ESA, IGDA: Threats, Personal Attacks Have No Place in Games

Trishbot

New member
May 10, 2011
1,318
0
0
Kameburger said:
Trishbot said:
It blew up in the beast it did because a bitter, jealous, angry ex went to a group of trolls, made up a bunch of stories about her (many outright disproven), and said trolls went on the warpath, organizing and going after people so barely even related to the concept of "journalistic integrity" that it's almost laughable.
Hey sorry i know you're in the middle of something heated but do you have a link to where these things were disproven? That changes a lot for me. I mean before I realized the entire human race was little more the the feces they excrete in their entirety, I did actually read that blog, and the chat logs seemed pretty convincing and to my knowledge the surrounding Nathan Grayson and the boss she slept with didn't deny it from my understanding. If you had some evidence to the contrary I would be interested to read that too.
http://kotaku.com/in-recent-days-ive-been-asked-several-times-about-a-pos-1624707346
KOTAKU refuted much of the accusations. This was affirmed by The New Yorker, The NY Times, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, and others.

The accusation that she traded sexual favors for favorable coverage were systematically investigated and found unsubstantiated. NOBODY she was accused of having a relationship with ever wrote a review for her game or shamelessly promoted it (which is even stranger considering the game is FREE and nobody stood to make any profit from being shady about it). You can see for yourself; try and find a review by any of the parties mentioned. They simply don't exist. Even after it was proven she didn't receive coverage in exchange for sexual favors, the attacks on her persisted or individuals chose not to believe the reports and continued to blindly affirm her guilt and a larger problem stemming from a situation that did not in reality even occur.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
SilverHunter said:
It's downright pathetic to see these people try to take the moral high ground. Instead of saying "deaths threat and the like are a terrible thing and we don't condone it for either side", they are taking the childish route of "They said it! Not me!".
Of course, what you said could apply to GamerGaters as well. And the movement spends time downplaying threats and making accusations of conspiracy, so the rest of the stuff you say applies to them as well. You say it's pathetic, but you are only addressing one side, too.

So here's an idea. If you're sincere in saying this is bad on either side, don't do the exact same thing.

circularlogic88 said:
OT: Why has it taken the ESA and IGDA this long to publicly respond to the hate and threats?
I could swear they had before.


Zaydin said:
Yet for all their claims of wanting to fight corruption in gaming journalism, Gaters (I refuse to call them Gamers) were silent when Gamespot canned Jeff Gerstmann for panning Kane and Lynch.
Well, there was an outrage over it. Can you conclusively prove the specific people in GamerGate were active in gaming AND said nothing at the time?


I would think there would at least be SOME overlap.

Doesn't mean I support the movement, I'm just saying.

Trishbot said:
I believe ESA and IGDA are calling the misogynists and the bigots "misogynists and bigots". If you don't fall under that umbrella, they aren't talking to you.
I think the issue is that they're talking about the overall movement, and people are reacting as though they were talking about each individual or every member. I mean, we could have reasonable responses, or....

Trishbot said:
I think you're getting a tad too emotionally wrapped up in this, because these statements were not directed at you.
I think that's pretty much GamerGate's meat and potatoes. Yeah yeah, notallgamergaters or whatever. However, you look at so much of the outrage that comes out of the resource thread, and it's less based on what is actually said and more on how what someone said has been taken personally. Hell, look at any of the GG threads around here, and it's the same. And to a funnier note on a personal level, the people trying to dissuade me of this are the ones who seem to get the most personally offended over the least personal material.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
V da Mighty Taco said:
In other words, whether or not they stood up for Gerstmann all those years ago doesn't actually prove them wrong about journalism being fucked now.
It would, however, make them massively hypocritical.

Kind of like the mass rallying behind Yiannopoulos and Baldwin.

Or the still limited focus on Eric Johnson, instead going after Brianna Wu.

Or any of a number of other things which are more relevant to the here and now.

Zontar said:
Oh for fuck sake, there's harassment coming from both sides in this, the only difference is that unlike those opposed to GG, WE actually police our own and try to pot a stop to it when we see it instead of saying shit like "those subhumans deserve it" and other statements taken right out of the fascist handbook.
Still yet to see proof the "other side" did nothing to stop "their" own people.

