#GAMERGATE: The Threadening [Read the OP] -- #StopGamerGate2014

Status
Not open for further replies.
And when women are being threatened, abused and harassed, and you choose to spend your time and energy complaining about stereotypes of gamers? You can go too.
This is fully indicative of one of the problems at play here.

You can't get rid of any of these people. You may think that high horse is going to ride you off to the promised land, but in reality you're stuck with these people and making things worse for everyone instead of better with comments like this.
 
Well, judging from the post above, it seems as though my interpretation was spot-on. And I don't think the article was poorly written. What I honestly think is that a lot of people are poor readers.

And for what it's worth, the gamers I mentioned in my previous post should be 'over'. The whole industry would be better off without them.

And when women are being threatened, abused and harassed, and you choose to spend your time and energy complaining about stereotypes of gamers? You can go too.

Thank you for demonstrating the "convert or die" mentality that is so incredibly destructive in this whole debate. I would like everyone here to read your comment carefully and realize how unproductive and inflammatory it really is. All anyone accomplishes with this is inciting more hated and polarization.
 
Man, I've been knee deep in the twitter sphere all day and I can confirm. Half the people tweeting are conspiracy minded anti-SJW folk. Not necessarily misogynist or sexist... but definitely lacking any kind of self-awareness or empathy or nuance.

I'm so glad that curated long form discussion exists here on NeoGAF.
 
Explaining to people that they're dumb or malevolent for being offended never works.

I am not saying anyone is dumb or malevolent. I am saying they need to move on because people getting harassed and threatened and discriminated against to the point of quitting along with a chilling effect on all is a bigger and much more significant problem that video game culture is facing than a naseautingly continuous and persistent misunderstanding of one single article by Leigh Alexander.
 
Regarding the discussion on Alexander's supposedly inflammatory piece: I have reached a point where people have informed and clarified Alexander's article over and over again to such an extent that the people still feeling offended by its rhetoric must be either (1) (deliberately?) obtuse or (2) Poor or inexperienced readers (3) intentionally or unintentionally looking for an excuse to deflect the obvious issue of misogyny in video game culture by using their supposedly hurt feelings to justify pushing back against the claims of video game culture having a problem with inclusion of women and the boys club mentality. Because acknowledging that video games has a problem hurts more than trying to make the problem go away.

Using the terms "inform and clarify" in this context is circular and intellectually dishonest. You do not have the power to promote arguments defending Alexander's piece to the level of "informative clarifications" simply because you agree with them. Whether the people defending her article are "informing and clarifying" or "engaging in eisegetical wishful thinking to defend their ideological ally" is precisely what we are currently discussing.

As yet there have been no convincing defenses of Alexander's article offered - presumably because the article is inflammatory and ill-conceived. You are free to keep trying.

I'm sorry to say that, but those are the only explanations for why people keep having the need to state "both sides" or something that I can come up with. And with the way that people react towards any issue when it comes to women by denying and deflecting, explanation # 3 sometimes seem likely. The article has been explained over and over and over again that enough must be enough.

The article has not been "explained." The people on your side of the argument are not "explaining" the article. They do not have perfect knowledge of the article's "true intent." This is a self-indulgent delusion.

If people are still hurt that their hobby was critcized, then fine. If people still want to bang the drum that the article was too esoteric, then fine. *But* that doesn't affect the issue of how the broader issues of misogyny are still prevalent and thriving and actively hurting and excluding women from video games RIGHT NOW.

So could you please stop being outraged over your hurt feelings because of one article and put them aside and instead figure out how to better include diversity of voices and how to support them and help them in any possible way within reasonable limits? Because right now some women have little reason to be part of this culture along with a strong chilling effect.

I fail to see why people should set aside their concerns simply because other people in the world may have more pressing concerns. I may as well tell you to set aside your feelings of dismay at the treatment of women in video games and focus all your energies on improving the lives of oppressed women in Afghanistan.

Edit:
I am not saying anyone is dumb or malevolent.

I have reached a point where people have informed and clarified Alexander's article over and over again to such an extent that the people still feeling offended by its rhetoric must be either (1) (deliberately?) obtuse or (2) Poor or inexperienced readers (3) intentionally or unintentionally looking for an excuse to deflect the obvious issue of misogyny in video game culture by using their supposedly hurt feelings to justify pushing back against the claims of video game culture having a problem with inclusion of women and the boys club mentality. Because acknowledging that video games has a problem hurts more than trying to make the problem go away.
 

Essentially, what I'm saying is the small % of misogynists, sexist, racists, and ect created the mob but got everyone else involved as well.. Essentially like those who rioted after Argentina's football team lost; and then co-opted all those people unhappy with their government to start rioting as well. Essentially the horrible shits got everyone else all worked up in a tither about a whole continuum of minor(or perceived major) issues.
 
I am not saying anyone is dumb or malevolent. I am saying they need to move on because people getting harassed and threatened and discriminated against to the point of quitting along with a chilling effect on all is a bigger and much more significant problem that video game culture is facing than a naseautingly continuous and persistent misunderstanding of one single article by Leigh Alexander.

If you want people to move on you should avoid saying things like (1) (deliberately?) obtuse or (2) Poor or inexperienced readers in arguing in good faith (3) intentionally or unintentionally looking for an excuse to deflect.
 
I'm not saying anyone is dumb, just that they probably can't read well. Also, your feelings don't matter anyway because misogyny exists.
 
