn and then they grafted on the myopic few who were so enraged by LAs article they are willing to stand beside InternetAetheist, weev, fucking Vox Day. The only concrete actions have been to harass and drive women out that's literally the only thing GG has 'achieved' . Condemning it is the only rational course and if GG folk think that's mean well boo fucking hoo.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

They are pretty much permanent yeah. Also, not to freak you out or anything but as a junior member any ban you receive is permanent.

Its always kind of a difficult thing discussing bans and permanency and such. I've come around to the idea that its more important to create a safe(er) space for groups such as women, LGBTQ people, minorities, etc then it is to allow those with toxic or hateful positions space in hopes of "talking them around". Boogie wasn't that, I don't think, but his drama was kind of a weight on the discussion.

Thanks, and I'm not really worried. I'd like to consider myself a pretty respectful individual so I don't believe I'd say or do anything to be banned, but if I do then I understand that I am a guest of the forum and as such I have no god-given right to be a member. So I completely agree with the idea that's good to create safe places for people, minority people especially. I get tired of the "free speech" adages coming from certain groups, including the pro-GG bunch who misconstrue it to mean they have the right to be aggressive and despicable wherever, and to whomever, they please.

 

[Noaloha]

I think the issue is that there's not a full overlap between outright MRA & Anti-SJ.

GG's anti-sj roots are extremely easily shown and essentially ingrained within the entire movement.

GG and MRA ... some MRA proponents like GG, but I've not seen an outright overlap outside of MRAs generally being anti-SJ as well.

I see. I guess an issue for me then is not having concrete definitions of MRA and Anti-SJ. I have more than my fair share of ignorance on the topics (by which I mean, I ain't no expert!).

I think my perspective when looking at the Anti-SJ stuff within #GG is that it seems to be so targeted toward one specific branch of 'social justice' -- hint: something grumble something vaginas -- that the hashtag sat (to an observable and meaningful extent) within both circles of my Venn Diagram. Again, this is just where my perspective finds itself. I'm certainly open to correction, so thanks for the reply.

 

[riotous]

I find it hard to believe that many people in GG are fighting for what they say they are when even Boogie, an otherwise nice enough guy, insults and berates the Polygon author for daring to give Bayonetta 2 a 7.5.


It's also hard to have a conversation with someone who repeatedly wishes for self harm and places responsibility on the other thread participants for somehow forcing him to respond to everything and "defend himself"..

He's a guy backing a hate campaign (while insisting he's not), being manipulative, and basically lying (claiming he's empathetic and kind while insulting and ripping into people unfairly.)

You really don't have to call someone like that a "nice guy".. it's probably not helpful to him as a human being. He's struggling with a personality duality and if you want to help the guy, call him out for who he is as a whole, not who he claims to be when he's sobbing in videos that give him attention and money on the internet.. or saying heart felt things in internet posts.. if you turn around and act like a huge prick, you aren't a nice guy any more.

While I'm not diagnosing the guy or a professional; these add up to some concerning personality traits. I don't think any of it is actively purposeful; that's why it's worth pointing out. He's not a "bad guy" but his activities do not add up to being a "nice guy" either, and he needs to understand that IMO.

 

[Lalalandia]

I see. I guess an issue for me then is not having concrete definitions of MRA and Anti-SJ. I have more than my fair share of ignorance on the topics (by which I mean, I ain't no expert!).

I think my perspective when looking at the Anti-SJ stuff within #GG is that it seems to be so targeted toward one specific branch of 'social justice' -- hint: something grumble something vaginas -- that the hashtag sat (to an observable and meaningful extent) within both circles of my Venn Diagram. Again, this is just where my perspective finds itself. I'm certainly open to correction, so thanks for the reply.

It's a spectrum thing to be sure and some of the MRA crowd are starting to reach out to GG by essentially saying 'See we told you, we've been fighting the evil women for years, come on over and watch my 6 hour video rant on how feminists are trying to geld you'.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

I see. I guess an issue for me then is not having concrete definitions of MRA and Anti-SJ. I have more than my fair share of ignorance on the topics (by which I mean, I ain't no expert!).