Kameburger said:
I did actually read that blog, and the chat logs seemed pretty convincing and to my knowledge the surrounding Nathan Grayson and the boss she slept with didn't deny it from my understanding. If you had some evidence to the contrary I would be interested to read that too.
I'm sorry, not denying something means what now?

Does someone not denying something constitute proof? That seems horribly dishonest.

(reworded the last point to better reflect what I meant)
 

Alarien

New member
Feb 9, 2010
441
0
0
Kameburger said:
vallorn said:
I'd just like to leave this article by a self named critic of #GamerGate on the issue of harassment. To both sides who read this, enjoy and keep an open mind: https://storify.com/LadyFuzztail/gamergate-may-be-a-victim-of-a-false-flag-operati

Bob Chipman @the_moviebob
Follow
@LadyFuzztail Here's something you should know about me: I "believe" that there is (almost) no such thing as a bad tactic - only bad TARGETS
I am done with bob... I followed him on twitter but by far has the most disgusting, vile, and ethically vacant garbage spewed from his brain lately that I... my god I almost want to cancel my pub club subscription over this. I think I'm gonna email the escapist and send a formal complain. This kind of ends justify the means approach to his intolerance can't keep being rewarded.
It's not just Bob now. I used to follow him but had to drop him from my twitter feed about a month ago. I enjoy some of the content he creates, but his twitter behavior is so vile and unprofessional that I can't even just ignore it as it ticks by. Plus, he spams it.

However, I just unfollowed Jim a few hours ago. For the most part, he has more or less been fairly reasonable over the whole thing, but in the last couple weeks he has become increasingly less stable on twitter. There was a tirade a few days ago and a couple of vitriolic posts, but mostly, for me, it's the constant retweets of Leigh Alexander (what a hateful person she is) and other "anti-Gamergaters" that I am tired of reading.

It's fine tweeting reasonable comments condemning hate, threats, and bullying. It's fine tweeting things that promote gender issues in gaming. Hell, I am fine with him RT'ing Anita Sarkeesian. Even though I dislike her for, I believe, lying about being a gamer and having the only agenda of building her own brand (to do the University lecture circuit as a career) and having no actual interest in improving women's roles/themes/identity in games; I think the overall idea of her message is important and I'd like to see her message picked up by men and women who are actual gamers and game devs and discussed regarding what in gaming does and does not need to change. He can RT Anita all he wants and I just ignore it and hope someone who actually cares picks up the idea and momentum from her. However, Leigh Alexander is a self-important hate machine. I had hoped by not following Bob, I wouldn't get constant RT's from people like her and Devin Faraci. Thankfully, the Faraci RT's went away with unfollowing Bob, but Jim has been RT'ing Leigh again and again, as well as making more and more nasty remarks in the last week.

I'm done with them. I'll let The Escapist's official feed tell me when there's new content that I might be interested in. It's a shame too. Jim had some content on Youtube that interested me as well, but I have no interest in hunting it down or subbing his channel, so Twitter was my only way for my eye to be caught regarding that.
 

Karadalis

New member
Apr 26, 2011
1,065
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Still yet to see proof the "other side" did nothing to stop "their" own people.
Yep.. i mean with all the articles comming about that call for people to stop harassing gamers, stop using gaming as a scapegoat for everything bad that happens, and to tell people that no.. youre not a mysoginist or sexist if you dont happen to agree with AS.

But no.. aparantly according to most gaming media sites we are mysoginerds, subhuman, worse then ISIS and generally live in parents basement.

And all these things where said by prominent members of the gaming media that have not apologized for this crap.. the ISIS one especialy should have led to someone loosing their job.

Imagine if a politician had said something along the line of "I respect ISIS more then people who enjoy the hobby of XYZ. Group XYZ is dead to me!" Yeah.. their career would be over.


In the gaming media however everyone is high fiving each other about how badass they all are, how socially progressive and how witty they are in denouncing their own audience that got them their jobs in the first place.

Journalistic ethics? Would be nice to have ala escapist but lets face it.. they arent real journalists.. they are glorified bloggers that get to call themselves "gaming press" every year E3 or Gamescom come around and theres a press only presentation.

