Laurie Penny isn't blaming all young white men for abuse. If you don't abuse people, if you welcome greater inclusivity in gaming, then she's not talking about you or making you a villain.
#GAMERGATE: The Threadening [Read the OP] -- #StopGamerGate2014
- Thread starter besada
- Start date
- Status
Laurie Penny isn't blaming all young white men for abuse. If you don't abuse people, if you welcome greater inclusivity in gaming, then she's not talking about you or making you a villain.
...You don't think it is coincidence that both gay rights and women's rights have exploded into the public sphere, and that less than 20 years after the liberal president (Clinton) signed a federal law into place banning gay marriage (DOMA), it is seen as inevitable that gays will have the same marriage rights as everyone else...in the 6 years since we had our first minority president? (I apologize for any misuse of terms in advance)
Electoral politics are often the symptom & precursors of how our culture is intending to trend. I have found being observant of politics, as well as sports (surprisingly) can often portend to how things will go broadly in our culture.
Simply Sarah
Member
I think it needs to be once again repeated that there is no actual way to "avoid politics". Either you talk about stuff or you actively avoid the topic. Both options are political in their own way.
Moon_frogger
Member
She is definitely implying that the majority of the abuse is coming from young white men though. That's not even debatable. Not even just young white men, but young white uneducated men when really. The problematic part if this is that most of the twitter abuse is anonymous, and when you look at misogyny and sexism as a whole in places where it isn't anonymous it's very obvious that it comes from all walks of life, white, black , young, old, rich, poor etc. It's not that she's saying 'all young white men uneducated' but 'primarily young white uneducated men' which is completely untrue.
poorlonelycomputer
Member
Cannot quote this hard enough! Games (or whatever) full of straight white dudes (for example), and no one discussing it, is already a political choice. And a pretty shitty one I might add.
revisionup
Banned
I feel her article is claiming that all hate mongers in this conflict are straight white males, since she names every other group of people (including ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, and creed) as the victims. I was not referring to just her article though, but the many articles I have had to read recently that have been stating it.
Some of them:
http://badassdigest.com/2014/08/31/why-i-feel-bad-for-and-understand-the-angry-gamergate-gamers/
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/224400/Gamers_dont_have_to_be_your_audience_Gamers_are_over.php
http://herocomplex.latimes.com/game...oversy-reveals-ugly-side-of-gaming-community/
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-04/sparrow-gamergate-when-outsiders-become-the-oppressors/5719584
http://www.theguardian.com/technolo...e-corruption-games-anita-sarkeesian-zoe-quinn
Moon_frogger
Member
yup and the reason it's problematic isn't because it's offensive to young white males but rather that it's severely underestimating the scope and depth of the problem. Even in the context of gaming, it's harmful to the feminist cause to stereotype this sort of faceless anonymous abuse.
SturokBGD
Member
I was raised to believe that politics were a private matter and who or what a person votes for is between them and their ballot and is nobody else's business. Does that make me a shitty person?
I have openly stood against misogyny, bigotry, and racism all my life but to make these political issues implies that I'm doing so under some kind of flag. Which is where the whole thing comes undone as far as I can see, people raising banners and calling each other to arms. It's all about context. Talk about the issues where the issues are relevant. With video games specifically, they generally do not exist or are not prominent enough to warrant an agenda. Rampant misogyny and abuse on the internet are not political issues. More importantly they're not even 'gaming culture' issues and in my humble opinion anyone writing about them as such is not only being offensive when it's not due, but they're also doing victims of any kind of abuse a terrible disservice. These are issues we all as human beings should be discussing regardless of political agenda or favourite pastime. But not like this.
(Bear in mind that I was not raised in and I do not live in the US, which is a place in which I can quite clearly see politics are treated differently.)
silvermember
Banned
If you are looking for news print quality reporting you will never see it because unlike news print that rely on both corporation and the people for their sources for income, gaming journalist rely entirely on corporations for both their news and income. So expecting Journalist to be anything more than shills is a pointless battle. It is also funny I didn't see this much effort when every thing reviewer ignore the crippling skyrim ps3 port, but I suspect as long as the game is popular on the PC gamers worrying about shill is not a problem.