If you want people to move on you should avoid saying things like (1) (deliberately?) obtuse or (2) Poor or inexperienced readers in arguing in good faith (3) intentionally or unintentionally looking for an excuse to deflect.

From a diplomatic and rhetorical point of view, you are correct in that me trying to rationalize the seemingly weird prioritization of issues isn't necessary to convince people to move on and focus on the important issue of harassment and exclusion. However I still can't see the rational motivation for why the article constantly gets taken to the fore over and over again and that other people constantly need to explain and contextualize it's argument and rhetoric.

I'm not saying anyone is dumb, just that they probably can't read well. Also, your feelings don't matter anyway because misogyny exists.

Not read well and not being dumb but understand he concept of what it means to argue in good faith. (Although i sometimes fall prey to the same pitfall)
 
I'm not saying anyone is dumb, just that they probably can't read well. Also, your feelings don't matter anyway because misogyny exists.

There's definitely a contingent that's having difficulty with reading cognition... though I'd not accuse anyone here of that.
 
And when women are being threatened, abused and harassed, and you choose to spend your time and energy complaining about stereotypes of gamers?

And I suppose you've been spending your time and energy on threatened, abused and harassed women instead of sitting on neogaf arguing with gamers about whether particular articles push stereotypes? Right? In any case, this is what's called a false dichotomy, but thank you for making me aware of what kind of logic you think constitutes legitimate debate.

Sneds said:
You can go too.

What an absurd thing to say.
 
From a diplomatic and rhetorical point of view, you are correct in that me trying to rationalize the seemingly weird prioritization of issues isn't necessary to convince people to move on and focus on the important issue of harassment and exclusion. However I still can't see the rational motivation for why the article constantly gets taken to the fore over and over again and that other people constantly need to explain and contextualize it's argument and rhetoric.

Because people keep defending it would be my guess, which strikes a lot of people, myself included, as deeply hypocritical.
 
I am not saying anyone is dumb or malevolent. I am saying they need to move on because people getting harassed and threatened and discriminated against to the point of quitting along with a chilling effect on all is a bigger and much more significant problem that video game culture is facing than a naseautingly continuous and persistent misunderstanding of one single article by Leigh Alexander.

Well, be careful not to lose sight of the fact that a lot of the folks still talking about that article are actually reacting to it, because they are only just being introduced to the discussion. If you could call what the hell is happening within social media a "discussion", but you get the idea. It's what makes the direction of the conversation so muddled and easy to co-opt by other people in the social media environment - especially something as limited in communication as Twitter - and gets worse as their context changes by what they are exposed to before even finding the article (or others like it).
 
I think the point she was trying to make about gamer demographics changing and not needing to cater to a specific group was fine. I'm all for being inclusive too. However, when you start writing the normal neckbeard socially-awkward can't think for themselves bullshit, you deserve to be called out regardless of intent or how good the rest of your article is.
 
Imru’ al-Qays;128664878 said:
Because people keep defending it would be my guess.

It's worthy of defending. The article put to words a lot of the feelings I've been having regarding the culture I'm a part of.
Wait what? Adam Baldwin, as in the actor from Firefly, Chuck, and Last Resort, started this whole GamerGate thing?
Yes, and is directing harassment of people who disagree.
 
From a diplomatic and rhetorical point of view, you are correct in that me trying to rationalize the seemingly weird prioritization of issues isn't necessary to convince people to move on and focus on the important issue of harassment and exclusion. However I still can't see the rational motivation for why the article constantly gets taken to the fore over and over again and that other people constantly explain and contextualize it's argument and rhetoric.
Because voicing your displeasure with how gaming media portrays you can actually have a realistic demonstrable effect? Because the article affects them personally, no matter how you'd like to justify it, and championing it alienates the people you wish would shut up and... do what exactly? reinforce the Twitter battlefield?

Is this really complicated?
What do you want people to actually do?
 
From a diplomatic and rhetorical point of view, you are correct in that me trying to rationalize the seemingly weird prioritization of issues isn't necessary to convince people to move on and focus on the important issue of harassment and exclusion. However I still can't see the rational motivation for why the article constantly gets taken to the fore over and over again and that other people constantly need to explain and contextualize it's argument and rhetoric.

I'm not quite sure why you and the other defenders of this article feel free to excuse yourself as a reason for why this debate is continuing. You act as if myself and others who find it offensive are carrying on a one-sided conversation page after page to derail the thread. We are critiquing it, you are defending it, we are responding to the defense and etc. It is apparently a high prioritization for both of our groups considering you and other's constant rebuttals to our fairly mild criticisms. Let me ask you this: is there a single fault you find with that article in any way? Or is it the perfect epitome of gamer critique as you see it?

Also, to be fair, we (or at least I) haven't yet called you dumb or inexperienced just because you hold a different opinion from us
 
From a diplomatic and rhetorical point of view, you are correct in that me trying to rationalize the seemingly weird prioritization of issues isn't necessary to convince people to move on and focus on the important issue of harassment and exclusion. However I still can't see the rational motivation for why the article constantly gets taken to the fore over and over again and that other people constantly need to explain and contextualize it's argument and rhetoric.

