- Apr 7, 2012
Hawki said:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_ScotsmanWeepingAngels said:BTW, you too tend to judge actual gamers
Average Joe has probably never even heard of Anita or Gamergate, or any of that, so, no, you can't blame that on her.Kameburger said:I'm not sure why, but I feel like I want to say "Thanks Anita for getting trump elected," Not for nothing but I kind of feel like it's her fault.
How?WeepingAngels said:She picked a fight and some gamers called her out,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zSHz7ThvbcWeepingAngels said:most of which were calm and rational.
...what the hell are you on about?WeepingAngels said:As you can see though, more gamers than not are being chivalrous and throwing other gamers under the bus to protect her. The gaming press turned against gamers too (they only shot themselves in the foot). It was even speculated that she faked some of the threats against her to rally support (and her donations). How the fuck can anyone still be defending her?
Okay, first of all, you're using the term "gamers" as if the term is a noun rather than a descriptive, so you need to weed out things a bit. Second of all, being chivalrous. Yep - hurling online abuse and shutting down critique is SO chivalrous. Third of all, the speculations of faking threats would never have come up if people hurling abuse didn't generate an ecosystem for it. Four, how can I defend Sarkesian? Simple - everyone has a right to say what they want, games aren't exempt from critique, and no-one deserves to be harassed for having views that are different from someone else's.
The hell?WeepingAngels said:Gamers hating gamers, that is self loathing. Calling each other misogynists. Anita was a poison knife, she was the damsel in distress and too many gamers and journalists turned on each other to protect her sorry ass, she came looking for a fight and found one. You are downplaying her negative influence but I guess I should give you credit for not going as far as some and calling us childish neckbeards or keyboard warriors for daring to question her highness.
I had hoped in time that people would regain their sanity but this thread is proof that they just want to cling to the self loathing chivalrous attitudes that were so prevalent when all of this was current. Perhaps more time is needed.
Okay, first of all, you keep using "gamer." I'm not a "gamer." I read books, but I'm not a "reader." I watch films, but I'm not a "filmgoer." I go to stage plays, but I'm not a "stage play goer." If you want to identify as a "gamer," fine, but it's a useless term when describing the entire swathe of the world's population that engages in interactive entertainment. Calling people out for being arseholes isn't self-loathing. If anything, if you belong to a club, and people in the club are being obnoxious, arguably, their fellow club members have the primary responsibility to get them to take a step back.
So, moving on, Anita was a "poison knife." How? She was the "damsel in distress." Again, how? By bringing up the fact that she was harassed and was subject to death threats? You use terms like "negative influence," but where is this negative influence? I don't want assertions, I want actual tangible evidence.
At the very most, by my observation, all Anita has done is critique games. That's it. So, people can subject other art forms to analysis, but games are above such things? And look, you don't even need to agree with the analysis, but usually, in other art forms, the forms of debate take the form of actual debate. Not this kind of garbage that "gamers" spawned.
Then please, open our eyes.WeepingAngels said:You may believe that she didn't do any damage but you would be blind.
Lol only gonna respond to the part directed at me but I say that because gamer gate certainly earned brightbart a lot of useful fans, and those people are incidentally pretty trumpy if you visit the old gamer gate watering holes like the kia subreddit. But again I'm not gonna spend a lot of time defending jokes. Have fun battling everyone..