What i think should truly happen is that they should represent the hobby in a favourable light, should write about the positive things that happen in gaming more, should actually look deeper from a neutral standpoint if these accusations in gaming are actually true. Should have a healthy dose of sceptisism about people like AS that claim that this or that came supports rape culture.

But they dont... they bit down on the narattive that we are all... and i mean ALL... are subhuman degenerates that salivate like animals at the thought of women in gaming... you know... even the almost 50% of women that enjoy the hobby but never have their games reported about because theres no money in reporting about the latest social games if you can ***** about assasins creed unity not having female or colored protagonists in multyplayer.

But please ubisoft! Dont pull those Assasin creeds adds from out websites! We dont really hate you.. we just want to plaese our SJW overlords and look like we are better then the "vulgar common crowd"

My... its as if gaming media thinks that they are the nobility of gamerdome and thus by nature better then all the dirty plebs...
 

V da Mighty Taco

New member
Apr 9, 2011
890
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
V da Mighty Taco said:
In other words, whether or not they stood up for Gerstmann all those years ago doesn't actually prove them wrong about journalism being fucked now.
It would, however, make them massively hypocritical.

Kind of like the mass rallying behind Yiannopoulos and Baldwin.

Or the still limited focus on Eric Johnson, instead going after Brianna Wu.

Or any of a number of other things which are more relevant to the here and now.
It doesn't prove them wrong though, even if and when it's the case. A terrible person can be right; it's why ad-hominems are a fallacy.

Zontar said:
Oh for fuck sake, there's harassment coming from both sides in this, the only difference is that unlike those opposed to GG, WE actually police our own and try to pot a stop to it when we see it instead of saying shit like "those subhumans deserve it" and other statements taken right out of the fascist handbook.
Still yet to see proof the "other side" did nothing to stop "their" own people.
That's asking for proof of a negative - that something doesn't exist. Even if there really is nobody against GG calling out there own black sheep, it'd be nigh on impossible to prove by it's very nature.

Kameburger said:
I did actually read that blog, and the chat logs seemed pretty convincing and to my knowledge the surrounding Nathan Grayson and the boss she slept with didn't deny it from my understanding. If you had some evidence to the contrary I would be interested to read that too.
I'm sorry, not denying something means what now?

Does someone not denying something constitute proof? That seems horribly dishonest.

(reworded the last point to better reflect what I meant)
At least in Greyson's case, they have actually openly admitted to sleeping with each other. It's the "did it for publicity" part that they've denied and successfully debunked.
 

Alex1508

New member
Sep 20, 2014
52
0
0
Karadalis said:
Journalistic ethics? Would be nice to have ala escapist but lets face it.. they arent real journalists.. they are glorified bloggers that get to call themselves "gaming press" every year E3 or Gamescom come around and theres a press only presentation.
/RANT MODE ON
Ehem.... "Why isn't the group going after the hundreds of other more urgent problems in the game industry, such as Youtube buyouts, pervasive game DRM, mistreatment of video game developers and unacceptable crunch periods, console exclusivity backroom deals, unoptimized PC ports, broken game launches, game industry advertisements (hey, I notice Alien: Isolation is paying for the Escapist's web banners currently. How can we trust their review to be objective?), broken metacritic scaling ties to developer bonuses, and, YES, female developer and journalist harassment as a constant, unsolved problem?"- Garlador on this same page.

In other words, why is the journalistics ethics movement not actually doing anything about the actual problems that affect gaming press, some of these transgressions happening in plain sight while Gamergate is raging on (see Shadows of Mordor or the fact Chris Watters was hosting the Warlords of Draenor cinematic trailer reveal at Blizzcon, as a recent example) but instead focuses on the drivel "supposed" SJWs are writting? And when i say SJWs, i mean basically anyone who doesn't tow in the gamergate narrative.

If the goal of Gamergate is to wipe out corruption in games journalism, if the movement isn't merely a bunch of loosely adhered qualms about feminism and minorities (oh #notyourshield, yours is the most cruel joke out of this entire carnival) well they are doing a shit job of identifying and offering realistic, concrete soultions to the actual, honest-to-god problems in games media. It's not as if those problems are hard to see, we've know about them for years.