In a lot of ways the article was a declaration of war, because it solidified that the "gaming press" was picking sides in some sort of cultural struggle against a completely made-up demographic, and painted a strawman with a wide enough brush that a ton of people chose to identify with it. Instead of trying to drive a wedge between opportunistic extremists and their general audience (that also often happened to be white males), she and the "gamers are dead" writers circled the wagons and tried to make it about right vs wrong. Yes, that most probably was not her intent, and isn't what the article is literally about, but she should've considered the very predictable consequences of her tone and probably chose to do what was prudent instead of what was cathartic, because she is in control of her actions while the mob is barely aware of what they actually want.
 
It's worthy of defending. The article put to words a lot of the feelings I've been having regarding the culture I'm a part of.

She mixed sentiment with definitive statements without substantiating her claims or clarifying context. She knew what she was doing, by all accounts she seems like a smart person, she wasnt just speaking to the choir, so to speak. It was meant to be inflammatory and it was meant to infer a sentiment of systemic issues with the "culture" of gaming. Essentially saying "this is what everyone thinks", without substantiating the claim.

If you like those sorts of blogs, it is understandable why you liked what she said, specially if you think there is a larger % of bad then good(even if it isnt something you can quantify). This is all fine, but I think when you start dealing with accusations, I think those accusations should normally be substantiated if you are being honest. But then you will get the argument of, look what happened on 4chan and twitter, that proves there is a major problem. Well I agree it is a major problem...with pop culture. I think blaming subculture for pop-culture when it can be proven time and time again to not just to a gamer problem, is fitting a square peg in a round hole(specially if you think you can subvert pop-culture with subculture).

And I get it, female journalists(not just game journalists) get attacked more on twitter then male journalists, we now have stats to back it up, it is a problem. So it makes sense she feels this way, and she has every right to, on the internet, voice her opinion. And the gamegate thing in response was just shitty, but this all didn't happen in a binary way. And it doesn't mean her work is above criticism either. Although I do believe that well is very very dry.
 
Having finally read it, Alexander's piece only tackles the industry's commercialisation in its "infancy" and its effects to such as the piece goes on. The thesis statement is a pretty clear indictment of the utilitarian, business-molded mindset of what she perceives to be the average gamer, running more off of hype and tradition in their curating decisions then their own integrity and intuition.

The major problem is that the article is not even close enough to disclosing that there is any distance between the consumer and the industry to to make the ultimate claim, as has been spun, that she is blaming the machinations for the problem rather than the people embroiled in it, and as a result, it comes off as being written by someone with a superiority complex rather than by a seer watching the trends and laying out the future of it all.

In essence, she is blaming the players rather than the game, especially in the opening paragraphs where she makes some bold statements about the innate self-discipline of those who go by 'gamer'.
 
In a lot of ways the article was a declaration of war, because it solidified that the "gaming press" was picking sides in some sort of cultural struggle against a completely made-up demographic, and painted a strawman with a wide enough brush that a ton of people chose to identify with it. Instead of trying to drive a wedge between opportunistic extremists and their general audience (that also often happened to be white males), she and the "gamers are dead" writers circled the wagons and tried to make it about right vs wrong. Yes, that most probably was not her intent, and isn't what the article is literally about, but she should've considered the very predictable consequences of her tone and probably chose to do what was prudent instead of what was cathartic, because she is in control of her actions while the mob is barely aware of what they actually want.


So she is to blame for the reaction of a mob that is "unaware of what they really want?"
 
it comes off as being written by someone with a superiority complex rather than by a seer watching the trends and laying out the future of it all.

I think, from reading other pieces and commentary from her, that it's fairly evident she does in fact have a superiority complex, and that's probably the only legitimate criticism of both her and this piece I've actually seen to this point.
 
If you keep "feeding the trolls" for lack of a better term, you're doing nothing but legitimatizing them. I wasn't dismissing them as crazy, I was dismissing them as non-important. We know that people who don't want an equal industry are toxic, none of this is news to me. I'm saying you shouldn't give a fuck about a vocal minority if you claim to want change. Everyone doesn't have to 100% agree with each other for things to improve, it takes the percentage who is willing to enact the change.

With everything you linked, I can guarantee that that isn't a significant number of people who participate in playing games and they arent even equivalent to 10% of the people who want a better industry. It's really easy to point in on the bad when they make themselves easy to find.
Sure. But the problem is the silent majority. The people who say they don't give a shit or who cares when these issues come up, or ignore them, or stay quiet as people sling slurs on voice chat. If all people can hear is the small violent minority because no one else is speaking up, don't be surprised if people come away with a poor impression.

Simply because the game and series is already established. Coming into an established series attempting to mold it to your liking, when the people who made it are simply enacting a vision, isn't going to to help anything except for personal reasons. If they changed it to whatever suited a sect of player, there is no guarantee it would sell more, which is all they give a fuck about up top(not as in heaven or whatever you believe in, like the corporate top).
Unless there's an established good reason not to, this falls apart quickly. Assassin's Creed managed to include a woman, a black man, and a Native American man as main characters despite the series being established. Dragon Age Inquisition includes defined LGB characters despite it being established.

What we need(and I'm sure you have heard this before, but it's true) is new brands that are FOUNDED in values of equality and the promotion of a better industry. That doesn't happen overnight, it takes time. But there is a generation of girls, PoC, w/e out there that love games and want to make them with this values instilled in them, and hopefully they will be great, but that is the way its going to change: with time.
Sure, a diverse work force is slowly seeping in and will hopefully be capable of convincing publishers to let them do cool shit, and the ride of indies gives more avenues too. But given the coordinated, effective harassment campaign that drives women away from this industry, and the vitriol and abuse that gets hurled for making anything with diversity on it (want to know how many times I've seen people say they refuse to play a gay character? It's a lot more than you'd think), why would anyone want to?

