Support NeoGAF

[DICKS AHOY]

I remember the whole issue with Zoe started around the same time we had the big Smash 3DS ESRB leak appear with Duck Hunt and such.

In fact, the only reason I knew about the Zoe shit was because I was on /v/ watching the leak unfold, and I noticed all the weird GamerGate stuff flying around. I wish the rage over Dark Pit could've distracted everyone long enough that GamerGate never got traction in the first place.

Yup, though I think back then mods were still deleting Zoe Quinn threads so I'd only see their OP's for a few minutes before they vanished. Eventually they just shrugged and let them stay up.

I mean, I'm just a guy who posts about this stuff on message boards and believes enough in the importance of non-antagonistic education to try and talk people around. I have developed an even more ridiculous level of respect for the men and women (sadly mostly women) who have actually been at the center of this shitstorm. If I was Zoe Quinn I would probably honestly have just tried to walk away from everything for my emotional health

While I've said things about him in the past, I do really feel bad for Phil Fish for what happened to Polytron and the inevitable money issues that must've come out of his bank details leaking. I don't blame him for leaving.

 

[Galactic Fork]

I'm almost positive that is not a Star Wars reference. It was part of a larger response to a Washington Post reporter who he felt was determined to be offended. He summarizes the conversation in the post.

It's not like "these\I are\am not the X you're looking for." is some historical expression. It's a reference to the very famous line.

I hope you're not for real.

Do I think he was trying to use Jedi mind tricks? Uh no. It was a joke.

 

[JC Sera]

https://twitter.com/TheQuinnspiracy/status/522938333916590081

I wonder how much differently things would've gone if I hadn't been recording everything in GG from day 1 or released the IRC logs

Scary to think about it

 

[gdt]

I've managed to be completely oblivious to GG thank god. At least until the thread about the Anita death threat so I had to catch up on the whole story.

This is all just so sad. All about Ethics my butthole.

 

[Lime]

Yup, though I think back then mods were still deleting Zoe Quinn threads so I'd only see their OP's for a few minutes before they vanished. Eventually they just shrugged and let them stay up.

Yeah in the beginning when Quinnspiracy first started rolling, I was glad that the shit got ignored because it was simply too dumb and the claims were beyond disbelief.

Then when Quinn started getting harassed, along with Sarkeesian afterwards, and then the Golding + Alexander articles getting published, this no longer was something insignificant.

Ever since then, everything has been literally insane. Simply telling others about GG had them rolling their eyes into the stratosphere, while I started witnessing some video game-related peers acting like lunatics by sticking to their gamergate guns despite being informed about the terrorism, the right-winged crazies, and the damage to actual human beings associated with the movement.

At least the bigots come out into the open and those not exposed to harassment now know how toxic gaming culture can be, but obviously I would much rather have that people hadn't been harmed throughout this thing and that the culture and industry hadn't been as severely damaged as it has become by this literally insane hate campaign.

 

[QuantumZebra]

Holy shit that is an amazing sentence.

Do the sexist assholes in the atheist community identify as atheists the same way many of these GamerGaters identify as gamers?

I take it you don't visit /r/atheism on reddit much

Spoiler

I'm an atheist but the whole "Psh, I'll have you know I'm an atheist" thing is stomach turning, just as bad as "I'm a Christian"

 

[plagiarize]

Yeah in the beginning when Quinnspiracy first started rolling, I was glad that the shit got ignored because it was simply too dumb and the claims were beyond disbelief.

Then when Quinn started getting harassed, along with Sarkeesian afterwards, and then the Golding + Alexander articles getting published, this no longer was something insignificant.

Ever since then, everything has been literally insane. Simply telling others about GG had them rolling their eyes into the stratosphere, while I started witnessing some video game-related peers acting like lunatics by sticking to their gamergate guns despite being informed about the terrorism, the right-winged crazies, and the damage to actual human beings associated with the movement.

At least the bigots come out into the open and those not exposed to harassment now know how toxic gaming culture can be, but obviously I would much rather have that people hadn't been harmed throughout this thing and that the culture and industry hadn't been as severely damaged as it has become by this literally insane hate campaign.

It's definitely boiling over. I'm not a fan of the scorched earth thing that's happening, but I can't stop it, so I take the optimistic approach that this whole thing will have been cathartic and for the best.

There was a point in the past where people who thought they could be openly racist were suddenly criticized for it, and a point after that where most of those people started keeping their racism to themselves which didn't solve racism, but it sure helped slow down the passing of it from one generation to the next.

I think we're in between two similar points right now. Obviously it's smaller, because it's focused around the gaming community, but it's definitely beyond that now, and still growing.

That one of gaming's ugly secrets is being laid bare to the more general public... is tough. But I think it needed doing. Like ripping the plaster off. Just excruciatingly slowly.

 

[aspiegamer]

https://twitter.com/TheQuinnspiracy/status/522938333916590081

Scary to think about it

Wait. They're convinced that all those damning logs and screengrabs are helping their cause? I mean someone went and posted a damn 3756-page IRC log. Link is to an article, not the log.

Excerpt:

The name “Zoe” appears 4778 times in the document, more than once per page; by contrast, “Nathan” – the first name of the allegedly corrupt game journalist she allegedly slept with – appears only 108 times. The words “ethics” and “ethical” appear, collectively, only 146 times.

I can appreciate a certain degree of willful ignorance but this is just fucking stupid. Well. MORE stupid. Somehow.

 

[plagiarize]

Wait. They're convinced that all those damning logs and screengrabs are helping their cause? I mean someone went and posted a damn 3756-page IRC log. Link is to an article, not the log.

Excerpt:

I can appreciate a certain degree of willful ignorance but this is just fucking stupid. Well. MORE stupid. Somehow.

It's crazy to me that they all seem to have the same press kit with pictures and talking points, and that they think throwing that stuff out is building some kind of consensus.

 

[Lime]

That's true, plagiarize, but sometimes I'm afraid of the damage will take a long time to be repaired. Mending the bonds and healing the wounds are going to take time, and the long-lasting effects of people being afraid in the future of speaking up, or of joining the industry, and of the non-invited crowd thinking gamers are the stereotype we've seen for so long can appear a bit overwhelming to overcome. But your post made me kind of hopeful at least.

 

[JC Sera]

I take it you don't visit /r/atheism on reddit much

Spoiler

I'm an atheist but the whole "Psh, I'll have you know I'm an atheist" thing is stomach turning, just as bad as "I'm a Christian"

Relevant:

I find it ironic that self-described “atheist” men are far more hateful and awful towards me online than conservative Christians are.
–Feminist Frequency @femfreq

Spoiler

Agnostic, went through an embarrassing asshole atheist phase as a teen. It was pretty much Richard Dawkins acting like a jerk that opened my eyes on how dismissive and narrow minded I was being.

Wait. They're convinced that all those damning logs and screengrabs are helping their cause? I mean someone went and posted a damn 3756-page IRC log. Link is to an article, not the log.

Excerpt:

I can appreciate a certain degree of willful ignorance but this is just fucking stupid. Well. MORE stupid. Somehow.

I think you might be confused. Thats Zoe's Twitter.

 

[chaobreaker]

Seeing the discussion going on in the Utah thread and the NY Times thread, I have to say...if I was a part of basically any other community besides NeoGAF this last month and a half or so would have been enough to honestly make me leave the online "gaming community" completely. It really would have. This place has been basically as good as it gets and its still made me feel like just unplugging sometimes.

I know what you mean. It feels like this forum is the only online space with a large enough community of well-minded people who see this gamergate garbage for what it is. Just look at how all the major reddit boards reacted to the five guys BS. Majority of users ate it up without question and doubled down when the threads were getting deleted by mods. Go to any comment page of some article mentioning about Anita getting harassed and the resounding voice in the comments section is that she either deserves it for making her videos.

 

[Watch Da Birdie]

I got around to watching the Women vs. Tropes, at least the first video (I'd kept my distance from them because they always caused such a panic on GAF when a new one came out, I didn't know what to expect) and honestly, I'm wondering, why exactly are they so controversial?

They're aesthetically pleasing, very well-delivered and calm, well-researched and informative, and really do point out the absurdity of the Tropes. Yes, there are a few moments where in my head I thought "well, I think you could say more about so and so", but then I realized that was dumb because I was just pointing out like one counterexample against hundreds.

 

[udivision]

I got around to watching the Women vs. Tropes, at least the first video (I'd kept my distance from them because they always caused such a panic on GAF when a new one came out, I didn't know what to expect) and honestly, I'm wondering, why exactly are they so controversial?

They're aesthetically pleasing, very well-delivered and calm, well-researched and informative, and really do point out the absurdity of the Tropes. Yes, there are a few moments where in my head I thought "well, I think you could say more about so and so", but then I realized that was dumb because I was just pointing out like one counterexample against hundreds.

But she's pointing out issues with something I like! I'm pretty sure that's the worst crime a person can commit.

I had the same conversation with my brother last week. The outrage makes no sense.

 

[plagiarize]

That's true, plagiarize, but sometimes I'm afraid of the damage will take a long time to be repaired. Mending the bonds and healing the wounds are going to take time, and the long-lasting effects of people being afraid in the future of speaking up, or of joining the industry, and of the non-invited crowd thinking gamers are the stereotype we've seen for so long can appear a bit overwhelming to overcome. But your post made me kind of hopeful at least.

Sadly progress sometimes only happens through horrible things. And we should never ever be proud of that... but we can take some solace in the progress we are left with.

 

[Lime]

I got around to watching the Women vs. Tropes, at least the first video (I'd kept my distance from them because they always caused such a panic on GAF when a new one came out, I didn't know what to expect) and honestly, I'm wondering, why exactly are they so controversial?

They're aesthetically pleasing, very well-delivered and calm, well-researched and informative, and really do point out the absurdity of the Tropes. Yes, there are a few moments where in my head I thought "well, I think you could say more about so and so", but then I realized that was dumb because I was just pointing out like one counterexample against hundreds.

Faceless007 was on the money:

There is something deeply, deeply troubling about the purely instinctive, visceral, frothing, pathological response that so many presumably semi-functioning human beings have to another person even mentioning a documented issue of sexism. I honestly don't know what to make of it.

I wonder how many men who act like that also believe in the gendered stereotype that women are inherently more emotional and prone to irrational outbursts than men.

It worries me a great deal that people really have such a huge issue with her videos. Like Arthur Chu writes about the insane disproportionality of the whole thing:

I’m afraid of masculinity, and privilege, of the male sense of “honor” they combine to create, and the incredible reservoir of madness that “honor” can unleash when it’s threatened. Of how incredibly petty the offense can be and how insanely disproportionate the retaliation can be.

Of people who’d threaten to shoot up a school in defense of the honor of guys who like violent video games with hot girls in them and refuse to be criticized for it. Of people who will throw rocks at a woman on stage to defend the honor of “real” rock music. Of a man whose honor, his entitlement, his sense of what he is due is so besmirched because he can’t hook up with girls as a “perfect gentlemen” that he will go on a shooting spree.

 

[ReignofSparrows]

I don't want to derail the thread, but I think it's at least worth asking yourself if dismissing what Dawkins and Harris say based on a few of their apparent missteps (and with Harris, it's basically one) is consistent with how you operate. For instance, Amanda Marcotte was indistinguishable from Nancy Grace when it came to the Duke LaCrosse rape case that turned out to be a false accusation. She lambasted anyone who suggested anything but guilt and repeatedly referred to the accused as rapists. Not only did she not apologize afterward, but she doubled down and said that nobody could find her a legitimate false rape accusation. Does it make sense to say "I used to be a feminist, but then I saw how crazy Marcotte was and no longer care about feminism?"Just some food for thought.

As for the atheist/gamergate comparisons, I really don't see atheists shouting down people because of how atheist they are. Rather, I think what you have to watch out for are atheists who consistently bang on about how logical they are. Those are the people (mostly men, admittedly) that you need to watch out for. I profess to not being that familiar with atheist youtubers, but guys like thunderfoot will pummel you with illogical nonsense while insisting the opposite. A very common example of this idiocy would be an atheist saying that feminism is illogical because it rests on a double standard in how we approach women and men. If your response to this is "but that's illogical bullshit," then give me an internet high five. Anyway, these people are monsters, and most importantly, ignorant monsters. Another good example of this approach was evident in that pixijenni (sorry if the name is wrong, I haven't been following that closely) youtube video where she talked with a couple of dudes about feminism in gaming. I don't know if those guys were atheists, but they sure held themselves up as the ultimate logical and reasonable beings. Which was funny because they had no idea how to respond to most of what was said.

I know that was a rant of sorts, but my point is not to be wary of someone who identifies as an atheist. But if you see someone saying some awful shit and using 'logic' as a shield, run. And unfortunately, these people do tend to gravitate toward atheism.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

I am confused when I see people say this.
Do you mean you would just stop communicating on video game forums and video game activities? Or just plain stop gaming in general?

Because honestly if you let them push you away from gaming communities then the trolls win.

Not directed at me, but I honestly comtemplated stepping down from moderation and just leaving not because of any disagreement with the staff here but just because of the general mood of video game forums.

 

[Watch Da Birdie]

Well I just watched the first episode, maybe if I watch the rest I might understand...

Did people get mad when she called Double Dragon "regressive crap"? That's the only time she really broke objectiveness, but I can't blame her since the Double Dragon panty-shot was pretty irksome.

 

[chaobreaker]

I got around to watching the Women vs. Tropes, at least the first video (I'd kept my distance from them because they always caused such a panic on GAF when a new one came out, I didn't know what to expect) and honestly, I'm wondering, why exactly are they so controversial?

They're aesthetically pleasing, very well-delivered and calm, well-researched and informative, and really do point out the absurdity of the Tropes. Yes, there are a few moments where in my head I thought "well, I think you could say more about so and so", but then I realized that was dumb because I was just pointing out like one counterexample against hundreds.

IMO there there 3 kinds of people who strongly disagree with Anita's videos.

The first group think the premise of the videos are inherently wrong: that there's nothing wrong with the longstanding negative trends of portrayal of women in video games because of some BS reason (Men get sexualized too! Just look at Kratos!)

The second group confuse the premise of the videos and assume Anita thinks their favourite video games are inherently sexist and by extension are sexist themselves for enjoying said games.

The third group are true blue misogynists. The kind who feel slighted against the opposite sex, hate anything feminist related, and especially hate an outspoken woman on the internet.

 

[PumpkinSpice]

IMO there there 3 kinds of people who strongly disagree with Anita's videos.

The first group think the premise of the videos are inherently wrong: that there's nothing wrong with the longstanding negative trends of portrayal of women in video games because of some BS reason (Men get sexualized too! Just look at Kratos!)

The second group confuse the premise of the videos and assume Anita thinks their favourite video games are inherently sexist and by extension are sexist themselves for enjoying said games.

The third group are true blue misogynists. The kind who feel slighted against the opposite sex, hate anything feminist related, and especially hate an outspoken woman on the internet.

I think there are also a tonne of people who have never even watched her videos and just believe the conspiracy theories and horseshit piled at Anita every day. These people are first in line to "strongly disagree" with what she is saying, despite not listening to any of it.

 

[KeanuReeves]

IMO there there 3 kinds of people who strongly disagree with Anita's videos.

The first group think the premise of the videos are inherently wrong: that there's nothing wrong with the longstanding negative trends of portrayal of women in video games because of some BS reason (Men get sexualized too! Just look at Kratos!)

The second group confuse the premise of the videos and assume Anita thinks their favourite video games are inherently sexist and by extension are sexist themselves for enjoying said games.

The third group are true blue misogynists. The kind who feel slighted against the opposite sex, hate anything feminist related, and especially hate an outspoken woman on the internet.

I think this is an unfair claim as most people are angry at Anita for misrepresenting games. She says that she just wants to open a debate on it but at the same time she closes down her comment section and doesnt respond to any debate offers. But regardless this has nothing to do with gamergate.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

I think this is an unfair claim as most people are angry at Anita for misrepresenting games. She says that she just wants to open a debate on it but at the same time she closes down her comment section and doesnt respond to any debate offers. But regardless this has nothing to do with gamergate.

I wonder why.

 

[chaobreaker]

Well I just watched the first episode, maybe if I watch the rest I might understand...

Did people get mad when she called Double Dragon "regressive crap"? That's the only time she really broke objectiveness, but I can't blame her since the Double Dragon panty-shot was pretty irksome.

I think she brings up a commonly brought up rebuttal of that same Double Dragon game in a later video. I forgot what it was but I think it had to do with the same girl who was kidnapped for the entirety of the game getting one last punch on the big bad of the game at the end of the credits. People thought that little scene excused that gross display of "regressive crap".

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

I think this is an unfair claim as most people are angry at Anita for misrepresenting games. She says that she just wants to open a debate on it but at the same time she closes down her comment section and doesnt respond to any debate offers. But regardless this has nothing to do with gamergate.

"Most people" are not angry at Anita at all because they recognize that one person's opinion is just that.

 

[JC Sera]

I think this is an unfair claim as most people are angry at Anita for misrepresenting games. She says that she just wants to open a debate on it but at the same time she closes down her comment section and doesnt respond to any debate offers. But regardless this has nothing to do with gamergate.

Someone here is new or a troll

 

[Trame]

I got around to watching the Women vs. Tropes, at least the first video (I'd kept my distance from them because they always caused such a panic on GAF when a new one came out, I didn't know what to expect) and honestly, I'm wondering, why exactly are they so controversial?

The response to this question is always either "she's calling all men disgusting pigs!" (even though there's a disclaimer reminding people it's okay to like games if they have problematic elements) or irrelevant shit (e.g. "i bet these didn't cost $150k to produce!" when she asked for nowhere near that much to begin with, an especially funny argument because the people making that argument virtually never contributed any money so have no reason to complain). The only real reason they're controversial is because she's a woman; places like TV Tropes have prominently been doing the same thing for years, but are not the target of extended harassment campaigns.

It's worth mentioning that the counter-project Tropes vs Men, an Indiegogo formed by the primordial soup that later spawned GamerGate, was a complete fraud. In a shot at Anita's Kickstarter, they said they'd do their series whether or not it was funded 'because it costs no money to make YouTube videos,' and that they'd donate any money they DID get to charity. Despite all the people claiming Anita "took the money and ran" during the long wait for the first episode of Tropes vs Women, very few people seem to have noticed Tropes vs Men never produced a single video, and the one journalist who tried to follow up on the project found that they never donated any money to the charities they said they would.

So they ACTUALLY took their money and ran. But as been said many times already, #gamergate doesn't actually care about ethics, it cares about fighting "SJWs." Which is how even here, one of the most GG-unfriendly gaming spaces on the internet, we end up talking for pages about some minor slip-up Patricia Hernandez made years ago, and can't have in-depth discussion about Shadow of Mordor because there's nothing to say about it in relation to GamerGate except "holy hell, why doesn't GamerGate care about this?"

 

[Jigorath]

I think this is an unfair claim as most people are angry at Anita for misrepresenting games. She says that she just wants to open a debate on it but at the same time she closes down her comment section and doesnt respond to any debate offers. But regardless this has nothing to do with gamergate.

What kind of a debate can you have in the YouTube comments section?

 

[ReignofSparrows]

I got around to watching the Women vs. Tropes, at least the first video (I'd kept my distance from them because they always caused such a panic on GAF when a new one came out, I didn't know what to expect) and honestly, I'm wondering, why exactly are they so controversial?

They're aesthetically pleasing, very well-delivered and calm, well-researched and informative, and really do point out the absurdity of the Tropes. Yes, there are a few moments where in my head I thought "well, I think you could say more about so and so", but then I realized that was dumb because I was just pointing out like one counterexample against hundreds.

In my cursory viewings, I was really put off by some of her bad evidence, most notably her misrepresentation of what she called the "third person effect." It doesn't mean what she said, and her cited studies don't support what she said. It really looks bad when it's framed like "this an effect scholars came up with," and I really find that type of thing dishonest or at least ignorant. I had some other minor quibbles in this vein, but nothing really noteworthy.

So I think I am sympathetic to anyone who genuinely finds that she presents some bad evidence. However, I don't know how many people actually exist in that camp. Everyone I've seen critical of her seems to take issue with her very thesis or with the very idea of her criticizing games, so they just try to discredit everything she says and look foolish in the process. That fact, coupled with the fact that I welcome this type of criticism to the medium and think that it will help better games in the future even if it's not the best criticism ever, means that I really don't have it in me to take anything she says to task.

 

[plagiarize]

Not directed at me, but I honestly comtemplated stepping down from moderation and just leaving not because of any disagreement with the staff here but just because of the general mood of video game forums.

Don't.

We're the lucky ones. We get to choose whether or not to involve ourselves in this. Whenever we want, we could walk away from it and enjoy our white male privilege.

This crap needs to be decried. Not because the people being targeted can't do it themselves, but because it's what any decent person should do. I don't feel like I direct enough of my energies to this debate. I hate that people send me private messages thanking me for my contributions.

I hate that any women is grateful that any man should side with them on an issue like this, because of what that says about all the shit that they've already been subjected to.

It's exhausting, and the temptation is always there to give in. We can't. That's exactly what the people who make it exhausting want.

This is our community too. I'm not going to let GamerGate speak for all gamers. I'm not going to let them characterize me as not a gamer, but an SJW or whatever acronym or label they want to throw at me. Because I care about gaming and I want to see it keep growing. I want to see it become a friendlier place for more and more people. I want to share the fun...

and if we have to make bigots feel bad and we have to try and force them out... I'm prepared to face accusations of 'being the one trying to exclude people'. You aren't going to make gaming a better place if you welcome in the people who shit everywhere.

 

[Draxyle]

I got around to watching the Women vs. Tropes, at least the first video (I'd kept my distance from them because they always caused such a panic on GAF when a new one came out, I didn't know what to expect) and honestly, I'm wondering, why exactly are they so controversial?

They're aesthetically pleasing, very well-delivered and calm, well-researched and informative, and really do point out the absurdity of the Tropes. Yes, there are a few moments where in my head I thought "well, I think you could say more about so and so", but then I realized that was dumb because I was just pointing out like one counterexample against hundreds.

I watched one of her videos for the first time just a month ago and.. yea, they're perfectly okay. I can't believe there are so many people who view her as enemy #1 to gaming; it comes across as completely arbitrary, directionless hatred (much like most of this movement).

 

[Corpekata]

Totalbiscuit also doesn't allow comments. Is he also censoring debate?

No, because that's stupid. Even Pewpiepie considered doing it, because they're a goddamn cesspool.

 

[kurona_bright]

I think this is an unfair claim as most people are angry at Anita for misrepresenting games. She says that she just wants to open a debate on it but at the same time she closes down her comment section and doesnt respond to any debate offers. But regardless this has nothing to do with gamergate.

I wonder why somebody who consistently receives rape and death threats, had a video game made about her which involved punching a picture of her in the face, and recently had a literal massacre threat sent to the university that she would be speaking at closed down her comment section.

Obviously, she's just being closeminded and dumb.

 

[Trame]

I think this is an unfair claim as most people are angry at Anita for misrepresenting games. She says that she just wants to open a debate on it but at the same time she closes down her comment section and doesnt respond to any debate offers. But regardless this has nothing to do with gamergate.

Another thing I can't fathom is why people are so mad about Anita shutting down comments, when virtually everyone agrees that YouTube comments are dumber than those on almost any other site, even when they're not intentionally harassing.

Regardless, the "debate" she would get if she opened comments is already there, on YouTube, in the form of probably at least 50 gigantic videos from YouTube personalities lambasting her for each episode of Tropes vs Women that comes out. They speak louder than the pointless YouTube comments no one would actually read, although they're unfortunately no less disgusting.

 

[aspiegamer]

I think you might be confused. Thats Zoe's Twitter.

Apologies. I can never remember which Twitter accounts belong to whom in massive disasters like this.

However, it would not in any way surprise me if the #GG audience did want to claim it as evidence to bolster their claims as well, since, I mean, nothing else they make claims to make any sense. Glad to know the data is in the proper hands, though.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Don't.

We're the lucky ones. We get to choose whether or not to involve ourselves in this. Whenever we want, we could walk away from it and enjoy our white male privilege.

This crap needs to be decried. Not because the people being targeted can't do it themselves, but because it's what any decent person should do. I don't feel like I direct enough of my energies to this debate. I hate that people send me private messages thanking me for my contributions.

I hate that any women is grateful that any man should side with them on an issue like this, because of what that says about all the shit that they've already been subjected to.

It's exhausting, and the temptation is always there to give in. We can't. That's exactly what the people who make it exhausting want.

This is our community too. I'm not going to let GamerGate speak for all gamers. I'm not going to let them characterize me as not a gamer, but an SJW or whatever acronym or label they want to throw at me. Because I care about gaming and I want to see it keep growing. I want to see it become a friendlier place for more and more people. I want to share the fun...

and if we have to make bigots feel bad and we have to try and force them out... I'm prepared to face accusations of 'being the one trying to exclude people'. You aren't going to make gaming a better place if you welcome in the people who shit everywhere.

Right. I agree. I just mean I was at a point where I was swamped with work and barely had enough time to enjoy video games let alone engage with the video game community. And my time engaging with the video game community was: this stupid #GamerGate nonsense, and Smash Bros. conversation. And focus on the latter meant neglecting the former, which meant I wasn't doing anything in terms of moderating this forum.

 

[Cat Party]

Not directed at me, but I honestly comtemplated stepping down from moderation and just leaving not because of any disagreement with the staff here but just because of the general mood of video game forums.

Thank you for the work you do around here. I really mean it.

I think this is an unfair claim as most people are angry at Anita for misrepresenting games. She says that she just wants to open a debate on it but at the same time she closes down her comment section and doesnt respond to any debate offers. But regardless this has nothing to do with gamergate.

I don't think this is the real Keanu, guys.

 

[faceless007]

Woman makes videos positing that certain types of video games might be inclined to foster players to have negative and disrespectful if not outright hostile attitudes towards women, to treat women who have their own agency as threats, and to feel entitled and possessive of women's sexuality.

Outraged gamers react by...

 

[plagiarize]

Right. I agree. I just mean I was at a point where I was swamped with work and barely had enough time to enjoy video games let alone engage with the video game community. And my time engaging with the video game community was: this stupid #GamerGate nonsense, and Smash Bros. conversation. And focus on the latter meant neglecting the former, which meant I wasn't doing anything in terms of moderating this forum.

No disrespect meant. I respect the fuck out of you and the other names that do always seem to be shouldering the emotional weight of these discussions whenever I *can* make time to join in, and I appreciate that people put up with my somewhat abrasive and antagonistic stance towards certain types of people that these threads always seem to attract.

I do try to skirt as close to the line as possible without crossing it, because my patience has worn *very* thin on these issues. Hopefully you'll help me stay in line because the last thing I want to do is give ammunition to the people claiming those of us against GamerGate are just as bad as GamerGate.

 

[Cartman86]

Holy shit that is an amazing sentence.

Do the sexist assholes in the atheist community identify as atheists the same way many of these GamerGaters identify as gamers?

Yes for sure. There has been an incredibly similar fight going on in the atheist communities over the past 4 or so years. I find it hard to separate them. I don't actually think they are separate. They are part of the the broader conversation in the world about sexism and more specifically sexism in tech/nerdy communities of which atheism tends to be a part. The most popular Youtube atheists have been criticizing Anita for over a year now. There has been harassment claims against prominent voices, Dawkins and Harris have said some pretty stupid shit lately, and people have grown wise to what ass holes entertainment voices like Penn Jillette, Ricky Gervais, and Bill Maher are. I suppose it's not entirely a surprise. These are educated white people with access to the internet. More than anything else these contribute to leaving religion. It's what did it for me. They seem to have issue though with the organized atheist community providing a safe place for non-white men to do the same thing.

This is all mixed in with a funny little fight over the definition of atheism itself. Some take the dictionary definition. If you don't believe in God then you are an atheist. This can get muddled with agnostics since by this definition agnostics are atheists as well. So some will use the label agnostic-atheist. Anyways by this general definition an atheist movement or group can have nothing to say about politics or morals. An atheist can be a libertarian, liberal, conservative etc.The other side accepts the definition but sees it as useless for a movement. What is more important? Spreading valueless atheism or an atheism with principles? I don't buy for a second that this is actually the reason atheism has been so hostile to new voices. One can not create a movement without values. I don't think they even exist. The people who do can't even avoid values in their own ideal scenarios. This is simply an excuse for them to express their own political views. I wish they would just fucking admit that.

None of this has changed my incredibly negative opinions on religion or how dropping it is an essential step toward a better society, but using the word in public has become less common again for me and if I ever do I have to distance myself from a particular brand of atheist. Gamer would probably have been the same way if I didn't like the word to begin with.

I also want to point out that there is a particular kind of reddit atheist you would find on r/atheism. I see that as a generally healthy way of venting as a kid. Particularly kids who have been raised a strict religious households. Those are the type of people you usually find there. I've gone through that phase already. Some of those kids aren't growing socially the way I would hope.

 

[KeanuReeves]

Severely disapointed that people commit association fallacies in order to not respond to my post.
I said that it is weird that Anita Sarkeesian just wants to open a debate but at the same time declines any and all debates that she can. I have never seen Anita have a dialogue with anyone of an opposing opinion to hers. I think it is curious we are supposed to get educated by Anita but at the same time Anita doesnt want to back up her material so that we can ensure that we get educated.
Why will she not just talk publicly on a livestream or somewhere like that with someone on the opposing "team"? That is the glaring contradiction of Anita Sarkeesians words.

 

[UnderWaterTree]

Totalbiscuit also doesn't allow comments. Is he also censoring debate?

No, because that's stupid. Even Pewpiepie considered doing it, because they're a goddamn cesspool.

He did a while ago when because of google plus or something

 

[Watch Da Birdie]

I think she brings up a commonly brought up rebuttal of that same Double Dragon game in a later video. I forgot what it was but I think it had to do with the same girl who was kidnapped for the entirety of the game getting one last punch on the big bad of the game at the end of the credits. People thought that little scene excused that gross display of "regressive crap".

See, right here, this bothers me.

Why are you calling her gross for reacting to a game which shows a woman punched in the stomach, and then carried off by a man, hand firmly placed on her butt, with her panties showing for the audience?

The game's the gross one, not her. She's in the right to get angry.

 

[JackDT]

I got around to watching the Women vs. Tropes, at least the first video (I'd kept my distance from them because they always caused such a panic on GAF when a new one came out, I didn't know what to expect) and honestly, I'm wondering, why exactly are they so controversial?

They're aesthetically pleasing, very well-delivered and calm, well-researched and informative, and really do point out the absurdity of the Tropes. Yes, there are a few moments where in my head I thought "well, I think you could say more about so and so", but then I realized that was dumb because I was just pointing out like one counterexample against hundreds.

Same here. When I talk to people who have a strong defensive reaction to the videos they often say, "She's saying if you play games you are sexist. She's saying gamers are bad people for playing games." It's almost like they hear echoes of "Dungeons and Dragons mean you'll go to hell." That's what they hear when they watch these videos.

 

[plagiarize]

Yes for sure. There has been an incredibly similar fight going on in the atheist communities over the past 4 or so years. I find it hard to separate them. I don't actually think they are separate. They are part of the the broader conversation in the world about sexism and more specifically sexism in tech/nerdy communities of which atheism tends to be a part. The most popular Youtube atheists have been criticizing Anita for over a year now. There has been harassment claims against prominent voices, Dawkins and Harris have said some pretty stupid shit lately, and people have grown wise to what ass holes entertainment voices like Penn Jillette, Ricky Gervais, and Bill Maher are. I suppose it's not entirely a surprise. These are educated white people with access to the internet. More than anything else these contribute to leaving religion. It's what did it for me. They seem to have issue though with the organized atheist community providing a safe place for non-white men to do the same thing.

This is all mixed in with a funny little fight over the definition of atheism itself. Some take the dictionary definition. If you don't believe in God then you are an atheist. This can get muddled with agnostics since by this definition agnostics are atheists as well. So some will use the label agnostic-atheist. Anyways by this general definition an atheist movement or group can have nothing to say about politics or morals. An atheist can be a libertarian, liberal, conservative etc.The other side accepts the definition but sees it as useless for a movement. What is more important? Spreading valueless atheism or an atheism with principles? I don't buy for a second that one can create a movement without values. I don't think they even exist. The people who do can't even avoid values in their own ideal scenarios.

None of this has changed my incredibly negative opinions on religion or how dropping it is an essential step toward a better society, but using the word in public has become less common again for me and if I ever do I have to distance myself from a particular brand of atheist. Gamer would probably have been the same way if I didn't like the word to begin with.

I also want to point out that there is a particular kind of reddit atheist you would find on r/atheism. I see that as a generally healthy way of venting as a kid. Particularly kids who have been raised a strict religious households. Those are the type of people you usually find there. I've gone through that phase already. Some of those kids aren't growing socially the way I would hope.

Fortunately most of the open atheists I know in person aren't assholes, but you're making me very glad that I never wanted to feel a sense of community with other atheists. I don't criticize religion, but I defend atheism and myself from misrepresentations. It's partly through the small discrimination I have experience for being an atheist, that I find it pretty impossible not to stand by when I see someone discriminating.

It's a huge shame that other people don't use the discrimination they have faced as reason to do the same thing.

I've seen the same thing from GamerGate peoples. 'Don't discriminate against gamers! But hey, feel free to do it to those people.'

 

[chaobreaker]

See, right here, this bothers me.

Why are you calling her gross for reacting to a game which shows a woman punched in the stomach, and then carried off by a man, hand firmly placed on her butt, with her panties showing for the audience?

The game's the gross one, not her. She's in the right to get angry.

You're reading my post wrong. I'm calling the game gross as well.

EDIT: Though, I did find the rest of the game incredibly enjoyable (outside of boss fights)

 

[jim-jam bongs]

It worries me a great deal that people really have such a huge issue with her videos. Like Arthur Chu writes about the insane disproportionality of the whole thing:

Say what you will about him appearing a little smug, but I loved him on Jeopardy and I've loved him even more subsequently. Chu is a fucking legend.

 

[JackDT]

It's worth mentioning that the counter-project Tropes vs Men, an Indiegogo formed by the primordial soup that later spawned GamerGate, was a complete fraud. In a shot at Anita's Kickstarter, they said they'd do their series whether or not it was funded 'because it costs no money to make YouTube videos,' and that they'd donate any money they DID get to charity. Despite all the people claiming Anita "took the money and ran" during the long wait for the first episode of Tropes vs Women, very few people seem to have noticed Tropes vs Men never produced a single video, and the one journalist who tried to follow up on the project found that they never donated any money to the charities they said they would.

So they ACTUALLY took their money and ran. But as been said many times already, #gamergate doesn't actually care about ethics, it cares about fighting "SJWs."

I never knew about Tropes vs Men thing. They actually took money they said they'd donate to charity and then made nothing. Wow. That's an actual mini scandal.

http://www.gameranx.com/features/id...ery-and-fraud-of-tropes-vs-men-in-videogames/

 

[plagiarize]

If there's one thing I've learnt from my discussions with GG people on twitter today, feeling personally wronged is justification for ignoring just about any other problem no matter how major.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Severely disapointed that people commit association fallacies in order to not respond to my post.
I said that it is weird that Anita Sarkeesian just wants to open a debate but at the same time declines any and all debates that she can. I have never seen Anita have a dialogue with anyone of an opposing opinion to hers. I think it is curious we are supposed to get educated by Anita but at the same time Anita doesnt want to back up her material so that we can ensure that we get educated.
Why will she not just talk publicly on a livestream or somewhere like that with someone on the opposing "team"? That is the glaring contradiction of Anita Sarkeesians words.

Firstly, have you ever been educated by YouTube comments responding to a video ever? Secondly, I'll note that we explicitly ban this as a talking point in every single discussion of the Tropes videos we have here. There are numerous places anywhere on the internet (even here!) where you can raise your criticisms of her points. You can post your comments to @femfreq on Twitter. I'm sure there are emails listed to contact her directly.