-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
#GAMERGATE: The Threadening [Read the OP] -- #StopGamerGate2014
- Thread starter besada
- Start date
- Status
I'm going to ignore the comparison to religion because it's still too ridiculous for me to take seriously, but the comparison to a political group is good because #gamergate is inherently political in nature.
Take an extreme political group like Golden Dawn in Greece, a pretty much explicitly racist political party that's been commonly described as having neo-Nazi underpinnings (though they deny that). You can absolutely be sure that people who flocked to Golden Dawn after Greece's financial collapse were criticized for it. Joining what is essentially a hate group then going "oh, no, I'm not racist, I'm just helping legitimize this group for purely opportunistic reasons" isn't usually looked upon kindly by outsiders.
Now take a much more moderate example, like a major political party, say the Republicans in the US. There are often people who vote Republican but claim to disagree with Republicans on nearly every social issue (e.g. libertarians). Let's take as our hypothetical voter someone who is for gay marriage, for the decriminalization of marijuana, against the death sentence, for affirmative action, etc. But then votes Republican because they agree with them on economic issues, such as the fact that they'll be personally taxed less under a Republican administration. These people are again, absolutely (severely) criticized by people who vote on the basis of social issues (e.g. "how could you turn your back on [social group] just so you have to pay less in taxes?").
The reverse situation is also true. Someone deeply religiously conservative who votes Democratic on the basis of, say, support for welfare programs, is likely to come under intense criticism for voting for a party that's in favor of abortion rights and gay marriage.
So when all of a movement's leaders are misogynists, when the movement works itself in a frenzy over any women who disagrees with them (the vast majority of whom are not working in journalism), and the only tangible actions the movement has taken are to harass women and call for more financial influence over editorials by attacking advertisers... and someone joins that movement, claiming to be for equality and ethics in journalism. They should absolutely expect to be criticized for that decision. It happens with literally every other political movement.
LOL. This is kinda my point though. There's almost nothing in a review that would "objective" beside the game not breaking when you pop in the disc or press start. Gamergaters really should be asked to explicitly state what "objective" means instead of just speaking in vague generalities since I'm convinced that they don't a clue what it means. It has to be more than objective review = review I agree with, biased unethical review = review I disagree with.
And yes when their mob isn't even big enough to influence the traffic to gaming sites they are actively boycotting I doubt they'll have any influence on Gaming as a whole in the long run except to prove the points of everyone they hate and to kickstart dialogues about the lesser parts of gaming culture.
Treating Gamergate as representative of literally everyone who likes or spends money on games is their fun new strategy. At least the faction headed by Sargon and his type anyway. Literally he's been tweeting at people "Well you're anti-Gamergate so you're clearly not a Gamer. You've said so yourself!" I'm only barely able to reckon out that he's using the "Gamers are Over" articles as some kind of confession that we're none of us Gamers.
Adding evidence to the theory I've been workshopping that literally nobody active in the Gamergate tag can fucking read.
The hypothesis might need some work I admit but so far it's the only thing that's come close to explaining anything about this.
Treating Gamergate as representative of literally everyone who likes or spends money on games is their fun new strategy. At least the faction headed by Sargon and his type anyway. Literally he's been tweeting at people "Well you're anti-Gamergate so you're clearly not a Gamer. You've said so yourself!" I'm only barely able to reckon out that he's using the "Gamers are Over" articles as some kind of confession that we're none of us Gamers.
Adding evidence to the theory I've been workshopping that literally nobody active in the Gamergate tag can fucking read.
The hypothesis might need some work I admit but so far it's the only thing that's come close to explaining anything about this.
Onlymostlyjokin
Messofanego
Banned
That was a whole bunch of nothing on the interviewee's part. He's just overlooking the facts of inequality of hatred/threats/harassment majorly targeted on women than on men who have criticised GG in much harsher ways (Chris Kluwe vs Felicia Day, recently; guess who got doxxed?).
"Frankly, I also don't see why the media agreeing to abide by a professional code of ethics would be bad either."
But it already is! For a long time!
