Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Temple of Kraden News: Welcome to the Temple of Kraden! ------ All worshipers may enter the Most Holy Place in single file, reflecting on the bountiful blessing Kraden hath provided unto him or herself since their last visit. Head coverings are not necessary, as true penitence and humility are found within. The Priests and Priestesses of Kraden endeavor to remind all that fresh orange juice is heavily preferred; only whores use frozen.
Greetings, heathen. Perhaps some fortuitous blessing of Kraden's grace hath led you to our humble Temple, or perhaps you are simply curious about this strange and wonderful cult. Should you be willing - and dare to hope - to achieve enlightenment, the door opens before you. Lo! Leave your old life behind! For once you step through, you become something more than just yourself.

You become a Kradenette.

Are you willing to make the rapturous plunge? Do you have what it takes?



One of us! One of us! One of us!



Already one of us? Make your presence known:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
SSB: Women, Men, & Gaming; I will make the topic
Topic Started: Sep 6 2014, 09:34 AM (14,625 Views)
Saturos
Member Avatar
heart-under-blade

Not explictly so in that they didn't name #gamergate, but like I said it's the same pattern. Have there been many #gamergate denunciations of those threats that Sarkeesian and the others have received, posts decrying the hacking attempts, the personal information being posted, and so on? Serious question, all I've seen are #Gamergate posts denying that any of the threats were real, and attacking Sarkeesian instead for being some kind of supermanipulative mastermind. No doubt there are posts saying she invented the whole school shooting as well.

If you want to condemn extremists and give your movement credibility, where are those posts?

If I saw more condemnation of these kind of threats, I might be reassured that they weren't in some sense at least condoned by #Gamergate.

Likewise, where are the #Gamergate criticisms of prominent male writers, such as the cozy relationship between the main websites and the gaming companies and publishers? Not the indie ones, but the multi-million dollar ones? You know, the ones that are more relevant to ethics in gaming journalism?
Where are the positive changes that Gamergate has effected, beyond the attacks? I asked this before on Skype and no one could link anything.

I genuinely want to understand what about #Gamergate is worth preserving, or if the people actually concerned about ethics in journalism should just abandon ship and move on to a new movement.
This should merge, but as another thought: inb4butit'saleaderlessmovement, no one can decry them

If an #Occupy protest turned violent (rarely), articles, blogs, and interviews were usually written decrying the violence as hooligans who were just there to cause trouble, and who don't represent the movement. If there's no leaders, then it's the people enmasse who need to speak up.
After all, even if the people committing violence didn't go around shouting "#Occupy!" the fact that they're there at the same place (Sarkeesian), talking about roughly the same things (those nasty feminists), then there's a "guilt by association" there even if it's not explicit.
If you see someone else smashing up a car and you don't tell them to stop or say "Wow, that's a bad thing you're doing, don't smash that car," I think you're at least a liiiittle bit complicit.

And when I say Gamergate I mean the movement as a whole, not the Kradenettes here who identify with it. So I'm not speaking of you, but if you want to clarify these things that'd be greatly appreciated.
Edited by Saturos, Oct 27 2014, 05:48 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Peytral
Member Avatar
peytral pls

Saturos
Oct 27 2014, 05:35 PM
Not explictly so in that they didn't name #gamergate, but like I said it's the same pattern. Have there been many #gamergate denunciations of those threats that Sarkeesian and the others have received, posts decrying the hacking attempts, the personal information being posted, and so on?
Yes, there have been. But anybody who uses the hashtag is apparently automatically involved in the threats so anything they do is apparently just them pretending to be sorry for whatever they've done so they seem less evil.
Saturos
 
the people actually concerned about ethics in journalism should just abandon ship and move on to a new movement.
Yes, definitely.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gilgamesh
Member Avatar
solbowz Aurarius

It is something negative against a woman, it is totally associated with gamergate

That said it seems to be the typical response Sarkeesian gets, so it probably still would've happened even if gamergate wasn't a thing anyway.

Let me start out with your last question. No, Gamergate is not worth saving or defending. Anyone who actually cares about gaming journalism should complain somewhere else. But for somebody that seems to believe there are idiots on both sides, you're certainly not showing that. This entire topic is circlejerking "everyone in gamergate is a misogynist rapist" while implying "the sjws on our side are the fringe, they don't represent us, they don't count". When you have people in this topic that can take ironic posts like Peytral calling gaters the KKK and take them seriously holy shit, YOU might be the person with a problem, even if not nearly to the same extent as the individuals actually threatening violence.

I call them armchair internet threats because that's what the majority is, but no, gamergate is one big movement without fringe people, so several actual threats are what the majority thinks. "Have any gamergaters done any good?" Why are you asking this? Unlike the anti-gamergate movement, which is journalists and feminist figures like Sarkeesian et al, gamergate is not a movement with any centralized figure. There is nobody to stand up and say "hey, we gaters feel that these women don't deserved to have their lives ruined by this". To think that there is is to blame the hacker known as 4chan. All you're going to get are internet posts by normal people saying it's wrong.

Like all of the threats and whatever that are going around are terrible but holy [radio edit]ing shit you can't just use them to go "well so and so threatened to kill X, so X can be as offensive as they want so long as it's less offensive" which is pretty much what so much anti-gamergate shit is, like that stupid Cracked article you posted in this thread. But if you can dismiss that as fringe bullshit, then so can gamergaters. So yes, if a random shitposter on 4chan threatens to kill me (99% of all the misogyny in gg), I won't take it seriously.

All of the anger and disgust against people who truly are misogynists in this topic and elsewhere is 100% justified but it's also a symptom of one of the biggest problems feminism faces: If you criticize a woman or disagree with one then you are a misogynist. But that doesn't matter because it's all fringe, only people that threaten women have mainstream opinions.

...Also stfu Nell that was just soda

( I was on class break but it's over now so don't expect another response after this for a while)

EDIT: because you inb4'd part of my post

Well, let's say we were arguing this on a different forum. Would you accept a post from a poster from the Temple of Kraden that identifies as a gater as condemnation of the misogyny? Then yes, such things exist, unless you think your friends are the only people that hate misogyny. It's also worth mentioning that gamergate discussion is banned on 4chan, so there's that too.
Also I don't mean to say this is anywhere near as bad as the shit that happened to like, Felicia Day or any other woman but

Some women are afraid to speak out because they don't want to be attacked for their opinion

I and other people don't post in topics like this because we know we'll just get attacked with ad hominem and have our opinions dismissed and even be labeled as misogynists ourselves so it's just not worth the trouble
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nell
Member Avatar
The Pretender
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
If it's so fringe that it's not representative of the overall opinion, then denounce it. And if the movement doesn't have a central figure to denounce it, like an actual serious political movement that was trying to accomplish something legitimate (like, for instance, more transparency in journalism), then isn't that the movement's problem, and something they have to deal with? But the logic of the journalism stuff is just completely messed up on every conceivable level and has been indefensible for a while now - especially since actual, real world, certified journalists started weighing in on the matter (http://np.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2h36ue/another_poorlyresearched_hitpiece_from_the_boston/cldrqeu). So what's left to put a face to? The sexism? Who would want to be the face of that? You can't just put your hand up and say 'yeah, sorry, but this isn't representative of us' when actually, all that's left of the movement is exactly that. And if you're interested, that post that I linked above addresses a lot of it, and why it both seems strategic but is actually fallacious to not have a movement with a figurehead, so if that's an issue that concerns you, I suggest you read it.

I think everyone who had a legitimate case in the ethics debate has had the brains to jump ship by now, and everyone who's left and still trying to wave that flag is too stupid to be redeemed.

EDIT: Goes both ways, Boyd. A bunch of people would like to post in topics like this, but are afraid of having their opinions or experiences written off as invalid or somehow worth less than others. Honestly, I think, for the most part, there hasn't been a lot of dismissal of people's opinions in this thread, but if you can point me to some examples, then we can all get to work at being better communicators.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Seoulbowz
Member Avatar
Supergeil

Nell
Oct 27 2014, 06:11 PM
And if the movement doesn't have a central figure to denounce it, like an actual serious political movement that was trying to accomplish something legitimate (like, for instance, more transparency in journalism), then isn't that the movement's problem, and something they have to deal with?
I'd say that the Occupy movement and the Arab Spring are both serious political movements that are/were trying to accomplish legitimate things. Not that GamerGate is anything like either of those, but leaderless movements or movements without a single central figure can definitely be serious and create serious change. Especially in the internet age and with the help of social media.

Edit: Not that gamergate is. Like Satty, I think anybody who actually cares about the journalism aspect needs to drop that hashtag like it's hot and move on.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nell
Member Avatar
The Pretender
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Fair enough, but I think it's a different thing when you're a movement that no one wants to be the face of because the political idea it's pushing is, strangely, not politically correct, and/or, don't have a massive internal problem with consistency of idea, and/or deliberately not have a face so you can pull the No True Scotsman thing at every turn.

EDIT: And I also think that having a face will always give a movement legitimacy, regardless of whether it 'needs' it or not. As I recall, Occupy Wall Street, at least, had a number of problems with people not taking it seriously because there's this ongoing idea that if people won't commit something as simple as their identity to the cause, then it's a sign of low investment in the cause ('innocent people have nothing to hide'). Where the theme at stake is to do with democracy/rhizomatic or horizontal models of power distribution, obviously that's a bit of a catch-22, and it's arguable whether there is any reason in that assumption, but nevertheless it's an assumption that exists.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jenn-uh
Member Avatar
hunny bunchkins sugarcube lettuce chamomile sweetie pumpkin schnitzel fries

I did not expect there to be supporters of gamergate on this forum, so I am legitimately sorry for making that brash comparison to the KKK. In fact, when Peytral replied with 'and Nazis, commies, etc.' I thought it was more likely that he was being over zealous with his condemnation of the sexism and violence within gamergate rather than defending it. So that was actually a compliment to you, Peytral, heh.

I don't know what's left in the gamergate movement thats worth defending at this point, even on the fringe. I'm not aware of much else in the movement beyond the threats, misogyny, etc. Though I admit thats obviously because of my ignorance. Tell me more about your views, if you're part of the movement, people.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Peytral
Member Avatar
peytral pls

I actually don't think anybody supports Gamergate here. I'm pretty sure Boyd and I both agree that the movement is dumb and they should do something else. We just see a lot of really stupid shit on the anti-GG side as well.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Crash
Member Avatar
Wheey! I've became a human being!! I am very handsam!

Gilgamesh
Oct 27 2014, 06:01 PM
It is something negative against a woman, it is totally associated with gamergate

That said it seems to be the typical response Sarkeesian gets, so it probably still would've happened even if gamergate wasn't a thing anyway.

Let me start out with your last question. No, Gamergate is not worth saving or defending. Anyone who actually cares about gaming journalism should complain somewhere else. But for somebody that seems to believe there are idiots on both sides, you're certainly not showing that. This entire topic is circlejerking "everyone in gamergate is a misogynist rapist" while implying "the sjws on our side are the fringe, they don't represent us, they don't count". When you have people in this topic that can take ironic posts like Peytral calling gaters the KKK and take them seriously holy shit, YOU might be the person with a problem, even if not nearly to the same extent as the individuals actually threatening violence.

I call them armchair internet threats because that's what the majority is, but no, gamergate is one big movement without fringe people, so several actual threats are what the majority thinks. "Have any gamergaters done any good?" Why are you asking this? Unlike the anti-gamergate movement, which is journalists and feminist figures like Sarkeesian et al, gamergate is not a movement with any centralized figure. There is nobody to stand up and say "hey, we gaters feel that these women don't deserved to have their lives ruined by this". To think that there is is to blame the hacker known as 4chan. All you're going to get are internet posts by normal people saying it's wrong.

Like all of the threats and whatever that are going around are terrible but holy [radio edit]ing shit you can't just use them to go "well so and so threatened to kill X, so X can be as offensive as they want so long as it's less offensive" which is pretty much what so much anti-gamergate shit is, like that stupid Cracked article you posted in this thread. But if you can dismiss that as fringe bullshit, then so can gamergaters. So yes, if a random shitposter on 4chan threatens to kill me (99% of all the misogyny in gg), I won't take it seriously.

All of the anger and disgust against people who truly are misogynists in this topic and elsewhere is 100% justified but it's also a symptom of one of the biggest problems feminism faces: If you criticize a woman or disagree with one then you are a misogynist. But that doesn't matter because it's all fringe, only people that threaten women have mainstream opinions.

...Also stfu Nell that was just soda

( I was on class break but it's over now so don't expect another response after this for a while)

EDIT: because you inb4'd part of my post

Well, let's say we were arguing this on a different forum. Would you accept a post from a poster from the Temple of Kraden that identifies as a gater as condemnation of the misogyny? Then yes, such things exist, unless you think your friends are the only people that hate misogyny. It's also worth mentioning that gamergate discussion is banned on 4chan, so there's that too.
Also I don't mean to say this is anywhere near as bad as the shit that happened to like, Felicia Day or any other woman but

Some women are afraid to speak out because they don't want to be attacked for their opinion

I and other people don't post in topics like this because we know we'll just get attacked with ad hominem and have our opinions dismissed and even be labeled as misogynists ourselves so it's just not worth the trouble
You're under the incorrect assumption that this is a "two-sides" issue of Gamergate vs Anti-Gamergate. But "anti-gamergate" is not a movement. There are not entire forums dedicated to anti-Gamergate discussion, with code word names to refer to specific people, or military-style Operations with strategic purposes. The people you call anti-Gamergate did not rally under that name or ideology, they're just the targets of the Gamergate movement and the people who are defending those targets. The only reason Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn, etc have become "centralized figures" is because Gamergate made them that by harassing and threatening them and prying into their personal lives so much that even the mainstream media took notice of the attacks.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Saturos
Member Avatar
heart-under-blade

Why do you think that's the typical response Sarkeesian gets?

Quote:
 
When you have people in this topic that can take ironic posts like Peytral calling gaters the KKK and take them seriously holy shit, YOU might be the person with a problem, even if not nearly to the same extent as the individuals actually threatening violence.

Actually, Jenna compared #Gamergate to the KKK, and I was correcting that.

Quote:
 
I call them armchair internet threats because that's what the majority is, but no, gamergate is one big movement without fringe people, so several actual threats are what the majority thinks.

I never said that. I said the majority SHOULD speak up and denounce the fringe.

Quote:
 
"Have any gamergaters done any good?" Why are you asking this?

I said the movement as a whole, #gamergate. What does #Gamergate stand for, and how have they enacted that? The attacks get a lot more publicity, so I'm trying to get a balanced perspective and a sense of what good they've done. I don't know what you think, Boyd, but I am trying to get a balanced and credible account of both sides.

Quote:
 
But if you can dismiss that as fringe bullshit, then so can gamergaters.

Yes, that's exactly what I want to see. #Gamergaters dismissing that as fringe bullshit, saying it doesn't represent the movement, and anyone who makes threats, uses personal insults, or hacking attempts isn't a real #Gamergater. Personal insults are aren't near as bad, but as a movement ostensibly about ethical journalism, I kind of want to see that reflected in the message, you know?

Quote:
 
All of the anger and disgust against people who truly are misogynists in this topic and elsewhere is 100% justified but it's also a symptom of one of the biggest problems feminism faces: If you criticize a woman or disagree with one then you are a misogynist. But that doesn't matter because it's all fringe, only people that threaten women have mainstream opinions.

Well, as well you know, it's hard to separate mainstream from fringe. A lot of people conflate SJWs and all feminism. Or people who say "if you criticize or disagree with a woman, you're a misogynist." I think it's okay to criticize Sarkeesian's methods or presentation, but not to say "Don't talk about politics or women in video games, they should just be fun and there's no space for your feminism here." I think that is sexist, as if feminism automatically prevents any other way of enjoying a game and "oppresses" people with feminism (I've actually seen this a lot in article and youtube comments). inb4reading comments, but those are views people hold.

Quote:
 
I and other people don't post in topics like this because we know we'll just get attacked with ad hominem and have our opinions dismissed and even be labeled as misogynists ourselves so it's just not worth the trouble

Has any of this happened so far? If it has, I apologize. Like Nell said, then we need to work at being better communicators.

I followed Nell's link, and one Gamergate supporter actually posted a somewhat reasonable source as unbiased:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/
Which I think it is!
And then post stuff like this:
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/18/The-emails-that-prove-video-games-journalism-must-be-reformed
Which is absolutely ludicrous. They submit this as evidence of a conspiracy in the gaming industry, when what really happened is one person thought about sending a letter of support to Zoe Quinn, and some people were like "nah," and the article spins it -- because this is classic spin -- as a groupthink conspiracy colluding to present and control the discourse. Not even that, they don't screencap their source, just type it out. Which is pretty easily faked.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dracobolt
Member Avatar
Incorrigible

Quote:
 
I and other people don't post in topics like this because we know we'll just get attacked with ad hominem and have our opinions dismissed and even be labeled as misogynists ourselves so it's just not worth the trouble
Reading this, up until I saw the word "misogynists" I thought that this was a post from one of the female users that was being quoted because I know and have heard from others that we often feel that way when trying to weigh in on topics about feminism and the like, that if we post we'll just get attacked as being "too sensitive" or labeled SJWs, so it's often not worth the trouble to speak up. Interesting to see someone from a different perspective experiencing that.

:mercury_djinn: :mercury_djinn: :mercury_djinn:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nell
Member Avatar
The Pretender
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Saturos
Oct 27 2014, 08:24 PM
Quote:
 
I call them armchair internet threats because that's what the majority is, but no, gamergate is one big movement without fringe people, so several actual threats are what the majority thinks.

I never said that. I said the majority SHOULD speak up and denounce the fringe.

...

Quote:
 
But if you can dismiss that as fringe bullshit, then so can gamergaters.

Yes, that's exactly what I want to see. #Gamergaters dismissing that as fringe bullshit, saying it doesn't represent the movement, and anyone who makes threats, uses personal insults, or hacking attempts isn't a real #Gamergater. Personal insults are aren't near as bad, but as a movement ostensibly about ethical journalism, I kind of want to see that reflected in the message, you know?
Actually, I feel like the difference is: there are radical so-called SJWs at the 'fringe' of feminism, which most feminists would readily disavow, but talking about the 'fringe' of GamerGate begets the idea that there is some kind of center to GamerGate, which is (more) legitimate ... which I don't think is true or ever has been. It's more of a gaping chasm.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Phantom Squee
Member Avatar
Sound the horn and call the cry: "How many of them can we make die?"

Saturos
Oct 27 2014, 05:35 PM
Have there been many #gamergate denunciations of those threats that Sarkeesian and the others have received, posts decrying the hacking attempts, the personal information being posted, and so on? Serious question, all I've seen are #Gamergate posts denying that any of the threats were real, and attacking Sarkeesian instead for being some kind of supermanipulative mastermind.
http://archive.moe/v/thread/261371267/#261372435

Under "quoted by," you can see the replies to that specific post. The vast majority of them are responding negatively to a suggestion of physical violence. Within 15 minutes of being posted, that post was reported and deleted by mods (it's only preserved now because of the archive system being used).

https://twitter.com/sanc/status/521211260017606656

Here is a GG supporter on Twitter reporting a journalist using a Brazilian IP to send death threats to Anita.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Saturos
Member Avatar
heart-under-blade

Squee, most of those responses seem to be saying that they think it's a shill or a plant, or that it's Zoe herself posting that. The few '[radio edit] offs' and one person saying that was too much, okay, maybe, but the rest seems to be saying that this threat is just a fake threat by Zoe to attempt to get more support and discredit 4chan. So along the narrative of "threats don't actually exist, they're Zoe/Anita just making stuff up for support." Only one person actually said "violence is wrong, guys."

That person reporting the death threats is heartening. =)

And that's a good point, Nell. I can agree with that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gilgamesh
Member Avatar
solbowz Aurarius

I wouldn't call Sarkeesian a central figure in Gamergate so much as she's a central figure with regards to feminism in games in general.

And yeah Peytral's right, I don't care about Gamergate because I don't care about gaming journalism, I only bought three games within the past year and I didn't look at reviews of any of them. Anyway, I don't think the movement as a whole has really done anything positive that's really visible, so I agree with the people that think anyone that cares about gaming journalism should get another banner.

I don't see how you can't say there aren't "sides" when plenty of anti-gg stuff is "gamers are all misogynist mountain dew drinking basement dwellers". Gamergate is a thing people argue for or against. There are sides. People who say misogyny is bad in general aren't taking sides. People who specifically mention or target the movement have taken a side against it. Wasn't there this big "gaming is dead" article or something like that? What else can you call that but anti-gg?

So to criticize gaters today as nothing but misogynists, when that's the only part of them that's really visible is somewhat different, however, earlier on in Gamergate the misogyny wasn't quite the only visible thing. Yet I see no difference in the overall responses to it. Like around the time when Squee was posting in this topic there were much less (actual) threats going around, but the kind of posting from Satty et all isn't any different than it is now.

There's honestly probably more visible examples of anti-ggs being shitheads than gamergaters being good (that is, more bad from one side than the other puts out good; I'm not saying there's more bad from anti-gg than gg, absolutely not), but you don't see any anti-ggers having to defend themselves from being called misandrists.

Side note, Firefox doesn't recognize "misandry" as a word.

Also, that all caps "YOU" I used was a general "you".

Well, if you want to know what I think about gamergate, both sides are using "legitimate" means to criticize the other however they want. Misogynists are obviously using gaming journalism as an excuse to do whatever they want, while anti-ggers are using the the misogynist's spewed bullshit to do whatever they want. Obviously anti-ggers aren't being as extreme about this but still.

As for the part about being reluctant to share opinions, I wasn't entirely speaking about this place, but well, when pretty much almost every post in this topic before today besides Squee's has been circlejerking about how all gaters are misogynists, don't you think somebody with a dissenting opinion might be reluctant to post?

Crash
 
So is anyone here still under the impression that Gamergate is anything more than a campaign of hate against women and other gender, racial, and sexual minorities, operating under the occasional guise of being about "game journalism ethics"?
Saturos
 
But hey, totally not about gender, mirite?
Comments like this certainly didn't make me want to post anything but shitposts in this topic, so I didn't post at all.

That aside I recall a similar discussion topic thing where I expressed similar dissenting opinions against the "this is sexist" majority (probably in my usual abrasive way, granted) and then the Slumber Party (or Skype? idk, but it was somewhere) talked about how I made them afraid to share opinions, which, in turn, makes me less inclined to share my opinions because I already get tired of writing long posts like this one, and having to deal with fallout is even more of a deterrent. Also Saturos no offense to anything else about you but discussing gender topics with you is incredibly frustrating and time consuming to me so I definitely prefer not to do it.

With topics like this, though, in general, there's definitely some pressure against disagreeing with a feminist viewpoint without your arguments looking like a misogynist's.

As for why Sakeesian gets those kinds of responses? Because the crazy people that lurk on /b/ are also misogynists, duh. The fact that she has problems with her research and videos and whatever and yet is still seen as a great feminist authority by her supporters doesn't help, but it also doesn't excuse trying to kill her.

Anyway I've been working on this post for over an hour when I could've been doing my homework or wasting time on things that I want to waste time on and I'm getting tired of this post so if I missed something whatever.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Phantom Squee
Member Avatar
Sound the horn and call the cry: "How many of them can we make die?"

Saturos
Oct 27 2014, 09:58 PM
Squee, most of those responses seem to be saying that they think it's a shill or a plant, or that it's Zoe herself posting that. The few '[radio edit] offs' and one person saying that was too much, okay, maybe, but the rest seems to be saying that this threat is just a fake threat by Zoe to attempt to get more support and discredit 4chan. So along the narrative of "threats don't actually exist, they're Zoe/Anita just making stuff up for support." Only one person actually said "violence is wrong, guys."
So their self-policing doesn't count because they're not doing it for the reasons you approve of. Gotcha.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nell
Member Avatar
The Pretender
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Gilgamesh
Oct 27 2014, 10:03 PM
I don't see how you can't say there aren't "sides" when plenty of anti-gg stuff is "gamers are all misogynist mountain dew drinking basement dwellers".
Well, this weird thing happened where a journalist wrote an article about how gaming had gone so mainstream that people who played games aren't just mountain dew drinking basement dwellers anymore, and that the idea of the 'gamer' stereotype is dead, and so many people hated the idea that the mountain dew drinking basement dweller wasn't a thing anymore and their culture was being appropriated by others who they saw as having no claim to it that they wrote to a major advertiser and got them to pull their advertising from the publication. Personally, I think it's a silly stereotype, but you'd be surprised at how many people, on both 'sides', are getting mileage out of it.

What exactly was your 'dissenting opinion', Boyd? What is GamerGate about, if not misogyny or backlash against diversity?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Crash
Member Avatar
Wheey! I've became a human being!! I am very handsam!

I'm gonna guess you haven't read the original Gamers Are Over article because what it's actually saying is that the "traditional" image of the "gamer" as the Cheeto-eating basement dweller is essentially over and that publishers and developers (the actual audience of that article, as it was published on Gamastura which is an industry publication, not a consumer publication) no longer need to target that demographic, because the actual game-playing population is much wider and more diverse (and probably already was, but now they have the statistics to support that claim)

Essentially what Nell wS able to type before me, typing on a tablet is too slow :(
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gilgamesh
Member Avatar
solbowz Aurarius

Wow either I was thinking of something else then or I got stuff all crossed and mixed up then (I deleted at least a paragraph of that post because I forgot what I was trying to say), my bad
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Saturos
Member Avatar
heart-under-blade

Quote:
 
I don't see how you can't say there aren't "sides" when plenty of anti-gg stuff is "gamers are all misogynist mountain dew drinking basement dwellers". Gamergate is a thing people argue for or against. There are sides. People who say misogyny is bad in general aren't taking sides. People who specifically mention or target the movement have taken a side against it. Wasn't there this big "gaming is dead" article or something like that? What else can you call that but anti-gg?

Well, you can say misogyny is bad in general, but I think if you think that, you're kind of obligated to point out misogyny when you see it, right? It wasn't quite "gaming is dead," but rather that the "gamer" is dead -- that exactly the stereotype you described doesn't exist anymore, because there's a huge diversity of people playing games. The key word as to why this was upsetting to some is the "anymore" part, and the way it implied that a large subset of gamers were part of an "old boy's club" where it was aimed at and marketed to and made for men. Which was true, I would say. And I've seen too many comments saying basically that same thing, that games are made for men and aimed at men, so women should stay out of it and not complain.

Quote:
 
With topics like this, though, in general, there's definitely some pressure against disagreeing with a feminist viewpoint without your arguments looking like a misogynist's.

As for why Sakeesian gets those kinds of responses? Because the crazy people that lurk on /b/ are also misogynists, duh. The fact that she has problems with her research and videos and whatever and yet is still seen as a great feminist authority by her supporters doesn't help, but it also doesn't excuse trying to kill her.

I'm sympathetic to this first point, but I would point to a 4chan post in a thread Squee linked: that it's really important not to be anti-feminist, but to show a lot of feminist alternatives and ways of talking about gender that offer an alternative to Sarkeesian. I'm totally okay with that.
See, "that assholes are also misogynists" is basically what I was saying. But I apologize for that earlier remark; I was a bit frustrated that some people refused to admit any component of gender in the #gamergate mass, that it was completely about ethics and misogyny wasn't a factor at all.

"[radio edit] off" is fine, but trying to pin the bad elements of Gamergate on Zoe? That's not exactly what I had in mind for them self-policing their message, and it denies that there's any threatening going on within Gamergate in the first place. Because when it does happen, it must just be Zoe trying to "get attention," as one poster said.

EDIT: Sadly Boyd, you didn't get it totally wrong. A lot of people point to that article as one of the main reasons the #gamergate crowd are so mad.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Games · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Affiliates

Golden Sun Universe Golden Sun Hacking Community The Lost Waters Golden Sun Land Golden Sun Adept's Refuge Golden Sunrise

Visit the Zetaboards Theme Zone for a custom theme of your own!