Simple, it's not about ethics or journalism, it's a simple extension of the culture wars. It's about politics or more to the point about ppl being critical of videogames from a social/feminist standpoint.

The demands for journalistic integrity coming from Gamergate have nothing at all to do with the systemic corruption of the gaming media. They've centered instead on journalists supposedly pursuing social-justice agendas and on ridiculous claims that the press sees gamers as vectors of social contagion. Some of the complaints, like the idea that outlets ought to reconsider their editorial positions if enough readers disagree with them, this standing in direct opposition to traditional journalistic ethics (all the claims for more "objective" reviewing aka write only about what i want to hear). Just look at the reaction when a reviewer gives a lower score to a highly anticipated game like Jims 8/10 uncharted review or Carolyn Petit GTA5 review where her mere mention of finding some portrayals offensive sparked a pitchfork mob depsite her grading the game outside her distaste and gave it a 9/10. Mere examples to a behaviour that has been running rampart for quite some time now.

As you said yourself, it's more about this "But no.. aparantly according to most gaming media sites we are mysoginerds, subhuman, worse then ISIS and generally live in parents basement." and "What i think should truly happen is that they should represent the hobby in a favourable light, should write about the positive things that happen in gaming more, should actually look deeper from a neutral standpoint if these accusations in gaming are actually true. Should have a healthy dose of sceptisism about people like AS that claim that this or that came supports rape culture." aka they need to write about gamer culture from your viewpoint, and not hear about the problems other segments of the populations encounter in the culture.

*sigh* There is a reason why, in all the Gamergate rhetoric, you hear the echoes of every other social war staged in the last 30 years: overly politically correct, social-justice warriors, the media elite, gamers are not a monolith, etc. There is also a reason why so much of the rhetoric amounts to a vigorous argument that being a gamer doesn't mean you're sexist, racist, and stupid, a claim that only the unhinged are making (or the image that Gamergate propponents are creating for gamers at large). Co-opting the language and posture of grievance is how members of a privileged class express their belief that the way they live shouldn't have to change or in this case that games are perfect just as they are and that the continous homogenazation and dillution of games in the insane race of catering to one demographic specifically at the expense of all others and the utter irresponsability when it comes to the messages games contain as both pieces of entertainment and art, somehow all this must continue unabated, unexplored or criticized. We can enjoy the politics and messages presented in the Witcher series, Bioshock series, Civilization series, etc and beat over our chests of how amazing, deep and mature games are but the moment anyone becomes critical of some rather poor, juvenile or questionably presented segments or downright malicious representations, ppl start screaming about the "feminazis" and the "SJWs", "censorship", how games are just games and ppl should just shut up and play them and, ironically, what thin skins these critics have.

And this barely reaches the middle of my list of grievances when it comes to this movement.

Yeah, i'm not buying the narrative either, and tbh i fear for what's gonna become of the medium if this is the voice of the majority, if this is who will be brought up as a representation of my needs as a consumer and gamer. I would have joined Gamergate if this was truly about creating a better, more respectable gaming media but as it is just a poorly directed witch hunt.

Oh and before someone jumps to tell me i'm missinformed, etc i've been lurking in the Gamergate megathread ever since page 215 up to it's current 796 including watching the youtube debates ,videos, InternetAristocrat, MundaneMatt, etc, etc, etc......etc.

And as a disclaimer: i shall adopt the position of just not caring anymore, sure the devastated wasteland that will remain after all of this is done will affect the types of games and portrayls that i enjoy but it's clear no one side cares about that anyways. I'll just bury myself in cute puppy/kitty pics and funny youtube videos (also Dark Souls.....it'll take a lot of time till i reach any semblence of progress with that game) during these dark times.
/RANT MDOE OFF
 

IamLEAM1983

Neloth's got swag.
Aug 22, 2011
2,581
0
0
Thoughtful_Salt said:
I respectfully ask how on earth do you propose we stop those toxic elements when they can post from anywhere, with easily made accounts and spew whatever they want?
dunam said:
What do you mean "allowed". People can't control what other people do.
To repeat a previous post of mine, I don't know. I don't have an answer or a solution to offer, because the issue at hand is too complex for me to narrow down to "do X and fix it". The post you've quoted was mostly exasperation on my part and, as I've said before, I don't want to attack those people who are actively trying to mitigate damage. I'm simply infuriated by the ease at which the doxxing and slandering crowd keeps going, and all I can do is wish that it bites them in the ass. I'm well aware that they can't be effectively stopped and that Twitter sock puppet accounts can just be recreated in the wake of the Banhammer falling. Attacks and harrassment are difficult things to stem.

As for me missing a beat and not realizing that 4Chan was no longer a thing, well, yeah. Never been much of a Channer to begin with, so excuse my ignorance.
 

danielcofour

New member
May 6, 2014
28
0
0
Scars Unseen said:
I don't care much about Gamergate or their opposition, and believe that both sides of the conversation have been too poisoned by idiots with loud voices to go anywhere positive. One thing though? You probably shouldn't use the organization that supported SOPA (until the collective internet made them back down) as proof that the public is behind you. They do not care about you. They do not care about this issue. PR is PR. If they had cared, they wouldn't have waited until other news outlets started weighing in on things to have their say.

As for inclusivity, I'm all for it, and I've seen many GGers claim that they are too. Granted, my reasons for inclusivity have nothing to do with equality. I don't think equality should be a requirement of art after all. It would be more accurate to say that I support diversity. Van Gough was a fine artist, but it would be boring if every painting looked like Starry Night. Similarly, I don't have to be female, homosexual, chinese, etc to be bored to tears with the grizzled brown haired white male protagonist who sees the same basic story arc mirrored across entire genres.
What this guy said.
 

Ukomba

New member
Oct 14, 2010
1,528
0
0
Trishbot said:
Ukomba said:
Right, the personal attacks are ok if you're doing it. Got you. I mean, making a slanderous statement like they "are looking to squash the voices of women at all costs" that's fine. but pointing out actual issues with the reporting is bigoted. That's fine, I can see where your bias is.
I think you're getting a tad too emotionally wrapped up in this, because these statements were not directed at you. They were directed at the "misogynists and bigots" who, yes, do want to "squash the voices of women at all costs". That's factual, and if you aren't with them, don't stand alongside them.

Critique away. I never called you bigoted. But the IGDA and ESA responded to terrorist and death threats, not to criticism of game journalism.

Your own bias seems to be skewing your perspective on this topic and making generalized comments about bad individuals a personal affront. You should have nothing to be defensive about unless you're one of those that agree the harassment and death threats weren't an issue or that you condone the actions. If you don't, then they were not talking to you, at all, and you shouldn't care.
You did, actually, you and Edwards paint the entire movement with the same broad brush and so are calling anyone associated with it bigots. Not a generalized comment about bad individuals, literately everyone in the movement.
Edwards - "The irony of this movement is that they want journalistic integrity, but are looking to squash the voices of women at all costs,"
Trishbot - "But the GamerGate "movement" irreversibly associated with "misogynists and bigots""

Excuse me but the people associating the moment with misogynists and bigots is your side. Not to mention people like Mateus Prado Sousa who create their own. Shall we say the Feminists movement is irrevocably associated with are Misandrists and bigots because a few are? Shall we take the trolls as a representative in any movement?

In the future, if you don't want to sling mud on everyone, you might want to pick your words more carefully. Shall I fix it to say 'But the GamerGate "Movement" has a small number of "misogynists and bigots" in it'? I'd agree with that, but there are negative elements in everything so I wouldn't find it terribly relevant either.

Or just keep trotting out the Misogynists Straw Man, pointing at Trolls, or making them up when needed to use as ammo against the divers community like each and every one of them agree with the attacks. I, for one, think it's despicable that Edwards to Marginalize people in order to silence people like this. It's sad since the majority of people agree that threats of violence, harassment and personal attacks are wrong. Yet it's said like GG supporters disagree.

Emotions run high when people misrepresent your position and then proceed to attack you based on lies they created.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Karadalis said:
I said there was a lack of proof, and you gave me a rant full of vague generalisations, innuendo, and reference that if I'm following who they're talking about are just plain false.

You haven't offered proof, or anything any reasonable person should follow. I thought GamerGate was supposed to be about better journalism, but all I'm seeing here is a tirade against "THEM." The dreaded "other side."

If you're just going to rant at me, I'd appreciate it if you just didn't bother.

And you're certainly not going to convince me of anything that way.

V da Mighty Taco said:
A terrible person can be right; it's why ad-hominems are a fallacy.
No, an ad hominem is a fallacy when you go after the person on an unrelated matter to attack someone. It is not an ad hominem when it goes to the evaluation of a statement. For example, when someone claims that they are for journalistic integrity and against corruption, pointing out instances where they clearly were not may be an argumentum ad hominem, but it is not an ad hominem fallacy.

Forms of ad hominem are used routinely without being fallacies.

In short, no, this is not why ad hominems are a fallacy, the ad hominem fallacy addresses different points of the ad hominem argument.

But I'm even more puzzled that you then go on to say this:

At least in Greyson's case, they have actually openly admitted to sleeping with each other. It's the "did it for publicity" part that they've denied and successfully debunked.
But this was about the lack of a denial (as though it was damning), the only reason I brought it up here.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Ukomba said:
You did, actually
Actually, no.
Not a generalized comment about bad individuals, literately everyone in the movement.
Only if you're using "literally" in the modern sense of "figuratively," and even then not so much.

Edwards - "The irony of this movement is that they want journalistic integrity, but are looking to squash the voices of women at all costs,"
Speaks to the group in general, neither addressing all members or members individually. "This movement" doesn't mean "everybody involved."

Trishbot - "But the GamerGate "movement" irreversibly associated with "misogynists and bigots""
"Are associated with" does not mean "are." That's why there's two extra words at the end.
 

Trishbot

New member
May 10, 2011
1,318
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Trishbot - "But the GamerGate "movement" is irreversibly associated with "misogynists and bigots""
"Are associated with" does not mean "are." That's why there's two extra words at the end.
Thank you for responding so I didn't have to. I appreciate that. This is precisely why cool heads can see the forest from the trees.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Trishbot said:
Thank you for responding so I didn't have to. I appreciate that. This is precisely why cool heads can see the forest from the trees.
No worries, people being misrepresented is a pet peeve of mine. I'm not sure it did any good, but I tried.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Disappointing but not entirely unsurprising. The ESA and IGDA are apparently going to play the political game as opposed to trying to do the right thing, which just means things are going to get worse as the attitude they are taking is more or less a big part of what set this off to begin with.

Right now the correct action for these groups to take would be to start paying a closer attention to the gaming media, who is saying what, and what is going on around what they are saying, and then start doing whatever they can within their spheres of influence to crack down on trouble makers and corruption within the gaming media.

I'm not that familiar with Wu's body of work but I do know Sarkessian's so that's the position I'll mostly be speaking from since I'm guessing they are similar. Basically Anita is a trouble maker who goes out of her way to rally SJWs to the defense of non-existent issues. Claiming things like how scanty outfits for female characters are exploitive, that there is rampant misogyny in the idea of women being rescued, or being on the receiving end of violence instead of just inflicting it, and all kinds of things. When challenged she, and people like here, either resort to outright suppressing comment, encourage their platforms to ban dissent, and otherwise just ignore anything said in return that they otherwise cannot find a way to censor. On the few occasions where they address points made against them, they do so in very ridiculous terms that make their agenda clear, for example saying that "it doesn't count when men are shown the same way women are because it doubles as male power fantasy that way" such as in reference to the unrealistic proportions of heroic fantasy models. These people also claim to speak for women, while at the same time pretty much ignoring all of the women who create fantasy out there and who have been successful at it, many writing for a female audience. Simply put video games accurately represent the genera most of them are working with as presented by both male an female creators, it's actually a radical fringe that claim to have an issue, and ultimately it's an issue that cannot be made without resorting to some serious misandry via the use of double standards by claiming that say the chainmail bikini is somehow different than the furry barbarian thong male "Conan Types" are given when really they are exactly the same thing and just as ridiculous. Basically in heroic fantasy neither gender gets treated any differently when you get down to it, the general portrayal is one where people of the same gender want to be them, those of the opposite gender want to be with them (so to speak).


That's a brief run down above, I've gone into more detail in other posts pointing out all the problems inherent in it, and of course the fact that the people involved in these crusades do everything they can to shut down criticism and counter-points being made to them. The thing is that what your seeing recently is people getting sick of those doing this, and the SJWs, many entrenched in the gaming media, keeping it going. You see a lot of the threats and anger and such in part because there is literally no way to get these people to shut up, there is no positive or constructive way to shut these people down, and that makes people angry. The attacks aren't because they are women, but because of the attention getting non-issues they represent and the fact that the vacuum chamber they and their supporters have gradually created makes them seem to have valid positions to theoretical outside observers who aren't more familiar with the material in question, potentially leading to changes and damage within gaming against the will of the actual majority, some of which are starting to rise up and become just as vehement as the SJWs that they are confronting.

Basically what these organizations need to be doing is saying that yes, it is wrong for people to be making these threats, but at the same time to also make it clear that the antics of those being attacked and their supporters are not acceptable either. These organizations should be doing everything they can to put pressure on people like Anita Sarkessian, and game journalists with social agendas and such, to stop being trouble makers. The bigger organizations involved in this kind of thing, as far as they are able, need to become the legitimate authorities who will pressure game journalists or political trolls into submission when they go beyond a specific level making it so "vigilante" activity of the sort we're seeing is less necessary. Understand the reason why people get mad enough to threaten Anita is because by definition they can't confront her message, not because she's right, but because she and supporting SJWs in the media pretty much control all the platforms, and they can ban anyone saying anything they don't care for in their own back yard.

See, the big thing here to understand is that nothing someone like Anita says is actually true in any real sense, or hasn't been for a very long time. Both men and women pretty much get their turns being bent over by obnoxious tropes, most of which go back to heroic fantasy. At the end of the day heroic fantasy characters tend to represent some form of physical ideal, and also dress fairly outrageously. Half the point of heroic fantasy being what it is, is that even in a "realistic" situation the hero will be pretty flamboyant simply because he can. Sure it makes no sense for a female character to be running around a modern battlefield wearing a dominatrix outfit, but it also doesn't make much sense for a dude to be doing it wearing nothing but tight leather pants and a little vest either (yes Lobo, I'm talking about you). The fact is within this genera people do it because they can, I mean if bullets bounce off of you, or your so fast that you can't be hit by mere mortals, or you regenerate as fast as your hurt, or have a personal force field active whenever you want one (or even all of the above) we're moving outside of reality, and heck, at that point you can pretty much dress however you want. Even in more realistic types of set ups the costumes might be dumb, but that's where the fantasy part comes in, you know your getting stupid with your arguments when say your picking on female warriors for their clothing choices while not questioning how Frank Frazetta dressed (or rather didn't dress) Conan in similar situations. When women write fantasy stuff, one of my favorite examples is Kim Harrison since I like her work and she's produced lot of it now, you'll notice that if anything they actually dial this stuff up to 11. Of course anyone who has ever read the books they based "True Blood" off of (or heck, even watched the TV show) can probably tell you that as well.

On the rare occasions when someone like Anita represents a counter point, it comes down to pure misandry. Basically the idea that Conan looking like he does is an empowerment fantasy, while say a female warrior doing the same is not. It comes down to pure misandry, as well as a lot of disrespect for female creators who do characters like that as much if not more than the guys do because at the end of the day men and women both feel empowered by being strong, sexy, and unfettered (so to speak). Men and women aren't so different here, and indeed if you follow amateur writing at all you might have heard the term "Mary Sue" which largely exists because of girls who write stuff on fiction forums that dial things up to ridiculous levels in creating perfect power fantasy characters for themselves which oftentimes go well beyond the already high level of perfection possessed by heroic fantasy characters.

At any rate I can see why it's easier for these groups to throw in on the "OMG we must protect the wommin!" SJW bandwagon right now. It's the path of least resistance for them, as it would take a lot more work and make a lot more waves to actually try and deal with the problems, including going toe to toe with a very entrenched media infrastructure. In taking the current approach nothing really changes, but nothing gets better either.

Right now what is preventing this whole mess from getting worse is that we haven't seen Anita and her ilk really change anything majorly yet. After all "Bayonetta" just got her second game, and companies like "Team Ninja" are going strong. We've seen Ubisoft give up ground, but it's Ubisoft. Don't stop them and eventually you are going to see things start to happen, and that might be "great" until you consider that this just means the opposition is likely to ramp things up as well. Right now Anita and her ilk aren't that big a problem, nobody cares enough to do anything about them except make noise back and hope that someone steps in and says "okay yeah, this sucks, we need to start balancing it out". Once you start seeing tangible acts of harassment, or perhaps even real attacks, which probably won't be heralded ahead of time, it's going to be the fault of the groups who right now could be trying to do something but are choosing not to. Basically if someone puts a hole the size of a beer can through Anita's head, everyone will of course be screaming at the psycho who actually did it, and about how she didn't deserve to die for simply riding this platform and being annoying, and they would be correct, but at the end of the day it will all be the fault of the people who could prevent it by reigning her and her side in so as not to antagonize people to that level. Sort of like if a town lets a bunch of kids run around and terrorize people at a half way house for recovering criminally insane and former violent offenders. They go around throw rocks, throw insults, and for months nothing happens, the police do nothing, and nobody cares, then one day some unstable axe murderer reverts and kills a bunch of them. Sure they didn't deserve to die simply for being arseholes, but the authorities also let the situation happen, you could argue the police that didn't reign those kids in and let them inflict one sided torment until someone snapped were just as responsible as the axe murderer that eventually did. Albeit in this case it's a little different, being a situation where the existing free speech laws don't apply to private platforms allowing for unconfrontable platforms of the sort we're seeing here, and the harassment of large groups of people without any valid form of retaliation or actions that can be taken. Neither side here are inherently violent, but by allowing constant one sided antics and control of aspects of the media anger is being built to the point where you might eventually see someone snap... it's a slow potboil that has already been going on for years. Gamersgate is just the first explosion, and truthfully I don't think much will happen in the near future, but keep letting it simmer and it's just going to be worse. Those in a position to exert influence over this need to be acting on both sides, NOT just favoring one while condemning the other, that just adds more pressure.

At any rate while controversial, I'll say now, way ahead of time, I am very sorry to whomever dies because of this. If it continues, I expect someone will die. Most reading this will think me crazy (like usual) but we'll see in a few years if anyone remembers me calling it here. This is arguably one of the big places where steps could have been taken to avert whatever nastiness lies ahead. See, I don't like people like Anita, but I don't want them dead, and to be honest I don't really want them silenced either as I'm a huge believer in free speech, but I do want to see them balanced, and that not happening is a big part of the problem.
 

nuclearday

New member
Sep 24, 2009
35
0
0
Personally, I just find the hyperbole and extreme rhetoric exhausting. And at this point, that's really all there is to the conversation anymore - extremist rhetoric versus extremist rhetoric and I feel it's now more about rage venting than trying to promote anything constructive on either side of the fence (wherever the hell the fence even is anymore.)

I consider myself a feminist. I come across a lot of "look, this person doesn't understand what a feminist is" articles in my news feed. But I can't avoid the fact that there are a lot of people out there giving feminism a bad name. And not just the normal trolls that will attach them to whatever cause they want to rile people up, or the standard internet slacktivists.

The rhetoric is getting extreme, and even otherwise well-meaning people are adopting this wounded righteous indignation tone when trying to point out sources of sexism in modern culture. And none of that's helping, and that's why people often have a negative view of feminism and why popular culture views us as crazed extremists who just want to jump at any chance to get offended. Because a lot of people out there are doing exactly that, and it's not doing anyone any favors to sit up on a high horse and whine about why no one understands us.

... But there are also a notable amount of (or at least highly vocal and energized) gamers that are giving all gamers a bad wrap. Just because one group has a (major, seriously major) flaw doesn't mean every other group with an agenda is then washed of all their sins. You don't "win" by being the most victimized in this world (though it seems those are the rules the internet plays by.)
 

disgruntledgamer

New member
Mar 6, 2012
905
0
0
I wonder why the IGDA is so against GamerGate. Oh I know why maybe they're in bedded with Gamasutra, UMB an GDC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uGdfOJZoF4