"we support inclusiveness"
GG people often go about why any character representation other than a white male shouldn't be something that should be discussed. It's not an issue to them. Just speaking up about it automatically means somehow censoring or manipulating developers. That developers shouldn't feel forced to hire any minorities, even though none of that is happening. The people being attacked and hit the most are minorities in their space (women comprise of 2% of game developers). They hide behind the #notyourshield people as if those people just existing without doing anything somehow makes this movement more tolerable.
This person has got the perfect persecution complex, thinking he'll be called a misogynist for just supporting GG rather than spouting off something objectionable towards women in gaming. It's a strawman.
At least we're agreed on saying no to review score numbers.
bodyofanamerican
Member
Anyone else subscribe to the Dish by Andrew Sullivan? He's been a favorite writer of mine for years, and I'm awaiting the post he references but:
Super disappointing, but I'll hold off till I see what he has to say tomorrow. Maybe he just drops the whole journalism nonsense and focuses entirely on perceived outsiders (feminist) encroaching on established nerd turf, which is what a few of the emails he's posted to the blog the last few days have been about.
Anton Sugar
Member
No offense, but I'm gonna chalk this one up as another "could not provide examples of GG operations that didn't involve SJW/feminists" case.
That's disappointing. I used to read a ton of Andrew Sullivan, he was one of the most progressive voices in the news.
Simply Sarah
Member
I'm not sure focusing on the supposed encroachment (Hi, I've been playing games since the original Super Mario Bros) would be any better. I mean, I guess it gets rid of the ridiculous facade, but what's left is still a highly narrow and jaundiced view of what gaming should be.
As for Mr. Sullivan, I know some people started following him as they saw him as a good progressive and/or libertarian thinker, but I long ago picked up that it's more that he clicked with those general mindsets on various things while being wildly in other directions on many other significant issues.
I was confused for the longest time about GG because I thought their "ethics in video game journalism" excuse didn't make any sense because they didn't seem to be going after any ethical breaches in gaming journalism. Then I started reading interviews of Gaters to see their point of view and learned that the unethical behavior they're made about isn't things like advertisers cozying up to journalists, it's stuff like Bayonetta 2 getting a 7.5 and other issues of reviews/op-eds including socially progressive points of view. Their supposed "unethical conduct" is just journalists talking about stuff that they don't believe has a place in gaming. Feminist/progressive points of view are "corruption" in th minds of these people.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Andrew Sullivan is anti-feminist? That's horribly disappointing.
You know what GG needs to nail that coffin for good? A scathing mockery by Jon Stewart on the Daily Show. Well, okay, it wouldn't nail anything shut probably, but I'm sure it'd be hilarious.
Messofanego
Banned
It's a false equivalence. Some notable pro-GG people have been doxxed like Boogie but it's still not on the same volume and intensity. No one has had to leave home. Or worry about a bomb/terrorist threat at a place they are going to give a talk at.
bodyofanamerican
Member
Yep, agreed. He's really all over the place on a lot of things. I'm very curious to see how he frames this up, but I'm going to be very disappointed if a blog I pay to subscribe to ends up supporting this nonsense.
But as you say, if he moves it to a straight feminists vs. nerds perspective, I'm curious to see how everyone else reacts. It's at least (I know I'm reaching here) an honest assessment of the situation.
By the way, hoping my wording didn't come across muddled, the "supposed" encroachment IS complete bullshit.
EDIT: to address a couple of the last few posts, yeah, Sullivan is definitely not progressive, but he's been a relatively reasonable voice on the right that I've appreciated for quite some time. He just grabs on to certain issues (Palin's pregancy, the Social Security "Grand Bargain, now this) that he just won't let go of. He also generally starts off in one position then comes around to a more reasonable one within a few weeks.
Thanks for sharing. I liked how the linked video referenced research and data on the topic. Numbers are always good to know.
I'm right there with you. I really don't understand how they want an opinion...just not all of a person's opinion. If a person is playing a game and thinks something is bad I'd like to know and make my own mind up if it matters to me.
GeordieMark
Member
The impression I get is that they are arguing to keep political opinion out of game reviews. I don't think when they say 'objective' reviews, they mean it literally. I take it as they actually mean keep personal politics out reviews and just focus on things like graphics, sound, playability etc.