There's that infamous imgur of companies to avoid who put out or support "SJW" games. Including that shit gets called an agenda, and it's forced down people's throats, and it's political, and can't they just make games? Given the abuse people suffer as creators in this industry, I sure as fuck have felt like it's not worth it to try and express my voice by making games, despite dreams otherwise.

Shoving things down peoples throats isn't the way, I promise you. Forcing it is just going to make people feel, well, forced. Make it a natural process. Gaming journalism started to do this but, again, tried forcing it down throats through the "are you with us or are you a mysoginist?".
OK, I'm going to respond to this as calmly and bluntly as I possibly can, and preface this by saying I am not attacking you personally.

This is a load of bullshit. I am so god damned tired of people telling me and other minorities that they should, in essence, shut the hell up. Because that's what you're doing, whether you realize it or not. You're equating criticism of and reaction to the under representation of minorities in media as shoving it down people's throats. That instead we should stop talking about it, stop getting upset, and let it run its course. That is the implication, intentional or not, to saying that bringing these issues up is not OK and that we have to let it act naturally.

I need you to stop and reflect for a moment on how equality has ever happened. It was not by people sitting back and making it a natural process. It was by arguing, yelling, marching, taking to the streets so that not only were they acknowledged they made people listen. By not giving a shit that it made people feel uncomfortable. That was true for women's suffrage, it was true for the civil rights movement, it was true for the gay rights movement.

Telling minorities the equivalent of "stop being so uppity, you're making everyone unhappy" is just not cool, and I'm so fucking sick of being told what I can say and how I'm allowed to say it when I want to talk about issues that matter and affect me. Why should I, after years and years of feeling isolated in my hobby and made to feel unwelcome through harassment or invisible because no one talked about these issues, let people's unease at me being included or talking about same (and yeah, that happens all too often, even here) stop me from talking about it because they feel forced to acknowledge there is an issue? I've been told "who cares?" too many god damned times to suddenly think that sitting down and shutting up and twiddling my thumbs waiting for things to happen naturally will do anything.

Maybe you're going to say of course you didn't mean to say don't talk about it, just don't force it. But given I've seen any request or discussion for diversity met with ire, dismissal, revulsion, I don't think that whatever arbitrary line that is crossed from request to demand, discussion to yelling, matters to those opposed because they're opposed regardless. And being quiet lets them ignore us, ignore the problem, and maintain the status quo. And honestly, after seeing so much apathy and push back and rejection to the very fucking notion of including characters like me in a game, I don't really give a shit if talking about it and voicing my frustration and upset at being ignored makes people feel uncomfortable or that I'm forcing it down their throats, because it's my god damn hobby too, and I deserve to have a voice in it and about it.

I'm sorry if that upsets you to read, because again, my intention isn't to attack you but the argument you made. And it's one I've seen one too many times. And frankly, I'm tired of dancing around it.

No one is ignoring you. A character's race or gender not being the focal point of a game doesn't make you or your race unfavorable. Shit, people cried about AC4 having no female representation until they introduced that one female Templar that was there all along rendering that whole debacle silly.

Who I play as is nothing more than who I play as. Race, gender, orientation, it's what the developer's chose to do, and I can respect that. If there was a chance for me to make or play as a black guy in a game it would be cool, but it wouldn't feed some hole inside me of having played games full of white guys and plumbers for years.
I'm glad you don't care. But others do. And this isn't about having games where a character's race or gender is the focal point, no one I've seen is asking for that. In fact, that really misses the point quite badly because the whole point is that games can and should include minorities without needing to make a statement or be about it unless the developers intend it. Even though you care about representation getting better, it's really dismissive to write what comes across as "well I'm not bothered by it" because the implication is "so neither should you."

It NEVER comes as a request, by the way. That is an incredibly polite way to put it. It becomes vitriol, petitions, slander, and boycotts of products. The industry has seen it time and time again.
Two points: one, the irony of generalizing all reaction to a lack of representation to the most extreme of it in this thread of all threads should not be lost on you. Two, if you're going to suggest that people upset let things happen naturally while, by your own admission, companies have no financial interest in representation or diversity, you can't be upset when consumers express their desires in a way that companies will understand: social media campaigns, boycotts, whatever. Because think about it: you've already said that companies have no guarantee that changing games to be inclusive will benefit them financially, and games are such a big risk that they'll continue to not be inclusive for fear of any lost sales by any potential narrowing of appeal. Who would, in a shrinking market with bigger budgets, suddenly decide to start new franchises that are inclusive? Especially in light of a community that has had a very vocal group frothing at the mouth to boycott any "SJW" publishers and journalists? So you're basically saying don't get upset, don't change anything that exists even if it is eminently changeable because it existing is enough to prevent any change (but not changes in mechanics, story, or anything else!), and instead wait for something that may not happen and don't you do anything that will let companies know it is in their financial interests to include you.

How in the hell does change happen with those restrictions?