I think my perspective when looking at the Anti-SJ stuff within #GG is that it seems to be so targeted toward one specific branch of 'social justice' -- hint: something grumble something vaginas -- that the hashtag sat (to an observable and meaningful extent) within both circles of my Venn Diagram. Again, this is just where my perspective finds itself. I'm certainly open to correction, so thanks for the reply.

MRA: specific groups fighting *for* men's rights. Technically speaking they're a male-oriented "social justice" group, but in practice they usually border on being a hate group.

Anti-SJ: a catch all term people use to describe non-affiliated people that seem really really upset at "SJW"/feminists & are quite vocal about this hatred.

Generally speaking someone who identifies as MRA *is* anti-SJ.

Anti-SJ isn't necessarily a specific identity or group, but mostly a term made up to give *some* sort of name to a fairly common behavioral/ideological trope.

(A lot of people actively don't identify as MRA because even amongst many anti-sj people it's recognised as a tainted/bad name.)

 

[Noaloha]

this would be a nice sentiment if gamergate was a legitimate movement with a few bad apples.

And, even if you do accept that the movement is to some extent legit but with 'a few bad apples', you're then faced with

which continues to make me snort in laughter embarassingly whenever I read it.

 

[Lime]

I can't believe those creepy Sarkeesian Effect guys are getting 8000 dollars a month for making videos debunking Sarkeesian's videos. And now they've paired with a crazy neo-reactionary Google programmer who believes that techies should rule the world. Meanwhile minority writers and journalists dont get hired by mostly white male publications and have a hard time scraping by with small backing through Patreon.

Fine if they actually produce legitimate feminist criticism of some of her arguments, but I doubt the probability is very high.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

MRA: specific groups fighting *for* men's rights. Technically speaking they're a male-oriented "social justice" group, but in practice they usually border on being a hate group.

I feel that those who have genuine concern for men's rights do not attach themselves to the MRA label. Much like those who genuinely care for ethics in the gaming industry aren't part of GG. Go figure, huh.

 

[More_Badass]

You're right which is why none of those things is happening on this forum. There have been a lot of folks posting here in supoort of GG without being banned if you're curious as to why the most recent ban in this thread came about it starts from page 207 when boogie's tweet was posted here and his meltdown starts a few pages after.

Also GG is not a movement in the sense that 'FOV sliders for every game' is a movement it's a movement in the 'SJWs are destroying our games' sense. It was started by nasty misogynists to smear Zoe Quinn and then they grafted on the myopic few who were so enraged by LAs article they are willing to stand beside InternetAetheist, weev, fucking Vox Day. The only concrete actions have been to harass and drive women out that's literally the only thing GG has 'achieved' . Condemning it is the only rational course and if GG folk think that's mean well boo fucking hoo.

When I first heard of GamsrGate, it was in the context of "Oh, they're fighting against corruption in games media" But as soon as I checked out this thread, I realized that was all a smokescreen

Which is a damn shame, since we should be having discussions about the role of game media and publisher influence, especially with the rise of YouTube channels. But this "movement" isn't that, and as far as I can tell, it never was

What I find most disturbing is how these people frame it as a war, with "operations" and enemies instead of debating and mediating and talking like human beings. That kind of thinking is very dangerous.

 

[fijim]

this would be a nice sentiment if gamergate was a legitimate movement with a few bad apples. it's a rebranded hate campaign from the assholes who have been harassing people like Anita and Zoe for years. they don't have real complaints or goals. time and time again their claims of corruption have been debunked. the only decent thing to do is to categorically denounce them.

Yeah, I can't see how anyone would want to identify with gamergate, I do know that many people who probably would have just ignored this whole thing though, took offense and some of the anti-GG/gamers are dead statements and as a result sort of aligned themselves with the movement.

"Gamers" in general have been attacked as all being a part of gamergate.I think this makes some people angry and they ironically end up aligning with GG because they felt attacked.

A Boogie tweet where he attempts to divorce the harassment Brianna Wu and others have been facing was posted on page 207, he came in by page 210 or so I think. He then proceeded to proclaim that he was being attacked and called a monster (he wasn't we just disagree) and made several alarming statements about self harm because people disagree with him. Combine that with his past posting of gross stuff such as defending the use of the word 'fag' and really ugly posts during the sexual harassment of that journalist by a dev and the mods had enough.

Even if you choose to excuse the posts that led to his ban the statements about self harm were highly alarming and it's clear that he can't handle people disagreeing so a ban is probably best for him.

Ah, thanks, Sounds like he really was starting to lose it.

 

[alstein]

Depends on who you follow. I only really follow game devs and friends, so I've been pretty insulated from those kinds of comments. I didn't even know about GamerGate till mid/late-September. Now I'm following Zoe and Anita so yeah, I'm definitely seeing more of the "shit circus" side of Twitter

I'm pretty much the same way. My twitter feed leans left politically, so most of my annoyance has come from SJW side of things (annoyance is when they start talking about having the police shoot GG folks and stuff like that- this is especially bad since Ferguson is going on) , but I've seen some of the opposite. I'm sure that it's worse outside of my bubble, because I don't tolerate misogynists and especially transphobes in my feed for personal reasons.

It's going to get worse as each side is retreating more and more into their own reality with their own facts- it's like Fox vs MSNBC. You might agree more with one side (as I do there, I'll openly admit that I am guilty of being an "Economic Justice Ranger"), but you gotta realize both sides pull the same yellow journalism there as well- sometimes you have to go outside your comfort zone. I do have some really nice conservatives on my feed as well who are perfectly willing to put me on blast and vice versa.

Also:if boogie did what he's being accused of here- that's banworthy IMO. There should no tolerance of that.

The only thing I'm anti on this is anti-trolling assholes.

 

[benicillin]

I can't believe those creepy Sarkeesian Effect guys are getting 8000 dollars a month for making videos debunking Sarkeesian's videos. And now they've paired with a crazy neo-reactionary Google programmer who believes that techies should rule the world. Meanwhile minority writers and journalists dont get hired by mostly white male publications and have a hard time scraping by with small backing through Patreon.

Fine if they actually produce legitimate feminist criticism of some of her arguments, but I doubt the probability is very high.

It's almost as if some people have latched on to the controversy to make easy money. But that would be crazy talk.

 

[plutoknight]

It's a spectrum thing to be sure and some of the MRA crowd are starting to reach out to GG by essentially saying 'See we told you, we've been fighting the evil women for years, come on over and watch my 6 hour video rant on how feminists are trying to geld you'.

All rights movements have spectrums, unfortunately gaming is so mainstream that this 'extreme' (of #GG) is becoming the 'norm' (coupled with other rights movements that are reaching fever pitch). It's a perfect storm of shit.

Not a day goes by where I see some of my gamer friends post on FB or otherwise "LOOK AT WHAT THIS FEMINIST SAID ON TWITTER #GAMERGATE" and it's some unrelated feminist who is bashing men on Twitter. And then other gamer friends flock to that post and go "LOOK THIS IS WRONG SHE'S SUCH A (whatever language you want here)" and then it usually ends up, "Women have been doing this for years!" just as you say. These women aren't even related to gaming, or gamers, or anything in the gaming or even TECH industries.

There's definitely overlap between MRA and GG, and it's probably going to reach a point where one is synonymous with the other (it might be already there; I have feminist friends who immediately discredit anything I say because I'm a white male gamer so I'm automatically a bad person and automagically part of GamerGate, even though I'm not) and this movement is going to hurt way more than the word 'Gamer'.

I think the main idea here is I hate the Internet, or something.

I feel that those who have genuine concern for men's rights do not attach themselves to the MRA label. Much like those who genuinely care for ethics in the gaming industry aren't part of GG. Go figure, huh.

Unfortunately, we may not attach ourselves to that label, but that doesn't mean 'the other side' won't label us at that anyway (I get called an MRA all the time from feminists on FB, even when I argue for them!)

 

[NoblesseOblige]

When I first heard of GamsrGate, it was in the context of "Oh, they're fighting against corruption in games media" But as soon as I checked out this thread, I realized that was all a smokescreen

This is how they're marketing themselves and it unfortunately works on a lot who fail to properly research an issue and its parties involved before championing one part of it. I'm glad you had the fortitude to look into it yourself before taking up the cause.

Which is a damn shame, since we should be having discussions about the role of game media and publisher influence, especially with the rise of YouTube channels. But this "movement" isn't that, and as far as I can tell, it never was

It is a shame, but guess what, we're in luck! There are many legitimate individuals and communities that have been discussing these trends for years now. Many of them are found within this very site. I hope once this GG stuff blows over we can legitimately focus on gaming ethos.

 

[Noaloha]

Is there another term for 'anti-SJ'?, or just another term for 'social justice'? The thing its describing feels unfortunately held by its own moniker, or something. Does it have a 'proper' name? How are these attitudes (for and against) described wholesale within academia? I think I consider it to be, maybe, socially stagnant or progressive? But 'socially stagnant' doesn't feel like an improvement, heh.

 

[The Technomancer]

Is there another term for 'anti-SJ'?, or just another term for 'social justice'? The thing its describing feels unfortunately held by its own moniker, or something. Does it have a 'proper' name? How are these attitudes (for and against) described wholesale within academia? I think I consider it to be, maybe, socially stagnant or progressive? But 'socially stagnant' doesn't feel like an improvement, heh.

Its traditionally conservative, I would say

 

[Lime]

Is there another term for 'anti-SJ'?, or just another term for 'social justice'? The thing its describing feels unfortunately held by its own moniker, or something. Does it have a 'proper' name? How are these attitudes (for and against) described wholesale within academia? I think I consider it to be, maybe, socially stagnant or progressive? But 'socially stagnant' doesn't feel like an improvement, heh.

Oppressors
Power holders unwilling to relinquish power
Keepers of the status quo
Privileged unwilling to let go of their privilege

Some are obviously unaware of what are they doing or have the best intentions but dont realize what they are doing.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Is there another term for 'anti-SJ'?, or just another term for 'social justice'? The thing its describing feels unfortunately held by its own moniker, or something. Does it have a 'proper' name? How are these attitudes (for and against) described wholesale within academia? I think I consider it to be, maybe, socially stagnant or progressive? But 'socially stagnant' doesn't feel like an improvement, heh.

I work within an educational institution (which features a department dedicated to social issues) and 'social justice' has become a name used academically for the furthering of social progress. In fact today we feature an event named "Social Justice Health Inequalities". I personally avoid usage of the term thanks to the corruption it's endured online (at the hands of those who oppose it) so I try to find other ways to convey a meaning without using hot-button terminology.

 

[Thomper]

Gamasutra had a great article today dealing with an important new front in ethics: paid coverage/reviews on YouTube: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...opers_share_responsibility_with_YouTubers.php

Numerous YouTubers have been in touch with Gamasutra in the last few months, both to question exactly what sort of disclosure is required of them, and to provide plenty of examples where big-name YouTubers and YouTube networks are telling their clients to ignore the advice.

As a result, Gamasutra decided to get back in touch with the Federal Trade Commission to delve into the specifics of what sort of disclosure is required for video game YouTubers who are taking money from developers, publishers and marketing firms.

If these #gamergate people are so obsessed with ethics, this is the type of article they should be rallying around and promoting. So why don't they?

Oh wait, because they decided Gamasutra should be boycotted because they wrote an opinion article they didn't agree with. Right. Sigh.

 

[More_Badass]

Is there another term for 'anti-SJ'?, or just another term for 'social justice'? The thing its describing feels unfortunately held by its own moniker, or something. Does it have a 'proper' name? How are these attitudes (for and against) described wholesale within academia? I think I consider it to be, maybe, socially stagnant or progressive? But 'socially stagnant' doesn't feel like an improvement, heh.

Would another word for social justice be "equality"?

Social justice is all about wanting minorities and women to be represented the same as other groups in games, right? Am I understanding that correctly?

 

[Corto]

 

[plutoknight]

Is there another term for 'anti-SJ'?, or just another term for 'social justice'? The thing its describing feels unfortunately held by its own moniker, or something. Does it have a 'proper' name? How are these attitudes (for and against) described wholesale within academia? I think I consider it to be, maybe, socially stagnant or progressive? But 'socially stagnant' doesn't feel like an improvement, heh.

It's been a while since I've been in gender studies (and other facets of academia..), but I think it was described as socially progressive, on both sides of the aisle.

SJW is definitely a moniker with a negative connotation and seems to be intrinsically linked to specifically feminists; I think we should just drop the SJ/Anti-SJ branding altogether because it stirs up too many negative feelings and clouds judgment and proper discourse.

But I don't know what you'd replace it with, and the same problems would probably just respawn with new monikers..

Would another word for social justice be "equality"?

Social justice is all about wanting minorities and women to be represented the same as other groups in games, right? Am I understanding that correctly?

Social justice, the term, has a negative connotation (the term 'justice' always carries about a form of punishment, "we served JUSTICE to them terrorists today!"). I think the IDEA of what SJWs and such are fighting for is equality in some semblance of the word, but I think calling them SJW or Social Justice Activists or whatever takes away from that equality and just breeds ground for attacks.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Is there another term for 'anti-SJ'?, or just another term for 'social justice'? The thing its describing feels unfortunately held by its own moniker, or something. Does it have a 'proper' name? How are these attitudes (for and against) described wholesale within academia? I think I consider it to be, maybe, socially stagnant or progressive? But 'socially stagnant' doesn't feel like an improvement, heh.

It's extremely difficult to say, the "social justice" side is easily categorized in many subcategories:

black power activist, feminist, sex positive feminist, third wave feminist, womanist, trans activist, terf, third wave feminist, gay rights activist etc etc. (Personally I think an emphasis on intersectionality is usually a good sign)


Anti-SJ is much harder to define because it's usually a sentiment along the lines of "inclusivity is political and I'm against politics" with a fairly rigorous denial of "supporting the status quo" being political.

I've had arguments with GGers who claim "GG wasn't a movement" but "anti GG is" cause "anti gg is the one with the SJW ideology".

Due to this SJW essentially gets redefined to "any form of social activism ever" but anti-SJ is seen as "just an opinion".

But I don't know what you'd replace it with, and the same problems would probably just respawn with new monikers..

SJW is easily replaced as most forms of social activism *HAVE* proper labels and names.

Anti-SJ is essentially giving a label to people who cry and whine that they're "just people with opinions", so that one's a loooot harder to replace, as they systematically tend to oppose labels.

 

[L Thammy]

If I'm not misreading, a few people in the past two pages or so seem to be getting confused into thinking that Gamergate is a totally monolithic entity. I think it's important to note that there are really two levels it's operating on.

You have the original members, the ones who are operating to harass women and little else. The only other thing they're doing is defending the Gamergate movement itself from criticism by pressuring their opponent's sponsors. These are the only things that Gamergate has actually accomplished. In order to make itself seem legitimate, they claim to be fighting for whatever ethic issues they can come up with.

Then you have the moderates, the ones who see the smoke screen and think that's what Gamergate actually is. They then make the movement more visible by speaking on its behalf and defending it, but they're ultimately outweighed by the people who have other goals, even the ones that were attracted by some unrelated ethics goals. The moderate that is defending "gamers" is not helping the moderate that wants more journalistic integrity. These folk will get frustrated that Gamergate is being misrepresented, but they're ultimately just failing to see that they do not represent the movement as a whole. They're wasting their energy because they're not promoting the positive message they think they are and they don't get why it's not happening.

I don't think there's anything more we can do than to engage this second group and try to convince them to pursue more effective avenues.

 

[Noaloha]

Gamasutra had a great article today dealing with an important new front in ethics: paid coverage/reviews on YouTube: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...opers_share_responsibility_with_YouTubers.php


If these #gamergate people are so obsessed with ethics, this is the type of article they should be rallying around and promoting. So why don't they?

Oh wait, because they decided Gamasutra should be boycotted because they wrote an opinion article they didn't agree with. Right. Sigh.

I made a thread specifically about it already.

I honestly think it's only related to #GG tangentially at best, though I do agree with your sentiment.

 

[alstein]

Equality?

Social justice is all about wanting minorities and women to be represented the same as other groups in games, right? Am I understanding that correctly?

That's what it should be about. It doesn't always live up to its ideals, and when it doesn't it should be called out for it. There are a current among some folks (myself included) that it's become about war and not progress, hence the "social justice warrior" label.

Usually once you see a movement go off the rails, it's easy to see it derailing more and more. That said, it's hard to have perspective when you are heavily emotionally involved, and many folks (see what happened to boogie) get emotionally involved and you get riled up, then you end up drinking kool-aid.

This issue has a lot of emotional involvement because it is important to many folks. There are real issues, and people have had enough, and we're in a time when a lot of ugliness in society is getting exposed harder than Mike Ross's Dee Jay. ^_^

 

[Neoriceisgood]

From what I've seen from "GG moderates" they still conflate inclusivity/social criticism with corruption, so I see no reason to agree with them even a little.

That's what it should be about. It doesn't always live up to its ideals, and when it doesn't it should be called out for it. There are a current among some folks (myself included) that it's become about war and not progress, hence the "social justice warrior" label.

The SJW label has been used to describe any form of social activism for a long time now, not just "the bad ones".

 

[More_Badass]

Holy shit...I don't know if I should laugh or cry

Because what parent is going to get Gone Home...for a CHILD? That makes no sense

I'm just dying at the thought of my eight year old cousins playing Gone Home (they love Mario)

Edit: "such a biased opinion that Gone Home deserves such praise"
Fuck you, buddy. Really, I know it's hard to comprehend, but people actually have varying opinions and like different things than you. Some actually prefer a narrative-heavy experience with no violence. Shocking!

 

[More_Badass]

It's been a while since I've been in gender studies (and other facets of academia..), but I think it was described as socially progressive, on both sides of the aisle.

SJW is definitely a moniker with a negative connotation and seems to be intrinsically linked to specifically feminists; I think we should just drop the SJ/Anti-SJ branding altogether because it stirs up too many negative feelings and clouds judgment and proper discourse.

But I don't know what you'd replace it with, and the same problems would probably just respawn with new monikers..



Social justice, the term, has a negative connotation (the term 'justice' always carries about a form of punishment, "we served JUSTICE to them terrorists today!"). I think the IDEA of what SJWs and such are fighting for is equality in some semblance of the word, but I think calling them SJW or Social Justice Activists or whatever takes away from that equality and just breeds ground for attacks.

Exactly! Thanks for clearing that up. That's why I never liked the term. Justice implies that someone is at fault and did something wrong. Instead of seeking justice, we should be focused on promoting equality and acceptance

Social equality in games, not fighting for social justice.

 

[dumbo]

When I first heard of GamsrGate, it was in the context of "Oh, they're fighting against corruption in games media" But as soon as I checked out this thread, I realized that was all a smokescreen.

If a black guy in a position of power is suspected of X, you can be pretty sure that a campaign against him will attract racists. Pretty soon you're looking at a mess where the original (possibly 'reasonable'?) idea of the campaign is buried as people pile on to both sides of the argument.

I wouldn't say there's a "smokescreen" - it's just people are unable/unwilling to separate their arguments.

 

[Sir Abacus]

Jennifer Allaway, a social researcher who had been conducting a survey on game developers, she's written an interesting article deconstructing the entire movement.

 

[Thomper]

I made a thread specifically about it already.

I honestly think it's only related to #GG tangentially at best, though I do agree with your sentiment.

Ah, thanks. Great, hadn't seen your thread yet.

It's not related to Gamergate, no, but it is related to what #GG *claims* to be about. If you want to be a movement that's about proper disclosure and honesty in video game writing (and videos), these should be the articles you concern yourself with.

But I guess making vague and non-specific claims is #GG's preferred way of 'working'.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Exactly! Thanks for clearing that up. That's why I never liked the term. Justice implies that someone is at fault and did something wrong. Instead of seeking justice, we should be focused on promoting equality and acceptance

Social equality in games, not fighting for social justice.

Because there's no worse crime in the world than getting someone's feelings hurt.

 

[originalself]

When I first heard of GamsrGate, it was in the context of "Oh, they're fighting against corruption in games media" But as soon as I checked out this thread, I realized that was all a smokescreen

Which is a damn shame, since we should be having discussions about the role of game media and publisher influence, especially with the rise of YouTube channels. But this "movement" isn't that, and as far as I can tell, it never was

What I find most disturbing is how these people frame it as a war, with "operations"
and enemies instead of debating and mediating and talking like human beings. That kind of thinking is very dangerous.

That is a very accurate appraisal of GG. I was in support of questioning corrupt media but after a little reading you can smell the crazy coming from it. I feel bad for the few trying to make a positive impact.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Justice implies that someone is at fault and did something wrong. Instead of seeking justice, we should be focused on promoting equality and acceptance

That's but a single idea of justice. There are many others which see justice as a remedy not only for individuals but also societal troubles. This is known as restorative justice (opposed to retributive justice common within the US). With that said I half-agree; we should focus on equality AND restorative justice which focuses on helping everybody, including the offender who many times is simply ignorant.

 

[robovanburen]

I have no idea why someone who is solely interested in promoting ethics or transparency in journalism would attach themselves to GG.

The hashtag gives you more visibility, I suppose, but said hashtag is also a weight around your neck. You end up being a PR rep for the movement who spends most of your time insisting that "not all of us are bad" - a losing battle in my opinion because the most negative actions of GG are the most constant, visible ones.

Since a site or two was driven to publicly post their ethics policy, what positive change has the movement brought? These days I see a whole lot of harassment and scheming to topple this or that SJW, and very little in the way of promoting ethics. The lofty hopes and dreams of some do nothing to counteract the day-to-day, tangible negativity. The movement is being judged by what it does, not what it says. If you're a bartender who brags about becoming a famous author but you never write, you can't be surprised if people call you a bartender.

You want more ethical journalism? Do something that actually promotes that instead of spending your time trying to wash a hashtag that's constantly getting dirty. It's a waste of your time.

 

[Mesoian]

Holy shit...I don't know if I should laugh or cry

Because what parent is going to get Gone Home...for a CHILD? That makes no sense

I'm just dying at the thought of my eight year old cousins playing Gone Home (they love Mario)

Their entire point is that people don't look at reviews themselves, only paying attention to the view scores. Trouble is, these are the same people who hate Metacritic.

I really hate those dumb "kids react" videos, but I'd watch one that was "kids react to gone home."

 

[Lalalandia]

What I love most is that it's like saying 'What if some parent read a review for Finnegan's Wake and bought it for little John/Jane this Christmas instead of The Snowman?'

 

[Neoriceisgood]

I wonder how #GG would react if someone told them V. G. Chartz has extremely inaccurate numbers.

Spoiler

answer: It depends on if the false numbers "favor" feminism.

 

[L Thammy]

Parents should just let their kids rent games instead.