But that's just me trying to make sense of something that makes very little sense to me. There is a lot of confused thought around.
Messofanego
Banned
This is the first time I've made a gif like this, I felt inspired
This is brilliant, helps that I love Tim and Eric so much!
People were wondering if TotalBiscuit was explicitly pro-GG. He made this tweet a couple weeks ago.
https://twitter.com/Totalbiscuit/status/520242699082145792
And this:
https://twitter.com/Totalbiscuit/status/519177354753880065
https://twitter.com/Totalbiscuit/status/520242699082145792
And this:
https://twitter.com/Totalbiscuit/status/519177354753880065
benicillin
Banned
Got into another argument with a GGer. I showed proof like they asked, linking that storify with Mike Cernovich, and all those people listed on Medium. The response I got was "It sounds like they just disagree with feminists, rude comments are a non-issue."
I stated they were actively shielding them and the response? "Yes"
I just have no words.
I stated they were actively shielding them and the response? "Yes"
I just have no words.
Pretty much. Though the politics that they seem to want out of reviews largely seem to be progressive politics, even if we make it a blanket statement and assume that members of Gamergte truly want apolitical reviews free from views on all ends of the spectrum then we're still not talking about a breach of ethics. Politics in game reviews has nothing to do with ethics, and I think their message is so muddy and confused because the cause they claim to be fighting for (ethics in journalism) refers to an entirely different issue from what they truly want (apolitical reviews).
Simply Sarah
Member
Yeah. I'll admit that over the years I've tried to like TB, since every once and a while I see him do or say something that makes him seem like a stand up guy and I wonder "Maybe I'm wrong about him". But then he always seems to quickly and firmly remind me why I didn't care for him in the first place.
Beelzebufo
Banned
I really hate when they use that girl character haha. Also, never heard of this biscuit guy, but I guess I shouldn't bother to get to know him now.
Also, how can someone support an organization that makes personal threats, and then immediately say that they don't condone personal threats?
Mowki Kowski
Member
How are anti-GG dudes not co-opting that shit? lol. Seriously, that dead-eyed scowl she always has says a whole lot about Goober Gorp's ideal woman...
Well when they said they were Not Your Shield, they didn't discount the possibility that they weren't being used as a shield by some one else. Just not yours.
VibratingDonkey
Member
That's great. And it's not just Swedish developers on there.
The Scottish Games Network, which appears to be the Scottish ESA, also said a thing a couple of days ago.
I was waiting for that one.
He's not the one who said that. Twas this person.
I was almost convinced he was hacked when I saw those tweets. I had a great deal of respect for him for his unflinching support for consumer rights, and I have no idea why he's still so convinced GG was ever about that. You'd think he'd have tons of friends who would have set him straight by now.
This thread has been moving rather quickly, so it's probably been posted ages ago... but I found this entertaining:
I like reading Sullivan because he's sort of orthogonal to me in terms of political disposition, but my opinions sometimes intersect with his (though not always for the same reasons) and I like reading that sort of perspective. And even when he says dumb things, he at least engages with people who are saying smart things that make the conversation worthwhile.
But I'm not surprised at all that he's taking this tact with this issue, and I won't be surprised when it hits on the same notes that CHS video talks about ("Gaming is diverse and lots of people enjoy it and just don't want all these feminists coming in trying to police their fun with political correctness" is catnip for Sullivan, even when it isn't actually true. As Katherine Cross has pointed out, the people getting harassed are themselves gamers.
... The CHS video? It's a transparent pandering, and she's not even providing research or data on the topic. When she attempts to answer the question, "Are video games sexist?" with the statistics about violence, she's not answering that question. She's attempting to conflate two different arguments ("Video games cause people to become violent" and "Video games are sexist"), so she can rebut the easy argument and then pretend she's rebutted both.
I like reading Sullivan because he's sort of orthogonal to me in terms of political disposition, but my opinions sometimes intersect with his (though not always for the same reasons) and I like reading that sort of perspective. And even when he says dumb things, he at least engages with people who are saying smart things that make the conversation worthwhile.
<______<
But I'm not surprised at all that he's taking this tact with this issue, and I won't be surprised when it hits on the same notes that CHS video talks about ("Gaming is diverse and lots of people enjoy it and just don't want all these feminists coming in trying to police their fun with political correctness" is catnip for Sullivan, even when it isn't actually true. As Katherine Cross has pointed out, the people getting harassed are themselves gamers.
... The CHS video? It's a transparent pandering, and she's not even providing research or data on the topic. When she attempts to answer the question, "Are video games sexist?" with the statistics about violence, she's not answering that question. She's attempting to conflate two different arguments ("Video games cause people to become violent" and "Video games are sexist"), so she can rebut the easy argument and then pretend she's rebutted both.
plagiarize
Banned
D
Deleted member 126221
Unconfirmed Member
If anything, gamergate will have allowed these guys to learn plenty of new big words. They'll be able to pwn noobs at Scrabble!
plagiarize
Banned
Honestly, that's how almost every GG member I've encountered seems to talk. Even down to some of the exact same phrases... curiously enough.
More_Badass
Member
It's ironic, since his videos about games media and specific definitions was what got me interested in ethics in journalist and got me reading the DoritoGate GAF thread
MIlo said on npr that he got a syringe in the mail. People on both sides have been doxxed.
https://twitter.com/Nero/status/513666683916255232
to pretend its not having on both sides is silly.
Seems both sides do not want to debate the topic at hand. I blame twitter..... that is where most of the junk comes from it seems. WIth the 160 limit it really doesnt lead it left to any kind of debate, just one liners.
You know for sure that stuff was found that lead polygon and couple other sites changing policy. Most it over journalist funding kickstarter or a patreon.
It just goes back to people not really wanted to have the debate in the first place. They just want to talk about the issue on "their side."
More_Badass
Member
Oops, my bad. Got posters mixed up
Lol yeah, it's exactly the same on both sides! Hahaha
bodyofanamerican
Member
Welp, Sullivan's piece went up and...sigh. Closing statement:
The End of Gamer Culter (beware: wall of text)
Disappointing that he dismisses Leigh Alexander and Deadspin pieces as bullying asshole liberals, and slams Sam Biddle again for his stupid tweets.
I really tried to listen to the nuance he was trying to bring to the discussion comparing co-opted gaming culture to co-opted gay culture, but man, that last sentence just blows everything out the window.
The End of Gamer Culter (beware: wall of text)
Disappointing that he dismisses Leigh Alexander and Deadspin pieces as bullying asshole liberals, and slams Sam Biddle again for his stupid tweets.
I really tried to listen to the nuance he was trying to bring to the discussion comparing co-opted gaming culture to co-opted gay culture, but man, that last sentence just blows everything out the window.
I'm strongly against harassment in general and honestly this is the first time I've heard of the syringe thing, but to imply that both sides are getting equally harassed is straight-up not true. How many female gamers and journalists have been either doxxed or sent rape/death threats? At least six by my count (Zoe, Brianna, Anita, Jenn Frank, Chloe Sagal, Felicia Day), and those are the ones that chose to speak up.
Yeah, you just said people against gg are just as bad as gg. That's completely ridiculous.
plagiarize
Banned
Milo himself will tell you that the topic at hand is 'SJWs'. And we're definitely debating those issues.
Milo got something odd in the mail. It's not the same as the death threats other people have received... and I don't say 'other people' to mean any group on any one side, but to mean 'not that asshole Milo'. Did he get a note with it? Is there anything to suggest that it was from gamers that hate him, rather than one of the many other groups that hate him? Genuine questions their, I don't know.
Maybe it was sperm. Maybe it was a gift of intravenous drugs. Who knows what it was, and it should definitely be looked at. But it wasn't a threat. Nor was it an attempt on his life.
It wasn't the same as writing to a place that he was going to talk and laying out exactly how much of a rampage you plan to go on if they host that talk.
Who are the other side? Because it looks a lot like people who identify with GamerGate and everyone else. Does the opposition have their own cute hashtag, message boards and operations? If so then they're doing a lousy job getting letting people know they exist.
tiredheadcrab
Member
Okay my turn.
- Status