I'm also going to point out that frowning on boycotts implies an obligation to buy something you don't necessarily agree with, when consumers have every right to not buy something for any reason. And given that consumers often only have their voices heard through their choice on what to buy (look at Microsoft reacting to the low sales of the Xbox One), and given the community's penchant for trying to enact change against things like DRM or DLC or season passes through vitriol, petitions and boycotting, it seems super strange to deny it as a vehicle for expression.
 
So she is to blame for the reaction of a mob that is "unaware of what they really want?"

There are a multitude of ways to diffuse the situation and her thesis could've been presented in a way that wasn't accusatory, instead her and the gaming press chose the equivalent of a "show of force". She chose to make the problem worse, yes.

And before someone accuses me of equating writing an article about vague demographics to harassing real people on twitter, I'm suggesting no such thing.
 
I kind of feel like some people already summed up my thoughts. I ahve been a gamer since really the Wolfenstein 3d days. I was young then. I would go to my dads work and play the game on the computer while he went around to do his technical stuff. Then Doom and it sort of escalated from there into consoles and so forth. I guess i evolved into that gamer that loves his shooters like Halo, Gears, God of War, Uncharted, Assassins Creed.

Whats been happening lately is I have been voicing my opinion on Nintendo being a bit stupid lately with online gaming, cloud features, 3rd party support. My friend who i went to school with is an indie developer quickly rushes to their defense. I never really knew why but we are all entitled to our own opinion.


The past 2 weeks made me realize that he, like the indie developers featured in the Indie Game movie, grew up with the SNES classics like Metroid and so forth. I guess he feels a certain, like the industry left him behind in the 90's. For him its the same games all over again and again. Another CoD with violence, another GTAV with violence. I get understand his complaints, and the industry may have taken an odd turn for him and many others. His GF recently tweeted to me that "Some of us are fed up with this crap" and she was referring to the games not appealing to them anymore.

The issue i have though is this. They are coming into the a mansion where many gamers are and saying they dont like this aspect of gaming. So they want to replace it with something they feel would be better. The keyword was replace. Not expand. If you want to make an impact on the way games are heading then create a market for those games instead of fighting the ones we have now.

I am not going to apologize to anyone for buying the next Halo game or whatever. I like those. You can be critical of those games and i welcome that actually because it will force others to look on and see how they can make a better game. Somethings may not work well for certain franchises or what not. I like playing games that can appeal to everyone and really really dont mind mobile games or games that appeal to woman. Thats great and i am all for that. But keep the activism you have at bay and be creative and build that market everyone can buy into. Its an uphill battle as we have been seeing and i think this is the root of the issue.


And since everyone might seem a bit tense, i like this Bill Maher Stand up he did and his thoughts on Feminism. I think it sums up some stuff very well.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x64cy3Bcr98

And wow was that a load off my chest. Its hard talking about this in 140 characters.
 
She mixed sentiment with definitive statements without substantiating her claims or clarifying context. She knew what she was doing, by all accounts she seems like a smart person, she wasnt just speaking to the choir, so to speak. It was meant to be inflammatory and it was meant to infer a sentiment of systemic issues with the "culture" of gaming. Essentially saying "this is what everyone thinks", without substantiating the claim.

If you like those sorts of blogs, it is understandable why you liked what she said, specially if you think there is a larger % of bad then good(even if it isnt something you can quantify). This is all fine, but I think when you start dealing with accusations, I think those accusations should normally be substantiated if you are being honest. But then you will get the argument of, look what happened on 4chan and twitter, that proves there is a major problem. Well I agree it is a major problem...with pop culture. I think blaming subculture for pop-culture when it can be proven time and time again to not just to a gamer problem, is fitting a square peg in a round hole(specially if you think you can subvert pop-culture with subculture).

And I get it, female journalists(not just game journalists) get attacked more on twitter then male journalists, we now have stats to back it up, it is a problem. So it makes sense she feels this way, and she has every right to, on the internet, voice her opinion. And the gamegate thing in response was just shitty, but this all didn't happen in a binary way. And it doesn't mean her work is above criticism either. Although I do believe that well is very very dry.

Her work is absolutely not above criticism. Even she took a step back and apologized for the tone... but it's a prophetic piece that's been proven at least somewhat true by the reaction to it.

I would agree that her normal, abrasive style was probably not warranted during an already volatile time where people felt they were being gagged because they couldn't discuss the (imo) stupid conspiracies involving ZQ.
 
I think this is a very weird read of reactions to Cosby's speech. It was not controversial because it was insulting, although I note that if that was merely "controversial", it's hard to see how Alexander's piece about gamers can amount to more than an annoyance at worst. The main criticism of the stuff Cosby gets up to is that he's wrong and unhelpful, that he's contributing to white racism by providing an excuse to blame black people for their situations, etc.

This is not the impression I've gotten from articles like Ta-Nehisi Coates's excellent profile of Cosby. A lot of people seem to have found his speech genuinely insulting, not simply factually misguided or unhelpful.

No one really gets mad about black people talking in basically exactly this way to audiences of other black people. Hell, Obama has made fairly pointed criticisms of this sort, without all the tangents about rap music, and hasn't taken a whole lot of heat for them, and what criticism he has received has tended to be along those same lines - that what he's doing is just not helpful (enough, perhaps) given the influence he wields with the rest of the country.

Barack Obama is the nation's first black president. If he were some no-name columnist denouncing the stereotypical black equivalents of "mushroom hats, queuing in line for posters, and not dressing or behaving properly" he'd get ripped apart. Hell, if he had said this kind of stuff back when he was running for Congress against Bobby Rush he wouldn't have a political career right now.
 
There are a multitude of ways to diffuse the situation and her thesis could've been presented in a way that wasn't accusatory, instead her and the gaming press chose the equivalent of a "show of force". She chose to make the problem worse, yes.

And before someone accuses me of equating writing an article about vague demographics to harassing real people on twitter, I'm suggesting no such thing.


Why should her essay have diffused the situation? I'm also not seeing how said essay equates to a " show of force"
 
Her work is absolutely not above criticism. Even she took a step back and apologized for the tone... but it's a prophetic piece that's been proven at least somewhat true by the reaction to it.

I would agree that her normal, abrasive style was probably not warranted during an already volatile time where people felt they were being gagged because they couldn't discuss the (imo) stupid conspiracies involving ZQ.

I honestly don't think she needed to apologize, I think that misses the point of criticism. She didnt say anything worth apologizing about, since it wasnt representing anyone but her. If anything, she could have maybe re-edited it to be more clear that her statements were opinion, but other then that, she has nothing to apologize for. Nothing wrong with "being a jerk" if the point is to extenuate a point, that you are sick of pop-culture and you want the game culture to improve on the pop culture, I get that. I also believe the game industry is probably the very best place to start, because it is more diverse, to me.

I just think the article worked against her goal. That doesn't mean I disagree that it would be cool to increase the size of the tent for "traditional".
 
I honestly don't think she needed to apologize, I think that misses the point of criticism. She didnt say anything worth apologizing about, since it wasnt representing anyone but her. If anything, she could have maybe re-edited it to be more clear that her statements were opinion, but other then that, she has nothing to apologize for. Nothing wrong with "being a jerk" if the point is to extenuate a point, that you are sick of pop-culture and you want the game culture to improve on the pop culture, I get that. I also believe the game industry is probably the very best place to start, because it is more diverse, to me.

I just think the article worked against her goal. That doesn't mean I disagree that it would be cool to increase the size of the tent for "traditional".

I mean, if her intended goal was to denigrate nerds for not knowing how to dress or behave etc then I guess she accomplished that goal. If that wasn't her goal then I don't see why she shouldn't apologize for doing that in her article.
 
I think the real issue is that 4chan has more in common with the average gamer than any blogger ever will. Which leads very frequently to outpouring of outrage from /v/ into mainstream social media. I don't think that it's a coincidence that all recent video game outrages whipped themselves into a froth first on 4chan before spilling over elsewhere.

I don't think 4chan (and by extension, gamers) are fundamentally incapable of recognizing misogyny as it exists in their space, as long as the misogyny they're told to look for is defined in a context outside of the environment they create for themselves.

For example, on /v/, nobody exists as a person. Gender, race and creed are mutable there; true equality in 10 point sans-serif font suspended inside a blue box. When you're a non-entity, personal attacks have a tendency to bounce off. The word "faggot" losses meaning when you're neuter, genderless. Misogyny there, if it exists, will take significantly different form than it would in real life.

I'm going to take a step back here and recommend, before I get shouted down for going against the anti-4chan narrative on this site, that if you think I'm misrepresenting /v/ you should go there and ask them yourself. Like, go into a gamer gate thread and ask them where they stand on harassment (like I did, read from the bottom going up), or gay gamers. Or literally anything else. Because a lot of the running narrative in the parts of the internet where the sun rises every morning is that 4chan is a shrine to the worst parts of the human male psyche. And it's really, really not.

It's more constructive to think of the term "gamer" in the same way as a poster on 4chan thinks of "Anonymous." It's the same nebulous concept, non-entity. And the freedom it affords is exercised in similar ways. Gamers are not anti-social. They're extra-social. They create their own sub-cultures with their own mores and jargon, each distinct from another. And in each one, you can have your own identity, a handle (or not, in /v/'s case), whatever that may be.

So when you get articles about misogyny in gamer culture, gamers don't know how to parse the generalizations. When you make these articles, you're not fighting social inequality. You are attacking people's personal spaces. There is no fundamental truth to inequality that can be expressed without being grounded in context. And generalizations by their very nature serve to defenestrate context. I think this is the biggest disconnect (out of many) "social justice media" has with gamers. Instead of calling out specific gaming sub-cultures where misogyny has taken root, you call out the whole. And so gamers feel as if their ability to create their own spaces is being threatened. Real life begins to encroach into virtual life.

I've spent the whole day on /v/ today, something which I haven't done in a while. And I think I can honestly say, /v/ is a better force for social change in gaming than the media will ever be (for good or ill, and I think in this case it's overwhelmingly for good). I think the biggest irony to come out of this whole debacle is that /v/ is a far more organized and effective conspiracy than the one they speculate about in their discussions.

And I think I understand /v/'s rationale. What it all boils down to is, basically, that if you want an all-inclusive gaming culture. Make it. Like /v/ has. Or if that's too inclusive, then make one like Neogaf has. That's your prerogative as a gamer. And I agree with them.

Peace.

P.S. I'm 100% convinced that harassment is not a gamer problem, it's a platform problem. Any use of this issue to distract from gamergate and notyourshield is a red herring, basically concern trolling.
 
Imru’ al-Qays;128668751 said:
I mean, if her intended goal was to denigrate nerds for not knowing how to dress or behave etc then I guess she accomplished that goal. If that wasn't her goal then I don't see why she shouldn't apologize for doing that in her article.

She was being an ass, just like Daniel Tosh is a mean motherfucker when he does his stand-up. It is meant to feed the audience and create controversy. It is entertaining to many. Just... her message painted a picture that without context sounds like she hated what she was as a young kid playing games. It's the danger of trying to use the shock jock type talking points. Your point gets made...and then gets lost. Heh, the topic she used just didnt go over well.

If she wants to apologize, because she feels that it didnt reflect on her thoughts properly that is totally something she can do. I just dont believe opinion deserves apologies simply due to offense. It must show actual damage, and while her blog arguably caused damage existentially, her article itself was not damaging, to me. Then again, that is my opinion. I'm not going to say it wasnt damaging to anyone, clearly that wasnt the case.
 
Good riddance to games journalism. There I said it. At this point I read stuff directly from press releases or from the company then formulate my own opinion.
 
I couldn't care less about labels right now. I'm a gamer, I'm a girl, I'm African American and I'm pro-equality. But I don't want any of those words to define who I am.

If I got to choose who I am, I'd say I'm a human first, a daughter second and a friend third. I don't exactly enjoy the labels, because they are all filled with bad portrayals that are damaging. Gamers are fanatical freaks, women are inferior, social equality is for leeches, blacks are...well you get it! They all have bad baggage.

Am I going to run away from those stereotypes and say "Not All [whatever]!" No. I have to own up to all of those perceptions, both negative and positive.

Maybe it's because I live in a world that loves to represent me poorly, but I believe there are good things to come from being in a poorly represented group. Carrying that label, and being judged for it means that I get to take ownership of it and be the best person I can be with it. It means I get to prove people wrong. Not by being defensive and denying...but by accepting those faults and trying to improve it.

I still love calling myself a gamer, and I don't feel embarrassed because being embarrassed would be wrong. I'm not above any racist or SJW. I'm not above any man or women. I am a part of all of those groups in some way, shape or form. I can never, not be grouped with these people. I share their appearance and or hobbies. And I see the good and bad in all of these groups.

So, if I could say anything it would be to take ownership of the good and bad. Don't defend your creed when they do something illegal or stupid, but don't try to run away from them either. If someone criticizes you, they are offering you a chance to be self reflective. So do it. Later we can do more to humanize both groups with better representations in the media and then better representation of girls in games.

I'll tie this into Majora's Mask like I always do: when Link was cursed and tried to join the Bombers gang, they refuse him from joining. Not because Link was a bad person, but because the last guy who looked like him sabotaged their club. Link had to take the punishment for Skullkid's actions because they looked similar. Welcome to the world of stereotyping.
 
Why should her essay have diffused the situation? I'm also not seeing how said essay equates to a " show of force"

Because riling up the mob is against the interests of everyone except the trolls? Creating a common cause for every self-identified gamer in the industry is counter-productive when what's necessary is to show that a small minority of assholes is trying to politicize gaming in order to attack people. I have more in common with Leigh than I do with Adam Baldwin or someone who'd send death threats to a woman that makes youtube videos, but it's hard to see that from how she's chosen to characterize me.

Show of force is when law enforcement or the military roll up in full riot gear or tanks into a volatile situation to show that force will be met with force in return. It always makes a situation worse because it just creates more volatility through escalation, and the gaming press's willingness to respond to generalizations and broad accusations with more of the same gave this clusterfuck way more legs that it would've had on its own, and provided a convenient smokescreen for all sorts of assholes to justify their toxicity.
 
Imru’ al-Qays;128668751 said:
I mean, if her intended goal was to denigrate nerds for not knowing how to dress or behave etc then I guess she accomplished that goal. If that wasn't her goal then I don't see why she shouldn't apologize for doing that in her article.

I will say though, her times article really didn't say anything different, yet the outrage isnt there. She still is painting "traditional" gamers in a certain way. Just it was done politely. So those who disagreed with her ignored the article for the most part and now it is a non-story. It shows that if you disagree with a message and just ignore it, it is a non starter.
 
Hi everyone. I'm fairly new to this forum, but glad to be a part of the ongoing conversation.

I'd just like to chime in here as a white, male gamer (and, yes, I'm proud to identify as ALL of those definitions, and many others, as is my right and yours) to say that I believe both sides of this debate are right and both sides are wrong. That's not fence-sitting.

Everyone should have the right to produce content free from all forms of harassment and everyone should have the right to speak their mind.

Everyone. From the most famous game journalist, to the lowliest troll, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, their own values and their own systems of belief. This does not mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that anyone is required to agree with that opinion. How anyone reacts in response to any given opinion is entirely individual. As such, anytime we express our opinions, we open ourselves up to criticism and praise alike.

The anonymity of the internet has unfortunately brought to light a very ugly, but very real, side of humanity that we'd rather not face. But whether we wish to face it or not, it is there.

All any of us can truly control in this situation is how we react to it.

What has been made apparent to us, during all of this, is:

1.) A small, but very vocal, group of female gamers wish to attain more representation in video game culture.
2.) A small, but very vocal, group of male gamers do not agree.
3.) A small, but very vocal, group of journalists have decided to use this situation to antagonize not just the small, vocal group of male gamers, but gamers as a whole.

All three are valid opinions, as they belong to individuals (or groups of individuals) and they are being expressed (and opening themselves up for criticism and praise alike). Everyone has that right, no matter how pleasant or how vile the wording. We do not have to agree with them. We do not have to disagree with them. We do not need to defend them, or make excuses for them.

We are choosing to.

This doesn't have to be a war. We're making it one.
 
It seems that #gamergate and their supporters want a Fox News/Brietbart-esque media outlet that gives them a type of reporting that gives them what they want to hear.

Why don't they just make it themselves? Create a website that recreates the glory days of 1997 web reporting, and demand that any writers for the service are stagnated, and never brings up any social issues whatsoever.
 
It seems that #gamergate and their supporters want a Fox News/Brietbart-esque media outlet that gives them a type of reporting that gives them what they want to hear.

Why don't they just make it themselves? Create a website that recreates the glory days of 1997 web reporting, and demand that any writers for the service are stagnated, and never brings up any social issues whatsoever.

They tried that, they are all dead, sans gameinformer. Besides we do have that, youtube personalities.

Wait...I guess gameindustry.biz sorta counts, if you like the business side of things.
 
Alexander makes it immediately clear that she is not speaking as a gamer. The very first sentence of the article is
I am a journalist. I am separate.

This is an extraordinarily uncharitable and basically absurd reading. Leigh Alexander has worked in gaming for years. She wrote a whole book about the ways that computers and video games influenced her childhood. She has little interactive fiction games she's created on her website.

For all this, she's spent years being regularly trashed on game sites across the internet -- attacked for being pushy, or stupid, or uppity, regularly cited as an "annoying" person or someone who wants to "ruin" gaming -- or simply people who assert, as you have, that she isn't part of the community at all. The doubt and questioning that kicks off her piece is prefaced by exactly these years of being excluded (and seeing others excluded in the same way) from gaming because of her gender.

Then maybe this is something we should be focusing our energy on.

It is one thing, yes.
 
^^Many people in the Giant Bomb community hate her because she had the gall to get drunk during an E3 after-show one year.

Are you asking me why it's okay for people to harass you over sharing that article? Because I would never agree that it is.

I was speaking in generalities wrt the article. My main take-away from the article was that the people who are championing the hashtag should work to eliminate the harassment and abuse, and I was trying to offer up a question regarding it.

It was interesting discussing the article with the person who called me a shill though, he seemed convinced that the article is a manipulation to "trick" the people using the hashtag into dropping it, thus dropping the entirety of their "movement", which was not what I thought when reading the article at all. It seems to be echoed here slightly, that one of the better courses of action for this hashtag to get taken seriously by developers/media is for them to remove themselves from the abusive narrative that's been created by the hashtag. Whether it is a minority of people who were abusive or not, the movement they're trying to create will never make any true progress until they can appear to be amicable.

I don't even know if I'm being coherent at this point or not.
 
This is an extraordinarily uncharitable and basically absurd reading. Leigh Alexander has worked in gaming for years. She wrote a whole book about the ways that computers and video games influenced her childhood. She has little interactive fiction games she's created on her website.

For all this, she's spent years being regularly trashed on game sites across the internet -- attacked for being pushy, or stupid, or uppity, regularly cited as an "annoying" person or someone who wants to "ruin" gaming -- or simply people who assert, as you have, that she isn't part of the community at all. The doubt and questioning that kicks off her piece is prefaced by exactly these years of being excluded (and seeing others excluded in the same way) from gaming because of her gender.

He's not asserting that she's not part of the community. He's asserting, if I understand him properly, that in her article she does not present herself as belonging to the community of "gamers" that the article attacks. When she says gamers are mushroom-headed manchildren who need to change their misogynistic ways she's not saying "we gamers are mushroom-headed manchildren and we need to change." She's saying "you gamers are mushroom-headed manchildren and you need to change."

The entire article is an attempt to create novel definitions of "gamer" and "gaming culture" that specifically exclude her so that she can attack them from the outside. And yes, it's in part as a response to a prevailing definition of "gamer" that she feels tacitly or de facto excludes her, but that doesn't make the article any less inflammatory. There is a difference between saying "I am not a member of your community [because you won't let me be]" and "I am not a member of your community [because I don't want to be]." In this article she is quite clearly saying the latter.
 
Wait what? Adam Baldwin, as in the actor from Firefly, Chuck, and Last Resort, started this whole GamerGate thing?

Yeah. He was the first to use the hash tag, but it was about Anita Sarkeesian. Other people started using it. 4chan set up headquarters threads and each thread was "Watch these IA videos" and to tweet anything interesting to Baldwin because he would retweet it.
 
I can't really tell if some of the people are actually being serious when running defense for 4chan (or their /v/ board, rather) in the way they are here. I have spent a little time there off and on over the years (but not in the past 2-3),and in my experience it really was, on a consistent basis, filled to the brim with trash. Being an anonymous board (which I don't see, at all, how this would be a good solution to any problem whatsoever) also doesn't forgive the fact that it's often just a tidal wave of creepy, sexist, racist, crap no matter how you twist it. Yeah, they had amusing conversations or breakdowns at times, but you have to wade through the sewers of the internet to get to anything readable and even then half of the posts those threads would be trolling.

I don't think any real ill of anyone for going there, because I think 4chan's userbase is largely just internet addled children being innocuously edgy, dumb and awkward rather than legitimately hateful but I cannot fathom how that dump should be the posterchild for anything
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom