Support NeoGAF

[tonysidaway]

Saying gaming is riddled with misogyny and condemning it isn't action, it's speech.

It would be a start, and much better than holding a round-table discussion.

I don't think rape threats are the social issues most Gamergate supporters have in mind.

Perhaps they should. This is the consequence of tolerating extreme misogyny. As early as 2012, gamers were circulating a game in which the player punched Anita Sarkeesian to death. By March of this year, a conference called in the police to investigate a credible terrorist bomb threat, because the same person won an award.

 

[Riposte]

I think "Can we play video games already" is just as easily applied to the people who make/were making threads about this on 4chan's /v/ (where I assume the image comes from given that's the "Vivian" character). In fact, when I made an effort to browse the board because of this, anyone who said that (in a more confrontational tone, to be sure), which was actually quite a few people actually, wasn't treated kindly by other participants of the thread. It conflicts with the intention of the image, I'd say.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

This is what I mean, you haven't addressed this question:

And yet your reply presupposes that these critiques are abundant, but ignored.

Apologies for not addressing that question, I must have skipped over it.

I do not think feminist/academically-minded critiques of Sarkeesian's videos exist outside of forum discussions on Neogaf and maybe The Escapist and a few other places. In other words: these critiques exist in the gaming community (and they are frequently quite persuasive), but they are not transmitted on mainstream gaming websites.

There are two possible explanations for this phenomenon:

1. Everyone in the gaming press agrees with Anita Sarkeesian's videos, no one can come up with any significant criticism of her conclusions or methodology.

2. Some people in the gaming press disagree with Sarkeesian's conclusions or methodology, but:
a) they are instructed by their editors not to make this disagreement public
b) they do not feel comfortable making this disagreement public, for professional or personal reasons

Number 1 is clearly an impossibility.

My biggest problem with this is that it's always seemed clear that the most vocal critics of the gaming press preaching to them are people that aren't even the target audience for the pieces going out of their way to find this egregious content. In fact, I'm fairly confident that you belong to this group. It seems fairly clear to me that you're not a regular consumer of information written by the mainstream press, but instead read the meta-coverage as reported on discussion forums.

Why is this clear? Because you'll see Alexander's piece singled out by people that aren't the target audience of Gamasutra. Or Walker from RPS singled out from people that aren't the target audience of Rock Paper Shotgun. Or any of the various other articles that don't weigh in too heavily and are often cited with no context that MHWilliams has had to debunk again and again in terms of discrediting the narrative that the nebulous "gaming press" is throwing "gamers" under the bus en masse.

Many or the other biggest targets -- folks like Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian -- aren't even members of the gaming press. It's clear that much of the backlash is manufactured, which is incredibly ironic given that the single biggest charge often levied against so-called Social Justice Warriors is that they manufacture outrage against unimportant stuff.

The only gaming sites that I read regularly at this point are Eurogamer and Kill Screen. I used to be a regular reader of Polygon, though I've basically stopped due to my annoyance with their obnoxious sermonizing (as well as with the Kuchera-led transition towards editorial stupidity). I used to be an occasional reader of Gamasutra, but I've stopped. I still read The Verge, though I'll stop if more articles like this latest one pop up. So I don't know, my annoyance doesn't seem manufactured to me.

 

[Mael]

Apologies for not addressing that question, I must have skipped over it.

I do not think feminist/academically-minded critiques of Sarkeesian's videos exist outside of forum discussions on Neogaf and maybe The Escapist and a few other places. In other words: these critiques exist in the gaming community (and they are frequently quite persuasive), but they are not transmitted on mainstream gaming websites.

There are two possible explanations for this phenomenon:

1. Everyone in the gaming press agrees with Anita Sarkeesian's videos, no one can come up with any significant criticism of her conclusions or methodology.

2. Some people in the gaming press disagree with Sarkeesian's conclusions or methodology, but:
a) they are instructed by their editors not to make this disagreement public
b) they do not feel comfortable making this disagreement public, for professional or personal reasons

Number 1 is clearly an impossibility.

Or 3. They don't give a shit and think that their audience ALSO don't give a shit so they're not covering this either.
After all if the defense for the status quo is : well it doesn't sell.
Maybe that's also why there's no coverage of criticism of Sarkeesian.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

I also don't see any sites talking about the gamergate videos and disagreeing with them, is this because

1. Everyone in the gaming press agrees withthose videos, no one can come up with any significant criticism of the conclusions or methodology.

2. Some people in the gaming press disagree with those conclusions or methodology, but:
a) they are instructed by their editors not to make this disagreement public
b) they do not feel comfortable making this disagreement public, for professional or personal reasons

?

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

I also don't see any sites talking about the gamergate videos and disagreeing with them, is this because

1. Everyone in the gaming press agrees withthose videos, no one can come up with any significant criticism of the conclusions or methodology.

2. Some people in the gaming press disagree with those conclusions or methodology, but:
a) they are instructed by their editors not to make this disagreement public
b) they do not feel comfortable making this disagreement public, for professional or personal reasons

?

Mainstream gaming sites transmit videos like Sarkeesian's. Mainstream gaming sites do not transmit Gamergate videos.

Or 3. They don't give a shit and think that their audience ALSO don't give a shit so they're not covering this either.
After all if the defense for the status quo is : well it doesn't sell.
Maybe that's also why there's no coverage of criticism of Sarkeesian.

This isn't plausible. Their audience quite clearly gives a shit. Sarkeesian- and Gamergate-related articles get a ton of clicks and comments.

 

[VibratingDonkey]

Isn't this poster what #gamergate people stand by? Which has explicitly to do with ethics in the industry?

3716 ggate supporters reckon this is what it's about.

They''ve done a bangup job of proving it.

 

[JackDT]

I'm guessing it's the powerful SJW bully lobby that keeps journalists from saying what they truly think about Anita Sarkeesian?

Maybe it's worth reposting the David Jaffe comment:

#2- I simply do not buy that bloggers (and even big game journalists) are affecting small devs ability to do work and/or make money. Every time I ask for proof I get a link to two things:

1-a game dev CEO who kickstarted a game and got told he was anti-women and such but refused to change his game (good for him)

2- an artist who had a boss who said he needed to change the box art (or some kind of art) for the game because some complained the woman in the image showed too much skin. To this I say: so fucking what? That is not creative freedom being denied anymore than if the same boss told the same artist 'sorry, I know you wanna draw a bad ass Space Marine but we're making a game set against the backdrop of ancient history and as cool as you think it would be to mash up DOOM and GOD OF WAR, I- as CEO- feel the game won't do as well with that mash up and I choose to make decisions that are in the interest of sales'. That happens- for all kinds of reasons- all the time. That's why some devs go pure indie so they can make whatever the hell they want. Whatever you think of a game like GONE HOME (and I know some of y'all hate it) you think a game about a teen's first lesbian love affair set against the backdrop of a supposed haunted house would get greenlit by Capcom?!? Sounds to me- with Steam and ios and even PSN with games like Journey and Unfinished Swan- there's not a lot of proof that creative vision of individuals is being denied. Do you have better examples of the two I always get sent?

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sc0m7c

 

[Mael]

This isn't plausible. Their audience quite clearly gives a shit. Sarkeesian- and Gamergate-related articles get a ton of clicks and comments.

More or less than the usual PR drivel we get served every day?
In the grand scheme of things the coverage Sarkeesian/Gamergate have is nothing compare to the coverage for "OMG R* OFFERED ME 1 WEEK PAID VACATION TO PLAY GTAIX!!!!1"
If there's real thirst for this type of stuffs, they can do what good capitalists do (and we love them, right?) : raise funds and do the job instead of complaining like whinny entitled commies.
Seriously if Sarkeesian managed to get funded by gamers to do these vids gamers hate so much, why not poor even more fund into something refuting this.
Why the fuck do they have to latch onto Breibart and invent shit as it goes ?
If the audience hate the media coverage of sarkeesian/Gamergate so much why is it getting tons of clicks as you say?
Clearly they love punishment

 

[Corto]

Mainstream gaming sites transmit videos like Sarkeesian's. Mainstream gaming sites do not transmit Gamergate videos.

Thank god for that. They're embarrassing. As a consumer movement they don't represent the majority of the consumer base. They are just vocal. The majority of consumers would disdain to be associated with such an ill originated movement. That's why mainstream gaming sites don't give them credence.

 

[Mael]

Thank god for that. They're embarrassing. As a consumer movement they don't represent the majority of the consumer base. They are just vocal. The majority of consumers would disdain to be associated with such an ill originated movement. That's why mainstream gaming sites don't give them credence.

Seriously no news mainstream site deemed gamergate vids as nothing but vile stuffs to avoid, there's a reason for that.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Apologies for not addressing that question, I must have skipped over it.

I do not think feminist/academically-minded critiques of Sarkeesian's videos exist outside of forum discussions on Neogaf and maybe The Escapist and a few other places. In other words: these critiques exist in the gaming community (and they are frequently quite persuasive), but they are not transmitted on mainstream gaming websites.

There are two possible explanations for this phenomenon:

1. Everyone in the gaming press agrees with Anita Sarkeesian's videos, no one can come up with any significant criticism of her conclusions or methodology.

2. Some people in the gaming press disagree with Sarkeesian's conclusions or methodology, but:
a) they are instructed by their editors not to make this disagreement public
b) they do not feel comfortable making this disagreement public, for professional or personal reasons

Number 1 is clearly an impossibility.

Those are indeed two possible explanations, but I don't think that pointing to a lack of evidence as being proof is a satisfactory basis for the claims you are making. The third option I see is that the arguments being made by critics of Sarkeesian are less persuasive to others than they are to you personally, for whatever reason.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Thank god for that. They're embarrassing. As a consumer movement they don't represent the majority of the consumer base. They are just vocal. The majority of consumers would disdain to be associated with such an ill originated movement. That's why mainstream gaming sites don't give them credence.

I agree. But let's be frank: this applies to people on the other side of the argument who get plenty of time on gaming websites.

Those are indeed two possible explanations, but I don't think that pointing to a lack of evidence as being proof is a satisfactory basis for the claims you are making. The third option I see is that the arguments being made by critics of Sarkeesian are less persuasive to others than they are to you personally, for whatever reason.

Be clear about who you're talking about when you say "others": the writers and editors at major gaming websites. Isn't this the institutional bias that Gamergate people are railing against, however incoherently?

More or less than the usual PR drivel we get served every day?
In the grand scheme of things the coverage Sarkeesian/Gamergate have is nothing compare to the coverage for "OMG R* OFFERED ME 1 WEEK PAID VACATION TO PLAY GTAIX!!!!1"
If there's real thirst for this type of stuffs, they can do what good capitalists do (and we love them, right?) : raise funds and do the job instead of complaining like whinny entitled commies.
Seriously if Sarkeesian managed to get funded by gamers to do these vids gamers hate so much, why not poor even more fund into something refuting this.
Why the fuck do they have to latch onto Breibart and invent shit as it goes ?
If the audience hate the media coverage of sarkeesian/Gamergate so much why is it getting tons of clicks as you say?
Clearly they love punishment

This post is long on resentment and generalizations about people you don't like and short on argumentation.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

Mainstream gaming sites transmit videos like Sarkeesian's. Mainstream gaming sites do not transmit Gamergate videos.

And the idea of them doing that cause they think she has a point is so absurd that it makes much more sense that they are being bullied into doing that?

This isn't plausible. Their audience quite clearly gives a shit. Sarkeesian- and Gamergate-related articles get a ton of clicks and comments.

Okay, so we established now that linking to both articles would gain them more clicks. They don't link to the latter, meaning they aren't as interested in clicks as they could be. So they do it because of other reasons. Hmmm....which other reasons might there be?
I mean we clearly established that they can't agree with her on some level, right?

But whatever, I also don't really like Anita's videos. But....what does this have to do with gamergate again? I thought gamergate was against corruption, not against people being more sensitive about stuff than other people would like them to be?

 

[aeolist]

ah, i see you guys are learning why i blocked imru a few weeks back

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

ah, i see you guys are learning why i blocked imru a few weeks back

The fact that you blocked someone for disagreeing with you civilly says a lot more about you than it does about me, I think.

 

[Galactic Fork]

tropes by themselves mean nothing when taken out of the context of the works they're in, you can't make serious arguments about the treatment of groups in a given medium solely on the basis of the prevalence of negative tropes in that medium.

You have it backwards. These are works of fiction. They are not real life. They are creations. The creator can create any context for anything in their creation. So when negative tropes are prevalent in a medium the question is:
Why are all of these creators finding a reason to create contexts for these tropes?

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

You have it backwards. These are works of fiction. They are not real life. They are creations. The creator can create any context for anything in their creation. So when negative tropes are prevalent in a medium the question is:
Why are all of these creators finding a reason to create contexts for these tropes?

That is a question that has multiple possible answers.

Here's a parallel: why do negative tropes about Jews show up so frequently in early modern European literature? I'll give you a hint: the field has moved well beyond answering that question with "because people didn't like Jews."

 

[Fantastapotamus]

Not to run this into the ground but:

Is #gamergate about corruption of gaming journalists or about "Social issues"? Which is the case now? Both? None?
Cause, I don't feel like "this person spent an hour writing about something I don't really care about" in any way warrants most of the reactions I've seen. That might only be me though.

Here's a parallel: why do negative tropes about Jews show up so frequently in early modern European literature? I'll give you a hint: the field has moved well beyond answering that question with "because people didn't like Jews."

I actually don't know, why?

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Not to run this into the ground but:

Is #gamergate about corruption of gaming journalists or about "Social issues"? Which is the case now? Both? None?
Cause, I don't feel like "this person spent an hour writing about something I don't really care about" in any way warrants most of the reactions I've seen. That might only be me though.

It's about social issues much more than it is about "corruption," whatever that means.

I actually don't know, why?

Can't really summarize it here, but the state of the art thesis is that "Judaism" and "Jews" constitute a set of concepts that Christians, from the very beginning of Christianity, have used in order to attack beliefs they disagreed with within their own communities. That is to say: negative portrayals of Jews are frequently allegories for different forms of Christian thought as they are negative portrayals of actual, real-life Jews.

 

[The Technomancer]

That is a question that has multiple possible answers.

Here's a parallel: why do negative tropes about Jews show up so frequently in early modern European literature? I'll give you a hint: the field has moved well beyond answering that question with "because people didn't like Jews."

But if you were to make a ten minute YouTube video that was interested introducing people unfamiliar with it to the idea of antisemitisim, it might look like the core theme was "because people didn't like Jews"

People don't start increasing their awareness by being linked to ten page academic papers

 

[Corto]

I agree. But let's be frank: this applies to people on the other side of the argument who get plenty of time on gaming websites.

I'm being completely frank when saying that that doesn't apply at all to people on the other side of the argument who get plenty of time on gaming websites.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

It's about social issues much more than it is about "corruption," whatever that means.

Why exactly do people care if other people spent an hour about complaining about something they don't like?
Like, Eurogamer right now has an article about the resolution off Dragon Age. I don't care about that. So I won't read it. Even Eurogamer now starts posting multiple articles about resolution each day, I don't care cause they are pretty easy to avoid. Right? I mean most of the stuff that's on Eurogamer (f.e.) right now doesn't interest me at all. So I don't read it. Problem solved.

Also since you already answered and might not see my edit:

Here's a parallel: why do negative tropes about Jews show up so frequently in early modern European literature? I'll give you a hint: the field has moved well beyond answering that question with "because people didn't like Jews."

I actually don't know, why?

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Be clear about who you're talking about when you say "others": the writers and editors at major gaming websites. Isn't this the institutional bias that Gamergate people are railing against, however incoherently?

Again, the absence of evidence is not evidence. A claim of institutional bias which relies on the fact that there is no coverage of something is an unsubstantiated claim, because there could be any number of reasons for it other than corruption. As I said, it might very well be that your biases make you more receptive to the ideas put forward by critics of Sarkeesian, and make you more prepared to believe them, despite the fact that they are generally flimsy at best.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Again, the absence of evidence is not evidence. A claim of institutional bias which relies on the fact that there is no coverage of something is an unsubstantiated claim, because there could be any number of reasons for it other than corruption. As I said, it might very well be that your biases make you more receptive to the ideas put forward by critics of Sarkeesian, and make you more prepared to believe them, despite the fact that they are generally flimsy at best.

Institutional bias does not constitute corruption. I'm being very clear in keeping these two concepts separate.

There has never been a feminist critique in the history of feminist critiques that some intelligent people have not taken issue with, from within or without feminism. Anita Sarkeesian certainly hasn't come up with the first.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Apologies for not addressing that question, I must have skipped over it.

I do not think feminist/academically-minded critiques of Sarkeesian's videos exist outside of forum discussions on Neogaf and maybe The Escapist and a few other places. In other words: these critiques exist in the gaming community (and they are frequently quite persuasive), but they are not transmitted on mainstream gaming websites.

There are two possible explanations for this phenomenon:

1. Everyone in the gaming press agrees with Anita Sarkeesian's videos, no one can come up with any significant criticism of her conclusions or methodology.

2. Some people in the gaming press disagree with Sarkeesian's conclusions or methodology, but:
a) they are instructed by their editors not to make this disagreement public
b) they do not feel comfortable making this disagreement public, for professional or personal reasons

Number 1 is clearly an impossibility.



The only gaming sites that I read regularly at this point are Eurogamer and Kill Screen. I used to be a regular reader of Polygon, though I've basically stopped due to my annoyance with their obnoxious sermonizing (as well as with the Kuchera-led transition towards editorial stupidity). I used to be an occasional reader of Gamasutra, but I've stopped. I still read The Verge, though I'll stop if more articles like this latest one pop up. So I don't know, my annoyance doesn't seem manufactured to me.

So you can only think of 2 possible explanations, and one of those two is, in fact, impossible.

You are stretching your rhetorical devices so thin right now that you have to flip-flop on the definition of possible.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

I actually don't know, why?

If you're interested, I can strongly recommend the book.

 

[The Technomancer]

If you're interested, I can strongly recommend the book.

Which is a great way to answer the question in detail. Now how many people do you think are going to click that link and buy the book in question?
Do you think that number is greater or less than the number who might watch a handful of similarly linked videos and walk away somewhat more informed about the topic even if they didn't receive an exhaustive analysis?

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

So you can only think of 2 possible explanations, and one of those two is, in fact, impossible.

You are stretching your rhetorical devices so thin right now that you have to flip-flop on the definition of possible.

There are two [logically] possible explanations. Number 1 is logically possible but practically impossible.

Which is a great way to answer the question in detail. Now how many people do you think are going to click that link and buy the book in question?
Do you think that number is greater or less than the number who might watch a handful of similarly linked videos and walk away somewhat more informed about the topic even if they didn't receive an exhaustive analysis?

I see you missed my summary of the book's thesis:

Can't really summarize it here, but the state of the art thesis is that "Judaism" and "Jews" constitute a set of concepts that Christians, from the very beginning of Christianity, have used in order to attack beliefs they disagreed with within their own communities. That is to say: negative portrayals of Jews are as frequently allegories for different forms of Christian thought as they are negative portrayals of actual, real-life Jews.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

If you're interested, I can strongly recommend the book.

I'm not interested enough to read an entire book about it, can you summarise it or is it to complex?

Edit: Read your edit

 

[The Technomancer]

I see you missed my summary of the book's thesis:

Can't really summarize it here, but the state of the art thesis is that "Judaism" and "Jews" constitute a set of concepts that Christians, from the very beginning of Christianity, have used in order to attack beliefs they disagreed with within their own communities. That is to say: negative portrayals of Jews are as frequently allegories for different forms of Christian thought as they are negative portrayals of actual, real-life Jews.

I dunno man, that's pretty simplified, it sounds like you're just saying "people don't like Jews" there. I'm not sure there's value in that unless you provide analysis at least as detailed as the book itself

Why are you trying to convince me to learn about this subject with such a shallow, simplified analysis?

 

[Orayn]

There are two [logically] possible explanations. Number 1 is logically possible but practically impossible.

Have you ever heard of the fallacy of the excluded middle? It's kind of important.

See, 'cause you're presenting this as POSSIBILITY 1 (IMPOSSIBLE LOL) vs. POSSIBILITY 2 (I AM RIGHT) when it's more along the lines of POSSIBILITY 1 (Unlikely) vs. many other possible explanations that could lead to the results we saw.

Where you go wrong is insisting that the lack of negative responses to Tropes vs. Women in the mainstream gaming media must have been caused by fear or pressure from authority. Fear or pressure could both have caused that, yes, but those are not the only possibilities.

I'm bringing up this logical fallacy, because for someone who supposedly puts so much emphasis on rationality and academic rigor, you are using a very poorly constructed argument to support your point.

 

[BlastProcessing]

There are two [logically] possible explanations. Number 1 is logically possible but practically impossible.

How would something that is practically impossible somehow be logically possible? That is not how logic works. When you apply logic to a situation reality is a pretty big consideration.

You were creating a false dichotomy in an attempt to score a point.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Institutional bias does not constitute corruption. I'm being very clear in keeping these two concepts separate.

There has never been a feminist critique in the history of feminist critiques that some intelligent people have not taken issue with, from within or without feminism. Anita Sarkeesian certainly hasn't come up with the first.

Right, but those critiques have not necessarily been given widespread coverage either. Sarkeesian's work is by no means bulletproof, but I tend towards the belief that journalists find it compelling enough to give her coverage above and beyond her critics who they find less persuasive.

 

[Galactic Fork]

That is a question that has multiple possible answers.

Here's a parallel: why do negative tropes about Jews show up so frequently in early modern European literature? I'll give you a hint: the field has moved well beyond answering that question with "because people didn't like Jews."

Good thing we don't answer the question with "because people simply don't like women."
Each trope is different and shows an underlying perception of women. The reasons for the damsel in distress trope and the Mrs Male Character trope are different, same with the other negative tropes.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Right, but those critiques have not necessarily been given widespread coverage either. Sarkeesian's work is by no means bulletproof, but I tend towards the belief that journalists find it compelling enough to give her coverage above and beyond her critics who they find less persuasive.

And for people who agree with Sarkeesian's work that doesn't seem problematic. A significant proportion of the consumers of gaming press don't agree with Sarkeesian's work (or the idea of Sarkeesian's work), and this is the sort of thing that's fueling Gamergate.

Good thing we don't answer the question with "because people simply don't like women."
Each trope is different and shows an underlying perception of women. The reasons for the damsel in distress trope and the Mrs Male Character trope are different, same with the other negative tropes.

It is too much of a leap to go from "tropes exist in art" to "tropes are representative of popular opinions."

 

[partyphone]

The fact that you blocked someone for disagreeing with you civilly says a lot more about you than it does about me, I think.

That you think this is about a civil disagreement says a lot about you. You have spent pages spewing utter bullshit. What does it matter that it's civil?

 

[Oersted]

And for people who agree with Sarkeesian's work that doesn't seem problematic. A significant proportion of the consumers of gaming press don't agree with Sarkeesian's work (or the idea of Sarkeesian's work), and this is the sort of thing that's fueling Gamergate.

Can you provide some numeric analysis?

 

[Orayn]

Can you provide some numeric analysis?

By tomorrow, I expect a full statistical writeup on all articles published on the subject of Tropes vs. Women and how many of those were positive vs. negative.

The claim that no one in the press dared to voice their negative reaction needs to be substantiated with data. We can't allow flimsy explanation like "well I would have heard about it on GAF if it happened" in this discussion.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Have you ever heard of the fallacy of the excluded middle? It's kind of important.

See, 'cause you're presenting this as POSSIBILITY 1 (IMPOSSIBLE LOL) vs. POSSIBILITY 2 (I AM RIGHT) when it's more along the lines of POSSIBILITY 1 (Unlikely) vs. many other possible explanations that could lead to the results we saw.

Where you go wrong is insisting that the lack of negative responses to Tropes vs. Women in the mainstream gaming media must have been caused by fear or pressure from authority. Fear or pressure could both have caused that, yes, but those are not the only possibilities.

I'm bringing up this logical fallacy, because for someone who supposedly puts so much emphasis on rationality and academic rigor, you are using a very poorly constructed argument to support your point.

What other possible explanations are there? The only one I'm seeing proposed is that Sarkeesian's work is so bulletproof that people just can't find anything wrong with it, which is basically possibility 1 - which I view to be impossible, since people much smarter than Sarkeesian have formulated feminist critiques that have come in for sustained criticism.

By tomorrow, I expect a full statistical writeup on all articles published on the subject of Tropes vs. Women and how many of those were positive vs. negative.

The claim that no one in the press dared to voice their negative reaction needs to be substantiated with data. We can't allow flimsy explanation like "well I would have heard about it on GAF if it happened" in this discussion.

I haven't seen any negative articles published in the mainstream gaming press about Tropes vs Women. Have you?

 

[Galactic Fork]

It is too much of a leap to go from "tropes exist in art" to "tropes are representative of popular opinions."

But it's not a leap to from "there is a disproportionate representation of a particular thread of tropes" to "these tropes are representative of popular opinions"

 

[Moral Panic]

I don't like Tropes vs Videogames. That's why I don't watch it. What does that have to do with Gamergate?

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Ah. But it's not a leap to say a disproportionate representation of a particular thread of tropes shows a indication of popular opinions.

That's absolutely a leap. Hell, it's even a leap to say that the tropes Sarkeesian singles out are "disproportionately" represented in gaming - disproportionately compared to what, exactly? Artistic works as a whole?

 

[Oersted]

Note that biased comes first, before corrupt. Gamergate is about identity politics to a larger degree than it is about ethics, in my view.

Can you provide some analys to back that up?

 

[Kimawolf]

Yes she is. I had no idea who the hell she was before any of this. Her and her ex were both nobodies. She was accused of sleeping with a writer for good reviews, Kotaku looked at it, it wasn't true, and nothing else happened. The fact that people are still on it as some sort of scandal is what's ridiculous.

I actually still don't understand what it stands for outside a ton of people who think video games should not be subject to any sort of critical study and a call for an end to corruption without an understanding of what that corruption is or even how the world works let alone how the games industry works.

Considering I keep seeing people on the side of GamerGate as painting the "other side" as "SJWs", I'm going to disagree and say the majority want to maintain the status quo, not move towards equality. You cannot say that opponents of your cause are terrible because they're fighting for equality and maintain the farce that you believe in equality.

Gamergate isn't my cause. I am speaking my mind on this because of what I'm seeing.

I am a old school liberal, I was raised in the school of debate that involves engaging people you disagree with, and either agreeing to disagree, or see some truth in their statements. what I'm seeing is this new school of liberals and feminist who are using old Mccarthy tactics to debate. they are not debating at all, they are demonizing, talking down to, preaching, and insulting people's intelligence.

That's something I can't stand and when I read it I have to say something on it. so when i see posts calling ALL Gamergate people "ISIS" or "engaged in acts of terror" or "all misogynists monsters" and any of the other names I feel like I need to speak up.. As for what they want? I have no clue, but I don't believe "Gamergate" is a movement, as much as its a place gamers are going to vent, as such their "demands" are whatever the individual person posting wants.

And that's the problem. You are absolutely right that It's no real movement, because it has no structure and no organization. It is not a "movement" its not like democrats, republicans, feminists etc. It's a shouting board for people to voice their displeasure. NOW there are bad apples, but its bad apples in every group who are loud and like to make noise. and the press should be parsing through the information, seeing why SO MANY GAMERS have a problem with them, and engaging them, not getting on their high horse and whining about how vile their fan base are. It can't work out in the long run if you hate your audience and demonize them, but then expect them to still consume your goods. That will only go on for so long.

Also We don't acknowledge the eco-terrorists leftists, the Stormfront nutty conservatives, so why acknowledge those people? there have been lots of people's viewpoints in the hundreds of thousands of tweets, and weeding through them would be crazy, but i've seen them. I've seen people raise questions about the nature of previews and reviews for instance.

As for MY problem, it would be why are these so socially conscious video-game journalists now suddenly concerned with inequality in gaming? reading reviews and previews of games not once did I see mention of "while tis is a good game, where the black people? where the women?" So to me it looks real...suspicious that when one of their friends is attacked suddenly everyone rallies around it. it feels fake and superficial and like feminists saw this, latched on it and saw it as an excellent opportunity to begin to push their viewpoints.

But as with many things, the approach was flawed, the tactics, crass, and ultimately put people on the defensive. You don't win people over to your line of thinking by insulting them or dismissing them as ignorant fools and "evil" or "misogynists who hate women anyway."

You want people to listen, stop preaching and start conversating.

 

[Orayn]

I haven't seen any negative articles published in the mainstream gaming press about Tropes vs Women. Have you?

I don't know, you're the one asserting that they don't exist so you're the one who has to fucking prove it to me.

What other possible explanations are there? The only one I'm seeing proposed is that Sarkeesian's work is so bulletproof that people just can't find anything wrong with it, which is basically possibility 1 - which I view to be impossible, since people much smarter than Sarkeesian have formulated feminist critiques that have come in for sustained criticism.

Let's back up and consider that there are a finite number of mainstream game journalism outlets. Not every major site necessarily published a response to every Tropes vs. Women video to come out, meaning there have been a limited number of opportunities for those sites to come out against her.

The fact that none of the responses so far have been mainly negative isn't proof of anything. You are jumping to wild conclusions.

 

[Galactic Fork]

That's absolutely a leap. Hell, it's even a leap to say that the tropes Sarkeesian singles out are "disproportionately" represented in gaming - disproportionately compared to what, exactly?

Disproportionately compared to other tropes about women, disproportionately compared to tropes about men.

Artistic works as a whole?

The particular medium being discussed.

 

[tonysidaway]

There are two [logically] possible explanations. Number 1 is logically possible but practically impossible.



I see you missed my summary of the book's thesis:

Can't really summarize it here, but the state of the art thesis is that "Judaism" and "Jews" constitute a set of concepts that Christians, from the very beginning of Christianity, have used in order to attack beliefs they disagreed with within their own communities. That is to say: negative portrayals of Jews are as frequently allegories for different forms of Christian thought as they are negative portrayals of actual, real-life Jews.

So what of the fact that Jews, real Jews, with real lives and families, were severely persecuted? Was that just a big mistake?

At this point it sounds like you're parodying a certain kind of scholastic argument for your own amusement. I'll pop you into my kill file (or whatever they have here) and wait until others stop taking your bait.

 

[Oersted]

snip

Their spokepersons are Milo Yiannopoulos, Adam Baldwin. Did we miss someone?


Edit: There goes that

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

I don't know, you're the one asserting that they don't exist so you're the one who has to fucking prove it to me.

It's unreasonable to ask someone to prove a negative.

Let's back up and consider that there are a finite number of mainstream game journalism outlets. Not every major site necessarily published a response to every Tropes vs. Women video to come out, meaning there have been a limited number of opportunities for those sites to come out against her.

The fact that none of the responses so far have been mainly negative isn't proof of anything. You are jumping to wild conclusions.

Sure, there are a finite number of mainstream game journalism outlets. None of them have published anything critical of Sarkeesian's videos. No matter what explanation you come up with for that (editorial censorship, fear of social media bullying, ideological homogeneity are all plausible) the conclusion is the same: the mainstream games media isn't doing a very good job of fostering discussion about the issue of women in games.

So what of the fact that Jews, real Jews, with real lives and families, were severely persecuted? Was that just a big mistake?

The point of the book is that anti-Judaism (as distinct from antisemitism) exists even in the absence of real Jews.