Support NeoGAF

[MHWilliams]

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

Once again "anti-GG" isn't a group. They're just people who for whatever reason aren't a part of GG. GG is a specific movement/group that has come together under one banner. Anti-GG is currently not.

For example, if you have people who say they're a part of religion A, everybody who's not a part of that isn't anti-religion A. Some don't know it exists, some don't care, some dislike its ideas, some are simply atheist, and yes, some absolutely hate religion A. But together they aren't a second side. It's something Fox News doesn't quite understand in its War of Religion segments.

 

[More_Badass]

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

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

I wrote an opinion piece last year about how much I dislike review scores and rankings. They're nothing but abritrary values that diminish the review itself and only fuel the fire for that kind of thinking. It's the actual review that matters, not some meaningless value like 8.75.

I always find it hilarious when people try to compare two games in different genres because they got the same score. You see that a lot in IGN comments. "You gave a [puzzle platformer] a 9? You think it's better than that [FPS] that got an 8?" It's so ridiculous

 

[Vlade]

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

I took my 3 year old to see Gone Girl. My family was victimized by corrupt journalism.

 

[plutoknight]

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

I think the problem is, Justice already has this prevailing idea of punishment attached to it, and that's exacerbated by putting a term like Warrior next to it. The type of Justice Warriors promote is not restorative and is usually violent, messy, and absolute. You don't hear Uther from WC3 talk about Serving Justice with his Hammer and then peacefully reciting discourse to the Orcs and Undead. He smites them. With his hammer. Of Justice.

Once again "anti-GG" isn't a group. They're just people who forever reason aren't a part of GG. GG is a specific movement/group that has come together under one banner. Anti-GG is currently not.

BUT BUT..the best way to understand an argument is to make it as binary and black and white as possible! /s (Though, it is a matter of perspective, and GG definitely as a "If you aren't with us, you're against us!" atmosphere to it)

 

[Neoriceisgood]

I think the problem is, Justice already has this prevailing idea of punishment attached to it, and that's exacerbated by putting a term like Warrior next to it. The type of Justice Warriors promote is not restorative and is usually violent, messy, and absolute. You don't hear Uther from WC3 talk about Serving Justice with his Hammer and then peacefully reciting discourse to the Orcs and Undead. He smites them. With his hammer. Of Justice.

You do realise SJW is a term made up by people who disagreed with them right, not a label made by people considered "SJW"s.

Some people have adopted it as a joke, but it was never meant as an actual positive name.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

I think the problem is, Justice already has this prevailing idea of punishment attached to it, and that's exacerbated by putting a term like Warrior next to it. The type of Justice Warriors promote is not restorative and is usually violent, messy, and absolute. You don't hear Uther from WC3 talk about Serving Justice with his Hammer and then peacefully reciting discourse to the Orcs and Undead. He smites them. With his hammer. Of Justice.

I agree. Justice does have the connotation of punishment attached to it. Especially here in the US. This is why I try to introduce people to the idea of restorative justice so that they can at least be privy to the fact that justice can exist without necessarily punishing somebody. I don't know if I've had any success but it's the best I can do.

 

[alstein]

I agree. Justice does have the connotation of punishment attached to it. Especially here in the US. This is why I try to introduce people to the idea of restorative justice so that they can at least be privy to the fact that justice can exist without necessarily punishing somebody. I don't know if I've had any success but it's the best I can do.

Restorative justice still involves taking from someone. With objectivist viewpoints so common in the US, that's still considered punishment.

 

[Vlade]

I think the problem is, Justice already has this prevailing idea of punishment attached to it, and that's exacerbated by putting a term like Warrior next to it. The type of Justice Warriors promote is not restorative and is usually violent, messy, and absolute. You don't hear Uther from WC3 talk about Serving Justice with his Hammer and then peacefully reciting discourse to the Orcs and Undead. He smites them. With his hammer. Of Justice.

Justice was a sarcastic term applied to people who disagreed with the group that coined the phrase, there is little use inpicking it apart as a banner, it was not a 'cause' that sought to attract people.

 

[DNAbro]

Guys I had a fever dream last night that I was a physical manifestation of gamergate and no I'm not kidding. The most notable thing about it is that I felt like shit and by the end the end of night I was sick of it.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Restorative justice still involves taking from someone. With objectivist viewpoints so common in the US, that's still considered punishment.

Not necessarily. Unless you consider putting an offender through a class to educate them on their mistakes to be 'taking from them'. I suppose you could argue it's taking some of their time (which can be as little as a few hours a week) but I don't know many who would consider that punishment compared to years behind bars and/or heavy fines while not teaching them anything.

 

[Mesoian]

I wrote an opinion piece last year about how much I dislike review scores and rankings. They're nothing but abritrary values that diminish the review itself and only fuel the fire for that kind of thinking. It's the actual review that matters, not some meaningless value like 8.75.

I always find it hilarious when people try to compare two games in different genres because they got the same score. You see that a lot in IGN comments. "You gave a [puzzle platformer] a 9? You think it's better than that [FPS] that got an 8?" It's so ridiculous

I'm all for getting rid of them. The excuse of, "not having enough time to sit down and read through an entire 1000 words" is so pithy.

 

[FoneBone]

Setting aside "SJWs" the phrase "social justice" is widely used in non-profit and activist circles (and I am talking mainstream activism, not just fringe people). It's not remotely controversial.

 

[plutoknight]

Justice was a sarcastic term applied to people who disagreed with the group that coined the phrase, there is little use inpicking it apart as a banner, it was not a 'cause' that sought to attract people.

Someone should tell my FB feed of feminists that, then! (Besides, it's fun to pick apart terms and their symbolic meanings.)

I think 'Warrior' is the sarcastic part, but 'social justice' is really a thing going back to greek philosophy. (And I'm going to commit the biggest academic faux pas ever and link you to Wikipedia: Social Justice)

 

[alstein]

Not necessarily. Unless you consider putting an offender through a class to educate them on their mistakes to be 'taking from them'. I suppose you could argue it's taking some of their time (which can be as little as a few hours a week) but I don't know many who would consider that punishment compared to years behind bars and/or heavy fines while not teaching them anything.

They would consider it a punishment regardless, as they feel like they have done nothing wrong.

Restorative justice isn't always offenders. Sometimes people benefit from situations without having done anything wrong, and those are often the folks who most resent it, as they feel like they are the ones suffering injustice.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

There's nothing wrong with linking wikipedia lol. It's just not okay to do when sourcing a proper paper.

They would consider it a punishment regardless, as they feel like they have done nothing wrong.

Good thing I don't care a single bit how "they" feel.

 

[L Thammy]

They would consider it a punishment regardless, as they feel like they have done nothing wrong.

Restorative justice isn't always offenders. Sometimes people benefit from situations without having done anything wrong, and those are often the folks who most resent it, as they feel like they are the ones suffering injustice.

Alternatively, they may feel that their time is being taken from them.

 

[Vlade]

Someone should tell my FB feed of feminists that, then! (Besides, it's fun to pick apart terms and their symbolic meanings.)

I think 'Warrior' is the sarcastic part, but 'social justice' is really a thing going back to greek philosophy. (And I'm going to commit the biggest academic faux pas ever and link you to Wikipedia: Social Justice)

Good point, but the connotation of justice in the SJW is certainly sarcastic.

Edit: and certainly not a mantle adopted, making it a pretty tough connection to make that "if you don't like GG, then you must think they need to be punished"

 

[vcc]

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

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

If you really want to get inside their heads it's more complicated than them being oppressors.

People generally need life experience, empathy, and perspective to see the advantages they have but they tend to easily see the disadvantages.

Guys within the MRA thing ussually lack some combination of life experience, empathy or perspective. They just can't see it from someone else's point of view.

So when confronted by the academic arguement of privilege of some of the less informed tumblr activists they get super defensive.

They feel singled out and advised of 'privileges' they don't see. Often they have one or more clear disadvantage like being poor, not being popular, being short, being unattractive etc... I dont mean to be simply insulting but I mean to say they can clearly see their disadvntage and they can't at all see their advantages so they get angry at why the arguement is framed in such as way that it's assumed they have advantages.

So they get really mad at the messenger instead of trying to understand the nuance of the message.

That's my understanding of MRA people and the associated groups. You can throw all the statistics in the world at them but they whine about the stats being misleading and how the white male is the true down trodden and will often cite the desprately poor apalachians populations to back this up. Some of them also drift towards the genetic racism arguements and will also argue that black people having disadvantages is normal because they're inferior.

After spending years on digg and reddit; without moderation these vocal folks tend to take over. They are the reason certain topics are banned in /r/askhistroians and why /r/adviceanimals has a lot of subtle racism in it now. On digg years ago they would rove around in brigates to try and amplify their opinions as they have done with #gg now. Which is how you would have massively upvoted obvious sexism and racism threads on digg.

 

[jett]

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

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

There's a lot of people to take advantage of in this world. Look at these nobodies pretending to have a theatrical release of their non-product. People giving them their money are just fools.

It's actually kinda sad.

 

[Sneds]

Part of the problem with #GG is that some of its supporters do seem to see it as a game that can be 'won'.

 

[GamerJM]

If you really want to get inside their heads it's more complicated than them being oppressors.

People generally need life experience, empathy, and perspective to see the advantages they have but they tend to easily see the disadvantages.

Guys within the MRA thing ussually lack some combination of life experience, empathy or perspective. They just can't see it from someone else's point of view.

So when confronted by the academic arguement of privilege of some of the less informed tumblr activists they get super defensive.

They feel singled out and advised of 'privileges' they don't see. Often they have one or more clear disadvantage like being poor, not being popular, being short, being unattractive etc... I dont mean to be simply insulting but I mean to say they can clearly see their disadvntage and they can't at all see their advantages so they get angry at why the arguement is framed in such as way that it's assumed they have advantages.

So they get really mad at the messenger instead of trying to understand the nuance of the message.

That's my understanding of MRA people and the associated groups. You can throw all the statistics in the world at them but they whine about the stats being misleading and how the white male is the true down trodden and will often cite the desprately poor apalachians populations to back this up. Some of them also drift towards the genetic racism arguements and will also argue that black people having disadvantages is normal because they're inferior.

After spending years on digg and reddit; without moderation these vocal folks tend to take over. They are the reason certain topics are banned in /r/askhistroians and why /r/adviceanimals has a lot of subtle racism in it now. On digg years ago they would rove around in brigates to try and amplify their opinions as they have done with #gg now. Which is how you would have massively upvoted obvious sexism and racism threads on digg.

One thing I will say about these types of people is that you also have to keep in mind the environment they were raised in. For a long time I was one of those people who didn't believe in white/male/straight/cis privilege because growing up my dad told me over and over again that I'm at a disadvantage in the world because I'm white/male/straight so I don't get affirmative action benefits or whatever (which is ridiculous, but eh my dad doesn't have very well-informed opinions on this stuff).

 

[Noaloha]

Humour me one last time then if that's cool.

Earlier I mentioned that I felt that, even outside of its extremism problems and associations, #Gamergate could still reasonably be classed as something that inescapably aligns itself somewhat with Men's Rights Activism. Aligns itself enough to deny serious refutation at least. When you have Breitbart and Vox Day championing you, when Milo Yiannopoulos, Adam Baldwin, Christina Hoff Sommers, etc. are your frontline spokespeople, when the targets of your investigations are so, so, so frequently owners of a vagina, it's nigh-on-impossible to outright deny that there's at least a strong association. Enough of an association to colour the hashtag. Enough to conclude, with a semblance of fact, that it at least goes partway to defining the hashtag.

As was pointed out though, I'm misusing 'MRA' there. As it was explained to me, it's not accurate, not fair, to say that #GG is a cause which aligns itself with Men's Rights Activism. But I'm a tad loathe to make use of 'anti social justice'. But, I do want to formulate for myself some neat, little - like, one easy sentence neat and little - reason why I reject the hashtag; a reason which doesn't require pointing out the insipid and/or extremist behaviour (because then you simply get the bad apples rebuke), but which simply describes an observable political leaning, a political leaning that I'm strongly against.

With all that said, and with the thread's recent tangent on alternate terms for 'social justice' in mind, how would I reasonably describe the above political leaning of #Gamergate? Is it as simple as saying 'conservative', or is that too vague and milquetoast to carry across the specific issues and figurehead voices involved? I feel like the points made in the first paragraph above are sound (to me, that is), but I'm looking for a term to use which replaces my ill-chosen 'MRA'.

"Given its targets and the figureheads it has rallied beneath, there's way too much [insert appropriate specific political leaning] associated with #Gamergate."


EDIT: reading the last few posts, is the best solution really 'anti social justice'? Sadface if so. As correct a term as it may be, the phrase seemingly manifests as a zero weight concern for those who within #GG.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Part of the problem with #GG is that some of its supporters do seem to see it as a game that can be 'won'.

They have a "war on video games" mentality. Many also believe there's a "war on men" and "war on free speech" going on. They've a twisted world view and unfortunately the only remedy for many is age. For many others there is none so they are perpetually 'at war' with something.

 

[vcc]

One thing I will say about these types of people is that you also have to keep in mind the environment they were raised in. For a long time I was one of those people who didn't believe in white/male/straight/cis privilege because growing up my dad told me over and over again that I'm at a disadvantage in the world because I'm white/male/straight so I don't get affirmative action benefits or whatever (which is ridiculous, but eh my dad doesn't have very well-informed opinions on this stuff).

You definately need perspective and life experience to see past that bit of information from your dad.

 

[komplanen]

Hah I knew some of these #GG people had gone soft in the head but this takes the cake on pure stupidity.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

"Given its targets and the figureheads it has rallied beneath, there's way too much [insert appropriate specific political leaning] associated with #Gamergate."

I hate to break it to you, but anti-SJ's about as far as you're gonna get if you want an all-encompassing ideological/political motivation that embraces the various arms of #GG.

Some of the figureheads have more defined political beliefs for sure, but being anti-SJ/feminism is honestly the only true overlapping sentiment I can pinpoint.

(The "issue" is that GG is a reactionary movement that has mixed messages on literally everything aside from not liking SJ feminists.

Even the "pro-gamer" language is absolute bullshit once you're a gamer that doesn't fall within GG's understanding of the term.)

 

[alstein]

There's nothing wrong with linking wikipedia lol. It's just not okay to do when sourcing a proper paper.



Good thing I don't care a single bit how "they" feel.

If that's the case, why should they care about how you feel? You don't win social justice unless you convince folks to do the right thing even when it doesn't benefit them.

 

[Cybit]

Is it the way it should be? I'm not completely sure, but it's the environment we're in. Outside of straight news reporting, there little reason to not be upfront with the journalist's POV. There's a gulf between a story about the journalist and a story about the subject through the eyes of the journalist. It's important to stay on the latter side, but every journalist affects the overall story. I can research and dig in to a subject, but you'll probably get a more interesting interview/editorial by some intimately familiar with the subject matter. That's why sites like Shoryuken.com can survive. That's a specific POV, a specific personality. Editorial in that fashion is akin to professional blogging.

Our parents trusted "The New York Times," whereas we acknowledge that a certain set of people make the NYT what it is. Personality-driven journalism shifts the trust bond from the outlet to the person. You may not like Kotaku, but you trust Jason. The rest of Destructoid may not be for you, but you follow Max Scoville. That's completely different from the days where the trust bond was with a newspaper's masthead, not any particular writer. And occasionally you build something like Giant Bomb, where you have a while host of personalities in one place.

Plus it's a good gateway for others who aren't into a specific subject. I don't read car blogs, but I'll watch Top Gear for Jeremy, Hammond, and James May. They're my gateway into that world and they impart solid, factual information while entertaining.

So, I don't think it's a bad thing as long as those individuals stay ethical and remain cognizant of the subject.

Here's more in the overall idea if you're interested. There's lecture notes and the lecture in question at the link.
http://pressthink.org/2014/02/featu...se-model-in-digital-journalism-lecture-notes/

Ooo. I took a glance through the notes last night, will have to go through all of it after work today.

I guess my fear is that we (consumers) don't exactly reward individuals for staying ethical and remaining cognizant as the norm; I think we reward them for telling us what we want to already believe.

For me, the reason I read the NYT and watch The Daily Show / Colbert / Oliver (and all "news" in general) is that even though they may be liberal leaning (and I am liberal myself); I know that if something is effed up, they will call it out even if it is a liberal icon engaging in the behavior. Hell, Stewart has been taking Obama to task the last few months for everything going on, and I'm a massive Obama fan.

The fear I see from an enthusiast press like gaming currently has is that because all of journalism is kinda in trouble from a money perspective, and that the internet has gloriously created echo chambers for whatever subset you wish to engage in - folks like Leigh and GB are apt to telling their fans what they want to hear and preaching to the choir. While if it's a "neutral" topic it is probably less impactful (say, which sports team to root for); once you get into political discourse it makes me much more fearful that we're contributing to the polarization (and politicization) of everything. Seeing as most of these sites are targeting the same overall user base, it can also lead to a perception where everyone is "working" together.

I have a close friend who is conservative (and an Ph.D ethicist, I don't understand how the two go together sometimes...) and he has been sympathetic to the "journalism" aspect of GG in so much that he is not a fan of the politicization of gaming. As a scientist / analytics guy, I can respect that part. I can't really wrap my head around how people are ignoring the insanity with shadows of mordor and YT - but to him none of this is about "corruption" but more about "politicization".

Watching everything that climate change is dealing with, as well as our country's Ebola response be politicized - I do not want gaming to become politicized. Not every single action we do is an complete and thorough existential reflection on our total sum as a human being and must be analyzed as such.

Side Note: People don't tend to be racist or sexist or what not as much as occasionally do racist or sexist or <insert>ist things - usually out of ignorance instead of malice. Trying to quantify the entirety of someone's existence based on a single thing they've done seems petty and very judgmental. People are not single tone monotliths. We should start treating them as human beings rather than internet points to be kept score of and won.

Side Side Note: The term "Social Justice" is not remotely controversial. The term "SJW" has its' connotations from tumblr; where people saw Social Justice as a zero sum game and would war with other people over who has it worse (the term Oppression Olympics comes from this), and interpreted everything they could as having some greater meaning towards themselves and how they must overcome this "disability" and "prejudice" they have. Everything in the world was stacked against them because of this one thing they had. The best way to put it is that they are the same brand of crazy that thinks harassing women to the point of terror is worth it because the ends justify the means and they must protect "themselves". They just don't do it for video games, they do it for their specific topic du jour. Now, like many terms that started with very strong connotations (see: bigot, misogynist, misandrist, racist, sexist, etc) - the word has been thrown around on the internet to try to score points so much that it has lost much of its power. (Which pisses me off because I feel like it cheapens the horrific things that happened in the world to give "bigot" its' very negative connotation, and it has been weakened by a group of people who primarily were not those who suffered for that word to gain that negative power, but that's an aside).

 

[NoblesseOblige]

You don't win social justice unless you convince folks to do the right thing even when it doesn't benefit them.

You don't 'win' social justice at all. This is a perpetual issue that will continue so long as free-will exists. It needs to. We must always be concerned with the well being of the individual so that society at large may become healthier. We can't just draw a line, cross it, and raise the "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

If that's the case, why should they care about how you feel? You don't win social justice unless you convince folks to do the right thing even when it doesn't benefit them.

I can't give you any logical answer as to how I'd persuade the "me me me" anti-sj crowd to my position.

I'm extremely persuasive with close friends or anyone open to a rational discussion without me having to worry about stepping on their toes though, I've actually turned one friend who was fairly pro #GG into outright seeing SJ as not just acceptable, but largely valid.

 

[alstein]

I can't give you any logical answer as to how I'd persuade the "me me me" anti-sj crowd to my position.

I'm extremely persuasive with close friends or anyone open to a rational discussion without me having to worry about stepping on their toes though.

Some folks are unpersuadable.bigots.

Most folks are decent human beings. It may take time and patience to convince them, and the fact this blew up and stay blew up is a sign that things are starting to happen, but it does take persuasion to convince folks when they're wired in the other direction.

Decent human beings can be moved to great good or great evil.

You don't 'win' social justice at all. This is a perpetual issue that will continue so long as free-will exists. It needs to. We must always be concerned with the well being of the individual so that society at large may become healthier. We can't just draw a line, cross it, and raise the "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner.

I'd say the gay marriage cause is pretty close to victory at this point. I do agree that "mission accomplished" isn't something you do. There are always ways to make things better- there is no perfect society, and there never will be. Also, sometimes the well being of individuals needs to be subordinate to the collective needs of society in some cases (social welfare programs for example)

 

[tonysidaway]

You do realise SJW is a term made up by people who disagreed with them right, not a label made by people considered "SJW"s.

Some people have adopted it as a joke, but it was never meant as an actual positive name.

Sarah Chip Nixon, inspired by a comment made by Jim Sterling, produced a series of "Social Justice" class badges at GeekGirlCon 2014 last weekend. She was very pleased to see how well they sold. Anita Sarkeesian, an invited speaker, proudly displayed her Social Justice Wizard badge on Twitter. I think this is a great way to "take back" an insult, by making fun of it.

 

[tonysidaway]

Restorative justice still involves taking from someone. With objectivist viewpoints so common in the US, that's still considered punishment.

No accounting for stupidity.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Sarah Chip Nixon, inspired by a comment made by Jim Sterling, produced a series of "Social Justice" class badges at GeekGirlCon 2014 last weekend. She was very pleased to see how well they sold. Anita Sarkeesian, an invited speaker, proudly displayed her Social Justice Wizard badge on Twitter. I think this is a great way to "take back" an insult, by making fun of it.

Yep, it's also a harmless thing to reclaim so I generally consider the "social justice class"-thing a totally fun and fine development.

 

[Vlade]

Some folks are unpersuadable.bigots.

Most folks are decent human beings. It may take time and patience to convince them, and the fact this blew up and stay blew up is a sign that things are starting to happen, but it does take persuasion to convince folks when they're wired in the other direction.

Decent human beings can be moved to great good or great evil.



I'd say the gay marriage cause is pretty close to victory at this point. I do agree that "mission accomplished" isn't something you do. There are always ways to make things better- there is no perfect society, and there never will be. Also, sometimes the well being of individuals needs to be subordinate to the collective needs of society in some cases (social welfare programs for example)

I'm reminded of the Mark Twain quote "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled".

Once people have thrown there lot in with, say, GG, it is very hard to convince someone there are other things besides what they saw in it. Even once that is clear, it's easier to stick with the choice and claim its for the reasons that were the original illusion than it is to simply recant a stance you've taken.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

I'd say the gay marriage cause is pretty close to victory at this point. I do agree that "mission accomplished" isn't something you do. There are always ways to make things better- there is no perfect society, and there never will be. Also, sometimes the well being of individuals needs to be subordinate to the collective needs of society in some cases (social welfare programs for example)

When gay marriage is finally fully legalized and supported then we can claim that the cause for gay marriage is won. We can't say social justice is won though. Sexuality is but a part of being human and there are so many other parts that continue to be held back. Also social welfare is concerned with an individual's need to have access to things like medicine, treatment, food, water, etc. Those who already have those things are not losing them. They've already achieved the status of being well. Sacrificing additional wealth isn't causing them to suffer despite what they want us to believe.

 

[Zuhzuhzombie!!]

Part of the problem with #GG is that some of its supporters do seem to see it as a game that can be 'won'.

Wait...

A mob of 200k people assembled at her house?

 

[Oersted]

Wait...

A mob of 200k people assembled at her house?

No, not at the house.

 

[redder]

Wait...

A mob of 200k people assembled at her house?

Wait...

You made a joke?

 

[Camp Freddie]

Reminds me of the time I bought Citizen Kane for my 5 year old niece.
Her mum told me she loved watching films and was top of every critic's Best Films Ever list.

I find out it's some pretentious arty bollocks about a dead guy that no-one likes. Then there's all this social justice bullshit about how money can't buy you happiness.
Fuck those elitist SJW snobs.

In all seriousness, the obvious failure of #gg is that their lists of corrupt SJW journalists includes an awful lot of people who write an awful lot of articles about corruption in the games industry.
Oh, and allowing Adam Baldwin to represent (and arguably create) the movement. It's like having Mel Gibson as a leader for your campaign against corruption in the church.

 

[tonysidaway]

With all that said, and with the thread's recent tangent on alternate terms for 'social justice' in mind, how would I reasonably describe the above political leaning of #Gamergate? Is it as simple as saying 'conservative', or is that too vague and milquetoast to carry across the specific issues and figurehead voices involved? I feel like the points made in the first paragraph above are sound (to me, that is), but I'm looking for a term to use which replaces my ill-chosen 'MRA'.

Reactionary is the word you're looking for. Things are changing, it scares and irks them, so their principal targets are those they perceive to be responsible for the change. Their ultimate goals are a restoration of a perceived ideal status quo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary

 

[Tawpgun]

So whats the GG response to bayonetta

 

[alstein]

When gay marriage is finally fully legalized and supported then we can claim that the cause for gay marriage is won. We can't say social justice is won though. Sexuality is but a part of being human and there are so many other parts that continue to be held back. Also social welfare is concerned with an individual's need to have access to things like medicine, treatment, food, water, etc. Those who already have those things are not losing them. They've already achieved the status of being well. Sacrificing additional wealth isn't causing them to suffer despite what they want us to believe.

Yes. The battle for legalization, it's going to be won now, it's just a question of when and how soon.

The other stuff is the next battle. It's one that's still being fought over race.

Some folks that additional wealth is suffering. Restorative justice hurts the poorer members of the majority, not just the richer. Not everyone who benefits from problems is rich.

 

[Lime]

Vcc, What strategy and tactics would you suggest in order to convince ingrained racists/sexists/homophobes/etc. about these disadvantages of other people when they won't listen to knowledge and other People's life experiences? I'm super curious.

Thanks for the post btw I completely agree that diplomacy and rhetorics are important and it's a sensitive topic to get across.

 

[SwissLion]

Yeah the closest I can get to characterising Gamergate is something like "Aggressively Ignorant"

Like say what you will, ignorance isn't a sin. Everyone is ignorant about most things. Ignorance as an insult doesn't really manifest until someone projects it out into the world without trying to learn anything.

It's when someone shacks up with a mob because they barely know anything about it, when someone starts parading their ignorance around in public, taking their ignorance out on others. That is when it becomes dangerous and stupid.

Not recognising your own ignorance is a big problem, for a lot of people, clearly.

Sargon of Akkad is a perfect example and it's no surprise when you look at it that he's become a prominent figure in Gamergate. He takes expressing his ignorance to an art form. He believes he's an incredibly smart person, often citing his physics degree. But that means jack shit when it comes to anything that isn't physics. He's managed to fill up the holes of his ignorance with imagined nonsense, which appeals to people. But as soon as he is confronted with someone who recognises his nonsense for what it is (e.g. PixieJenni on that livestream) and starts pulling it apart, he reveals himself for what he is: an angry, confused child.

 

[Orayn]

So whats the GG response to bayonetta

"Anyone who is unhappy with any aspect of the game is an SJW Illuminati shill who wants to censor your video games."

Something like that.

 

[vcc]

Vcc, What strategy and tactics would you suggest in order to convince ingrained racists/sexists/homophobes/etc. about these disadvantages of other people when they won't listen to knowledge and other People's life experiences? I'm super curious.

The thing is you can't online. No matter how you approach it, they've errected enormous walls around their position. The best you can do is to point out the obvious flaws in their thinking to convince third party lurkers who might be undecided on the topic.

If enough people point out how ridiculous their position actually is they tend to go away but they don't change their minds.

Offline, you can. Both my current best friend and the best man at my wedding had MRA leanings as I live in the canadian bible belt. Just presenting the ideas in common sense ways tends to convince them. Like dissecting ideas about certain minorities we have and how it would influence our treatment of those people then expanding that out of what that'd mean to the persons life. It may also help that I'm a minority and I can demonstrate when unjust bullshit occurs.

So my best man went a wee bit too far left now and could be considered a 'sjw' and my best friend no longer thinks white guys are the most discriminated against.

Maybe other people have had a better experience online?

 

[NoblesseOblige]

"Anyone who is unhappy with any aspect of the game is an SJW Illuminati shill who wants to censor your video games."

Something like that.

And take your man-bits. Don't forget that.

No, but seriously. Some GGer gave me a piece of their mind the other day because despite otherwise loving the Bayonetta series I stated that I wasn't a total fan of her character design. That alone was enough for me to be a SJW-freedom-of-speech-hater.

Oh, and I'm not even joking about that last bit. They actually went on to call me a SJW and hater of free-speech. I just had to put on my poker face and skedaddle.

 

[Zuhzuhzombie!!]

No, not at the house.

Okay.

I can be quite literal when I haven't had any coffee.

 

[LaserBuddha]

Greetings, my fellow Knights™.