Support NeoGAF

[Watch Da Birdie]

Concerning the rise of "Social Justice Warrior" as a concept: I've always thought it had to do with the idea of "white knights" that was prevalent for a while in certain circles, though you don't see it used as often anymore.

The sort of people who would use a term like white knight generally seemed to think that anyone they were engaging with online was also a man -- male being the default, apparently -- and that any man who would be concerned with women's issues must be doing it in the hopes of getting laid. (This is just more of that general idea that men and women can never be friends because women are only objects of desire, who either acquiesce or "friend zone" the men who are the ones with agency.) A woman couldn't possibly be arguing on behalf of herself, it must be a goody two-shoes white knight whose only goal is to obtain her.

Once they began to realize that some of the people who disagreed with them were women themselves, they obviously couldn't be called white knights who want to obtain other women as a prize -- lesbians after all only exist for the male gaze -- but the idea of sneering at a warrior who makes their career out of a naive pursuit of some childish idea of justice (mixed with a suggestion of self-righteousness) still appealed to them, and so the idea of women as Social Justice Warriors took hold as a particularly snide way of harking back to the old "professional victims" refrain. The term has since grown to encompass men as well, and basically anyone who disagrees with you on issues you deem to be "politicized."

Just a theory, though.

I mentioned this yesterday, but the original definition of Social Justice Warrior was ironic, and used to refer to Internet activists who complained about social justice issues, but never actually did anything except scream and attack others. Furthermore, it usually involved completely inane issues that detracted from real-issues, such as corrupting trigger-warnings into a contest to have as many as possible for stuff like "shipping" and "bad food", sexual identities that were nonsensical and diminished the real issue of gay rights and trans rights, such as being "transethnic", "transhandicap", and one sexual identity where you only had sex with people you found attractive (so, basically, a normal individual), and generally, just silly stuff. There was a clear distinction between people who actually supported issues like feminism, gay rights, etc., and Social Justice Warriors, who didn't really care about any of that and just liked the drama. However, soon people just started calling everyone they disagreed with SJWs, and soon the term evolved into a legitimate term to describe actual Social Justice activists.

As you can see, it's the GameGaters who are the REAL "Social Justice Warriors", going by the original definition. All they do is attack others for completely inane reasons and ignore the real issues---none of them are actually concerned about ethics in journalism, they just like to hate. And like the original SJWs, most of them are probably kids with too much free-time.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

I mentioned this yesterday, but the original definition of Social Justice Warrior was ironic, and used to refer to Internet activists who complained about social justice issues, but never actually did anything except scream and attack others. Furthermore, it usually involved completely inane issues that detracted from real-issues, such as corrupting trigger-warnings into a contest to have as many as possible for stuff like "shipping" and "bad food", sexual identities that were nonsensical and diminished the real issue of gay rights and trans rights, such as being "transethnic", "transhandicap", and one sexual identity where you only had sex with people you found attractive (so, basically, a normal individual), and generally, just silly stuff. There was a clear distinction between people who actually supported issues like feminism, gay rights, etc., and Social Justice Warriors, who didn't really care about any of that and just liked the drama. However, soon people just started calling everyone they disagreed with SJWs, and soon the term evolved into a legitimate term to describe actual Social Justice activists.

As you can see, it's the GameGaters who are the REAL "Social Justice Warriors", going by the original definition. All they do is attack others for completely inane reasons and ignore the real issues---none of them are actually concerned about ethics in journalism, they just like to hate. And like the original SJWs, most of them are probably kids with too much free-time.

I'm curious but is there any source to this original use? I've tried digging up the history behind the term before and honestly couldn't find any clear answer.

 

[Metroidvania]

Say what you will about disagreeing with Jeff Gerstmann's views on individual video games, but at the very least, he's an honest dude.

The mention of silence, and how it isn't inherently equal to being permissive to GG did give me a bit of pause, what with the points several have raised in this thread about not being two sides.

Silence isn't complicity. Silence might also be not letting a campaign of hate and chaos be taken seriously by not giving it a place at the table.

But, at the end of the day, it's really, really hard to tell an individual (not a coporation/company/etc.) that their silence automatically condemns them without raising some similar flags in regards to what the GG crowd has done.

edit: To be clear, I'm not saying that people SHOULD be silent in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Riposte]

I don't think it's reasonable to treat Anita's videos that way at all.

I could make the video not personal: "Quicktime events made games objectively worse and developers who do it are shit." -- this still doesn't make me the Jack Thompson of QuickTime events (it would make me a bit of an jerk for saying it like that.)

For example Brianna Wu is much less mild in her criticism than Anita, she's practically the gamergate Devil, and finds Bayonetta empowering rather than sexist. That's cool, whatever, even women, even women feminists talking about games, can disagree.

Haha, I assume any YouTube collage of QTEs is already saying that. I just consider that an aggressive take on what I mean. When I say "personal" I mean the consequence of this bad thing is limited to the player - their taste is unsatisfied or offended.

Aside from that, I don't know if I understand your disagreement. Do you think I'm trying to say feminism perspective is a monolith thing? Feminists disagreeing is exactly what I want and why I mention that I dislike the idea of polarization (with Sarkeesian embodying a pole).

 

[plagiarize]

I'm fine. The personal stuff was actually from an anti gamer gate person mad at me for posting on GAF. Yeesh.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

I'm fine. The personal stuff was actually from an anti gamer gate person mad at me for posting on GAF. Yeesh.

Oh, are they doing this to you, too? I got some...unsettling stuff yesterday, too.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

I think it takes a special kind of person to use the concept of fighting for social justice pejoratively with a straight face. But now there are actual Social Justice class pins to wear, so some good came out of it.

I think the core problem of GG is the inability of some people to realize an identity for themselves not tied to gaming, and the personal slight they feel when something they like is criticized.

 

[BobbyRobby]

I think this part of Jeff's statement kind of sucks:



I think most of Gamespot's statement kind of sucks.

I used this analogy before, but there's a reason just "Death threats are bad" isn't going to make Gamergaters suddenly realize they're in a wrong group, because they don't think death threats come from Gamergate. They are in total denial of what the movement is actually doing. It's like teaching a mixture of Amish people and people pretending to be Amish for agenda-driven reasons about the dangers of drunk driving - the entire crowd will simply go "That doesn't really apply to me" outloud and go on doing what they do.

That is your assessment. Jeff probably wants to minimize extreme behavior. His assessment of the situation is that maybe getting involved will escalate the conflict and lead to more extreme behavior like death threats.

I don't know if you or Jeff is correct.

He's already expressed his disgust with GG. Condemning Jeff and saying "if you are not with us, you're against us," is a dangerous road to go down. I think it's usually best to target your enemies, rather than people who don't 100% see things your way.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

I think it takes a special kind of person to use the concept of fighting for social justice pejoratively with a straight face.

I do not understand how they can earnestly say death threats are not okay, but in the same sentence say "but". Like, do they honestly believe there's a difference between a death threat and provoking that response in someone?

 

[Brakke]

This is quietly beautiful:

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2014...sale-more-than-20-games-30-movies-discounted/

Hi everyone! I’m excited to announce that we’ve got more than 20 games and more than 30 movies on sale as part of our Flash Sale starting right now. Make your way over to PlayStation Store to get these games and movies at a sweet discount while you can.

Grab Hatsune Miku: Project Diva, Bayonetta, Fat Princess, Portal 2 and more on sale today through Monday, October 20th at 12:00 PM Pacific. Check out the full lineup:

PSN discounting a pile of games and movies that all (as far as I can tell) have cool lady protagonists.

 

[Watch Da Birdie]

I'm curious but is there any source to this original use? I've tried digging up the history behind the term before and honestly couldn't find any clear answer.

The first time I ever saw it was on SomethingAwful's "Tumblr" thread. I don't see that thread anymore, as I think it did evolve into a bit of a circlejerk over who was a SJW, and who wasn't.

The examples in that thread are what I associated the term "SJW" with for quite awhile till it sort of became a default insult, and now I've stopped using it. But legitimately there was a time when "SJW" had a very specific, mocking meaning before it was co-opted by actual misogynistic and racists.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

I'm fine. The personal stuff was actually from an anti gamer gate person mad at me for posting on GAF. Yeesh.

Huh ... I looked and there was an egg account made specifically for the purpose of telling you to stop posting on neogaf?

They literally only have 7 posts, all directed at you and complaining about evilore. Weird.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

This is quietly beautiful:

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2014...sale-more-than-20-games-30-movies-discounted/



PSN discounting a pile of games and movies that all (as far as I can tell) have cool lady protagonists.

I feel like Fat Princess and Time & Eternity might be veering off theme here a bit.

 

[zeldablue]

While I really do want to think and tell myself Women vs. Tropes is about making developers ask questions about their design choices, I do find myself doubting its intentions time to time. At least, the things outside it make me question it, like the discussions following their release. They feature reasoning that can come off as deceptive even. Such as Ri'Orius pointed out, "we don't want to take away/shame your games" because it's okay to like material with "problematic aspects" - but the whole contention is over the "problematic aspects" in the first place, that's just side-stepping the issue in an amicable fashion.

I'm not sure if the desire to be seen as equal has much to do with morality. :\

However, I think people think of good and bad in a weird way in general. Things are only bad when we make them bad. Bad things become worse when people begin to deny and hide things that they think are bad. The only way to combat "bad" is to bring it to light and try to understand it better, by studying it, talking about it and educating people about "bad." The more we know about "bad" the more conscious we can be about it and make sure we never do "bad" unknowingly.

Just by bringing it up, we're closer to getting rid of the bad. Just by having that awareness we're stopping what is bad and giving people the ability to do more things consciously instead of unknowingly. (Assuming they're past the denial, hatred, bargaining, depression stages)

If you knowingly do sexist and racist things...then that's great! Because at least you're fully aware of what you're doing. Most of us (or maybe just me) were raised and desensitized by extremely violent games. Most, if not all of us, turned out fine. This isn't about moral panic. This is about being mindful of the opposite sex that we treat with zero respect day after day. :\

 

[dawid]

So how do you educated people out there feel about totalbiscuit after all of this?

I've always been a fan of TB and it felt important to support him in this last year of personal issues.

But this shit is just fucked when you sum it up. I'm sure he was driven by some initial amiable idea and the following stubbornness. But at some point you just got to demand some kind of responsibility. They say that nothing is unforgivable, but this last month makes even watching a TB-video feel wrong.

 

[L Thammy]

I think it takes a special kind of person to use the concept of fighting for social justice pejoratively with a straight face. But now there are actual Social Justice class pins to wear, so some good came out of it.

I think the core problem of GG is the inability of some people to realize an identity for themselves not tied to gaming, and the personal slight they feel when something they like is criticized.

In my experience, there are a certain number of people who are simply incapable of caring about anyone else in any real way. They're still capable of acting like normal people in public because they need to in order to survive. However, it doesn't really matter to them if someone else is hurt so long as they benefit, but they'll scream bloody murder whenever someone slights them. Even if it's just the result of something they shouldn't have been doing in the first place.

I don't think the whole body of Gamergate is like that, but I think that's the core that founded it. That's also why I don't think starving them of attention solves anything. They don't want attention. They want everyone else to shut up so that they can walk all over them. They see people who might take the attention of the industry even slightly away from them, and they're lashing out for that reason.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

This is quietly beautiful:

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2014/...es-discounted/

PSN discounting a pile of games and movies that all (as far as I can tell) have cool lady protagonists.

Awww no Monster World 4. Shame. Cool idea though!

 

[Kinyou]

Well RDR essentially combined background decoration + the damsel in distress trope in one, no?

The issue with these types of tropes is that generally speaking their biggest issue is sheer quantity of use x lack of alternatives.

for example, take the damsel trope:

dude rescuing a damsel = regressive.

dude and/or damsel rescuing a damsel = already far less bad due to the fact that within the story's context there's apparently also an awesome playable lady.

dude/damsel rescuing a dude/damsel depending on who the character picks = much better as well, as it just feels like the secondary "character" gets kidnapped, not just "the girl".


This is why 3D world's seen as inclusive/a positive example despite the fact that you're still saving kidnapped ladies. The context changes the trope.

With the prostitute tropes I'm not entirely sure what the point of them is to begin with though, so it's trickier to just shake a solution out of my sleeve.

Well playing around with the genders seems like a good solution, but then she said this about Spelunky that offers you an option to choose the gender of the damsel.

To help illustrate this point let’s quickly take a look at the indie game Spelunky. Originally released in 2009 the game included a stereotypical damsel in distress as a gameplay mechanic whose rescue rewarded the player with bonus health. The 2012 HD remake of the game for Xbox Live again features the stock character damsel (complete with newly upgraded boob jiggle). However, this time an option was added to the menu that allows players to select a replacement for the default woman in peril by switching to either a Chippendales-style hunk or a dog instead.

Setting aside the fact that – if a female character is easily interchangeable with a dog then its probably a pretty good indication that something is wrong – Merely providing an optional gender-swap is not a quick and easy fix, especially where stock character style damsels are concerned.

The two may appear the same, but they don’t mean the same thing in our culture. This [damsel] is still a problem while this [dude] is not. Again because one reinforces pre-existing stereotypes about women, while the other does not re-enforce any pre-existing stereotypes about men.

That leaves me more with a feeling of "well what do you want?". Is the trope supposed to never appear again? Because I agree with you that the problem is not necessarily the trope itself, but that it's used way too often. Just writing the trope out of existence would seem like quite the rough solution to me.

Anyway, I feel like we're digressing more and more from the topic to something that would be more appropriate to one of the threads about her videos. I'll just say that I think her video series would overall be more helpful if she included more solutions, but I can also see why she wouldn't, if it's either through time concerns or because coming up with solutions herself is simply not part of her goal.

 

[More_Badass]

So how do you educated people out there feel about totalbiscuit after all of this?

I've always been a fan of TB and it felt important to support him in this last year of personal issues.

But this shit is just fucked when you sum it up. I'm sure he was driven by some initial amiable idea and the following stubbornness. But at some point you just got to demand some kind of responsibility. They say that nothing is unforgivable, but this last month makes even watching a TB-video feel wrong.

I'm still conflicted. I only started watching TB's videos a few months ago and I think his is easily the best of the YouTube gaming channels that I've seen. But the guy has one hell of an abrasive personality outside of his videos

 

[Neoriceisgood]

So how do you educated people out there feel about totalbiscuit after all of this?

I've always been a fan of TB and it felt important to support him in this last year of personal issues.

But this shit is just fucked when you sum it up. I'm sure he was driven by some initial amiable idea and the following stubbornness. But at some point you just got to demand some kind of responsibility. They say that nothing is unforgivable, but this last month makes even watching a TB-video feel wrong.

I've "liked" him, that is to say.. this doesn't surprise me one bit.

He's always been on my list of people where I assumed I could find out a few really unpleasant opinions or attributes if he ever got political in his gaming videos.

 

[mo60]

Gamespot statement on this matter has been released.
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/an-important-message-to-our-users-regarding-online/1100-6423008/

I'm happy no one on gamespot from what I know of participated in the harassment of others using gamergate.

 

[Menome]

So how do you educated people out there feel about totalbiscuit after all of this?

I've always been a fan of TB and it felt important to support him in this last year of personal issues.

But this shit is just fucked when you sum it up. I'm sure he was driven by some initial amiable idea and the following stubbornness. But at some point you just got to demand some kind of responsibility. They say that nothing is unforgivable, but this last month makes even watching a TB-video feel wrong.

Never liked him as a gaming 'personality' at all.

His medical condition is awful and I hope he pulls through it okay.

After all this, I like him even less as a representative of gaming culture.

 

[Substrata]

So how do you educated people out there feel about totalbiscuit after all of this?.

To be honest, I actually thought he'd be on the anti-GG side. But I think he's made some decent points and I think his opinions hold more water than pretty much any game sites these days.

 

[JC Sera]

Why the fuck did I just watch a 27 minute video about pro-GG people and hope that it was insightful? There are so many holes to pick, like even just the simple accusation that articles were saying all gamers were misogynists. Or that we should not talk about women in relation to GG.

Is this the HuffPo video that loads of people on Twitter are criticising?

Nepotism, huh? I don't think this Gemma knows what that word means...

OH MY GOD she mentioned (09:28) Bayonetta 2 and why calling the game incredibly sexist "shouldn't be in an objective review".

At least the host tried his best, and his response to "objective reviews" was good.

Gemma (10:48) gives an example of a "fantastic critic and it's Jennie right here!" /facepalm

(13:10) Jennie lists the websites "that are involved in this corrupt journalism" which are "prominent figures of the gaming journalism industry today" "who need to be told off, it's not right what they're doing" and NeoGAF comes up WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT (btw as she's reading the names of the websites, you can hear in her tone that she doesn't read these websites or is much familiar with them)

(16:37) "If you go to 8chan...I encourage you to check it out" no thanks lol

(20:36) Georgina: "In general, a lot of gamergaters are looking for the inclusion of women within videogames...from what I've heard of developers and stuff, they've said they feel very welcome within the gaming industry" So then what was the point of #1reasonwhy and other such movements if women developers feel welcome? Come on.

"The vast vast vast majority of them are pro-feminism or want to see more women in gaming"

(22:35) Jemma "All we want to do is play games" then just go play them! But when you're on the internet discussing games, you're not playing games so can we just drop this silly line of argument? And that stupid spin on the Miyamoto picture? People don't seem to understand what politics means.

(23:09) "What are the structural issues that need to be addressed [in the gaming industry]?"
"Publicists giving journalists money to give their game a very good score" no examples given whatsoever of anything currently. Do these people know that most gaming websites have codes of ethics and separation of ads versus editorial?

Notice how no specific cases are actually cited, other than the name of "corrupt" websites.

LTTP. Why did I watch that.
"Feminism is an ideology with a definite conclusion"
Mentions all accusations against Zoe without mentioning Zoe, and making it sound like multiple people did it. Then claimed this isn't about misogyny. Right.
Just got to this part:
The interviewer to the #GG people constantly messaging him "It is not my job to agree with you and say you are right"
GG. You just missed the entire point of journalistic ethics. Again. Smh.
These women make the what they are arguing sound so petty. And they sound so passionate too

Spoiler

I really like this interviewer though, he's really trying his best to be fair and listen to them and very nice, I might look at more of his stuff

 

[PumpkinSpice]

I think this part of Jeff's statement kind of sucks:



I think most of Gamespot's statement kind of sucks.

I used this analogy before, but there's a reason just "Death threats are bad" isn't going to make Gamergaters suddenly realize they're in a wrong group, because they don't think death threats come from Gamergate. They are in total denial of what the movement is actually doing. It's like teaching a mixture of Amish people and people pretending to be Amish for agenda-driven reasons about the dangers of drunk driving - the entire crowd will simply go "That doesn't really apply to me" outloud and go on doing what they do.

I feel the exact same way.

I also get the vibe that he feels like we should "ignore this and hope it goes away" as he has for decades(?) to trolls and death threats. It's fine for Jeff to speak to his experience, because certainly he's received death threats over pointless topics (reviews...) but he doesn't get this stuff nearly as bad as some have. He hasn't nearly reached the koolaid point:

As any parent of a two-year old can tell you, ignoring the child usually leads to escalation. Cry harder, scream louder, and in the most desperate scenarios, become destructive. Anything to get the attention they crave. Simply moving on is not an option for the haters once you’ve been labeled a Koolaid server and/or a rich source of lulz. Ignore them, and the trolls cry harder, scream louder, and become destructive.

If you’ve already hit the Koolaid Piont, you usually have just three choices:

1. leave (They Win)

2. ignore them (they escalate, make your life more miserable, DDoS, ruin your career, etc. i.e. They Win)

3. fight back (If you’ve already hit the Koolaid Point, see option #2. They Win).

That’s right, in the world we’ve created, once you’ve become a Koolaid-point target they always win. Your life will never be the same, and the harassers will drain your scarce cognitive resources. You and your family will never be the same.

 

[zeldablue]

So how do you educated people out there feel about totalbiscuit after all of this?

I've always been a fan of TB and it felt important to support him in this last year of personal issues.

But this shit is just fucked when you sum it up. I'm sure he was driven by some initial amiable idea and the following stubbornness. But at some point you just got to demand some kind of responsibility. They say that nothing is unforgivable, but this last month makes even watching a TB-video feel wrong.

Eh. I don't believe in cutting people off just because I disagree with them. I don't like knowing these people are being attacked for being a little..."bigoted." I want TB to feel good, especially because of his health. Though I don't think I agree with most of his feelings on games in general. But when you really think about it...which is more important? Games/Your opinion/Your feelings? Or someone's life and well-being?

I wish everyone would let that sink in. I'm fine with people considering me to be sub human. As long as they keep those views to themselves and don't actually try to kill me. xD

 

[Substrata]

Gamespot statement on this matter has been released.
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/an-important-message-to-our-users-regarding-online/1100-6423008/.

Its been a while since I've been on GS but there has always been large animosity towards its editors from the users, moreso than any other game website I've been on. Just have a look at the comments, they are not giving them an inch.

 

[Watch Da Birdie]

I think Anita has a point about switching to another living object to be "property" is just as problematic, and only highlights the issue in the first place.

Really, if you need an excuse plot, use an inanimate object! That way no one is objectified...although then you have a "use violence to claim your property!" theme, but that's a whole other issues.

Honestly if I ever started a Game Company, I'd just have a general "no specific individual is kidnapped as the sole plot" rule.

 

[TheHollowNight]

I think this part of Jeff's statement kind of sucks:

I'm really really glad GB have made an official written statement. But yeah, the "Silence is not complicity" bit didn't sit with me too well after fully reading through it. It's a small personal gripe, but whatever, I'm happy they spoke up.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

So how do you educated people out there feel about totalbiscuit after all of this?

I've always been a fan of TB and it felt important to support him in this last year of personal issues.

But this shit is just fucked when you sum it up. I'm sure he was driven by some initial amiable idea and the following stubbornness. But at some point you just got to demand some kind of responsibility. They say that nothing is unforgivable, but this last month makes even watching a TB-video feel wrong.

I've never gotten into the TB hype. I don't know why exactly. He is smart, I can give him that. But I guess he always seemed so... smug to me. Like he felt he knew what was best for everyone. His most recent actions have cemented that idea and I pretty much feel he's just in it for himself and playing a very careful game to not come off as blatantly in support of a hate movement.

Edit: Should mention I seem to have a general dislike for big names that have a large following. I just feel it eventually leads to messianic behavior and zealous fanbases.

 

[Curufinwe]

I feel the exact same way.

I also get the vibe that he feels like we should "ignore this and hope it goes away" as he has for decades(?) to trolls and death threats. It's fine for Jeff to speak to his experience, because certainly he's received death threats over pointless topics (reviews...) but he doesn't get this stuff nearly as bad as some have. He hasn't nearly reached the koolaid point:

How do you know how bad the abuse Jeff received was?

 

[Ravidrath]

This is quietly beautiful:

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2014...sale-more-than-20-games-30-movies-discounted/

PSN discounting a pile of games and movies that all (as far as I can tell) have cool lady protagonists.

Everyone seems to be coming to this connection, but it's entirely by coincidence.

These promotions have a few months lead time. I don't remember exactly when we decided to put Skullgirls in it, but I think it was in August, before GamerGate was a thing.

 

[mo60]

Its been a while since I've been on GS but there has always been large animosity towards its editors from the users, moreso than any other game website I've been on. Just have a look at the comments, they are not giving them an inch.

I can;t even load the comments right now so I do not know what you are talking about.

 

[kurona_bright]

So how do you educated people out there feel about totalbiscuit after all of this?

I've always been a fan of TB and it felt important to support him in this last year of personal issues.

But this shit is just fucked when you sum it up. I'm sure he was driven by some initial amiable idea and the following stubbornness. But at some point you just got to demand some kind of responsibility. They say that nothing is unforgivable, but this last month makes even watching a TB-video feel wrong.

It's been so, so disappointing. I don't actually watch the videos he puts on his own channel, I watch the ones that he makes with his wife (and are uploaded to her channel), and the banter between the two is perfect. I laughed so hard at the Sims 4 or the Hatoful Boyfriend LPs they've made - they're seriously a lot of fun to watch.

But all his recent comments on this topic have been depressing. I might still go back, because those videos were so good, but the enjoyment I would get probably will have dimmed.

 

[shink]

I thought Gamespot was on the blacklist, but they still manage to read and comment on all these articles on the list.

 

[sk3]

That is your assessment. Jeff probably wants to minimize extreme behavior. His assessment of the situation is that maybe getting involved will escalate the conflict and lead to more extreme behavior like death threats.

I don't know if you or Jeff is correct.

He's already expressed his disgust with GG. Condemning Jeff and saying "if you are not with us, you're against us," is a dangerous road to go down. I think it's usually best to target your enemies, rather than people who don't 100% see things your way.

I think Jeff is correct. It would have maybe been possible to join in earlier, but its too late now. There is no place for nuance now (as if there ever was). Anything you do will cause an uproar, as evidenced by gamespot and giant bombs rather mild statements.

Twitter is a wasteland.

 

[zeldablue]

I think Anita has a point about switching to another living object to be "property" is just as problematic, and only highlights the issue in the first place.

Really, if you need an excuse plot, use an inanimate object! That way no one is objectified...although then you have a "use violence to claim your property!" theme, but that's a whole other issues.

Honestly if I ever started a Game Company, I'd just have a general "no specific individual is kidnapped as the sole plot" rule.

When Link's ocarina was stolen in Majora's Mask, it was more potently emotional than Zelda getting kidnapped.

I honestly cared more about how Link felt about the Ocarina that Zelda gave him than I've ever cared about how Zelda feels about her lack of agency. What I mean is...it's not about the stolen thing, it's about how the player character feels about the stolen thing. I can relate to someone stealing a doll that was important to me, more so than someone stealing my...mom.

 

[Metroidvania]

Because it still is death threats and harassment. They just shield their movement from whoever does it by claiming non-association.

I think Jeff was speaking more to the sense of automatically condemning the silence of the observer, rather than saying that everyone should have to be silent and let GG 'die out'.

He's already expressed his disgust with GG. Condemning Jeff and saying "if you are not with us, you're against us," is a dangerous road to go down. I think it's usually best to target your enemies, rather than people who don't 100% see things your way.

Kinda, this.

Jeff isn't telling people to be silent, but he's noting that some of the 'anti-gamergate' crowd may be becoming more....fanatic in their 'you are with us or against us', which doesn't help the message, especially with those tentatively attached to the GG hashtag.

Not that ideally, they shouldn't already be leaning on the side of general progressiveness anyways, but historically, absolutism doesn't convert (even if it's opposite side has no real moral standing or actual basis to fall back on), unless things get 'violent'.

Note that I'm not trying to say that GamerGate is right, or that the anti-gamergaters should be silent. But at this point, I don't know how to get the 'layman' GG'er to realize the associations with harassment and threats that are embedded into the movement and dissociate with the movement, or at least, anymore so than has already been done.

The movement's too diluted, too decentralized to bring any one person to task (save maybe Adam Baldwin?). It doesn't have a centralized structure or etiology to attack, and it has moral 'objections' to fall back on if threatened. Zoe Quinn and others have released logs showing the idiotic, vile nature of those responsible for the harassment and threats, and baking them into the movement.

I don't honestly know how to 'win hearts and minds', at this point.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Well playing around with the genders seems like a good solution, but then she said this about Spelunky that offers you an option to choose the gender of the damsel.

That leaves me more with a feeling of "well what do you want?". Is the trope supposed to never appear again? Because I agree with you that the problem is not necessarily the trope itself, but that it's used way too often. Just writing the trope out of existence would seem like quite the rough solution to me.

Anyway, I feel like we're digressing more and more from the topic to something that would be more appropriate to one of the threads about her videos. I'll just say that I think her video series would overall be more helpful if she included more solutions, but I can also see why she wouldn't, if it's either through time concerns or because coming up with solutions herself is simply not part of her goal.

Spelunky just makes it more obvious how replacable and useless the trope is though, that's why I specified adding playable female characters combined with a gender-switch on the kidnapped character is a strong solution.

I'll cut this convo short cause it is a bit off topic, I agree: The trope isn't gonna go away, it's too culturally prevalent for that to ever happen. That's why something that seems like a "rough solution" honestly isn't. If 10 people stopped using every trope Anita dislikes ... there'd still be hundreds and hundreds of people still using them.

In my own art and writing I actually try to avoid negative tropes like the plague, though I read criticism on a social level that goes far deeper than Anita usually. She's fairly 101.

 

[HK-47]

Spelunky just makes it more obvious how replacable and useless the trope is though, that's why I specified adding playable female characters combined with a gender-switch on the kidnapped character is a strong solution.

I'll cut this convo short cause it is a bit off topic, I agree: The trope isn't gonna go away, it's too culturally prevalent for that to ever happen. That's why something that seems like a "rough solution" honestly isn't. If 10 people stopped using every trope Anita dislikes ... there'd still be hundreds and hundreds of people still using them.

In my own art and writing I actually try to avoid negative tropes like the plague, though I read criticism on a social level that goes far deeper than Anita usually. She's fairly 101.

What constitutes a negative trope?

 

[mogaar]

I think the core problem of GG is the inability of some people to realize an identity for themselves not tied to gaming, and the personal slight they feel when something they like is criticized.

Feeling personally slighted by criticism is definitely part of the problem. When I read criticism of a novel I've just finished (by say, someone polarizing like Martin Amis), I don't get offended; I'm actually glad that someone pointed out something that I may have missed. I'm able to look from another angle and maybe learn something new about the book itself, the author, or maybe even myself...

Video games are a huge part of entertaiment, and until a critical eye can be cast on their various aspects (without fear of repercussion), then I'm afraid they'll be stuck in a sort of myopic fishbowl and won't grow as a medium...

 

[axisofweevils]

Coverage on The Week.

http://theweek.com/article/index/27...-spectacularly-on-its-nincompoop-perpetrators

So an effort to drive out social justice perspectives from gaming has only confirmed those critics' arguments in about the most devastating manner imaginable, complete with front page headlines across the globe. Many of the targets are now international celebrities.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

I say on twitter that I am blocking certain gamergaters because they always respond with the exact same "Can you proooooove it, though?!" tweets.

Twitter account messages me asking why I blocked him. I said I didn't, because I could still read that tweet. He says I blocked his other account.

I check the account and it's the same guy messaging the same people on different accounts, telling them Gamergaters are not colluding with each other to harass people.

Like

How dense do you need to be to think any of that would make sense.

 

[zeldablue]

Feeling personally slighted by criticism is definitely part of the problem. When I read criticism of a novel I've just finished (by say, someone polarizing like Martin Amis), I don't get offended; I'm actually glad that someone pointed out something that I may have missed. I'm able to look from another angle and maybe learn something new about the book itself, the author, or maybe even myself...

Video games are a huge part of entertaiment, and until a critical eye can be cast on their various aspects (without fear of repercussion), then I'm afraid they'll be stuck in a sort of myopic fishbowl and won't grow as a medium...

Ain't that the truth.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

What constitutes a negative trope?

I'm going by a personal definition and say any trope that is lazy, regressive, culturally toxic or lacking sufficient depth.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, any of the "War on Straw" tropes are great examples of this, as they're essentially just "I'm right you're wrong"-author pandering tropes.

I hope that's a clear enough explanation.

 

[PumpkinSpice]

How do you know how bad the abuse Jeff received was?

I've been listening to nearly everything he says on the internet for 4 years now. He's talked about email, comment, twitter, etc abuse plenty of times and gone into detail about the kind of crap that's come at him several times.

But it's an order of magnitude less than what has been hurled at Anita, Zoe, or even Phil Fish. He's never been dox'd, there aren't conspiracy theories going around about him, people aren't photoshopping him into porn, and no message board has organized a months long hate group focused on attacking him and everything he stands for, nobody is showing up at his front door, and he's not getting mass shooting threats for daring to speak in public.

 

[GolazoDan]

Feeling personally slighted by criticism is definitely part of the problem. When I read criticism of a novel I've just finished (by say, someone polarizing like Martin Amis), I don't get offended; I'm actually glad that someone pointed out something that I may have missed. I'm able to look from another angle and maybe learn something new about the book itself, the author, or maybe even myself...

Video games are a huge part of entertaiment, and until a critical eye can be cast on their various aspects (without fear of repercussion), then I'm afraid they'll be stuck in a sort of myopic fishbowl and won't grow as a medium...

This is spot on. A review is not an us vs. them mentality. Some of my favourite reviews are the ones that are completely opposite to my viewpoints but are argued in such a way that I can say "I hate to say it, but fair points". A reviewer should not preach to the choir.

As an aside, I uploaded this GFW segment where they discussed the firing of Jeff Gerstmann from Gamespot. There's a few other good bits but this is an actual interesting discussion into the ethics of games journalism that's still as relevant in 2014 as it was in 2007.

 

[Watch Da Birdie]

It's for another thread, but I think having such a black-and-white view on tropes like TVTropes does is equally problematic---and judging by some of their content, I wouldn't exactly trust them when it comes to what tropes are negative, and what are acceptable, considering some of the rather creepy tropes they seem to love.

 

[ShaggsMagoo]

I've been listening to nearly everything he says on the internet for 4 years now. He's talked about email, comment, twitter, etc abuse plenty of times and gone into detail about the kind of crap that's come at him several times.

But it's an order of magnitude less than what has been hurled at Anita, Zoe, or even Phil Fish. He's never been dox'd, there aren't conspiracy theories going around about him, people aren't photoshopping him into porn, and no message board has organized a months long hate group focused on attacking him and everything he stands for, nobody is showing up at his front door, and he's not getting mass shooting threats for daring to speak in public.

That's not entirely true, he has recently been getting people actually coming to his front door.

And also a second time as well.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

It's for another thread, but I think having such a black-and-white view on tropes like TVTropes does is equally problematic---and judging by some of their content, I wouldn't exactly trust them when it comes to what tropes are negative, and what are acceptable, considering some of the rather creepy tropes they seem to love.

I'm not going off of Tvtropes when describing tropes I'd consider "negative", the straw man tropes are just a quick shorthand cause I'm sure everyone's familiar with them.