GamerGate: a discussion without internet-murdering each other about it

Sep 26, 2014
1,766
967
330
Let's say I play a game and interpret a lazy stereotyping within a minority character, in that moment any criticism I gave is political (I have the political viewpoint that minorities shouldn't be stereotyped by people or in media), but also on a pure "fun" level my fun has been ruined, I'll feel emotionally hurt, not without good reason. Those are the moments that make it so hard for me to buy into the idea that I could even enjoy games purely on a "fun" level.
What if, while you interpreted it as lazy stereotyping, the dev added that character because it was a representation of themselves? What if the dev that created that character was a part of that minority?
 
Likes: ph33rknot
Jul 12, 2012
9,999
1,211
490
This is broadening the definition of what anyone means by political. We are battling with language itself here. Whenever anyone cries politics, they're always talking about active political issues. These are the issues that are topical, controversial, and are being debated. There's nothing politically topical nor controversial about you being a Fin. Just about every person will acknowledge that title or description for you, and if they're not aware of what it means to be a Fin, they'll defer to their environment and will generally accept you having that title. If the nation of Fin was in the process of being divided and Fin's were now voting on whether they wanted to be in camp Finland #1 or camp Finland #2, then attempts to sway opinion's into whether they wanted to be in camp #1 or camp #2 would be considered a topical political issue and thus would piss the "politics" crowd off.

Maybe "political" isn't the best word to use to describe the issue's that GamerGater's had since it isn't narrow enough, but it is the word they're using because it was the closest word that people seemed to latch onto. It is possible that this is the word people use because it is easy to dismiss using the tools anti-GGers were already using: things like arguing perspective and fussing over definitions. The arguments are not going to stop until they're resolved and they'll never be resolved if people won't accept what the problem was to begin with.
The people saying "but everything is political, even a mountain or tree!" are basically just being obtuse. I guess we can call it political activism if that's clearer.
 
Jan 15, 2009
1,521
1
0
It was refreshing to play the opening sequences of Kingdom Come last night. I can see why the left is rallying against the so-called 'Nazi' developer. The plot features the themes of family values, dedication to country, and of course it is historically accurate and in tune with the developer's vision.

Can you clarify for me.

Are you implying that the people who hate Nazi's hate them because those people dislike the ideas of "family values, dedication to country, and historical accuracy"?
 

Fanthomas

Neo Member
Feb 10, 2018
19
19
100
Can you clarify for me.

Are you implying that the people who hate Nazi's hate them because those people dislike the ideas of "family values, dedication to country, and historical accuracy"?
In a sense, yes. If you believe in these three concepts, which I by the way strongly do, there are people out there who will label you as a National Socialist.
I mean I've personally been accused of spreading National Socialistic propaganda in the past for talking favorable of patriotism and the importance of the nuclear family. This sort of thinking exists and it's a very common standpoint among the alt-left.
 
Likes: Darryl
Jul 12, 2012
9,999
1,211
490
i imagine that whatever straw-man you want would be very common among the alt-left, considering the phrase is just a right wing fabrication invented exactly for that purpose
People need to stop being pedantic about the "alt-left" moniker. You know damn well what people mean when they say it. You should be happy people bother differentiating between the plain old left, and the militant/radical/thought-police/etc left.
 

SatansReverence

Hipster Princess
Mar 30, 2012
3,998
1,039
555
Australia
www.neogaf.com
People need to stop being pedantic about the "alt-left" moniker. You know damn well what people mean when they say it. You should be happy people bother differentiating between the plain old left, and the militant/radical/thought-police/etc left.
The problem is, the "alt-left" so to speak is a much larger portion of the left in general than the alt right is to the right and the best defence they can manage is to call anyone sitting to the right of chairman mao, hitler.
 
Jul 12, 2012
9,999
1,211
490
I've literally never heard anyone use the phrase "alt-left" unironically except on social media and Internet message boards.
Again, when people say it you know full wall what they mean. So I don't see the problem. Unless we're going to start claiming the term is offensive, and brand it hate speech or something.
 
Jun 17, 2006
3,726
236
1,050
Again, when people say it you know full wall what they mean. So I don't see the problem. Unless we're going to start claiming the term is offensive, and brand it hate speech or something.
I don't have a problem with it. It's just difficult to take seriously.

I guess I don't "get" it, which certainly means I don't "know full well" what people mean by it. Is it this "chairman mao" and "thought police" nonsense that people keep bringing up?

Can we just use more precise language instead of schoolyard labels?
 
Last edited:
Aug 1, 2015
1,656
14
0
I've literally never heard anyone use the phrase "alt-left" unironically except on social media and Internet message boards.
donald trump used it (coined it?) when he was busy defending and/or deflecting attention from his flock of neonazis in charlottesville

idk how far the term went on the conservative propaganda networks because i only read "fake news" from the "liberal media"

You know damn well what people mean when they say it.
all i know is that it's the great oppressor of the alt-right so that they can have a persecution complex about it, but i have no idea who that could be
 
Jan 11, 2018
261
207
190
And anybody with logic who watched that James Rolfe video on Ghostbusters could deduce that he hated the direction of the story, plot, and franchise, and not the fact that it was an all female reboot. I am embarrassed to say that I watched the film, but I also find it strangely ironic that it was Chris Hemsworth performance that eclipses the newly appointed Ghostbusters.
Can you clarify for me.

Are you implying that the people who hate Nazi's hate them because those people dislike the ideas of "family values, dedication to country, and historical accuracy"?

No I am implying that they hate the man and the principles that he stands for and because he won't wilt into compromising his vision for some ridiculous and hypocritical ideals. That is another problem that this forum had and its subsequent FrankenEra it spawned, respecting developers and industry insiders. I don't care for Gamergate or anti-gamergate, I have thoughts of my own. I believe that all religions are ridiculous hocus pocus, but I don't try to push my thoughts on others. I find it particularly strange that there seems to be this double standard with regards to criticism towards Christianity and Christian ideals. That those that still hold those ideals are called 'backward' or 'red necks'. The irony here being that this game so far presents an actual critical view of nobility, royalty, religion, and how they had negatively impacted the common peasant in 15th Century Bohemia. Another theme those that critique this game from their soap boxes will also overlook is loyalty. I guess guys like Gies and Klepek are loyal to green money though, bought and paid for they are, more activists than game journalists.
 

RafterXL

Neo Member
Oct 24, 2017
16
11
90
I don't have a problem with it. It's just difficult to take seriously.

I guess I don't "get" it, which certainly means I don't "know full well" what people mean by it. Is it this "chairman mao" and "thought police" nonsense that people keep bringing up?

Can we just use more precise language instead of schoolyard labels?
It's the extreme authoritarian left, and if that's not a good enough descriptor bat-shit crazies will do. If you need examples the other place is proving to be a hot bed of bat-shit crazy so you can find plenty there.
 
Jun 17, 2006
3,726
236
1,050
It's the extreme authoritarian left, and if that's not a good enough descriptor bat-shit crazies will do. If you need examples the other place is proving to be a hot bed of bat-shit crazy so you can find plenty there.
I haven't seen anyone like what you've just described over at ResetEra ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'll keep an eye out, though.
 
Mar 10, 2013
12,222
187
505
The Netherlands
I never really got into the whole gamergate discussion. On one hand you had the extreme right 4chan trolls and on the other you had the extreme left where you were instantly marked a nazi if you didn't agree. Thanks to this I never got into the discussion as both sides felt strange and too extreme for me. Funnily enough by staying out of it I don't feel that it had an impact on me or how I view gaming.
 
Oct 24, 2017
5,283
3,883
315
For games as political agenda
I personally think that some people try to find these things in every game. For example monster hunter and the issue of hunting and animal cruelty. Which would be fine if you where some random guy on some forum. It however becomes a problem when a journalist does this. Best example was for example horizon 3 and the importance to Australian right wing politics. I think gay rights abortion etc was also a topic can’t honestly remember anymore because it was really stupid
 
Jul 12, 2012
9,999
1,211
490
Calling people "extreme authoritarians" and "batshit crazy" just because you disagree with them seems pretty comparable to calling people "neo-nazis" and "racists" for the same reasons. I thought we'd all moved on from that?
Clearly you and I don't agree as to what constitutes an extreme authoritarian. I guess there is a degree of subjectivity to it, but if you don't see the zero tolerance "if you're not 100% with us, you're our enemy" mentality cropping up often, then I don't know what to tell you. Agree to disagree at that point I guess.
 
Jun 17, 2006
3,726
236
1,050
Clearly you and I don't agree as to what constitutes an extreme authoritarian. I guess there is a degree of subjectivity to it, but if you don't see the zero tolerance "if you're not 100% with us, you're our enemy" mentality cropping up often, then I don't know what to tell you. Agree to disagree at that point I guess.
Yeah as I said, I haven't come across anything like that in my 10+ years on GAF or any of my time so far at ResetERA, but as I also said, I'll keep an eye out for it. It certainly sounds off-putting. Maybe I just don't hang out in the types of topics where that generally happens (or bail quickly before it gets to that point)?

I've always found it fascinating that people's perceptions of big public spaces online (GAF, reddit, etc) can be so dramatically different based on the niches and areas they frequent. It's remarkable that the groups are large and diverse enough for that to even be possible.
 
Nov 17, 2013
482
111
0
A Force for good: why the Last Jedi is the most triumphantly feminist Star Wars movie yet

THE LAST JEDI IS THE MOST FEMINIST STAR WARS MOVIE YET

Women's Stories Are More Prominent Than Ever in 'Star Wars: The Last Jedi'

Star Wars: The Last Jedi Offers the Harsh Condemnation of Mansplaining We Need in 2017

It's a Really Big Deal That 'Doctor Who' and 'Star Wars' Centered Their New Stories Around Women

How the women of 'The Last Jedi' make 'Star Wars' a Force

It does happen.


In a free society you're going to run into things you don't like. Like a stereotype you find offensive. If that's enough to ruin your fun and hurt your feelings, I don't know what to say. When I play a game, watch a movie or listen to an album, I don't expect to like every section, scene or phrase, or that I'll agree with all ideas presented within. I just ignore the stuff I don't like, and focus on that which I do like. You have to develop a personal shield that protects you from all the stuff you disagree with that you'll inevitably be faced with.
Okay cool, I was wrong about that then. I also would like to point out that most of those places are all left wing or female focused outlets. And half of those stories are people just going, "I like that there are non-sidlined women in star wars.

I'm not saying I need to agree with everything in a piece of art to have fun. If I needed that I would have put down a lot of art. I'm saying that if I interpret something egregious, then I'd like to be able to talk about it. I don't think that's unreasonable.

What if, while you interpreted it as lazy stereotyping, the dev added that character because it was a representation of themselves? What if the dev that created that character was a part of that minority?
That's understandable. I used the words "interpret" for a reason though. I would never say my interpretation would be a fact. Also, I would like to point out that minorities aren't exempt from making problematic work about their group. It's a running joke about Tyler Perry movies, that all the bad guys tend to be really dark skin bald men. I see nothing wrong with talking through these things, and us all debating about our interpretations.
 
Last edited:
Likes: monegames
Jun 25, 2015
2,472
656
265
Finland
This is broadening the definition of what anyone means by political. We are battling with language itself here. Whenever anyone cries politics, they're always talking about active political issues. These are the issues that are topical, controversial, and are being debated. There's nothing politically topical nor controversial about you being a Fin. Just about every person will acknowledge that title or description for you, and if they're not aware of what it means to be a Fin, they'll defer to their environment and will generally accept you having that title. If the nation of Fin was in the process of being divided and Fin's were now voting on whether they wanted to be in camp Finland #1 or camp Finland #2, then attempts to sway opinion's into whether they wanted to be in camp #1 or camp #2 would be considered a topical political issue and thus would piss the "politics" crowd off.

Maybe "political" isn't the best word to use to describe the issue's that GamerGater's had since it isn't narrow enough, but it is the word they're using because it was the closest word that people seemed to latch onto. It is possible that this is the word people use because it is easy to dismiss using the tools anti-GGers were already using: things like arguing perspective and fussing over definitions. The arguments are not going to stop until they're resolved and they'll never be resolved if people won't accept what the problem was to begin with.
It seems what they mean about political is a current social issue and that some try to change the, let's say, status quo. Politics isn't just about trying to fight for or against something controversial. I think it's understandable if people just don't get what they mean when they talk about keeping politics out of something because they think politics is more than just controversial issues.

Maybe the correct thing would be to say they don't want current social issues to be openly dealt with in video games.
 
Oct 24, 2017
256
468
215
What Gamergate failed however is control the social media narrative.

While the fringe of Gamergate and the fringe of let's call it the authoritarian left use the same tools (death threats, bullying, dogpiling) to fight against different opinions, the extreme left was always better in justifying it. Because of the idea of the system of oppression, them bullying somebody into a suicide or suicide attempt or making them losing their job is justifiable, because it is punching upwards. While everything the Gamergate people did was always hateful, because according to the system of oppression they are punching down. So everybody in Gamergate was always responsible for the actions of their most extreme people and members of the authoritarian left can rationalize the attacks of their most extreme followers.

That is why half a dozen snarky comments on twitter against some female comic artist are a harassment campaign, but bullying somebody into suicide is not. That is also why the victimhood narrative after the Jordan Peterson interview was used so fast. One side is always the victim and part of the press is actually even pushing this narrative. That is also why Nolan will not get an apology, because in the end he is just a privileged cis white male.
 
Jan 22, 2018
1,530
1,240
310
Germany
What Gamergate failed however is control the social media narrative.

While the fringe of Gamergate and the fringe of let's call it the authoritarian left use the same tools (death threats, bullying, dogpiling) to fight against different opinions, the extreme left was always better in justifying it. Because of the idea of the system of oppression, them bullying somebody into a suicide or suicide attempt or making them losing their job is justifiable, because it is punching upwards. While everything the Gamergate people did was always hateful, because according to the system of oppression they are punching down. So everybody in Gamergate was always responsible for the actions of their most extreme people and members of the authoritarian left can rationalize the attacks of their most extreme followers.

That is why half a dozen snarky comments on twitter against some female comic artist are a harassment campaign, but bullying somebody into suicide is not. That is also why the victimhood narrative after the Jordan Peterson interview was used so fast. One side is always the victim and part of the press is actually even pushing this narrative. That is also why Nolan will not get an apology, because in the end he is just a privileged cis white male.
This is indeed a central problem of GG: It never had any 'leaders' that would represent the movement.

Which makes sense, as GG is anti-authoritarian and values the individual.

That allowed members of rightwing parties like Milo, Shapiro, Crowder, etc. take advantage and abuse GG for their own benefit.
 
Likes: unknownhero
Jan 14, 2018
943
3,392
245
I just don't know if I see that happen that much within mainstream media critique.
Despite the numerous examples given in this very thread alone. The entertainment media in the U.S. has become hopelessly political and is blindly contributing to the schism going through most hobbyist communities by now (be it games, movies, books, comics, football...). The worst thing is that it's coming from a very americocentric view that seems to have forgotten that gaming has become a global community.

I think it's interesting to have non-mainstream outlets critique gaming from pre-stated political agendas. It doesn't bother me to have "the right wing gamer" discuss portrayals of Conservative societies within gaming. I find that stuff interesting.
Do you really? Judging by your unilateral view on things, I kinda find that hard to believe. I prefer critics that analyse the craft for what it is. I've come to the conclusion that most game journalists are lousy political commentators, usually parroting whatever flavor of the month political view is being shared in their trendy social-media circles. Not bashing all game journalists/critics, I just wouldn't let a cook repair my car.

And as much we talk about people like Anita (a person with a political agenda who critiques games from within that perspective) , the average gamer will gets their gaming information from whatever looks good in a store or IGN, will never hear about her or debates like this.
You know as well as I do, that this is simply untrue. Anita was given a huge platform by the mainstream (gaming) media. Which would have been fine, if it weren't for the unapologetically uncritical manner in which her word was presented as gospel, while labeling any kind of valid criticism as misogynistic neck-beard man-baby cis-scum hate trolling. So much for the political competence of most gaming outlets...

It feels like you don't feel confident that we as a culture can have people with political agendas comment on our culture without becoming radicalised.
Judging by the current state of affairs, I really don't. Especially considering the degree of fanatical fanboyism displayed by some people within the community. Fanboyism and politics is an unhealthy mixture. And especially not to the backdrop of a highly dysfunctional partly hysterical american two-party system.

I have the political viewpoint that minorities shouldn't be stereotyped by people or in media
That's not a political viewpoint, but a moral one, big difference. Unless you'd be pushing for polity or policy changes, then you would make your moral viewpoint a political issue, which would need to be discussed from an ethical standpoint.

...I'll feel emotionally hurt, not without good reason.
Listen, I don't want you to feel emotionally hurt. Nevertheless, for the sake of the argument, I cannot let that appeal to emotion slide because I think that's an unhealthy approach to things. Especially how you seem to confuse your moral with your political views. While you're certainly free to discuss these issues, you simply cannot expect every game cater to your specific moral whims, particularly considering how emotionally invested you are. Moral values are highly dependent on your social and cultural environment. Sometimes it's better to get some distance, to not take things personal, or if not otherwise possible, to simply steer clear of something while letting others enjoy what they enjoy. I know, I do and that's OK, because I usually have bigger fish to fry than to constantly niggle about something I do as a hobby. From my point of view, a lot of the outrage and drama happening on social-media is because people seem to have forgotten that.

I simply do it because it is part of the fun of partaking in any media for me. [...] Those are the moments that make it so hard for me to buy into the idea that I could even enjoy games purely on a "fun" level.
I dunno, but that sounds a bit depressing to me. Again, if it's not fun, why bother? Seems to me as if you'd enjoy political commentary much more than games. But that's your personal preference, not something that can be unequivocally generalized. Hence why I refuse the adage that 'everything is political'.
 
Last edited:

RafterXL

Neo Member
Oct 24, 2017
16
11
90
What Gamergate failed however is control the social media narrative.

While the fringe of Gamergate and the fringe of let's call it the authoritarian left use the same tools (death threats, bullying, dogpiling) to fight against different opinions, the extreme left was always better in justifying it. Because of the idea of the system of oppression, them bullying somebody into a suicide or suicide attempt or making them losing their job is justifiable, because it is punching upwards. While everything the Gamergate people did was always hateful, because according to the system of oppression they are punching down. So everybody in Gamergate was always responsible for the actions of their most extreme people and members of the authoritarian left can rationalize the attacks of their most extreme followers.

That is why half a dozen snarky comments on twitter against some female comic artist are a harassment campaign, but bullying somebody into suicide is not. That is also why the victimhood narrative after the Jordan Peterson interview was used so fast. One side is always the victim and part of the press is actually even pushing this narrative. That is also why Nolan will not get an apology, because in the end he is just a privileged cis white male.
Yep, for as much as the extreme left always talk about the "alt-right" playbook they sure do love to pull the same kind of crap. This whole punching up/punching down is hilariously transparent because when you forever paint yourselves as the victims you can attack anyone, for any reason, and claim the moral high ground because you're "punching up".
 
Likes: Kadayi
Nov 17, 2013
482
111
0
Despite the numerous examples given in this very thread alone. The entertainment media in the U.S. has become hopelessly political and is blindly contributing to the schism going through most hobbyist communities by now (be it games, movies, books, comics, football...). The worst thing is that it's coming from a very americocentric view that seems to have forgotten that gaming has become a global community.



Do you really? Judging by your unilateral view on things, I kinda find that hard to believe. I prefer critics that analyse the craft for what it is. I've come to the conclusion that most game journalists are lousy political commentators, usually parroting whatever flavor of the month political view is being shared in their trendy social-media circles. Not bashing all game journalists/critics, I just wouldn't let a cook repair my car.



You know as well as I do, that this is simply untrue. Anita was given a huge platform by the mainstream (gaming) media. Which would have been fine, if it weren't for the unapologetically uncritical manner in which her word was presented as gospel, while labeling any kind of valid criticism as misogynistic neck-beard man-baby cis-scum hate trolling. So much for the political competence of most gaming outlets...



Judging by the current state of affairs, I really don't. Especially considering the degree of fanatical fanboyism displayed by some people within the community. Fanboyism and politics is an unhealthy mixture. And especially not to the backdrop of a highly dysfunctional party hysterical american two-party system.



That's not a political viewpoint, but a moral one, big difference. Unless you'd be pushing for polity or policy changes, then you would make your moral viewpoint a political issue, which would need to be discussed from an ethical standpoint.



Listen, I don't want you to feel emotionally hurt. Nevertheless, for the sake of the argument, I cannot let that appeal to emotion slide because I think that's an unhealthy approach to things. Especially how you seem to confuse your moral with your political views. While you're certainly free to discuss these issues, you simply cannot expect every game cater to your specific moral values, particularly considering how emotionally invested you are. Moral values are highly dependent on your social and cultural environment. Sometimes it's better to get some distance, to not take things personal, or if not otherwise possible, to simply steer clear of something while letting others enjoy what they enjoy. I know, I do and that's OK, because I usually have bigger fish to fry than to constantly niggle about something I do as a hobby. From my point of view, a lot of the outrage and drama happening on social-media is because people seem to have forgotten that.



I dunno, but that sounds a bit depressing to me. Again, if it's not fun, why bother? Seems to me as if you'd enjoy political commentary much more than games. But that's your personal preference, not something that can be unequivocally generalized. Hence why I refuse the adage that 'everything is political'.
I don't want to hear Ben Shapiro's Black Panther review, but I'm perfectly fine with it existing. "I prefer critics that analyse the craft for what it is." Yes, that is your preference, and as it turns out most game critique is to your preference, people don't tend to offer up their moral or political viewpoints in reviews(even though that can greatly affect how you enjoy a piece of art). I see nothing wrong with critique that upfront tells you where politically it is coming from.

By any measurable data, Anita is a tiny piece of the gaming landscape. For all her platform she was given any popular YouTube gamer or twitch streamer averages more engagement than she has ever done with her videos. The average person who would just read Ign and maybe tune in for E3 would have probably never watched one of her videos. I think you overestimate the power of gaming media to elevate a person.

"Judging by the current state of affairs, I really don't." that's unfortunate, but I don't think the solution is trying to make it a huge taboo for people to talk about gaming from a political purview. I think you would have way more success with trying to improve the type of dialogue which we have within gaming than requesting people just don't talk about their thoughts and feelings.


I don't "expect every game cater to your specific moral values," I play many a game with completely different moral values than I, but I still want to talk about those games with people, not just to bash them, but potentially to learn and grow from them. That's the power of art. That's why it's disappointing that so many people request that we don't have that conversation.

What is fun differs from person to person. What you find to be fun may not apply to everyone else. Some people with dark souls get their fun from forming deep theories on what the lore of that world might be. One of the ways I get mine from thinking about what the potential moral messages in a game might be and how that might reflect on our current world. I don't think like that when I play football manager, but it is a part of myself that switches on when I play yakuza-0.
 
Jan 14, 2018
943
3,392
245
It doesn't bother me to have "the right wing gamer" discuss portrayals of Conservative societies within gaming. I find that stuff interesting. I find it deepens my understanding of those political ideas, and the pointing out of potential messages and themes within a game is interesting.
I don't want to hear Ben Shapiro's Black Panther review, but I'm perfectly fine with it existing.
Do you like contradicting yourself?

By any measurable data, Anita is a tiny piece of the gaming landscape.
You're just downplaying the whole debacle in order to make your own standpoint seem more palatable now that Anita has largely fallen out of favor. I'm not buying it.

For all her platform she was given any popular YouTube gamer or twitch streamer averages more engagement than she has ever done with her videos.
Yeah and for taking her arguments apart, these gamers were largely vilified by the gaming press. While the game journalists turned on their own audience for failing to see their own errors, these youtubers and streamers only grew in popularity. I hope it was worth it.

I don't think the solution is trying to make it a huge taboo for people to talk about gaming from a political purview. I think you would have way more success with trying to improve the type of dialogue which we have within gaming than requesting people just don't talk about their thoughts and feelings. [...] That's why it's disappointing that so many people request that we don't have that conversation.
I think you just filtered out the part where I explicitly stated the following: "While you're certainly free to discuss these issues..."

What is fun differs from person to person. What you find to be fun may not apply to everyone else.
Thanks for making my point.

I also feel like I am compelled to do so. Let's say I play a game and interpret a lazy stereotyping within a minority character, in that moment any criticism I gave is political, [...] but also on a pure "fun" level my fun has been ruined, I'll feel emotionally hurt, not without good reason.
Some people with dark souls get their fun from forming deep theories on what the lore of that world might be. One of the ways I get mine from thinking about what the potential moral messages in a game might be and how that might reflect on our current world.
Again, do you like contradicting yourself? Do you engage in these discussions because your fun is ruined and you're hurt, or because it is fun? Which one is it? Can't be both. I'm sorry, but I find it hard to argue with you, if you're flip-flopping around like that while being woefully unable to present a coherent viewpoint.
 
Oct 10, 2012
5,404
2,528
480
UK
theconclave.net
By any measurable data, Anita is a tiny piece of the gaming landscape. For all her platform she was given any popular YouTube gamer or twitch streamer averages more engagement than she has ever done with her videos. The average person who would just read Ign and maybe tune in for E3 would have probably never watched one of her videos. I think you overestimate the power of gaming media to elevate a person.
You honestly expect that to fly? Despite the questionable quality of her criticism of games, and the abject failure by mainstream games media to remotely challenge her conclusions, she has through their relentless promotion become elevated in the eyes of the mainstream press as a figure of notable authority on all matters gaming.

This attempt to play down the significance of someone reaching the heights of public exposure she has whilst being unchecked through any form of critical inquiry into the validity of her conclusions is a joke.
 
Nov 26, 2012
218
37
310
A lot of people in Gamergate are left, poc, women, trans. However gaming is still perceived as something mostly white cis male do, they were already wrong by default. People actively had to use #notyourshield to show the diversity within the movement.
This is simply not true. There are almost no poc/women/trans in gamergate, and the few that were, were chased out because they were women/poc/trans. #notyourshield was comprised of fake bots and white cis men pretending to be people of color.
 
Jan 22, 2018
1,530
1,240
310
Germany
This is simply not true. There are almost no poc/women/trans in gamergate, and the few that were, were chased out because they were women/poc/trans. #notyourshield was comprised of fake bots and white cis men pretending to be people of color.
Please give a source that there are 'amost no women/poc/trans' people affiliated with GG.

As for the latter: there are almost no trans people in ANY group because it's THAT tiny of a minority. Please be more honest.
 
Dec 29, 2016
28
5
100
My humble opinion:
1- Raping and discriminating is bad
2- Games are about escaping from the real world. Go to a community that uses a product to evade the real world problems and bring real world problems: you will probably be scolded with reason.
3- New wave of feminism has long time ago crossed certain lines leaving the equalitarism ideology and getting closer to a demonizing, dogmatic and dictatorial ideology.
 
Oct 24, 2017
5,283
3,883
315
This is simply not true. There are almost no poc/women/trans in gamergate, and the few that were, were chased out because they were women/poc/trans. #notyourshield was comprised of fake bots and white cis men pretending to be people of color.
I really want sources for this claim since I made a total different experience
 

Fanthomas

Neo Member
Feb 10, 2018
19
19
100
This is simply not true. There are almost no poc/women/trans in gamergate, and the few that were, were chased out because they were women/poc/trans. #notyourshield was comprised of fake bots and white cis men pretending to be people of color.
Yeah, no. The only people who were "chased out" were the ones who opposed accountability.
 
Sep 26, 2014
1,766
967
330
Iwas given any popular YouTube gamer or twitch streamer averages more engagement than she has ever done with her videos. The average person who would just read Ign and maybe tune in for E3 would have probably never watched one of her videos. I think you overestimate the power of gaming media to elevate a person.

Of course the average gamer probably hasn't seen her videos, but that doesn't mean her influence on the industry is small. As I posted earlier we know Neil Druckmann of Naughty Dog has mentioned her being an influence on his writing.
 

RafterXL

Neo Member
Oct 24, 2017
16
11
90
maybe if enough people keep crying about the left (especially in ways that have nothing to do with gaming), then it's a pretty good indicator that gamergate is more about right-wing politics than about any sort of stance against politics in games
Hate to break it to you but the vast majority of people criticizing these extreme left people aren't right-wing politically. Just because they like to toss out the label to anyone and everyone doesn't make it true.
 
Jul 12, 2012
9,999
1,211
490
Hate to break it to you but the vast majority of people criticizing these extreme left people aren't right-wing politically. Just because they like to toss out the label to anyone and everyone doesn't make it true.
This. Hell, we had the political compass thread. Almost everybody is in the lower left quadrant, and many of them are also vocal critics of these extreme elements. So at least in terms of this site, there's almost nobody that's extreme right wing to begin with, let alone being the sole critics of the authoritarian left.
 
May 3, 2011
10,543
9
525
i imagine that whatever straw-man you want would be very common among the alt-left, considering the phrase is just a right wing fabrication invented exactly for that purpose
If people got to create their own phrases for movements they subscribe to, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. When the GG stuff was starting, it was really frequent to hear people say "alt-right doesn't describe me because I'm not right wing and I'm definitely not a nazi". You can go back into the comment's sections and review the constant bitching that was going on over people who were having that label forced on them. It still is ridiculous that the term used to describe a literal modern Nazi movement was stretched to include anyone who was frustrated with gaming journalism.
 
Jan 14, 2018
943
3,392
245
maybe if enough people keep crying about the left (especially in ways that have nothing to do with gaming), then it's a pretty good indicator that gamergate is more about right-wing politics than about any sort of stance against politics in games
Let me nip that right in the bud. Nobody is 'crying about the left', what people are criticizing is the growing trend of social authoritarianism among the left. As a European leftist who tends to vote a mixture of social democrats and green, I always get a chuckle when american liberals consider themselves 'on the left', whilst clinging to the delusion that Hillary is left-leaning.

What I consider as social authoritarianism is probably best described by their view on censorship and free speech, or 'freeze peach' as they so mockingly like to refer to this basic human right. They are usually in opposition to an absolute interpretation of free speech by arguing in favor of certain restrictions. Their argument usually goes like this:
  1. The absolute definition of free speech includes the right to say anything you want
  2. Some people abuse that freedom in order to say vile and hateful things
  3. Therefore free speech is not an absolute right and must be limited
Now let me explain why that argument is not only incredibly lazy, but also antithesis to leftist values, by presenting an historical and a philosophical counterpoint.

a. The historical argument

The modern left got its historical roots during the industrial revolution. During that time, the largely urban population was forced to slave away in factories, plagued by poor work conditions and almost nonexistent worker rights. Freedom of speech and the right to peaceful assembly allowed these workers to form unions in order to organize, strike, protest and express their demands. This all happened much to the chagrin of the factory-owners, who would have very much preferred the status quo. Free speech has always, always come in favor of the oppressed and disenfranchised. From an historical perspective, free speech has always been a core value of the left and omitting that simple fact is absolutely inane and marks the difference between a leftist and an authoritarian leftist. I'm sure many a factory-owner would have loved to abuse above stated argument against free speech in order to break up those pesky unions.

b. The philosophical argument

Arguing that speech needs to be limited, because a few bad apples are abusing that right in order to express vile things is an absolutely disingenuous position. Coming from that position, basically any civil liberty can be abolished or restricted because there will always be people engaging with these freedoms in an irresponsible manner. By the same measure, you could circumcise freedom of assembly out of fear of violent protests. You could abolish the right to drive cars, because a few idiots are driving drunk or restrict freedom of movement because some people commit crimes. Besides, who gets to decide what's deemed acceptable speech? Certainly those in power and not the other way round. Yes, we have laws that deal with people overstepping their bounds, but they need to be applied on a case by case basis.

What does all this have to do with the topic at hand?

Well, I consider Anita an her ideologically charged ilk to be leftist authoritarians. Remember when they went to the UN in order to make their case that free speech needs to be restricted? They did so by explicitly conflating harassment, ridicule and valid criticism in order to silence their opposition. I quote: "Harassment is threats of violence but it's also the day-to-day grind of ‘You're a liar,' ‘You suck' ... making all of these hate videos on a regular basis to attack us and the mobs that come from those hate videos."

Like, I get that harassment is bad, nevertheless that is not the issue. I cannot let reason slide, only because somebody makes an appeal to emotion. Especially not if they are in front of a political institution pushing for policy changes that affect the lives of everybody, including the innocent people pursuing their civil liberties in a responsible manner. What about them? Do they not matter? I take issue with the insidious nature of her argument, construed in such a manner that everybody who dares to criticize could be labeled as in support of her harassment. I'm sorry, but no, just no...
  • Questioning the validity of a claim (i.e. calling somebody a liar) is not hateful speech
  • Claiming that somebody sucks, can be considered as rude, but is not hateful speech
  • Ridiculing somebody is considered satire, not hateful speech
Her appearance before the UN is doubly grating, considering how she basically characterized all gamers as being misogynistic hateful trolls. Did she seriously expect absolutely no push-back against these very serious implications? Hence why I already stated that her arguments are destructive by design and only serve to rile up people as much as possible in order to cash in on some outrage bucks. Let me tell you, anytime somebody comes along claiming to be an expert while trying to immunize himself against any form of criticism to such a high degree, you can safely dismiss it as snake-oil bullcr*p.

Listen & believe is exactly the kind of self-righteous authoritarianism that led to the owner of this forum to be judged and condemned in the public eye before he could even prove his innocence. It's the same kind of belief system that leads other closed communities (not wanna name names here) to pursue one public witch-hunt after another. That is what Anita and her uncritical press has brought upon the gaming community and I hold them responsible for that. I'm sorry but you don't get to shame me into silence, for expressing my reasoned concern only because you don't like what I have to say.

"But", I hear you say, "Anita and co. are not in positions of power, they are punching up". Yeah, no. She was given a powerful public voice, a huge platform, industry invitations and had so many people following her every word. For once, she was in a position of power and influence. She could have done so much good for women in gaming, yet she and her ilk chose to squander it all in order to impose their narrow-minded belief system by riding the outrage train for their own financial gains. I would not trust these people with any sort of political power.

Now you go ahead and label me however you want. I know what I am.
 
Last edited:
Dec 22, 2016
308
186
200
Let me nip that right in the bud. Nobody is 'crying about the left', what people are criticizing is the growing trend of social authoritarianism among the left. As a European leftist who tends to vote a mixture of social democrats and green, I always get a chuckle when american liberals consider themselves 'on the left', whilst clinging to the delusion that Hillary is left-leaning.

What I consider as social authoritarianism is probably best described by their view on censorship and free speech, or 'freeze peach' as they so mockingly like to refer to this basic human right. They are usually in opposition to an absolute interpretation of free speech by arguing in favor of certain restrictions. Their argument usually goes like this:
  1. The absolute definition of free speech includes the right to say anything you want
  2. Some people abuse that freedom in order to say vile and hateful things
  3. Therefore free speech is not an absolute right and must be limited
Now let me explain why that argument is not only incredibly lazy, but also antithesis to leftist values, by presenting an historical and a philosophical counterpoint.

a. The historical argument

The modern left got its historical roots during the industrial revolution. During that time, the largely urban population was forced to slave away in factories, plagued by poor work conditions and almost nonexistent worker rights. Freedom of speech and the right to peaceful assembly allowed these workers to form unions in order to organize, strike, protest and express their demands. This all happened much to the chagrin of the factory-owners, who would have very much preferred the status quo. Free speech has always, always come in favor of the oppressed and disenfranchised. From an historical perspective, free speech has always been a core value of the left and omitting that simple fact is absolutely inane and marks the difference between a leftist and an authoritarian leftist. I'm sure many a factory-owner would have loved to abuse above stated argument against free speech in order to break up those pesky unions.

b. The philosophical argument

Arguing that speech needs to be limited, because a few bad apples are abusing that right in order to express vile things is an absolutely disingenuous position. Coming from that position, basically any civil liberty can be abolished or restricted because there will always be people engaging with these freedoms in an irresponsible manner. By the same measure, you could circumcise freedom of assembly out of fear of violent protests. You could abolish the right to drive cars, because a few idiots are driving drunk or restrict freedom of movement because some people commit crimes. Besides, who gets to decide what's deemed acceptable speech? Certainly those in power and not the other way round. Yes, we have laws that deal with people overstepping their bounds, but they need to be applied on a case by case basis.

What does all this have to do with the topic at hand?

Well, I consider Anita an her ideologically charged ilk to be leftist authoritarians. Remember when they went to the UN in order to make their case that free speech needs to be restricted? They did so by explicitly conflating harassment, ridicule and valid criticism in order to silence their opposition. I quote: "Harassment is threats of violence but it's also the day-to-day grind of ‘You're a liar,' ‘You suck' ... making all of these hate videos on a regular basis to attack us and the mobs that come from those hate videos."

Like, I get that harassment is bad, nevertheless that is not the issue. I cannot let reason slide, only because somebody makes an appeal to emotion. Especially not if they are in front of a political institution pushing for policy changes that affect the lives of everybody, including the innocent people pursuing their civil liberties in a responsible manner. What about them? Do they not matter? I take issue with the insidious nature of her argument, construed in such a manner that everybody who dares to criticize could be labeled as in support of her harassment. I'm sorry, but no, just no...
  • Questioning the validity of a claim (i.e. calling somebody a liar) is not hateful speech
  • Claiming that somebody sucks, can be considered as rude, but is not hateful speech
  • Ridiculing somebody is considered satire, not hateful speech
Her appearance before the UN is doubly grating, considering how she basically characterized all gamers as being misogynistic hateful trolls. Did she seriously expect absolutely no push-back against these very serious implications? Hence why I already stated that her arguments are destructive by design and only serve to rile up people as much as possible in order to cash in on some outrage bucks. Let me tell you, anytime somebody comes along claiming to be an expert while trying to immunize himself against any form of criticism to such a high degree, you can safely dismiss it as snake-oil bullcr*p.

Listen & believe is exactly the kind of self-righteous authoritarianism that led to the owner of this forum to be judged and condemned in the public eye before he could even prove his innocence. It's the same kind of belief system that leads other closed communities (not wanna name names here) to pursue one public witch-hunt after another. That is what Anita and her uncritical press has brought upon the gaming community and I hold them responsible for that. I'm sorry but you don't get to shame me into silence, for expressing my reasoned concern only because you don't like what I have to say.

"But", I hear you say, "Anita and co. are not in positions of power, they are punching up". Yeah, no. She was given a powerful public voice, a huge platform, industry invitations and had so many people following her every word. For once, she was in a position of power and influence. She could have done so much good for women in gaming, yet she and her ilk chose to squander it all in order to impose their narrow-minded belief system by riding the outrage train for their own financial gains. I would not trust these people with any sort of political power.

Now you go ahead and label me however you want. I know what I am.

She's able to have "hired muscle" throw out anyone she doesn't like, she's not oppressed. People seem to want to both ante up and fold at the same time.
 
Jan 11, 2018
261
207
190
Let me nip that right in the bud. Nobody is 'crying about the left', what people are criticizing is the growing trend of social authoritarianism among the left. As a European leftist who tends to vote a mixture of social democrats and green, I always get a chuckle when american liberals consider themselves 'on the left', whilst clinging to the delusion that Hillary is left-leaning.

What I consider as social authoritarianism is probably best described by their view on censorship and free speech, or 'freeze peach' as they so mockingly like to refer to this basic human right. They are usually in opposition to an absolute interpretation of free speech by arguing in favor of certain restrictions. Their argument usually goes like this:
  1. The absolute definition of free speech includes the right to say anything you want
  2. Some people abuse that freedom in order to say vile and hateful things
  3. Therefore free speech is not an absolute right and must be limited
Now let me explain why that argument is not only incredibly lazy, but also antithesis to leftist values, by presenting an historical and a philosophical counterpoint.

a. The historical argument

The modern left got its historical roots during the industrial revolution. During that time, the largely urban population was forced to slave away in factories, plagued by poor work conditions and almost nonexistent worker rights. Freedom of speech and the right to peaceful assembly allowed these workers to form unions in order to organize, strike, protest and express their demands. This all happened much to the chagrin of the factory-owners, who would have very much preferred the status quo. Free speech has always, always come in favor of the oppressed and disenfranchised. From an historical perspective, free speech has always been a core value of the left and omitting that simple fact is absolutely inane and marks the difference between a leftist and an authoritarian leftist. I'm sure many a factory-owner would have loved to abuse above stated argument against free speech in order to break up those pesky unions.

b. The philosophical argument

Arguing that speech needs to be limited, because a few bad apples are abusing that right in order to express vile things is an absolutely disingenuous position. Coming from that position, basically any civil liberty can be abolished or restricted because there will always be people engaging with these freedoms in an irresponsible manner. By the same measure, you could circumcise freedom of assembly out of fear of violent protests. You could abolish the right to drive cars, because a few idiots are driving drunk or restrict freedom of movement because some people commit crimes. Besides, who gets to decide what's deemed acceptable speech? Certainly those in power and not the other way round. Yes, we have laws that deal with people overstepping their bounds, but they need to be applied on a case by case basis.

What does all this have to do with the topic at hand?

Well, I consider Anita an her ideologically charged ilk to be leftist authoritarians. Remember when they went to the UN in order to make their case that free speech needs to be restricted? They did so by explicitly conflating harassment, ridicule and valid criticism in order to silence their opposition. I quote: "Harassment is threats of violence but it's also the day-to-day grind of ‘You're a liar,' ‘You suck' ... making all of these hate videos on a regular basis to attack us and the mobs that come from those hate videos."

Like, I get that harassment is bad, nevertheless that is not the issue. I cannot let reason slide, only because somebody makes an appeal to emotion. Especially not if they are in front of a political institution pushing for policy changes that affect the lives of everybody, including the innocent people pursuing their civil liberties in a responsible manner. What about them? Do they not matter? I take issue with the insidious nature of her argument, construed in such a manner that everybody who dares to criticize could be labeled as in support of her harassment. I'm sorry, but no, just no...
  • Questioning the validity of a claim (i.e. calling somebody a liar) is not hateful speech
  • Claiming that somebody sucks, can be considered as rude, but is not hateful speech
  • Ridiculing somebody is considered satire, not hateful speech
Her appearance before the UN is doubly grating, considering how she basically characterized all gamers as being misogynistic hateful trolls. Did she seriously expect absolutely no push-back against these very serious implications? Hence why I already stated that her arguments are destructive by design and only serve to rile up people as much as possible in order to cash in on some outrage bucks. Let me tell you, anytime somebody comes along claiming to be an expert while trying to immunize himself against any form of criticism to such a high degree, you can safely dismiss it as snake-oil bullcr*p.

Listen & believe is exactly the kind of self-righteous authoritarianism that led to the owner of this forum to be judged and condemned in the public eye before he could even prove his innocence. It's the same kind of belief system that leads other closed communities (not wanna name names here) to pursue one public witch-hunt after another. That is what Anita and her uncritical press has brought upon the gaming community and I hold them responsible for that. I'm sorry but you don't get to shame me into silence, for expressing my reasoned concern only because you don't like what I have to say.

"But", I hear you say, "Anita and co. are not in positions of power, they are punching up". Yeah, no. She was given a powerful public voice, a huge platform, industry invitations and had so many people following her every word. For once, she was in a position of power and influence. She could have done so much good for women in gaming, yet she and her ilk chose to squander it all in order to impose their narrow-minded belief system by riding the outrage train for their own financial gains. I would not trust these people with any sort of political power.

Now you go ahead and label me however you want. I know what I am.

Damn dude, brilliant post. I'd like to add that in England at the turn of the century, factory owners bought and promoted local professional football teams in an effort to distract their workers. It was also a sly ploy to recirculate money back into the owners pockets. This place is like Bizarro World lately.
 
Jan 23, 2018
34
44
0
This is simply not true. There are almost no poc/women/trans in gamergate, and the few that were, were chased out because they were women/poc/trans. #notyourshield was comprised of fake bots and white cis men pretending to be people of color.
I know everyone already gave you hell for this, but I just wanted to break down what talk like this does to me.

I tweeted #notyourshield. I posted it, and I even directed it at a prominent games director who said the same thing you did, and I put up a nice little sign repeating what I said in my tweet so everyone knew I wasn't a fake.

And still, for some reason, people claiming to be waving a feminist flag are still, today, screeching at me that that didn't happen, I wasn't there, I don't exist.

I want to embrace people who support women. How can I not, it's the most self-serving thing I could do. But every time I come close it's like this teeming mass of white men trying holding up an their ideal of a woman and saying, no, not you. As though picking up Kingdom Come Deliverance and not thinking of the racial implications is a privilege reserved for men.

You don't get to dictate how women think. If this sounds like rhetoric you're used to agreeing with, you're right, which is why it makes me even angrier that you fail to understand it.
 

PtM

Banned
Jan 7, 2015
6,175
21
305
Because of the idea of the system of oppression, them bullying somebody into a suicide or suicide attempt or making them losing their job is justifiable
This is some bullshit.
You honestly expect that to fly? Despite the questionable quality of her criticism of games, and the abject failure by mainstream games media to remotely challenge her conclusions, she has through their relentless promotion become elevated in the eyes of the mainstream press as a figure of notable authority on all matters gaming.
Sarkeesian, our great authority on gameplay, fighting-game netcode, and loot boxes.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Bryank75
Oct 24, 2017
5,283
3,883
315
This is some bullshit.
I can not talk about you but I can cleary say that it is true for some people. Example: A writer for polygon was doxxed at the time. I warned her and she thanked me. Then I told her how gamergate is right now mass reporting these accounts and the thing she replied to me that it does not matter who did it and later blamed gamergate for her doxxing. Also I showed various examples reegarding #metoo in which verrivied journalists for the teenvogue and more famous femininst argued that it is not a big deal if innocent men are getting caught in this too. She thought of these people as collateral damage and it was disgusting when she later even tried defend this argument.

The regressive left as I call them using the same tactics and smear campaign the radical right uses. Only difference they justify these actions with standing on the right side of history. Same goes for Anitfa violence which was highly celebrated on the left side.
 
Last edited: