BREAKING: Women of #GamerGate Make Breakthrough on HuffPo Live

Calbeck

Bearer of Pointed Commentary
Jul 13, 2008
758
0
0
http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/gamergate-and-women-in-video-game-culture/543c686878c90a71ff000157

Despite the best efforts of the host to repeat allegations of anti-feminism, his guests remained so strongly focused on issues of journalistic ethics that at one point he broke down and tried to explain his role as "Devil's Advocate". The interview was adopted after deep criticism regarding a previous GamerGate-related interview which pitted games developer Brianna Wu against Forbes tech writer Eric Kain and 8chan founder "Hot Wheels".

A very exciting watch, whether you're for or against, at least in my admittedly biased view.

Full disclosure!
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
6:00 in and I'm wishing these women would have prepared for this interview better. First one sounded like an idiot, second one is rambling, neither of them are addressing the question.

7:30, still not answering the question.

8:40 done with this. More polarized nonsense. Whole interview in a nutshell:

Person A: I'd like to talk about X!
Person B: Forget X, let's talk about Y!
Person A: Forget Y, we really need to address X!
Person B: X is just a smokescreen, the real issue is Y!

And back and forth and back and forth, just people talking past one another. I guess it's exciting to see it on screen instead of reading it on a forum but it still makes me very, very sad and gives me a blinding headache.

The antidote to polarized nonsense isn't more polarized nonsense. It's like trying to get the taste of salt out of your mouth by eating pepper. No one wants to listen to anyone. No one wants to concede a single point. Just parrot whatever dogma you've embraced and then go blank for two minutes while the other person talks to air.

Watched another minute. "This sort of thing shouldn't be in an objective review".

"Objective review."

I can't do it OP I'm sorry. I'm happy they rounded up a bunch of X chromosomes for this interview but they would have been better served to have three people who were prepared to talk intelligibly about the issues, whatever they might be. Because between the three of them I've already heard two different mission statements over 9 minutes.

Please let me know if there's a certain point I should jump into later lest I miss a key moment, because I can't watch this. This is one of the stupidest debates I've ever seen on live air, and that's really saying something.
 

Fappy

\[T]/
Jan 4, 2010
12,010
0
41
Country
United States
BloatedGuppy said:
"Objective review."
There is a conflict in the story. There are fighting mechanics. There are textures and pixels. You can get a game over.

10/10, this is indeed a video game.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
7,459
3,074
118
Country
United Kingdom
Georgina Young came across very well, I think. Intelligent and well-reasoned.

Jennie Bharaj's response to the host's question, about whether GamerGate supporters wanted gaming publications to stop focusing on minority representation, rose alarm bells for me;

2:58 - (approximately) 4:00 said:
Ricky Camilleri: "Yeah. It seems to me that some people in the GamerGate community seem to get upset and wrap themselves up in this conversation not because of a sort of corruption problem, but because a lot of gaming sites now talk about feminism, now talk about minority inclusion. And they seem to say, 'we want our game conversations, our gaming sites to talk about games and the experience of playing these games, not about a minority opinion, or including minorities".

Jennie Bharaj: "Exactly. And it does anger us, only because this isn't really an issue to begin with. I mean, we have so many prominent female figures in the gaming industry. We have Jane McGonigal, we have Robin Hunicke, creator of the MDA framework, we have Jade Raymond [...]"
This has always been my biggest stumbling block: there seems to be some level of dismissiveness towards the debate surrounding minority representation. This isn't true of all, of course, but it's a big issue I have.

She also referred to people who "call themselves social justice warriors". That has always been, first and foremost, a pejorative term, not a self-descriptor.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Silvanus said:
Georgina Young came across very well, I think. Intelligent and well-reasoned.
Which one was she? Was she the blonde? I only saw her first segment, and she seemed to be stumbling over what she wanted to say.

Silvanus said:
This has always been my biggest stumbling block: there seems to be some level of dismissiveness towards the debate surrounding minority representation. This isn't true of all, of course, but it's a big issue I have.

She also referred to people who "call themselves social justice warriors". That has always been, first and foremost, a pejorative term, not a self-descriptor.
Was my first major "ugh the hell with this" moment. Anger at feminists and "social justice warriors" in gaming =/= anger at journalistic transparency. Those are two dramatically different agendas.
 

Phasmal

Sailor Jupiter Woman
Jun 10, 2011
3,676
0
0
Ok, I'm just gonna duck in here real quick to ask a question-
I thought all of this stuff went in the big thread now?

I saw all the other threads get put all together. It made more sense than making a new topic every time something happens?

OT: I've never found `Look! Women here!` to be a convincing argument.
 

Kawalorn

New member
Jul 15, 2012
6
0
0
TheKasp said:
"Objective review."

*sigh* There is no such thing in gaming. With artstyle, gameplay, story etc all including subjective qualities you can't have an objective review worth a damn.
But on the other hand we have now "graphics are shit because I PERSONALLY don't like the art-style". When people ask for "Objective reviews" they want reviewers to dismiss their own biases to see the bigger picture.
 

Internet Zen Master

New member
Aug 20, 2014
12
0
0
Phasmal said:
Ok, I'm just gonna duck in here real quick to ask a question-
I thought all of this stuff went in the big thread now?

I saw all the other threads get put all together. It made more sense than making a new topic every time something happens?

OT: I've never found `Look! Women here!` to be a convincing argument.
Well, when the other side ('side' as general reference to those aggressively attacking the people using the GamerGate hashtag on twitter/the gaming media) repeatedly making the claim that "GamerGate users are all white cishet males, and anyone who says otherwise is a sock puppet account from 4chan (see: most of the negative reaction to the #notyourshield hashtag)", the fact these women even exist, let alone came on HuffPo Live, completely negates that particular aspect of the "GamerGate is just a harassment campaign by women-hating misogynist men" spouted by many gaming journos online.

It's not an argument, it's simply a statement of fact. However, people are still free to draw their own conclusions about why there women are supporting the idea behind the GamerGate hashtag in the first place.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Kawalorn said:
But on the other hand we have now "graphics are shit because I PERSONALLY don't like the art-style". When people ask for "Objective reviews" they want reviewers to dismiss their own biases to see the bigger picture.
Sorry, what's the bigger picture? That the graphics were good?

You don't want reviewers to "keep their biases out of it". That's the whole point of anointing someone to review something. You want their perspective. You want them to be honest about what they think. Whether their opinions are relative to you and your interests as a gamer is for YOU to decide. It's why there is a multitude of critics and critical opinion out there. For you to think critically about and decide which ones speak to your preferences.

Internet Zen Master said:
Well, when the other side ('side' as general reference to those aggressively attacking the people using the GamerGate hashtag on twitter/the gaming media) repeatedly making the claim that "GamerGate users are all white cishet males, and anyone who says otherwise is a sock puppet account from 4chan (see: most of the negative reaction to the #notyourshield hashtag)", the fact these women even exist, let alone came on HuffPo Live, completely negates that particular aspect of the "GamerGate is just a harassment campaign by women-hating misogynist men" spouted by many gaming journos online.
I'm reminded of an episode of The Office (UK) when David makes a joke about a black man's cock during an orientation for new staff. A few of the staffers find it offensive, and relay this information to David's boss. David attempts to justify the joke by pointing out that the one black man present thought it was funny.

Generally speaking David Brent should not be the benchmark you're trying to clear when assessing the salience of arguments. Women are just as capable of being misogynists as men are.

That said, anyone arguing that all of GamerGate is any one thing should be viewed as teetering on the event horizon of idiocy. Clearly not everyone in GamerGate is a misogynist, just like not everyone in GamerGate gives two shits about journalistic integrity. That's why listening to people say "GamerGate isn't X, it's Y" gives me such a headache, whether they are defending it or opposing it. GamerGate is a diffuse coalition of people loosely united under a (slightly pathetic, I'm sorry...please no more "gate" suffixes) hashtag coined by a nutjob for a great variety of reasons. They should be addressed and debated as individuals, but there seems to be a sentiment that not identifying as a unified blob would somehow "weaken the movement" or rob it of some vital momentum. So you have a lot of loud voices shouting a lot of very different things, and everyone involved likes to think everyone shouting alongside them has their back and shares their agenda, and nothing could be further from the truth.
 

Kawalorn

New member
Jul 15, 2012
6
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
Sorry, what's the bigger picture? That the graphics were good?

You don't want reviewers to "keep their biases out of it". That's the whole point of anointing someone to review something. You want their perspective. You want them to be honest about what they think. Whether their opinions are relative to you and your interests as a gamer is for YOU to decide. It's why there is a multitude of critics and critical opinion out there. For you to think critically about and decide which ones speak to your preferences.
If that was the case people wouldn't be laughing at the Polygon guy who gave Beyonetta 2 lower score because he didn't like main character design.

And no, people come for reviews to know whether game is good or not, NOT whether reviewer has personal problems with it. He's free to mention it but the moment he thinks his perspective is important enough to actually slander the game for arguably minor things, that's bad reviewing. Not to mention some like to go on a rant for way too long when they could be giving some ACTUAL important info.

Not long ago in one gaming magazines in my country, the reviewer of the new Wolfenstein game rather than review the game went on a rant how he dislikes modern FPS's and how Wolfenstein fits in this. I came out knowing nothing about the game and with a headache having to endure his annoying talk while looking for useful info. Bad review in a nutshell.

And yes, the bigger picture is: the graphic good, is it functional, is it detailed, does it fit the game, why or why not? Not just "I don't like it" what many tend to do today.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Kawalorn said:
If that was the case people wouldn't be laughing at the Polygon guy who gave Beyonetta 2 lower score because he didn't like main character design.
What "people"? Some people? All people? Did you take a poll? I don't find it particularly amusing that someone put their opinion into a review that they wrote. That seems rather par for the course to me.

Kawalorn said:
And no, people come for reviews to know whether game is good or not, NOT whether reviewer has personal problems with it.
Oh so "good" is objective, is it, and we need to ferret out which people are able to objectively determine "goodness"? What metric do we employ to establish that, pray tell?

Kawalorn said:
He's free to mention it but the moment he thinks his perspective is important enough to actually slander the game for arguably minor things, that's bad reviewing. Not to mention some like to go on a rant for way too long when they could be giving some ACTUAL important info.
"Slander". So from your perspective, negative reviews are now "slanderous", are they? We don't criticize media, we defame it.

What's way too long? What's the proper length of a rant in a review? What system have we designed to measure rant length and determine at which point it has crossed the threshold and transformed a "good review" into a "bad one"?

Honestly what I'm hearing is good old fashioned intellectual insecurity. Someone reads a critical review they disagree with, and get outraged, because holy shit...it's a differing opinion. So the reviewer must be a troll, or biased, or paid off, or in collusion with a SJW conspiracy, or a lizard man, or any number of things. Anything but giving their OPINION, which is what a review IS.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
7,459
3,074
118
Country
United Kingdom
BloatedGuppy said:
Which one was she? Was she the blonde? I only saw her first segment, and she seemed to be stumbling over what she wanted to say.
Yeah, that was her. I thought she came across well, but mileage may vary. Respect to the host for (generally) giving adequate time to respond, too.

BloatedGuppy said:
Was my first major "ugh the hell with this" moment. Anger at feminists and "social justice warriors" in gaming =/= anger at journalistic transparency. Those are two dramatically different agendas.
Aye, waters are too muddied, and it results in interviewers and even the guests talking somewhat at cross purposes. Two of the three guests talked at length about feminism, "social justice warriors", or "ideologies" that should be kept out of reviews-- Very different opinions, unrelated to journalistic integrity, and positions I can't support. As much as I thought Georgina Young came across well during her own segments, she didn't dispute the others.
 

psijac

$20 a year for this message
Nov 20, 2008
281
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
Kawalorn said:
But on the other hand we have now "graphics are shit because I PERSONALLY don't like the art-style". When people ask for "Objective reviews" they want reviewers to dismiss their own biases to see the bigger picture.
Sorry, what's the bigger picture? That the graphics were good?

You don't want reviewers to "keep their biases out of it". That's the whole point of anointing someone to review something. You want their perspective. You want them to be honest about what they think. Whether their opinions are relative to you and your interests as a gamer is for YOU to decide. It's why there is a multitude of critics and critical opinion out there. For you to think critically about and decide which ones speak to your preferences.
You want their bais as a gamer. You DO NOT want their political baggage. Do you want a reviewer gave Every Call of Duty a 1 out of five because it doesn't reflect the true nature of the ground war in Afghanistan. You you want a reviewer that is sponsored by the NRA? Shooting Illustrated is dealing with this exact same shit. They gave a fantastic review to a cap gun. The Remington R51. Only after Remington initiated a factor recall did they admit the gun wasn't that great, oh wait they didn't do that they accused Remington of giving them the bait and switch. A gun company won't do a recall unless there is a reasonable chance the gun will kill someone when the user doesn't pull the trigger. Sadly the gun reviewer was not a feminist, so they could not hide behind claims of misogyny
 

psijac

$20 a year for this message
Nov 20, 2008
281
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
Silvanus said:
Georgina Young came across very well, I think. Intelligent and well-reasoned.
Which one was she? Was she the blonde? I only saw her first segment, and she seemed to be stumbling over what she wanted to say.

Silvanus said:
This has always been my biggest stumbling block: there seems to be some level of dismissiveness towards the debate surrounding minority representation. This isn't true of all, of course, but it's a big issue I have.

She also referred to people who "call themselves social justice warriors". That has always been, first and foremost, a pejorative term, not a self-descriptor.
Was my first major "ugh the hell with this" moment. Anger at feminists and "social justice warriors" in gaming =/= anger at journalistic transparency. Those are two dramatically different agendas.
There is a huge over lap in people pro Game Journo - ethic and those tired of SJW.
Incidentally there is also a huge overlap in Corrupt Journalist and SJWs

Who knew?!
 

shrekfan246

Not actually a Japanese pop star
May 26, 2011
6,374
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
please no more "gate" suffixes
I've been considering starting a Twitter account just to make puns using that.

#LionsGate
#AlexanderLeighG(r)ate
#Baldur'sGate
#StarGate
#GateOutOfTen
#BillGate
#MateGate
#JailGate
#HellGate
#SteinGate
#TheBlackGate
#GateToTheChopper
#SlowGate
#CodeGate
#NotGate
#AndGate
#OrGate
#NandGate
#NorGate
#XorGate
#XnorGate
#If-ThenGate
#TollGate
#SurroGate
#InvestiGate
#SegreGate
#InstiGate
#InterroGate

Phasmal said:
OT: I've never found `Look! Women here!` to be a convincing argument.
But if all of my friends are women, surely I can't be sexist.

That's how it works, right?
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
psijac said:
You want their bais as a gamer. You DO NOT want their political baggage.
Who? Who is you?

psijac said:
Do you want a reviewer gave Every Call of Duty a 1 out of five because it doesn't reflect the true nature of the ground war in Afghanistan.
Personally? No, but someone might. It might also be an interesting review to read.

psijac said:
You you want a reviewer that is sponsored by the NRA? Shooting Illustrated is dealing with this exact same shit. They gave a fantastic review to a cap gun. The Remington R51. Only after Remington initiated a factor recall did they admit the gun wasn't that great, oh wait they didn't do that they accused Remington of giving them the bait and switch. A gun company won't do a recall unless there is a reasonable chance the gun will kill someone when the user doesn't pull the trigger.
Personally? No, but someone might.

Hey look at that, my personal tastes don't set the benchmark for an entire industry designed to appeal to a vast cross section of people, imagine that. It's almost like I might have to undertake a cursory effort to find reviews I DO want, instead of demanding the entire industry change to only deliver reviews I want to read.

psijac said:
Sadly the gun reviewer was not a feminist, so they could not hide behind claims of misogyny
Oh look, my eyes rolled right out of my fucking head.

psijac said:
Incidentally there is also a huge overlap in Corrupt Journalist and SJWs

Who knew?!
GASP! The corruption! How deep does it go!? I hope you have your best people on the case to save us from this infamy!