Support NeoGAF

[Dunki]

It's about suspension of disbelief, as well as the framing. Not heels, but look at Quiet. Quiet's design isn't in a game full of designs that are as absurd as her outfit (for men and women specifically), so it clashes. Quiet's design isn't the issue, it's how it's done. Bayonetta wearing heels is okay because it makes sense for her character and for the world. You feel me? And finally, The Last Guardian featuring a young girl jumping around isn't an issue, at least no more than a young boy jumping around is.

Quiet's outfit in a highly sexualized world like Metal Gear makes totally sense. Kojima always had these characters. Look at Vamp for example who is highly sexualized. Boss, The 4 beasts etc. He creted the whole world, its logic, its style etc. Its absolutely coherent.

 

[A Link to the Past]

That is besides the point, and not a discussion I feel like having. Do you concede that using biology as an argument in this case isn't valid when the game did not end up going the "biologically accurate route"?

 

[KevinKeene]

1. You should read a Biology book because that is true. And if he wants to use more factual parts to make his world more believable than it is is right to do so. This is his reasoning and his reasoning was not wrong at all. So no please show me how Ueda is sexist. Facts proven by science are not sexist.

2. Yes she said exactly this. Sadly the whole meeting was deleted because it was so embarrassing for the UN. Just because a mass of people disagreed with her bullshit it is not harassment at all. Even if you tweet it to her.

Thank you.

I just want to add that the only reason Japanese developers often times give silly/weak explanations is because social justice activists force them to answer ridiculous questions AND wouldn't accept a true answer.

Why was Quiet in mgs4 super sexy and half-nude? Nah, not because of that silly skin breathing. Kojima liked her that way, that's it.

Why are the girls in the upcoming Switch-fighting game so sexily clad? Nah, not because the story requires it. The developers enjoy sexy girls, that's it.

Why was the hero in The Last Guardian a boy? Not because of arm strength (which is true btw). Ueda envisioned a boy for his game, he prefered that, that's It.

Why wasn't Link female in BotW? Nah, not because of a 'we wouldn't know what Link does in the meanwhile'. The hero of the Zelda-series has been male for 30 years, since the series' inception, and it simply never occured to Aounuma (as well as any sane person) to change that. Despite good reasons existing for why Link has to be male, it simply was a non-issue to the creator, akin to Ueda.

And
So
On.

When people ask stupid questions, they'll get stupid answers. Because can you imagine the outrage if developers answered truthfully? These developers can, so they give silly pseudo-reasons. Which they shouldn't have to do. Quiet is sexy. That's hot. The end.

 

[TheGraykid]

If this is reasoning which is not wrong you can not say he is sexist just because you do not like it. You have no idea how the draws inspirations, how he works on his stories etc. So to say that he is sexist because you do not understand his though progress is an personal attack and most likely not even true.

AS for the fantasy example: How about the argumentation that women can not wear high heels in battle? Even in a fantasy world. Sounds similar right?

I'm not personally calling him anything. I'm just saying that the excuse he gave seems nonsensical. I would love to hear him explain himself in a way that actually makes sense.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I guess I don't see the relevance of citing biology in a game where the protagonist does things that are biologically improbable for an average person of their type.

 

[KevinKeene]

I'm not personally calling him anything. I'm just saying that the excuse he gave seems nonsensical. I would love to hear him explain himself in a way that actually makes sense.

"I wanted to have a boy in my game. That's how I envisioned it."

That's okay?

 

[Dunki]

I'm not personally calling him anything. I'm just saying that the excuse he gave seems nonsensical. I would love to hear him explain himself in a way that actually makes sense.

Japanese people are talking differently in Public so when you confront them openly like in an interview it basically an attack since they do not know how to react. Also I did not accuse you because you are a nobody and have no real social media power. I am talking about Anita who did this openly had has a large following therefore much bigger consequences.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Ueda is not sexist because he did not include a female character, Ueda is sexist for his comments on why. The notion of girls being unable to do acrobatic feats, the notion that their skirt would get in the way (girls wear pants too), these are silly points. The former completely ignores the range of girls, some of whom can do acrobatic feats well above that of the average boy.

He also had this weird thing about wanting the music of Ico and SotC to appeal to women and men respectively, so he hired a woman and a man for each.

I also think it's a bit condescending to Kojima to suggest that people flustered him and he just threw out a half-baked response. It was a stupid comment, and Kojima is no stranger to being pretty nebulous, but he's not a man who doesn't think things through. That said, Quiet doesn't make sense because Kojima was already planning the justification before any "SJWs" asked him.

As far as SJWs not accepting the true answer, I'm not sure how much of that is the case. When the creator of Dragon's Crown talked about how he simply likes sexy people in his games, it didn't nearly get the response of the eyerolly justifications given for Cortana or Quiet. I would probably be considered an SJW, and I love Dragon's Crown, I love Bayonetta, because they don't feel dumb. And you'll find a fair few "SJWs" think the same about these games. There's nothing sexy to me about Quiet, personally.

 

[KevinKeene]

He also had this weird thing about wanting the music of Ico and SotC to appeal to women and men respectively, so he hired a woman and a man for each.

You make it so incredibly hard to ignore you, because someone needs to call you out on all your dishonesty.

Really? Ueda is sexist because of hiring a female composer to appeal to women? How can you say that with a straight face when all the time people like you clamor for more women/minorities to get jobs in the gaming industry? If Ueda is sexist for hiring a female composer to appal to women, then any developer who employs black people must be racist. That's your logic.

Let me make one thing clear: when people criticize extreme feminists, sjws and the likes, they mean you. Back in OldGAF, it was users like you, Lime, CrossingEden etc. that were the absolute extreme. Stop talking as if you're distanced from the extremist feminists and sjw. You're deeply part of that group. And your weak, illogical arguments show that.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Respond to the argument, not the poster. Thank you.

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. My point was to show examples of Ueda having strange beliefs about men and women. Not that he hires women, but that he hires women to make music to appeal to women, and men to make music to appeal to men. This is absolutely something that strikes me as an unusual thing, and further contextualizes things with his other odd views on women.

By the way, I made some more post for you to reply to, specifically about how you are kind of arbitrarily including certain people in your list of developers who are just cluelessly responding to criticism.

I think you would benefit from some moderacy yourself, because several of your arguments straight up are inaccurate, and it seems to me that this is partially caused by a desire to advance an agenda. No, "social justice warriors" do not get more upset by a desire to put fanservice in than they are the dishonesty of people like Kojima as to whether Quiet constitutes fanservice. You can't just rewrite history to make Kojima someone who, on the spot, pulled the "words and deeds" tweet out.

EDIT: It's also kind of funny that this thread title specifically calls for civility and then you're just like, mad at me. By contrast, I'm just like

"who are you"

And then go back to responding to what people are saying rather than who is saying it.

 

[grumpyGamer]

Can someone tell me what ois the problem if a developer actually wants a naked woman in a a game,??it is his right to make a videogame and make all the ladies in bikini fighting in a war zone .
his money, just as we prectice free speech he can too

 

[A Link to the Past]

Can someone tell me what ois the problem if a developer actually wants a naked woman in a a game,??it is his right to make a videogame and make all the ladies in bikini fighting in a war zone .
his money, just as we prectice free speech he can too

This is true, but in turn I'll say that the developer made a dumb game

Unless ofc it was equal opportunity and had throbbing dicks waggling around, in which case I'd still call it dumb, but for different reasons.

 

[Dunki]

This is true, but in turn I'll say that the developer made a dumb game

Unless ofc it was equal opportunity and had throbbing dicks waggling around, in which case I'd still call it dumb, but for different reasons.

Dumb is totally fine. Sexist or misogynistic have a whole different meaning and power as to just say the game is dumb.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Dumb is totally fine. Sexist or misogynistic have a whole different meaning and power as to just say the game is dumb.

I don't believe that a developer is necessarily sexist even if they want to have sexualized/objectified women in their games. Ueda I have specific views on.

 

[TheGraykid]

Japanese people are talking differently in Public so when you confront them openly like in an interview it basically an attack since they do not know how to react. Also I did not accuse you because you are a nobody and have no real social media power. I am talking about Anita who did this openly had has a large following therefore much bigger consequences.

As a creative I think you should be able to talk about and potentially defend your creative decisions, especially when you're not exactly being confronted in a hostile way. If you made a game and I asked "why is this multiplayer instead of single player?" or any other question, you should be able to answer that without giving a bullshit answer, and if you give a bullshit answer you should be called out for that.

Also, I see nothing wrong with someone making the argument that a game you made has sexist or misogynistic themes within it.

 

[KevinKeene]

As a creative I think you should be able to talk about and potentially defend your creative decisions, especially when you're not exactly being confronted in a hostile way.

As Dunki said: that's Japanese politeness. It's a whole other discussion, and you won't be able to change it anytime soon, not via video games anyway.

 

[Dunki]

As a creative I think you should be able to talk about and potentially defend your creative decisions, especially when you're not exactly being confronted in a hostile way. If you made a game and I asked "why is this multiplayer instead of single player?" or any other question, you should be able to answer that without giving a bullshit answer, and if you give a bullshit answer you should be called out for that.

Also, I see nothing wrong with someone making the argument that a game you made has sexist or misogynistic themes within it.

Because these words used by Journalists are a red flag and very bad PR in the west or esp. in America. It will undoubtedly lead to less sales even if these accusations are not true at all. If you personally are saying it without a huge follower group etc It is totally fine. But media and journalists have way too much power to sue these terms casually.

 

[TheGraykid]

As Dunki said: that's Japanese politeness. It's a whole other discussion, and you won't be able to change it anytime soon, not via video games anyway.

I get that, but from a perspective of a person who would like to talk about these issues, it's frustrating and a little disappointing.

Because these words used by Journalists are a red flag and very bad PR in the west or esp. in America. It will undoubtedly lead to less sales even if these accusations are not true at all. If you personally are saying it without a huge follower group etc It is totally fine. But media and journalists have way too much power to sue these terms casually.

In your opinion, if you are a popular media commentator and you're writing a critique of a game and you find it has sexist/racist content. How should you approach that?

 

[Dunki]

I get that, but from a perspective of a person who would like to talk about these issues, it's frustrating and a little disappointing.



In your opinion, if you are a popular media commentator and you're writing a critique of a game and you find it has sexist/racist content. How should you approach that?

First of all I would think long and hart if this is really sexist/racist then I would consider researchdata. then maybe I would try to contact the developer trying to find the reasoning for these scenes, characters etc.
Again I would do some Journalistic work before publicly writing about it.

And If its dissapointing or frustrating sure. Still no reason to call him/her sexist because of it. Why would you even try to froce your western morals and standards to these people? Stop trying to imperialize different culture and morals into a totally different culture.

 

[strange headache]

[...] No offence, but your first post was very very very long, and even though I've read it once, I'm finding it hard to find the portion of it that applies to what I was saying.

I'm afraid, I'm getting a little bit tired of arguing in circles because people either fail to engage with everything I've written, or because they constantly shift the subject of discussion in order to regurgitate the same old arguments again and again. I don't mean this in a condescending manner, but it's one of the reasons why this discussion is mostly screeching to a halt.

In point 1 of my original post I've already explained why the assumption that "everything is political" is antithesis to modern democracies. I've even referenced the text of a rather influential philosophical thinker in order to convey the reason why politicizing the private sphere is a very bad idea. In point 6, I elaborated on the differences between criticism and agenda pushing. I even linked a video to Zappa in order to make it more palatable, alas all of it was quickly ignored.

I then went on and gave you a more theoretical argument, coming from the notions of political science. Again, I refuted your claim that "all games are political" and made a point as to why "games are about fun" is a very valid concern. Instead of fully engaging with it, you cherry picked the aspects that seemed to confirm your point of view and twisted my word as to make them seem in accordance with your position.

I don't think you find it hard to understand what I'm trying to say, on the contrary you make the impression to be a rather smart person. English is not my native language, so I apologize if it's not up to par, or you are simply arguing in bad faith, I dunno...

[...] People say they're complaining about political agenda, when they're really complaining about themes.

Yet here we are, repeating the same argument that you already presented in your OP. The problem is not the presence of 'political themes' or "non-white or non-straight or non-male protagonist/protagonists" as you claim. No sane person cares about that. The problem is that minorities are abused as tokens in order to push the political agenda of social authoritarians and to earn brownie points among a politically aggressive vocal minority. Hence why these protagonists are often reduced to a single defining trait, like their gender, sexuality or skin-color... whatever current flavor of the month in american identity politics.

The Ghostbusters remake, which was mostly marketed through its female cast, would be a good example. Journalists and social-media opinion-makers saw it fit to drag James Rolfe, a nerd, through the mud for merely refusing to see the movie. Accusing him of being a 'misogynistic man-baby' when, in fact, the movie suffered from a myriad of problems not related to the female cast.

People react strongly to the fact that leftist authoritarians primarily view games not as a form of entertainment, but as a tool of political and cultural education (or rather indoctrination) as already evidenced by InterMusketeer . They seek to influence polity and policy changes through media, hence why products adhering to authoritarian left talking-points are rightfully perceived as 'agenda pushing'. These products are akin to 'bible games' that were often produced by the religious right in order to spread christian values and ideals. Libertarians hold up color- and gender-blindness as inclusive values, they view all people as of equal worth and tend to judge them individually through their actions. Hence why they reject the notions of intersectuality and radical feminism who often reduce human beings to externally identifiable superficial characteristics, like their hetero/homo-sexuality, their whiteness or blackness, or whatever silly notions these people try to come up with in order to segregate people.

Social authoritarians often seek to underline the importance of their cause by rewriting history and people don't react kindly to that. Suddenly, Star Trek: Discovery is lauded for portraying the first female black captain, completely ignoring the fact that Avery Brooks and Kate Mulgrew existed way before that. Both of these characters were hugely popular without being reduced to their gender or color of their skin. We see the same going on with Black Panther, a movie that is lauded for its 'blackness' (not my term), never-mind the fact people were enjoying 'Blade' way before that (and MiB, Bad Boys, Independence Day, Steel...). These are only a few examples, but we have the same going on in video games and comics. Tolerant people didn't give a shit back then and they don't give a shit now.

Finally, social authoritarians tend to cultivate some kind of hysterical hypersensitivity in order to spread their political views. Any perceived slight against their radical ideology is met with utmost outrage and retribution. Case in point would be the social-media shitstorm against Pillars of Eternity for a little transsexual joke by a kickstarter backer on a random graveyard stone. Obsidian replied by changing the epitaph to an even funnier jab, "a poem wrote in jest, was misread, they asked for his blood, so now he's just dead", or to apply the infamous words of Bill Maher: "learn to take a joke". The social authoritarians are certainly aware that this kind of hypersensitivity (otherwise coined by the term microaggression) is only poisoning the well and driving people away, but they don't care because it's what keeps them in positions of power and influence.

Hence why I tend to believe that their arguments are destructive by design, because they are not interested in the betterment of whatever community they are engaged in, but merely serve as a pretext to cultivate an uncritical fellowship and to strengthen their positions as opinion-makers and gate-keepers. I'm sorry, but when I have to read stuff like this...

It's nobody's business what her real motives were.

...I can only but roll my eyes. Let me just refer to John Cleese in order to close my statement.

 

[A Link to the Past]

First of all I would think long and hart if this is really sexist/racist then I would consider researchdata. then maybe I would try to contact the developer trying to find the reasoning for these scenes, characters etc.
Again I would do some Journalistic work before publicly writing about it.

But the people asking these kinds of questions in interviews are doing that. I don't see why things aren't going the same way as how you say they should.

 

[DGrayson]

You make it so incredibly hard to ignore you, because someone needs to call you out on all your dishonesty.

Really? Ueda is sexist because of hiring a female composer to appeal to women? How can you say that with a straight face when all the time people like you clamor for more women/minorities to get jobs in the gaming industry? If Ueda is sexist for hiring a female composer to appal to women, then any developer who employs black people must be racist. That's your logic.

Let me make one thing clear: when people criticize extreme feminists, sjws and the likes, they mean you. Back in OldGAF, it was users like you, Lime, CrossingEden etc. that were the absolute extreme. Stop talking as if you're distanced from the extremist feminists and sjw. You're deeply part of that group. And your weak, illogical arguments show that.

Hi Kevin, your post here is a bit on the line and could be construed as a personal attack to the poster you are quoting. Let's try to refrain from grouping and "you people" type of comments.

We gave you the benefit of the doubt so lets consider this a warning and keep it clean from here on out.

Thank you,

 

[Cybrwzrd]

"As a (label/group)" arguments/statements are so intellectually lazy, and above that are nothing more than an appeal to authority. Say "I", you don't represent a group larger than your own opinion.

 

[TheWatcher]

You don't have to play games by "the SJWs"

Nobody plays those games anyways, ie. Mass Effect Andromeda.

You saw this garbage entering the franchise with Part III. I don't need to know if my C-List throwaway shuttle driver had a husband.

 

[TheWatcher]

It's about suspension of disbelief, as well as the framing. Not heels, but look at Quiet. Quiet's design isn't in a game full of designs that are as absurd as her outfit (for men and women specifically), so it clashes. Quiet's design isn't the issue, it's how it's done. Bayonetta wearing heels is okay because it makes sense for her character and for the world. You feel me? And finally, The Last Guardian featuring a young girl jumping around isn't an issue, at least no more than a young boy jumping around is.

This is the stupidity and over analysis that I am referring too. Who cares what Quiet is wearing? Kojima made the game and characters he wanted. For Christ Sake the Metal Gear Solid franchise is about a complete and utter suspension of disbelief because you are operating in a fictional world fighting giant walking tanks manned by genetically enhanced clones. Quiet's design is fine.

 

[mr teaspoon]

The Ghostbusters remake, which was mostly marketed through its female cast, would be a good example. Journalists and social-media opinion-makers saw it fit to drag James Rolfe, a nerd, through the mud for merely refusing to see the movie. Accusing him of being a 'misogynistic man-baby' when, in fact, the movie suffered from a myriad of problems not related to the female cast.

Fuck THAT. James Rolfe got criticized because he had no reason to come out and announce that he WASN'T going to review a movie. If James Rolfe just has nothing to say about Ghostbusters, nobody cares. That he simultaneously felt the need to announce to the world that he wasn't going to see a movie while simultaneously trying to say, 'It's not like I have a problem with it' is why he gets criticized.

Also, incorrect usage of the word "fact."

People react strongly to the fact that leftist authoritarians primarily view games not as a form of entertainment, but as a tool of political and cultural education

Let me just stop you there. Games are art. And all art is political. Sometimes that element of politic can simply be that it's a product of the culture it was created in, as in 'This is a soccer game. The Khans didn't play soccer. The Romans didn't play soccer. Modern day Europeans do.' Sometimes that element can be an explicit statement. But the politics are there no matter what you do.

If you have an issue with what you perceive to be heavy-handed messaging, that's an opinion you can have, and we can disagree as to whether we like it or not.

Suddenly, Star Trek: Discovery is lauded for portraying the first female black captain, completely ignoring the fact that Avery Brooks and Kate Mulgrew existed way before that. Both of these characters were hugely popular without being reduced to their gender or color of their skin.

People care about representation. Get over it. A black male captain is good. A white female captain is good. A black female captain is good. Poor you that you have to live with, what, a month of headlines celebrating the lead in the new Star Trek series?

We see the same going on with Black Panther, a movie that is lauded for its 'blackness' (not my term), never-mind the fact people were enjoying 'Blade' way before that (and MiB, Bad Boys, Independence Day, Steel...).

Yeah, well, you obviously don't understand what people mean when they laud Black Panther for it's blackness. Have you seen it? I have. It is much more than 'there are a lot of black people in the cast.'

Case in point would be the social-media shitstorm against Pillars of Eternity for a little transsexual joke by a kickstarter backer on a random graveyard stone. Obsidian replied by changing the epitaph to an even funnier jab, "a poem wrote in jest, was misread, they asked for his blood, so now he's just dead", or to apply the infamous words of Bill Maher: "learn to take a joke".

You literally could not pick a worse, bigger hack comedian to represent your point of view than Bill Maher.

Hence why I tend to believe that their arguments are destructive by design, because they are not interested in the betterment of whatever community they are engaged in, but merely serve as a pretext to cultivate an uncritical fellowship and to strengthen their positions as opinion-makers and gate-keepers. I'm sorry, but when I have to read stuff like this...

This, honestly, is insane.

Man. I haven't been back in a while, but it looks like the EvilLore exodus really did destroy GAF. This place used to be an oasis where you could just talk about games with normal people and not have to deal with this GG horse shit.

 

[TheGraykid]

I'm afraid, I'm getting a little bit tired of arguing in circles because people either fail to engage with everything I've written, or because they constantly shift the subject of discussion in order to regurgitate the same old arguments again and again. I don't mean this in a condescending manner, but it's one of the reasons why this discussion mostly screeching to a halt.

In point 1 of my original post I've already explained why the assumption that "everything is political" is antithesis to modern democracies. I've even referenced the text of a rather influential philosophical thinker in order to convey the reason why politicizing the private sphere is a very bad idea. In point 6, I elaborated on the differences between criticism and agenda pushing. I even linked a video to Zappa in order to make it more palatable, alas all of it was quickly ignored.

I then went on and gave you a more theoretical argument, coming from the notions of political science. Again, I refuted your claim that "all games are political" and made a point as to why "games are about fun" is a very valid concern. Instead of fully engaging with it, you cherry picked the aspects that seemed to confirm your point of view and twisted my word as to make them seem in accordance with your position.

I don't think you find it hard to understand what I'm trying to say, on the contrary you make the impression to be a rather smart person. English is not my native language, so I apologize if it's not up to par, or you are simply arguing in bad faith, I dunno...



Yet here we are, repeating the same argument that you already presented in your OP. The problem is not the presence of 'political themes' or "non-white or non-straight or non-male protagonist/protagonists" as you claim. The problem is that minorities are abused as tokens in order to push the political agenda of social authoritarians and to earn brownie points among a politically aggressive vocal minority. Hence why these protagonists are often reduced to a single defining trait, like their gender, sexuality or skin-color... whatever current flavor of the month in american identity politics.

The Ghostbusters remake, which was mostly marketed through its female cast, would be a good example. Journalists and social-media opinion-makers saw it fit to drag James Rolfe, a nerd, through the mud for merely refusing to see the movie. Accusing him of being a 'misogynistic man-baby' when, in fact, the movie suffered from a myriad of problems not related to the female cast.

People react strongly to the fact that leftist authoritarians primarily view games not as a form of entertainment, but as a tool of political and cultural education (or rather indoctrination) as already evidenced by InterMusketeer . They seek to influence polity and policy changes through media, hence why products adhering to authoritarian left talking-points are rightfully perceived as 'agenda pushing'. These products are akin to 'bible games' that were often produced by the religious right in order to spread christian values and ideals. Libertarians hold up color- and gender-blindness as inclusive values, they view all people as of equal worth and tend to judge them individually through their actions. Hence why they reject the notions of intersectuality and radical feminism who often reduce human beings to externally identifiable superficial characteristics, like their hetero/homo-sexuality, their whiteness or blackness, or whatever silly notions these people try to come up with in order to segregate people.

Social authoritarians often seek to underline the importance of their cause by rewriting history and people don't react kindly to that. Suddenly, Star Trek: Discovery is lauded for portraying the first female black captain, completely ignoring the fact that Avery Brooks and Kate Mulgrew existed way before that. Both of these characters were hugely popular without being reduced to their gender or color of their skin. We see the same going on with Black Panther, a movie that is lauded for its 'blackness' (not my term), never-mind the fact people were enjoying 'Blade' way before that (and MiB, Bad Boys, Independence Day, Steel...). These are only a few examples, but we have the same going on in video games and comics. Tolerant people didn't give a shit back then and they don't give a shit now.

Finally, social authoritarians tend to cultivate some kind of hysterical hypersensitivity in order to spread their political views. Any perceived slight against their radical ideology is met with utmost outrage and retribution. Case in point would be the social-media shitstorm against Pillars of Eternity for a little transsexual joke by a kickstarter backer on a random graveyard stone. Obsidian replied by changing the epitaph to an even funnier jab, "a poem wrote in jest, was misread, they asked for his blood, so now he's just dead", or to apply the infamous words of Bill Maher: "learn to take a joke". The social authoritarians are certainly aware that this kind of hypersensitivity (otherwise coined by the term microaggression) is only poisoning the well and driving people away, but they don't care because it's what keeps them in a positions of power and influence.

Hence why I tend to believe that their arguments are destructive by design, because they are not interested in the betterment of whatever community they are engaged in, but merely serve as a pretext to cultivate an uncritical fellowship and to strengthen their positions as opinion-makers and gate-keepers. I'm sorry, but when I have to read stuff like this...



...I can only but roll my eyes.

I almost feel like we're running past each other. Even here, I have to wonder if you, yourself, are arguing in bad faith. You appear to cherry pick when you deploy the use of a definition of political which you, yourself, brought up. I have to wonder, did you read the rest of the thread here? Maybe that would provide better context for this entire debate. Let me try and show you where you have me a little confused:

You say things like "There is a fine line between constructive criticism, fear-mongering and censorship." And then don't elaborate on what that line is until maybe your most recent post.

"By now it should be evidently clear, that all those power-tripping political keyboard-warriors weaponize public pressure in order to make every developer bow to their narrow worldview." This is just mostly ad hominem, and implied intent, nothing really detailing the difference between the things you said above.

"This has nothing to do with constructive criticism, but a culture war about the hegemony of your mind. Witcher 3, Yooka-Laylee, A Hat in Time, Kingdom Come, Subnautica... how many more incidents sparked by tribalism and public outrage do you need in order to recognize the authoritarian nature of their so-called 'criticism'?" You note examples, but don't elaborate enough to actually show why you find these so egregious.

This is the rest of what you said in your point 6

"They may use 'positive words' but their methods and goals are not much different from the religious, puritanical, conservative authoritarian right. Some of you are too young, but I still remember the times when AD&D was considered satanical and when Frank Zappa was accused of perverting the youth. Man, I love Zappa's music and it saddens me greatly that in our current climate, provoking content like that would be impossible without some crazy community or media outlet creating another shitstorm for clicks and notoriety." Lots of Implied intent here, and again not really showing the difference between you deem acceptable and unacceptable. You compare what's happening now with Frank Zappa's situation, but don't really show why they're the same.

There's nothing really for me to argue here, you're just saying how you feel. Which is interesting, because I'm interested in people and your point of view. But surely you can see that this doesn't provide any real argument for why this is so awful compared critique about basically anything else in games.

"The problem is that minorities are abused as tokens in order to push the political agenda of social authoritarians and to earn brownie points among a politically aggressive vocal minority. Hence why these protagonists are often reduced to a single defining trait, like their gender, sexuality or skin-color... whatever current flavor of the month in american identity politics." Implied intent, this also ignores all the games which don't do that (Assasins Creed Origins, Watch dogs 2 for example), or all the games that get critiqued from the left for their reduced to a single defining trait or for poorly talking about minority issues (Detroit, We Are Chicago, mafia 3, The red Strings Club). It appears like you have an idea rooted in your mind of what social progressive conversations about games are like, but don't really regularly listen to them. Maybe it used to be really bad and you got fed up, but I don't really see that stuff now. I recommend Waypoint for having very interesting conversations.

The entire Ghostbusters remake event is trash from every single angle.

Then we get to talking about Social authoritarians, and you lay out what you think they are. Here we start to sort of get to your grand argument about why this is awful compared to traditional criticism. "They seek to influence polity and policy changes through media, hence why products adhering to authoritarian left talking-points are rightfully perceived as 'agenda pushing'. " I really disagree with that, especially the last bit. It ignores the basic fact that people like seeing themselves in their media. People welcome these games because they make people happy. Not in a, "Yay, we're winning this argument" way, but in a "Wow, it's cool to see a black/trans person and their experience in a product" way. Products which "adhere to authoritarian left talking-points", you speak like these pieces of art are made for you or are supposed to act as some convincer in an argument. So many of these products are tiny projects that you'll never even hear of, let alone play though. People know that, and they make these products regardless. I wish I could, but, I can't make you feel what I feel watching a show like Insecure or Atlanta. Talk to black people about what they feel when watching "Get Out", it has nothing to do with policy or politics, people are just happy that their experiences are on screen.

"Social authoritarians often seek to underline the importance of their cause by rewriting history." Here you have sorta a point, the media does talk about shows and movies from within the current lense of our culture in a way which can sometimes seem oversimplified. However, people are aware that there were black people led movies or tv shows before right now, and aren't erasing them from our culture. I think that specifically in the case of Black Panther, it's a movie that already just in it's name and premise appears to have more to say about race than any of the movies that you mentioned. It's a movie which is about blackness.

"social authoritarians tend to cultivate some kind of hysterical hypersensitivity" Yeah, no. Obviously, if you're joking about issues close to people (issues which are still happening today), they're going to feel a way about it. You might call it hypersensitive, but different people have different things which they care about. If you're a person who's not within those groups why should you feel like you can joke on them in that way. Your basic point feels especially off when people who are feminists or interested in racial change, make more fun of themselves than almost anyone else.

"Hence why I tend to believe that their arguments are destructive by design, because they are not interested in the betterment of whatever community they are engaged in, but merely serve as a pretext to cultivate an uncritical fellowship and to strengthen their positions as opinion-makers and gate-keepers." It is the betterment of the community you're engaged in, just not specifically for you. If you ask minorities, women, trans people if they feel more comfortable in the gaming community now that games that actually feature them exist, they're not going to say no. This isn't some power trip, this actually matters to us. When I see a shitty black stereotype in a video game, it makes me feel worse, it ruins my experience, whereas, for you, you might not even notice it. This critique doesn't elevate the critiquer, far from it, in fact most of the time it simply brings hate upon them because people don't like their favourite games being criticised. No gate is being kept closed.

 

[Cybrwzrd]

Fuck THAT. James Rolfe got criticized because he had no reason to come out and announce that he WASN'T going to review a movie. If James Rolfe just has nothing to say about Ghostbusters, nobody cares. That he simultaneously felt the need to announce to the world that he wasn't going to see a movie while simultaneously trying to say, 'It's not like I have a problem with it' is why he gets criticized.
Also, incorrect usage of the word "fact."
Let me just stop you there. Games are art. And all art is political. Sometimes that element of politic can simply be that it's a product of the culture it was created in, as in 'This is a soccer game. The Khans didn't play soccer. The Romans didn't play soccer. Modern day Europeans do.' Sometimes that element can be an explicit statement. But the politics are there no matter what you do.
If you have an issue with what you perceive to be heavy-handed messaging, that's an opinion you can have, and we can disagree as to whether we like it or not.
People care about representation. Get over it. A black male captain is good. A white female captain is good. A black female captain is good. Poor you that you have to live with, what, a month of headlines celebrating the lead in the new Star Trek series?
Yeah, well, you obviously don't understand what people mean when they laud Black Panther for it's blackness. Have you seen it? I have. It is much more than 'there are a lot of black people in the cast.'
You literally could not pick a worse, bigger hack comedian to represent your point of view than Bill Maher.
This, honestly, is insane.
Man. I haven't been back in a while, but it looks like the EvilLore exodus really did destroy GAF. This place used to be an oasis where you could just talk about games with normal people and not have to deal with this GG horse shit.

That is a lot of hostility. It's like you didn't take the time to comprehend what was written and instead just reacted with feelings for what you think was said.

Not everything is political. If I photograph a mountain, or paint a fruit basket, what is political about it? Art can be impartial as well, even if it is of political events. I'm not going to go back over it again since strange headache already has explained it so succinctly and eloquently - even if English isn't his/her first language.

 

[KevinKeene]

Fuck THAT. James Rolfe got criticized because he had no reason to come out and announce that he WASN'T going to review a movie. If James Rolfe just has nothing to say about Ghostbusters, nobody cares. That he simultaneously felt the need to announce to the world that he wasn't going to see a movie while simultaneously trying to say, 'It's not like I have a problem with it' is why he gets criticized.

Also, incorrect usage of the word "fact."



Let me just stop you there. Games are art. And all art is political. Sometimes that element of politic can simply be that it's a product of the culture it was created in, as in 'This is a soccer game. The Khans didn't play soccer. The Romans didn't play soccer. Modern day Europeans do.' Sometimes that element can be an explicit statement. But the politics are there no matter what you do.

If you have an issue with what you perceive to be heavy-handed messaging, that's an opinion you can have, and we can disagree as to whether we like it or not.



People care about representation. Get over it. A black male captain is good. A white female captain is good. A black female captain is good. Poor you that you have to live with, what, a month of headlines celebrating the lead in the new Star Trek series?



Yeah, well, you obviously don't understand what people mean when they laud Black Panther for it's blackness. Have you seen it? I have. It is much more than 'there are a lot of black people in the cast.'



You literally could not pick a worse, bigger hack comedian to represent your point of view than Bill Maher.



This, honestly, is insane.

Man. I haven't been back in a while, but it looks like the EvilLore exodus really did destroy GAF. This place used to be an oasis where you could just talk about games with normal people and not have to deal with this GG horse shit.

You're being super aggressive, insulting, ignoring arguments that have been made long ago, and end it with a bold lie (OldGAF was a place where you hardly could talk about games, the same way it's over at resetera now).

I'm glad you left, no need to reverse that.

 

[Dunki]

Fuck THAT. James Rolfe got criticized because he had no reason to come out and announce that he WASN'T going to review a movie. If James Rolfe just has nothing to say about Ghostbusters, nobody cares. That he simultaneously felt the need to announce to the world that he wasn't going to see a movie while simultaneously trying to say, 'It's not like I have a problem with it' is why he gets criticized.

Also, incorrect usage of the word "fact."



Let me just stop you there. Games are art. And all art is political. Sometimes that element of politic can simply be that it's a product of the culture it was created in, as in 'This is a soccer game. The Khans didn't play soccer. The Romans didn't play soccer. Modern day Europeans do.' Sometimes that element can be an explicit statement. But the politics are there no matter what you do.

If you have an issue with what you perceive to be heavy-handed messaging, that's an opinion you can have, and we can disagree as to whether we like it or not.



People care about representation. Get over it. A black male captain is good. A white female captain is good. A black female captain is good. Poor you that you have to live with, what, a month of headlines celebrating the lead in the new Star Trek series?



Yeah, well, you obviously don't understand what people mean when they laud Black Panther for it's blackness. Have you seen it? I have. It is much more than 'there are a lot of black people in the cast.'



You literally could not pick a worse, bigger hack comedian to represent your point of view than Bill Maher.



This, honestly, is insane.

Man. I haven't been back in a while, but it looks like the EvilLore exodus really did destroy GAF. This place used to be an oasis where you could just talk about games with normal people and not have to deal with this GG horse shit.

First of all James did make this video because he was constantly asked if he would review it. So yes he absolutely had a reason to say this on HIS channel for HIS subscribers. And media rightfully got bashed for their attacks against Rolfe. I bet most people did not even listen to his reasons.

Secondly: Journalists care WAY more about this stuff than the actual real world because they are deeply connected and trapped in their echo chambers. And it is a FACT that these kind of movies which get praised for their "representation often totally have a disconnect with actual viewers. EG rotten tomatoes score of critics and crowd.

Also I love how the regressive left is totally disgusted by Bill Maher. Its kind of hilarious to be honest. As for Black Panther like I would care about the representation. I rather care if its a good movie or not.

 

[Bryank75]

Fuck THAT. James Rolfe got criticized because he had no reason to come out and announce that he WASN'T going to review a movie. If James Rolfe just has nothing to say about Ghostbusters, nobody cares. That he simultaneously felt the need to announce to the world that he wasn't going to see a movie while simultaneously trying to say, 'It's not like I have a problem with it' is why he gets criticized.

Also, incorrect usage of the word "fact."



Let me just stop you there. Games are art. And all art is political. Sometimes that element of politic can simply be that it's a product of the culture it was created in, as in 'This is a soccer game. The Khans didn't play soccer. The Romans didn't play soccer. Modern day Europeans do.' Sometimes that element can be an explicit statement. But the politics are there no matter what you do.

If you have an issue with what you perceive to be heavy-handed messaging, that's an opinion you can have, and we can disagree as to whether we like it or not.



People care about representation. Get over it. A black male captain is good. A white female captain is good. A black female captain is good. Poor you that you have to live with, what, a month of headlines celebrating the lead in the new Star Trek series?



Yeah, well, you obviously don't understand what people mean when they laud Black Panther for it's blackness. Have you seen it? I have. It is much more than 'there are a lot of black people in the cast.'



You literally could not pick a worse, bigger hack comedian to represent your point of view than Bill Maher.



This, honestly, is insane.

Man. I haven't been back in a while, but it looks like the EvilLore exodus really did destroy GAF. This place used to be an oasis where you could just talk about games with normal people and not have to deal with this GG horse shit.

"Normal people" like ETDragon, Daniel and the rest of them.... turn on each other like piranhas.
Supported Daniel for years on twitter and when I said psvr could do 3 million lifetime he laughed at me and blocked me.
ET hardly plays games and is a social justice witch hunter and the rest are sheep or just as bad.
If you think they are "normal" , I got news for you... enjoy the groupthink over there but don't be surprised when a knife is plunged into your back.

 

[strange headache]

Fuck THAT.

Let me just stop you there.

Get over it.

Yeah, well, you obviously don't understand...

You literally could not pick a worse, bigger hack comedian...

This, honestly, is insane.

...EvilLore exodus really did destroy GAF.

...where you could just talk about games with normal people...

Not interested in hurling insults at each other. Instead, I'll just let your words stand on their own.

 

[TheWatcher]

Fuck THAT. James Rolfe got criticized because he had no reason to come out and announce that he WASN'T going to review a movie. If James Rolfe just has nothing to say about Ghostbusters, nobody cares. That he simultaneously felt the need to announce to the world that he wasn't going to see a movie while simultaneously trying to say, 'It's not like I have a problem with it' is why he gets criticized.

Also, incorrect usage of the word "fact."



Let me just stop you there. Games are art. And all art is political. Sometimes that element of politic can simply be that it's a product of the culture it was created in, as in 'This is a soccer game. The Khans didn't play soccer. The Romans didn't play soccer. Modern day Europeans do.' Sometimes that element can be an explicit statement. But the politics are there no matter what you do.

If you have an issue with what you perceive to be heavy-handed messaging, that's an opinion you can have, and we can disagree as to whether we like it or not.



People care about representation. Get over it. A black male captain is good. A white female captain is good. A black female captain is good. Poor you that you have to live with, what, a month of headlines celebrating the lead in the new Star Trek series?



Yeah, well, you obviously don't understand what people mean when they laud Black Panther for it's blackness. Have you seen it? I have. It is much more than 'there are a lot of black people in the cast.'



You literally could not pick a worse, bigger hack comedian to represent your point of view than Bill Maher.



This, honestly, is insane.

Man. I haven't been back in a while, but it looks like the EvilLore exodus really did destroy GAF. This place used to be an oasis where you could just talk about games with normal people and not have to deal with this GG horse shit.

Actually, the site is significantly better now that the degenerates have scattered and re-grouped into their Marxist echo chamber. You are just angry that people here are finally brave enough to voice their concerns and opinions without the threat of a dog pile and ban.

 

[KevinKeene]

A little taste of resetera. Yeah, NeoGAF is the better place to be

 

[royox]

I LOVE that now people can talk here about this topic like normal people discussing diferent point of views without the fear of a ban just for thinking diferent.

Love you all NewGaf.

 

[InterMusketeer]

Given that your perception is tied up with your ideology, is it even possible to provide critical thoughts about games and video games culture without bringing your ideology into it?

I feel like you're moving the goal posts. First you seemed to be arguing that people are perceiving an agenda that we don't actually know if it even exists or what it entails. I then present proof of this agenda existing, and suddenly you shift to the argument that all criticism is political agenda. Why didn't you argue that in the first place then? We would've been done a lot quicker that way, because I think that's mad. If I'm understanding you wrong, please explain.

A response might be to indicate that this is all she sees gaming for and that's unseemly. However, this seems like a moral response, not anything related to her criticism.

Okay, fine, then I morally object to her attempts to politicize games, just as I would if other groups or people were trying to politicize games, toys or cookies. I also think her criticism is awful. She actually argued once that there's porn ads on bittorrent tracking sites to keep women out. I'm not even joking.

Another response might be, that she is trying to change things towards her viewpoints, which is bad. In response, I'd say that almost all negative feedback is explicitly or implicitly pushing for change. If you write an article saying "black characters are being poorly written in video games" you're implicitly pushing for change.

In that example, again, you're pushing for change within the games themselves. Ms. Sarkeesian wants to use games to push change in the real world. When she's arguing that there should be more games with playable female characters, it's not because she wants those ("It's not about video games.") but rather to fight what she considers a patriarchal society. That's propaganda.

The use of the term propaganda is misleading and loaded, it implies that her work only exists to purposely mislead you

She's pretending she cares about improving games when she doesn't, by her own admission, but would rather use them as a tool to spread her political beliefs. She's also conveniently leaving out information and facts, and frames arguments and content in ways to emphasize how widespread these issues are. How is that not propaganda? Heck that video about torrents could be seen as propaganda. She just happens to never mention the fact that torrents are mostly used to illegally share pirated files such as movies, music, software and games and that no company in their right mind would want to advertise their products on a site associated with criminal behavior like that except shady porn sites. No, it's gotta be conscious and unconscious efforts to keep women from using torrents.

The most frightening thing here for me, is that it people are actually advocating for someone to not be allowed to comment on gaming, because they don't like what that person says.

Everytime you say this, I think you're talking about the authoritarian left, actually. They're the ones trying to dictate what should and should not be in video games, because certain content is "toxic" and "harmful" and "reinforcing bad real-life behavior." I would never say that about games I don't like, not even those with an obvious leftist slant like Read Only Memories 2064. I just ignore those games because they're obviously not for me.

The only ones wanting to dictate who gets to comment on games are people like Ms. Sarkeesian as well, with her video where she tells straight white men to basically shut up because they have "video game privilege." I think there's a big group of people (from GG too) who would want to have a discussion with someone like Ms. Sarkeesian, but she doesn't want to. That's the opposite of silencing people.

I think what we're seeing is one side trying to dictate what games, in its entirety, should be according to their political agenda, and another group responding: Don't do that.

 

[LaughingStock]

I LOVE that now people can talk here about this topic like normal people discussing diferent point of views without the fear of a ban just for thinking diferent.

Love you all NewGaf.

And lets hope it stays that way.

 

[royox]

This place used to be an oasis where you could just talk about games with normal people and not have to deal with this GG horse shit.

No my dear, this place used to be a hivemind were EVERYTHING that wasn't 100% white was considered 100% black and every thought outside of that hivemind was punished with bans so a lot of people just never talked about those topics or they just played along with the hive. If you were more comfortable that way you know the name of the community you want to stay but I want you here because I love diversity of opinions.

I end the offtopic here. Sorry for the intrusion.

 

[TheGraykid]

I feel like you're moving the goal posts. First you seemed to be arguing that people are perceiving an agenda that we don't actually know if it even exists or what it entails. I then present proof of this agenda existing, and suddenly you shift to the argument that all criticism is political agenda. Why didn't you argue that in the first place then? We would've been done a lot quicker that way, because I think that's mad. If I'm understanding you wrong, please explain.


Okay, fine, then I morally object to her attempts to politicize games, just as I would if other groups or people were trying to politicize games, toys or cookies. I also think her criticism is awful. She actually argued once that there's porn ads on bittorrent tracking sites to keep women out. I'm not even joking.


In that example, again, you're pushing for change within the games themselves. Ms. Sarkeesian wants to use games to push change in the real world. When she's arguing that there should be more games with playable female characters, it's not because she wants those ("It's not about video games.") but rather to fight what she considers a patriarchal society. That's propaganda.


She's pretending she cares about improving games when she doesn't, by her own admission, but would rather use them as a tool to spread her political beliefs. She's also conveniently leaving out information and facts, and frames arguments and content in ways to emphasize how widespread these issues are. How is that not propaganda? Heck that video about torrents could be seen as propaganda. She just happens to never mention the fact that torrents are mostly used to illegally share pirated files such as movies, music, software and games and that no company in their right mind would want to advertise their products on a site associated with criminal behavior like that except shady porn sites. No, it's gotta be conscious and unconscious efforts to keep women from using torrents.


Everytime you say this, I think you're talking about the authoritarian left, actually. They're the ones trying to dictate what should and should not be in video games, because certain content is "toxic" and "harmful" and "reinforcing bad real-life behavior." I would never say that about games I don't like, not even those with an obvious leftist slant like Read Only Memories 2064. I just ignore those games because they're obviously not for me.

The only ones wanting to dictate who gets to comment on games are people like Ms. Sarkeesian as well, with her video where she tells straight white men to basically shut up because they have "video game privilege." I think there's a big group of people (from GG too) who would want to have a discussion with someone like Ms. Sarkeesian, but she doesn't want to. That's the opposite of silencing people.

I think what we're seeing is one side trying to dictate what games, in its entirety, should be according to their political agenda, and another group responding: Don't do that.

Okay, I think you've convinced me specifically as it relates to Anita. I still think it's interesting to have a "feminist view on video games" thing, but I think it's reasonable to not want to watch that or to take it with a grain of salt because it has a clear political agenda. The vitriol towards her is the thing that's so surprising to me though, is the thing that irritates people that she got so big and was able to have a huge voice?

I will always think we always need new voices speaking on gaming, even if they're ones we can dismiss as being stupid. And, I would be careful using the word propaganda, because some of the things you say "conveniently leaving out information and facts, and frames arguments and content in ways to emphasize how widespread these issues are." refers to so much of current media discussion on all sides of the aisle, mostly not even with the intent to cause harm.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Nobody plays those games anyways, ie. Mass Effect Andromeda.

You saw this garbage entering the franchise with Part III. I don't need to know if my C-List throwaway shuttle driver had a husband.

ME:A did poorly because of its technical issues first and foremost.

 

[A Link to the Past]

This is the stupidity and over analysis that I am referring too. Who cares what Quiet is wearing? Kojima made the game and characters he wanted. For Christ Sake the Metal Gear Solid franchise is about a complete and utter suspension of disbelief because you are operating in a fictional world fighting giant walking tanks manned by genetically enhanced clones. Quiet's design is fine.

People care because people criticize art. "Kojima made t he game and characters he wanted." Well that's nice, but I don't like the character he made, so I will talk about that character. It's just that simple.

Also, you literally didn't read my post because you're agreeing with me. "Quiet's design isn't the issue, it's how it's done."

 

[TheWatcher]

ME:A did poorly because of its technical issues first and foremost.

And why did it have technical issues? Because the focus was on hiring a 'diverse' development team instead of a competent one.

 

[InterMusketeer]

Okay, I think you've convinced me specifically as it relates to Anita. I still think it's interesting to have a "feminist view on video games" thing, but I think it's reasonable to not want to watch that or to take it with a grain of salt because it has a clear political agenda. The vitriol towards her is the thing that's so surprising to me though, is the thing that irritates people that she got so big and was able to have a huge voice?

I will always think we always need new voices speaking on gaming, even if they're ones we can dismiss as being stupid. And, I would be careful using the word propaganda, because some of the things you say "conveniently leaving out information and facts, and frames arguments and content in ways to emphasize how widespread these issues are." refers to so much of current media discussion on all sides of the aisle, mostly not even with the intent to cause harm.

I think people dislike(d) her because she got big, had a huge voice, and acted liked the people who disagreed with her were either wrong or harassers. They were probably also frustrated there was no one who countered her views in mainstream media. Her arguments were taken at face value, and no one seemed to be interested in critically examining her work. I agree with you that maybe she didn't intentionally leave out facts or frame things in dishonest ways. Maybe those were just honest mistakes. However, she never revised any of the arguments she made in earlier videos or corrected herself in any way. She says her works is checked multiple times and that there can be no mistakes. She seems to only double down when confronted with arguments that counter hers. I can only conclude then that she's not interested in presenting the full story.

 

[A Link to the Past]

And why did it have technical issues? Because the focus was on hiring a 'diverse' development team instead of a competent one.

Except what happened to Mass Effect: Andromeda is not an unusual thing to have happen. Sequels can and do do poorly, even when they don't make a point of hiring a diverse development team. Since there's nothing to suggest that this is a unique problem that is experienced by games like ME:A due to this, so I'll need to see something with greater evidence than that.

 

[Flying Toaster]

And why did it have technical issues? Because the focus was on hiring a 'diverse' development team instead of a competent one.

I see the point you are trying to make but it is disingenuous to limit the conversation to "diverse" workforce as the reason for technical issues. The game was heavily burdened with many issues that had nothing to do with "diversity" and more to do with power struggles and bureaucracy.

 

[KevinKeene]

I think people dislike(d) her because she got big, had a huge voice, and acted liked the people who disagreed with her were either wrong or harassers. They were probably also frustrated there was no one who countered her views in mainstream media. Her arguments were taken at face value, and no one seemed to be interested in critically examining her work. I agree with you that maybe she didn't intentionally leave out facts or frame things in dishonest ways. Maybe those were just honest mistakes. However, she never revised any of the arguments she made in earlier videos or corrected herself in any way. She says her works is checked multiple times and that there can be no mistakes. She seems to only double down when confronted with arguments that counter hers. I can only conclude then that she's not interested in presenting the full story.

I mean, let's just remember how all past Anita-threads went when someone dared criticizing her:

Option 1: 'You didn't get the point!'

Option 2: 'GamerGator!'

Option 3: *dogpile*

That's what contributed to many gamers disliking her.

 

[Dunki]

Okay, I think you've convinced me specifically as it relates to Anita. I still think it's interesting to have a "feminist view on video games" thing, but I think it's reasonable to not want to watch that or to take it with a grain of salt because it has a clear political agenda. The vitriol towards her is the thing that's so surprising to me though, is the thing that irritates people that she got so big and was able to have a huge voice?

I will always think we always need new voices speaking on gaming, even if they're ones we can dismiss as being stupid. And, I would be careful using the word propaganda, because some of the things you say "conveniently leaving out information and facts, and frames arguments and content in ways to emphasize how widespread these issues are." refers to so much of current media discussion on all sides of the aisle, mostly not even with the intent to cause harm.

Just like the left created the Monster called Milo. Gamergate in the end created the monster called Anita. Both of these groups made the person they despised the most untouchable due to their actions.

And I prsonally thing people hated her so much because of her scumy ways. She is really one I would call a professional Victim. For example there was only one time when she allowed comments and that was during the fundraiser and before she gained steam with the media. And she used these comments to archive her goal. She knew exactly how she can gain more sympathy and money due too these actions. Another would be that a non profit organisation suddendly made 500k $ profit. When she then lost steam she tried to get back and commented how she is the victim. Even when her second kickstarter totally bombed suddendly she had articles about the gamergate past etc.

Another time I can remember was the time she posted pics on her twitter while being on Notch's party. Back then Notch was a name everyone even respected. She went there and twetted liek he was totally invited. In the end Notch did not even know who brought her there. And he could have not said. You were not invited go home. There are so many reasons why people hated her ways and she as a person. So I can totally understand the hatred she got. But she also used all this hatred to gain more money.

When I think about it Milo and Anita are very much alike in their characters and how they archive their goals.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I think people dislike(d) her because she got big, had a huge voice, and acted liked the people who disagreed with her were either wrong or harassers. They were probably also frustrated there was no one who countered her views in mainstream media. Her arguments were taken at face value, and no one seemed to be interested in critically examining her work. I agree with you that maybe she didn't intentionally leave out facts or frame things in dishonest ways. Maybe those were just honest mistakes. However, she never revised any of the arguments she made in earlier videos or corrected herself in any way. She says her works is checked multiple times and that there can be no mistakes. She seems to only double down when confronted with arguments that counter hers. I can only conclude then that she's not interested in presenting the full story.

First off, I think it's somewhat unfair to separate the dislike she accrued before she even had a product to dislike.

Second off, your discussion on her mistakes is actually somewhat interesting. One of the reasons why there aren't that many mainstream critics of Anita is because so many of the people who go after her have a lot of venom behind their critique. A good idea presented poorly does more harm to the idea than not expressing it at all. Going further, there are some specific critics of Anita who do very similar things to what you claim re: not fixing errors. Thunderf00t for example I have seen not just make errors but actually dishonestly frame things in such a way that makes certain things seem like they say something different than what she actually said. That is why mainstream critique of Anita Sarkeesian is so difficult - because the most popular ones are dishonest and mean-spirited. Because yes, a mainstream counterpoint should exist. It's just like actually talking about ethics in games journalism. Due to so many people taking the piss out of that discussion, you kind of have to preface an actual interest in the discussion, rather than it merely being a scapegoat.

Just like the left created the Monster called Milo. Gamergate in the end created the monster called Anita. Both of these groups made the person they despised the most untouchable due to their actions.

And I prsonally thing people hated her so much because of her scumy ways. She is really one I would call a professional Victim. For example there was only one time when she allowed comments and that was during the fundraiser and before she gained steam with the media. And she used these comments to archive her goal. She knew exactly how she can gain more sympathy and money due too these actions. Another would be that a non profit organisation suddendly made 500k $ profit. When she then lost steam she tried to get back and commented how she is the victim. Even when her second kickstarter totally bombed suddendly she had articles about the gamergate past etc.

Another time I can remember was the time she posted pics on her twitter while being on Notch's party. Back then Notch was a name everyone even respected. She went there and twetted liek he was totally invited. In the end Notch did not even know who brought her there. And he could have not said. You were not invited go home. There are so many reasons why people hated her ways and she as a person. So I can totally understand the hatred she got. But she also used all this hatred to gain more money.

When I think about it Milo and Anita are very much alike in their characters and how they archive their goals.

Comments are generally disabled due to there being a significant garbage comments to the point that there is not value to having a comments section. This is a silly argument.

 

[PtM]

If she can shit on other people, she needs to accept other people can do the same.

Except she didn't. She talked a bunch about games and gamers got squeamish about their safe spaces.

 

[TheGraykid]

Just like the left created the Monster called Milo. Gamergate in the end created the monster called Anita. Both of these groups made the person they despised the most untouchable due to their actions.

And I prsonally thing people hated her so much because of her scumy ways. She is really one I would call a professional Victim. For example there was only one time when she allowed comments and that was during the fundraiser and before she gained steam with the media. And she used these comments to archive her goal. She knew exactly how she can gain more sympathy and money due too these actions. Another would be that a non profit organisation suddendly made 500k $ profit. When she then lost steam she tried to get back and commented how she is the victim. Even when her second kickstarter totally bombed suddendly she had articles about the gamergate past etc.

Another time I can remember was the time she posted pics on her twitter while being on Notch's party. Back then Notch was a name everyone even respected. She went there and twetted liek he was totally invited. In the end Notch did not even know who brought her there. And he could have not said. You were not invited go home. There are so many reasons why people hated her ways and she as a person. So I can totally understand the hatred she got. But she also used all this hatred to gain more money.

When I think about it Milo and Anita are very much alike in their characters and how they archive their goals.

I can agree with "Just like the left created the Monster called Milo. Gamergate in the end created the monster called Anita. Both of these groups made the person they despised the most untouchable due to their actions."

But, Milo is so far worse to me, he's a human shitstain. Anita, at least, never advocated for sexual relationships with children, and she, at least, wrote her own shit, and she, at least, never had a presentation where she blew up a picture of one of her opponents as a teenager and wrote the words "UNFUCKABLE” over the top. I understand the idea, but Milo is just trash. I mean he doesn't even believe in climate change!

I think people dislike(d) her because she got big, had a huge voice, and acted liked the people who disagreed with her were either wrong or harassers. They were probably also frustrated there was no one who countered her views in mainstream media. Her arguments were taken at face value, and no one seemed to be interested in critically examining her work. I agree with you that maybe she didn't intentionally leave out facts or frame things in dishonest ways. Maybe those were just honest mistakes. However, she never revised any of the arguments she made in earlier videos or corrected herself in any way. She says her works is checked multiple times and that there can be no mistakes. She seems to only double down when confronted with arguments that counter hers. I can only conclude then that she's not interested in presenting the full story.

I think harassment is a legitimate thing due to how big she got. When you get that big and so many people are contacting you at the same time, it's difficult to separate genuine critique from harassment. I think also we as a community need to be better at coming up with spaces where genuine, non-disingenuous critique can occur (twitter is not that). I also think if you're a public speaker, you owe your audience debate, you owe them you addressing the arguments people put against you.