In news there is at least a certain amount of morality than can be invoke to get around PR and to the sources, gaming secrets are power just look at sony's E3 conference two years ago when everything was revealed before it and compare it to last year's and this years.
https://storify.com/brett_douville/extending-the-branch
here's a really great twitter conversation that brett douville (worked on fallout 3, skyrim, old lucasarts) had with someone who is pretty clearly pissed at zoe and anita to begin with
here's a really great twitter conversation that brett douville (worked on fallout 3, skyrim, old lucasarts) had with someone who is pretty clearly pissed at zoe and anita to begin with
The goal of conservative politics is to retain existing power structures. Whether you like it or not, standing against those things is necessarily political. Also, "social justice" is generally analysed under political philosophy. Your views on social justice may or may not inform who you consider the best party to run your country at the time.
You are off the mark. Your political beliefs are your private choice. When someones votes for a party, it obviously becomes a public matter. As in when everybody votes for a Neo Nazi party, it becomes a public, political matter. When someone writes a book "Women are worthless shit", it becomes a public, political matter. When someone makes a game "Kill all jews", it becomes a public, political matter. Thats how it worked, always and everywhere.
Abuse, miss- and underrepresentation of women are relevant. If you see it different, you got some explaining to do.
Women showed and explained their abuse, miss- and underrepresentation in videogame culture over and over again. If you are offended by them, you got some explaining to do.
DICKS AHOY
Banned
I think the fact this game is free is really what makes the Zoe Quinn part of this entire conspiracy clusterfuck really pointless. There's nothing to really go off and as someone who heard about somebody like Phil Fish to an irritating degree on a weekly basis, I found it telling I only JUST heard about Quinn when this all started a few weeks ago. That storify page doesn't let me go onto the next page though; does it end at that "Don't lecture me on empathy" tweet or does it go on further?
SturokBGD
Member
But I only care to speak about misogyny and bigotry. My opinions on conservative politics one way or another are my own personal business and are not relevant to this discussion.
Yes, social justice indeed falls under political philosophy. But this isn't a political discussion. The problem is that everyone puts themselves under a banner as it it is, then we end up in situations like earlier today where prominent members of the press argue with famous Youtubers over absolutely nothing of value at all.
the problem here is that your definition of politics is very different from everyone else's
The people you are typically speaking against, the people who would rather women and other races retain their second class status, are of a particular political persuasion. You can choose to ignore the political aspects of this, but I would encourage you not to if at least to better understand those you are speaking against.
The results of misogyny and bigotry are issues of social justice, making this a political discussion.
I definitely agree that this a problem. People use party politics as a shortcut to thinking and assume everything their "side" thinks is true and this causes all sorts of problems. Party politics is a small subset of "politics" though. Calling this a political issue doesn't mean "if you vote for X, you hate women" or whatever.
The personal is political...
neurosisxeno
Member
There are two sides to Conservatism, they are generally labeled as Social and Fiscal Convservatism. The first deals with society as a whole and social issues (Gay Marriage, Abortion, Religion, etc.) and the latter deals with money (Budgets and Spending). Now, in the past it was possible to be a mixture of these, say a Moderate who was Fiscally Conservative but Socially Liberal, or a Moderate who was Socially Conservative but embraced Liberal Fiscal Policy. It allowed Politicians to pick and chose issues that were important to them without being bound by the ideology of their party.
Then came the era of Neo Conservatives. Since then the lines between Social and Fiscal Conservatives have vanished, and you have to politically be all in with the beast that is Conservatism. Basically in the modern era, if you're voting for a Conservative candidate (almost exclusively a Republican and likely a Tea Party candidate) you are voting for someone who is unflinchingly a social Conservative. Meaning you may want someone who just doesn't like high taxes or business regulations, but you have to accept that that any candidate supporting that also wants to shove Anti-Abortion Laws down peoples throats while preaching about how Gays are destroying society.
All Conservatives these days are social Conservatives. The major problem in the United States is that most of their electorate don't realize that. So you see, it's somewhat impossible to be in support of modern Conservative Ideology while simultaneously being for equality. Social Conservatives basically want everything to be like the 1950's--Women are housewives who cater to Mens needs to take care of children, and prioritize those things exclusively. In their mind, all portrayals of Women should match that antiquated view, because otherwise you are trying to change the basic principles of how society functions, and causing problems.
after weeks of this i've come to the conclusion that the only people that are gonna come out ahead are the writers/sites that are releasing article after article about this and the people that don't participate at all. it's become so inflammatory that any good is going to be completely washed away by the waves of anger and frustration.
thesolidshark
Member
I would ask how social politics became such a prevalent part of the latest thread posts, but I'd be afraid fo the answer, especially if the answer was "it was always political." But maybe it's political based on if you've aligned yourself with a side, and perspective.
I hope those mentioning politics a lot don't count on more people entering the discussion, especially if it means you have to stand for one thing or another.
I hope those mentioning politics a lot don't count on more people entering the discussion, especially if it means you have to stand for one thing or another.
Just to clarify, this all applies to the USA exclusively.
He specifically mentions USA, so eh, yeah. But thats how it generally works in every country.
endless dave
Member
So the general gist here is what? "Don't ever take a stand on anything. It might scare people away" or something?
Debate and critique of culture and politics is a function and need of a civilized society. If you're apathetic, get out of the way. Don't tut tut those who want to actually move the needle
The last tweet is 'peace' -- it goes a lot farther. Worth reading. Seriously. I feel better seeing at least one example of a debate where everyone doesn't hate everyone else more at the end.
https://storify.com/brett_douville/extending-the-branch
I agree with her general premise but her argument itself is weak and consists of no real arguments, just overtly flowery language that doesn't prove anything.
No. Canada has a Liberal party that balanced the budget while trending well left of the American democratic party in the 90s. In fact no other country in the world has anything as far right as the tea party.
If the Democrats can hang on to power in the US they will inevitably go fiscally conservative, as a result of circumstance rather than choice.
But this is off topic.
flatearthpandas
Member
I didn't see any mention of this otakusphere article before I quit this thread and a search doesn't reveal any mention of it since, so I think it might be worth bringing up, particularly as it applies to posts and sentiments like these:
The article suggests that "ethics" is an easy excuse to tackle an issue that was otherwise brewing: a requited contempt for games journalism. When people are crying for better ethics in games journalism, yet are unable to put into words what exactly that means, perhaps they are just crying for better games journalism.
Whether you agree or not that the "gamers are dead" trend was targeting the entire community, there is no denying that they enraged a large part of it. I'm of the opinion, and you may disagree, that in every other entertainment industry, whether a person's sex life is their own business or not, I would have read about accusations against a celebrity for sleeping with their boss and industry journalists in a professional magazine. I don't think there is a conspiracy, but it seems I may not be the only one who expects that and was surprised to see radio silence from a media industry as gleefully disrespectful in all other aspects as games journalism. Whether you agree that it was the correct decision for much of games media, reddit, Neogaf, and even 4chan to universally ban all discussion of the allegations against Quinn, there is no denying that that is what drove people to Twitter screaming of conspiracy.
Maybe they want a media that is prepared to talk about the community's issues, its own issues, and accusations against either--especially when they're already out in the open--instead of preaching or blacklisting. Maybe people want a games media that respects them. I agree that, if that is what they want, there's no need to try and belabor the journalism ethics point. Many have noticed that it isn't being sold very convincingly, though that doesn't mean misogyny is the true "heart" of the movement.
And writers may be looking at each other as this winds down, telling themselves that this is proof that they can't respect their audience enough to discuss sensitive issues. But for all that I disagree with Alexander's article, she said a few things I agree with:
To quickly summarize the article, the idea is in agreement with many in that the #gamergate fiasco did not really have "ethics" at its core. When I say core, I'm not talking about a 4chan attempt to steer the hurricane (or even start it), but the principles that got so many people involved.
The article suggests that "ethics" is an easy excuse to tackle an issue that was otherwise brewing: a requited contempt for games journalism. When people are crying for better ethics in games journalism, yet are unable to put into words what exactly that means, perhaps they are just crying for better games journalism.
otakusphere said:
otakusphere said:
Whether you agree or not that the "gamers are dead" trend was targeting the entire community, there is no denying that they enraged a large part of it. I'm of the opinion, and you may disagree, that in every other entertainment industry, whether a person's sex life is their own business or not, I would have read about accusations against a celebrity for sleeping with their boss and industry journalists in a professional magazine. I don't think there is a conspiracy, but it seems I may not be the only one who expects that and was surprised to see radio silence from a media industry as gleefully disrespectful in all other aspects as games journalism. Whether you agree that it was the correct decision for much of games media, reddit, Neogaf, and even 4chan to universally ban all discussion of the allegations against Quinn, there is no denying that that is what drove people to Twitter screaming of conspiracy.
Maybe they want a media that is prepared to talk about the community's issues, its own issues, and accusations against either--especially when they're already out in the open--instead of preaching or blacklisting. Maybe people want a games media that respects them. I agree that, if that is what they want, there's no need to try and belabor the journalism ethics point. Many have noticed that it isn't being sold very convincingly, though that doesn't mean misogyny is the true "heart" of the movement.
And writers may be looking at each other as this winds down, telling themselves that this is proof that they can't respect their audience enough to discuss sensitive issues. But for all that I disagree with Alexander's article, she said a few things I agree with:
But I don't see how committing to curating a community and culture can possibly involve disowning your responsibility for and washing your hands of the existing community in which it was always your job to guide discussion. Maybe instead of daydreaming about how they will do better next time as the city burns around them, games journalism can start doing better today. Then maybe they can actually facilitate a healthy discussion next time a controversy hits. Then maybe, instead of driving everyone onto Twitter to have the discussion and be drafted into a campaign against the media (among other things they may or may not even realize), they can prove they've curated a healthy community and drive everyone onto Twitter to drown out any misogyny with messages of support.Leigh Alexander said:
Yes, USA is more rightwing than many other countries. Wasn't the point. At all. The point was, politics are not just something in "private". They are a societal, public matter. Thats the point.
That wasn't the point I responded to and you felt you needed to disagree with. At all. Go back and look. It was fiscal and social conservatism are inextricably linked.
But this is way off topic and I'm done.
thesolidshark
Member
No, I couldn't stop some people from taking a stand on anything if I tried. For those looking for "armies" or "rallying troops" to paraphrase some things I've been hearing, I'm uncertain a lot of gamers have or want something political to say if they come into the conversation, myself included. But I could be wrong.
Wasn't in your way, just making a comment from the stands. Agree with debate and critiquing being a function of civilized society, but hopefully the critiquing is allowed to be critiqued as well.
QuickSilverD
Member
Haven't seen this posted yet
Jim Sterling has responded more directly regarding #Gamergate
Oh What A Lovely Conspiracy
Jim Sterling has responded more directly regarding #Gamergate
Oh What A Lovely Conspiracy
Señor Coyote
Banned
"Left" and "Right" or "Progressive" and "Conservative" are very subjective banners to put yourself under. I see most most people who throw in their lot with Anita Sarkeesian would consider themselves progressive yet Anita's view on sex workers and pornography run counter to many sex positive progressives in western nations.
Um this is patently false.
ArkkAngel007
Member
I don't think we posted it in this thread, but that may have been due it having its own thread already.
I have my doubts that the movie industry would considering a director sleeping with someone who eventually moved to start working at a media outlet about movies, then didn't write anything about said director's movie, would be covered at all.
SturokBGD
Member
Yeesh. I have a fussy newborn and a sick 3 year old so I don't have a lot of time to get into this further but the above responses are perhaps the reason politics are a private matter where I come from... 
What I'm saying is that video game enthusiasts belong to a sub-culture and the topics we discuss are very granular by nature. We shouldn't be pinning these things to a scale and sticking to how that scale is defined because they inevitably devolve into utter lunacy, like we're seeing with this GamerGate thing right now. Rather than working out the issues, we're planting flags. I see all this talk about the 'social justice movement' or the 'GamerGate movement' but the flags have been rooted so deeply that any kind 'movement' is the last thing that's happening.
If me and a hundred thousand people like me vote for a particular party, obviously that's a public matter. That's obviously how it works. But I have absolutely no obligation to anyone to share which side of the scale I fall on, or even if I land on the scale at all. I should not have to feel my answer (or lack of) dictates how much respect I get for the way I choose to live my life. I am a gaming enthusiast, I have been for almost 4 decades. I also have a strong distaste for bigotry in any form it takes, whether it be misogyny or the defamation of a lifestyle that some may choose to lead. And that's all anyone needs to know in this context.
This is getting WAY off on a tangent, sorry.
What I'm saying is that video game enthusiasts belong to a sub-culture and the topics we discuss are very granular by nature. We shouldn't be pinning these things to a scale and sticking to how that scale is defined because they inevitably devolve into utter lunacy, like we're seeing with this GamerGate thing right now. Rather than working out the issues, we're planting flags. I see all this talk about the 'social justice movement' or the 'GamerGate movement' but the flags have been rooted so deeply that any kind 'movement' is the last thing that's happening.
If me and a hundred thousand people like me vote for a particular party, obviously that's a public matter. That's obviously how it works. But I have absolutely no obligation to anyone to share which side of the scale I fall on, or even if I land on the scale at all. I should not have to feel my answer (or lack of) dictates how much respect I get for the way I choose to live my life. I am a gaming enthusiast, I have been for almost 4 decades. I also have a strong distaste for bigotry in any form it takes, whether it be misogyny or the defamation of a lifestyle that some may choose to lead. And that's all anyone needs to know in this context.
This is getting WAY off on a tangent, sorry.
Come on now. These things are relevant period. To all of us that identifies themselves as being decent human beings in any way. I said that already. That nobody else bothered to make that clear is a large part of the backlash to Leigh etc in the first place.
That line is referring to a pretty specific type of person -- not all white males.
flatearthpandas
Member
It's fine for you to disagree. Would be remiss not to tell you that your analogy is bad, but it's really beside the point to the whole post. As a reminder, it was a suggestion that people are not really interested in games journalism ethics, but are instead using that as a misguided way to express their dissatisfaction and distrust of games journalism in general, and a media blackout in the face of an as-of-yet disproved accusation of corruption drove some of these disenfranchised people to Twitter to join a professed campaign against journalism.
What's wrong with the analogy? Maybe I misunderstood your paragraphs.
How do you know this is completely untrue? I'd like to see some polls or research that gauges or quantifies who is responsible for the majority of the misogyny directed towards female game figures on Twitter. You think it's evenly spread across all "walks of life?" As a white male I have a sneaking suspicion it's mostly a certain kind of white male. I could, of course, be wrong.
JasonUresti
Member
Solid, but I still find that the Florence piece on Max Temkin was in poor judgement on his and their parts. It deserved coverage no more (particularly with Rab's "I think he's guilty but I won't actually write that" stance) than Zoe's public response to the allegations leveled against her. That was one of the few pieces I came across in gaming media as a whole, and the only one on RPS, where I felt that the writer was pontificating and trying to forge something out of nothing with a topic tenuously related to games.
For the people who accused Zoe of cherry picking: http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/...urse-of-the-dinner-directly-from-the-irc-log/
Now I've actually been in on a thread where Rab has briefly discussed this.
Rab's piece came from a public press release. Zoe's situation came from blog gossip hearsay.
chaobreaker
Member
Interesting, that guy basically revealed why so many people object to Anita's videos: they feel like the only hobby they have is being attacked by foreign entities. They think her criticisms of some trends in games is an attack on themselves, that they are sick filth for enjoying these games with disposable woman and damsels in distress.
I always suspected this but hearing it from some random belligerent guy on Twitter, who is opening himself to this game Dev was an eye opening experience.
Articles from different sources that cover the same bit of news are not "duplicates". They're unique bits of content. The point of the analysis is to show just how little attention these topics receive from the sampled enthusiast press. After all the "news", reviews, LPs and so on there's actually not very much space left for critical and introspective bits of content.
Riposte
Member
Anita videos seem fairly harmless, but I wouldn't be surprised if the arguments that spawn off it have a way of aggravating people (e.g., someone saying something like "degraded violence porn for young men"). I do think there are some real incompatibilities involved (not along the lines of "more female characters") and I like pointing them out when I see them.
Nothing we didn't already know.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll