-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
#GAMERGATE: The Threadening [Read the OP] -- #StopGamerGate2014
- Thread starter besada
- Start date
- Status
Neoriceisgood
Member
No problem, the easiest way to read my posts is to assume I'm always entirely correct.
There is so much bad faith projected onto "SJ" people that there is just no way to convince people anything other than what they already believe. Listen to what GG says:
1. They're pushing an agenda/ideologue.
2. They don't actually care about games, or women or minorities.
3. They do everything to get attention and money.
4. They want to make you feel guilty and shamed for liking things.
5. They shame others into believing them, which is what they're starting to do now.
6. You can't argue or reason with them because they use sexism as a shield.
7. They are going to destroy our hobby.
8. They rule by using fear.
Most of those points make sense for a lot of people. A lot of people really like to believe these points. But how cynical and distrustful do you have to be to assume all of these people are doing this...for material gain? That high level of assumption making about others' goals, motives and beliefs are ingrained in terrible negative projections. Adopting a smidgen of good faith in others would flip this whole thing around.
If I were to reflect on that projection, it might look like this.
1. They're making me and others question my ideology.
2. I don't care about women and minorities.
3. I believe everyone is driven by material gain and nothing else.
4. I feel guilty for liking certain things, but I don't want to feel guilt.
5. I don't want to feel shamed.
6. I can't defend sexism.
7. I don't want my hobby to change.
8. I'm a little afraid.
:S Not saying that's what's in their head, but that's how it reads.
I also do not think the bullying thing was funny. At all. I found it very insulting, insensitive, and gross.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Yeah, the Biddle tweets were tasteless, we have to own up to that shit
plagiarize
Banned
If people get their feelings hurt when I point out that supporting an anti feminist cause, kind of makes you an anti feminist... and if that is belittling them... I really don't care.
They don't get to use the 'not all gamers' hashtag, and then claim that people who disagree with GamerGate aren't gamers or are betraying gamers or whatever bullshit they've been serving up.
A lot of people felt slighted by the 'Gamers need to die' article. I don't think those people really read the piece, but being hurt by a headline or an opening statement is still being hurt. I get that. The problem was they're being willfully blind to the fact that the people providing them solace are misogynists. Or they know and don't see a problem with it at all.
So no. I don't think you're accurately representing the movement, because I just have to look at the hash tag to see that the vast majority feel like they're fighting the insertion of feminist agendas into gaming.
endless dave
Member
See, the difference between you and me is that I do not fucking care about the hurt feelings of these babies. Why do you? Do you see a validity in their concerns? That I should feel bad that people are being hostile towards the status quo slowly (so incredibly slowly)? Why?
I want to continue to mortar blast these people into oblivion. If that means it hardens some into their terribly, toxic views, I would hope that happens because it makes the target that much easier to find. These people aren't ISIS, their radicalization does not concern me. They're unfortunate people on the internet who feel the need to endless argue about the ebb and flow or social progress because they don't feel the get to benefit from the entitlements we say they have. Entitlements that, yes, are fairly academic and nuanced. It's sad for them. it's pitiable, really. But if they take that feeling and it turns to resentment and not introspection, fuck them. I, nor does any one person, need to give them a seat at the table anymore. Again, these people are not Less Right. They are Wrong.
Galactic Fork
A little fluff between the ears never did any harm...
Don't give them ideas! I already die a little inside when I see "gamers are dead" or "death to gamers". "Gamers need to die" is the next logical progression.
endless dave
Member
As a note, in my post above, I use "ressentiment" there and not "resentment" which I feel is a key difference and an important notion to understand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressentiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressentiment
Neoriceisgood
Member
This is exactly what's going on, to be honest.
The issue with people who are against SJ is that, in a well-reasoned debate ... they look like outright villains.
Because they refuse to self-reflect and accept they might not be perfect little angels they literally have to reconcile their own self-worth and self-image by picturing "SJW"s as manipulative liars.
It's easy to believe that of others when you know that it's a level you'd sink to.
endless dave
Member
Damn. Well said
Neoriceisgood
Member
Wow. Burn.
"Told you, dude. Sea lions."
And they're not going to understand how the world works because they love staying in their protective virtual shell:
Ya, having all those virtual lives is great, but you still need a real life.
Gamers are Over is a bit insulting and a lot of anti-GG people for some reason refuse to admit it. She's also sarcastic in parts of it which makes it hard to even know what she's arguing at times, which detracts from how well it's written. I enjoy much of her work but didn't get much out of that article other than thinking she felt the need to vent; which is understandable.. but not entirely constructive how she presented it.
There's also a point to it that get's ignored by GG'ers, but outright claiming she wasn't being insulting (which I've noticed a lot of people here do) doesn't seem like the right message... There's a lot of "What she meant was this is how marketers see you!" and a lot of quoting that leaves out her "don't know how to dress or behave" comment.
Just ask GG"ers why it's so important? She's a freelance writer who writes editorials.. editorials in any context are the opinion of the writer and are meant to be debated.. not reacted to and cried about and used as the war cry for some cause.
Same with Zoe Quinn.. why in the world do these women's opinions matter so much to you? What exactly are they even changing so dramatically? Why is it such a big deal to you that they want less sexist portrayals in video games?
There's also a point to it that get's ignored by GG'ers, but outright claiming she wasn't being insulting (which I've noticed a lot of people here do) doesn't seem like the right message... There's a lot of "What she meant was this is how marketers see you!" and a lot of quoting that leaves out her "don't know how to dress or behave" comment.
Just ask GG"ers why it's so important? She's a freelance writer who writes editorials.. editorials in any context are the opinion of the writer and are meant to be debated.. not reacted to and cried about and used as the war cry for some cause.
Same with Zoe Quinn.. why in the world do these women's opinions matter so much to you? What exactly are they even changing so dramatically? Why is it such a big deal to you that they want less sexist portrayals in video games?
endless dave
Member
I mean, we've seen what happens when you give these people an inch
As opposed to what, serving them up an argument they can easily ignore and focus on what you left out?
I'm suggesting people don't attempt to argue whether or not it's offensive to gamers, or particular gamers, etc.. I'm suggesting people instead question GG'ers on why the article is so important. Why their reaction is so irrationally strong to it.
Well they definitely don't know how ad sales or corporate endorsements work.
So you mean when we communicate using a context-less form of communication more and more that humor and satire get annihilated in the process?
Inconceivable.
I always try to post like I would be talking to someone in real life; that way I can at least sort of try to impart tone. That said; I generally just assume the best of people unless told otherwise.
@Zeldablue -- unfortunately, we are living in an era where many people believe money = correct.
Neoriceisgood
Member
She's apologized for that specific line on twitter when someone asked about it. (mostly as it insinuated non-neurotypical people who have trouble with social ques are bad)
Cause she's actually apologized for this I personally don't find it as much of an issue as it would've been. I definitely don't think it's worth even a minor fraction of the attention it's gotten.
Then you won't see the hashtag go anytime soon. Because it's the nature of twitter (and why I don't like it).
I've talked to people on both side of the fence since it began. I've disagreed with a lot of stuff on the GG side:
- I do not believe that there is a liberal agenda pushed by game journalists (there might be game journalists who are too chummy but they do not represent the majority of the media, as well as even if they wanted, they couldn't have such power. And frankly I really doubt anyone wants to actively do that)
- I do not believe that feminist activists should silence their opinion regarding the media
- I firmly condemn the action of silencing and harassing and threats. It has happened to a friend of mine in the past for something unrelated and I have actively condemned it on the web as well
But there is one thing that appalled about the respone to gamergate, is the reaction from several media personalities and their followers, because a lot did insult violently people (insulting handicapped, fat shaming, encouraging bullying in regards to biddle, and I don't believe he was joking when he said something around nerds should be systematicaly put down) (edit: granted some game journos did excuse themselves and that's cool, also a bunch were not affiliated by game journos but I never saw them being called out for their abusive behaviour), stoop as low or lower than the trolls they were outraged about or encouraged this "mortar approach". You might think it's justified against "these people", but a lot of people have stopped to actually learn who "these people" are now, which follows up with
You might not, but you will not get anything out of it. Like the old morals have been saying in movies and books and even the most basic cartoons: violence doesn't solve anything.
I've spent some time seeing who "these people" are, men of all ages but also women, all races, from the nobody on twitter to the youtuber. Some of them are dicks, a lot of them have mostly been caught in the bandwagon, a big bunch of them see the hateful response and take offense because that is their reality. I've spent a lot of time talking to them, asking them about their problems in private, I had success with a good deal of them who calmed down, or abandonned the hashtag.
Even now, some gamergate supporters have started a charity to help out against bullyism. This is the second crowdfunding thing for a cause they're funding, mind you. You can be cynical and say "it's a cover", but I would say you can't just continously route "monstrous people" for months into doing stuff like that. A lot of them are good, but angry or confused people who have joined the cause because of the mortar approach. If anything, it just strengthens the hashtag. Some dudes have almost committed suicides, some women have been doxxed. It's also funny because by talking to them, how much I realise that a lot of the people on the two opposite side actually AGREE with each other without knowing it but because they're stuck on one communication breakdown, they'll never reach.
Do I agree with these people ? Really, no I do not. But I do feel bad for a lot of them, the same way I felt appalled when Sarkeesian was attacked two years ago, or the same way Dina got also attacked for mighty no.9 by IA
Call me a soft idiot who suffers from too much empathy, but that kind of attitude will bring you nowhere. Everybody will lose in the end. I don't care if i'm considered weak, or a "shill/SJW" on one side, or a mysoginistic sympathisers with the others.
The comment wasn't entirely inaccurate, though. Everyone else was just too polite to mention it.
blitzcloud
Banned
So if you see a correlation between a possible murderer (say, the wife or husband of the corpse) and a material gain, it's probably because you would sink to murdering for money?
Just trying to follow your logic here.ç
Being able to imagine something because precedents show that it's a possibility does not equal thinking it as a viable option for oneself.
I'm aware; I'm just discussing how people approach GG'ers... arguing it isn't insulting is the flawed path IMO, and I've seen it done a lot.
I think it was pretty ignorant actually; her article was essentially "the really bad gamers are a vocal minority, and they are totally the type who go to game cons."
If you want to sterotype the vocal minority I can understand that; her associating this with game cons is off to me.
I've been to PAX 3 times now.. it's a huge mix of people; large portion of them are with groups of friends.. mixtures of males and females.. families.. parents with their kids. It's a silly generalization.
Yes, plenty of people to giggle at and plenty of people worthy of scorn at cons. Creep behavior, etc.
But again; not even really worth arguing about.. why are people so hung up on a single article? She's generalizing game con attendees too much.. state that and move on and argue against the rest of her points. My point is I think asking people to reflect on why they are reacting so strongly is better than attempting to argue that the fact they are offended isn't "Correct."
I mean.. isn't that exactly what the other side does?
"I'm offended by this female character's portrayal!"
"YOU BEING OFFENDED IS WRONG!"
?- this thread's primary complaint against GG (quite rightly) is 'the despicable actions' carried out in it's name.
- the one thing this thread is NOT considering is preventing those actions.
For some reason, I don't think this thread is much interested in logic
.Galactic Fork
A little fluff between the ears never did any harm...
But the use of quotes around "gamer" shows she's not talking about people in general but the idea. And removing the quotes around "gamers" removes that context.
I don't think these women are saints. I think they are probably mean and often irresponsible put-downers. :\
I don't really want to defend their offensive behavior. I just want to make others realize why the anger on the other side is extremely disproportional. Both sides have made evil caricatures of themselves. I can't really do much besides try to keep saying "So what? It happened. Put it behind you and forgive."
But that's not the discussion either side wants to have. At. All.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
Sorry but it doesn't take much refusal to not be insulted by hyperbole. Most of us realize 'Gamers are Over/Dead' is not meant to be taken literally. It's similar to the 'Punk is Dead' label attached to the punk scene BY the punk scene. It was punk rockers rebelling against the mainstream encroachment of their genre which had a history of being against the mainstream. Similarly gamers are saying 'gamers are over/dead' to separate themselves from the hatred and bigotry that they do not stand for.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Leigh's piece is whatever in my opinion; she's a gamer herself and the stereotypes she hits are batted around enough by other gamers that it doesn't register. The Biddle tweets however say "bring bullying back" and that needs should be shamed into submission. That's fairly objectively fucked up
I think you mean condemn. Condone means you agree with it.
blitzcloud
Banned
"Feminism is dead".
If that was the statement would you still push for the "not literal" approach? I'm curious about the concessions you're willing to give one side of the fence, while the other side has to be judged by broad generalizations based on individuals stirring trouble
You just did it again.. completely ignoring that there is more to her article than the title of the article.
She associates this "Gamer" stereotype with con attendees and vastly generalizes them. That's the problem with the article.
It doesn't need to be defended is my point. It's a losing argument.
Another "Completely ignoring what I'm saying post." The content of the article includes insulting generalizations of people who attend cons.
What should be questioned is why take SO MUCH offense? She's an independent writer/journalist .. just a person expressing her opinion. And as other's pointed out; she apologize for aspects of the article. But my point is instead of arguing it isn't offensive, ask them how this offense deserves the reaction.
She apologized which means she herself recognized she was being offensive.. stop claiming she wasn't.
We could split hairs arguing this, but your example I'd assume would include evidence of such in order to make that correlation and not an irrational assumption. It'd be really tedious to trade bad analogies at each other and not really on point to the overall discussion.
Oooh yes sorry ! That was awful of me, english ain't my first language but damn, thanks for the correction
- this thread's primary complaint against GG (quite rightly) is 'the despicable actions' carried out in it's name.
- the one thing this thread is NOT considering is preventing those actions.
For some reason, I don't think this thread is much interested in logic
the quotes really makes it funny.
'despicable actions'.
This is not a thread to ban GGers or being against GGers,
it's a thread discussing what's happening.
There's not just 2 sides with GG and anti-GG.
blitzcloud
Banned
bad analogies according to whom? If the husband/wife dies under mysterious circumstances I can assure you that all signs would initially point to the other member of the couple, specially if that person was a wealthy one.
I was simply defending that no one has to think that people assuming that could be a possibility means that they'd stoop that low. Specially when there's loads of precedents of people doing horrible/dishonest stuff for money
endless dave
Member
off the top of my head, the last few charities GG has submitted to, under the banner of the hashtag, have been:
1. The excess funds for TFYC (an issue in itself) that went to a colon cancer society to help fight "butt hurt"
and
2. A suicide prevention hotline that they were giving when they (obviously erroneously) thought Zoe did not give money to in some sort of spite campaign. When it turned out she had donated, they were harassed
So I don't think it's cynical to think that the current wave to donate to an anti-bullying foundation (which does what exactly?) in the wake of mainstream attention that they're getting as a group that fosters and harbors harassers isn't some bullshit PR move. Added to that is the fact that it's already now a bullet point in the "told you so" campaign that GG seems most concerned with at this point, outside of any actual concerns. The war now is one of public perception and I haven't seen a legitimate concern of journalistic integrity in awhile beyond "this journalist said something bad about us."
1. The excess funds for TFYC (an issue in itself) that went to a colon cancer society to help fight "butt hurt"
and
2. A suicide prevention hotline that they were giving when they (obviously erroneously) thought Zoe did not give money to in some sort of spite campaign. When it turned out she had donated, they were harassed
So I don't think it's cynical to think that the current wave to donate to an anti-bullying foundation (which does what exactly?) in the wake of mainstream attention that they're getting as a group that fosters and harbors harassers isn't some bullshit PR move. Added to that is the fact that it's already now a bullet point in the "told you so" campaign that GG seems most concerned with at this point, outside of any actual concerns. The war now is one of public perception and I haven't seen a legitimate concern of journalistic integrity in awhile beyond "this journalist said something bad about us."
I don't know about gamers as a whole, but it is a big deal to game companies. Game companies are not likely to push for the portrayals of women they want.
At the end of the day, games companies want to make money. People like Anita Sarkeesian and her supporters are not the majority of people who buy the major AAA titles, so games companies are not likely to cater to certain viewpoints (like feminist theory) because they want to market something to as many people as possible. Changing what may seem to be a small part of a game may be really be a fundamental aspect of the game, which can have major consequences (like on sales). What may be considered sexist is also very subjective so the companies are walking a very thin line here.
Those people are the most visible, though. They're the ones who make the most noise and jump up and down in front of TV cameras wearing their dorky clothes. They overpower the presence of everyone else.
Let's use a Leafs game for example. (They're the Toronto NHL team.) You associate a hockey game with yelling, pot-bellied sports fans, but in reality most of the ticket holders are well-to-do business people who take clients to the game. (Tickets are expensive.) The sports fans, however, are the ones who get on camera.
So, the socially dysfunctional gamers are the ones who are the face of gaming simply because of the overpowering nature of their presence. (That, and marketers tend to focus on them.)
(For the record, I can't stand going to cons any more just because I personally can't handle the creepiness.)
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
If the companies are less likely to cater as you say, what's the problem
NoblesseOblige
Banned
Are you implying I would be insulted by 'Feminism is dead'? Because I wouldn't. I know it's not true because I'm not silly enough to believe it. So no, I wouldn't take it literally.
Sorry but when every time I begin to read a post by you it starts with a false statement it's hard for me to get your point.
Right; lots of evidence that Anita and company won't really be successful outside of maybe pushing for more variety in the indie space (which maybe they and others already have succeeded at.)
Which calls into question the reaction even more; it seems unlikely anything is actually going to "change" other than "new change." AAA is unlikely to budge, and that's the target of the criticism.
plagiarize
Banned
OF course it's yet another a bullshit PR move. I'm happy for the charities though. I mean, I've seen numerous discussions where in GG peeps talk about doing something so as to protect them from criticism. Finding Anita's stalker. Designing that stupid cartoon character. The indiegogo TFYC thing. 'Let's do this so they can't criticize us for the other stuff we do!' seems to be a pretty common discussion. You only have to look at the initial conversations and then how they talk about it afterwards to see right through it.
I left the quotes out; sorry? Everyone here is aware there are quotes.. and the article title wasn't the main topic of my post. The very next sentence goes into the fact I'm discussing the content.
So basically you are being pointlessly reactionary to someone trying to discuss "how this is being discussed isn't really helpful."
I guess thanks for helping make my point.
blitzcloud
Banned
I don't mean you should be personally affected. But think of the big window. Think of the voluble people that buy into any kind of fashion move. Tell me you genuinely think that statements like that, backed by people that are feminist writers, would not stir trouble.
Funny thing is if you actually look at the portrayals of women in the coming AAA blockbuster market for this holiday season, it's way toned down compared to before.
There's even a thread about it here.
To say that AAA is unlikely to budge is actually short sighted.
And there's really good reasons why gaming should be more inclusive, it's simply growth.
We have a great example of that with the rise and fall of Nintendo between 2006 and 2013.
They recently chose to stop catering to a more narrow demographic of their users and ...they saw their customer base shrink as a result.
I say that they are less likely to cater, but that does not mean they will, or have not.
Keep this in mind too. You know how volatile the gaming community can get when a feature or aspect of a game is changed.
I'm not going to argue if you're strangely specific situation is a good analogy or not. If it helps, you win the argument because I don't see it as one worth pursuing.
Neoriceisgood
Member
What definition of offensive are you upholding btw?
Guess I just disagree with this.. what "dorky clothes" are you talking about?
What TV cameras are you even talking about?
What is the purpose of this question?
Honest question.. because I don't really know what you mean here. What does anyone mean when they say something "is offensive"? It's an opinion.. so it seems like it should be clear I'm saying "she recognized she was being insensitive to the point she'd offend people that aren't worthy of scorn." Harassers and mysogynist are worthy of scorn; everyone who goes to a con being generalized as some person who doesn't know how to behave in public was unnecessary and she seems to agree.
- Status