As a Brit, the hell happened America? There is bile against video games here, but no way near enough to launch a political career out of.
The Big Picture: Remembering the Real Jack Thompson
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
LostGryphon said:
Not trying to be snide taking a step back and knowing where you are coming. Every time I see a certain topic and gage how the thread will play out and who will say what, who will piggy back on which comments, which cliques will form and almost easily guess how sentiment and discussion will devolve into. Even I fell into this crap myself early on sometimes you just have one of those days. I mean some people in other topics with less hostility are usually fine others I will admit I could care less about their approval or how they wish to see me and others but so is life. Then again your post allowed me to have some context to post some ease the tension songs so thanks for that.
Personally, I think that the real argument here should be about is knowing the difference between "free speech" and "consequence-free speech", as shown on this clip from The Daily Show:
Basically, the point of the clip is that, while you CAN say anything you want, and not get censored by the government because your view conflict with the governments. HOWEVER, that doesn't give people the ability to say anything they want without being mocked and scorned by society at large. Jack Thompson's campaign infringed on FREE SPEECH, because he wanted all violent games banned, and tried to claim that video game violence didn't just "desensitize" people to violence (i.e. more apathetic to violence around them), but also tried to construe the interactive nature of video games as either making people more liable to act out violent impulses, or to give those with violent impulses more creative ways to carry out those impulses.
Anita, on the other hand, is challenging the CONSEQUENCE-FREE SPEECH that leaves the majority of video games using tropes that, when used improperly (as some companies and games still frequently do) marginalize women compared to men, and also how some gamers think even this criticism is equivalent to infringing on FREE SPEECH. She's not asking the government to ban sexist video games for the good of society. She's just trying to get more social awareness of potentially sexist issues in gaming. And if that society thinks that games, game companies, or gamers that enforce that sexism should be called out for it: well, they're not infringing on your FREE SPEECH, they're making sure it isn't CONSEQUENCE-FREE SPEECH where anybody say whatever they want without the judgement of their peers.
Oh, and for the people trying to frame Bob as a hypocrite for "supporting" a death threat on Thompson (link here [https://twitter.com/the_moviebob/status/527993572734537728]), I can't see anything that openly supported death threats - sure, he said he "had it coming", but it was likely the harassment of being called an idiot blowhard, and for being a scumbag politician long before he carried his 'moral guardian crusade' to videogames. I'm sure he wouldn't have approved outright death threats, if only so gamers didn't shoot themselves in the foot on the "video gamers aren't more violent because of video games" argument, but even then he could've laughed them off if they couldn't be followed up on, i.e. the "online gamer threatening to kick your ass in real life probably couldn't do that" phenomenon. The death threats against Anita can't be shrugged off when she had to cancel a presentation because the threat of a school shooting could've been carried out thanks to how guns weren't banned from the school she was presenting [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/138046-School-Shooting-Threat-Sent-to-USU-about-Anita-Sarkeesian], and when she was forced to flee her own house after the threats to break in and murder her family proved all to real not to brush off as a sick joke or empty boast [http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/27/6075179/anita-sarkeesian-says-she-was-driven-out-of-house-by-threats].
At the very LEAST, the GamerGate members who DON'T support trying to outright kill Anita just to shut her up should call out any of their members who tried to do so, if only in a "GUYS!! Stop making US look bad!" motive.
Basically, the point of the clip is that, while you CAN say anything you want, and not get censored by the government because your view conflict with the governments. HOWEVER, that doesn't give people the ability to say anything they want without being mocked and scorned by society at large. Jack Thompson's campaign infringed on FREE SPEECH, because he wanted all violent games banned, and tried to claim that video game violence didn't just "desensitize" people to violence (i.e. more apathetic to violence around them), but also tried to construe the interactive nature of video games as either making people more liable to act out violent impulses, or to give those with violent impulses more creative ways to carry out those impulses.
Anita, on the other hand, is challenging the CONSEQUENCE-FREE SPEECH that leaves the majority of video games using tropes that, when used improperly (as some companies and games still frequently do) marginalize women compared to men, and also how some gamers think even this criticism is equivalent to infringing on FREE SPEECH. She's not asking the government to ban sexist video games for the good of society. She's just trying to get more social awareness of potentially sexist issues in gaming. And if that society thinks that games, game companies, or gamers that enforce that sexism should be called out for it: well, they're not infringing on your FREE SPEECH, they're making sure it isn't CONSEQUENCE-FREE SPEECH where anybody say whatever they want without the judgement of their peers.
Oh, and for the people trying to frame Bob as a hypocrite for "supporting" a death threat on Thompson (link here [https://twitter.com/the_moviebob/status/527993572734537728]), I can't see anything that openly supported death threats - sure, he said he "had it coming", but it was likely the harassment of being called an idiot blowhard, and for being a scumbag politician long before he carried his 'moral guardian crusade' to videogames. I'm sure he wouldn't have approved outright death threats, if only so gamers didn't shoot themselves in the foot on the "video gamers aren't more violent because of video games" argument, but even then he could've laughed them off if they couldn't be followed up on, i.e. the "online gamer threatening to kick your ass in real life probably couldn't do that" phenomenon. The death threats against Anita can't be shrugged off when she had to cancel a presentation because the threat of a school shooting could've been carried out thanks to how guns weren't banned from the school she was presenting [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/138046-School-Shooting-Threat-Sent-to-USU-about-Anita-Sarkeesian], and when she was forced to flee her own house after the threats to break in and murder her family proved all to real not to brush off as a sick joke or empty boast [http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/27/6075179/anita-sarkeesian-says-she-was-driven-out-of-house-by-threats].
At the very LEAST, the GamerGate members who DON'T support trying to outright kill Anita just to shut her up should call out any of their members who tried to do so, if only in a "GUYS!! Stop making US look bad!" motive.
Can anyone explain to me why people defend Hitman? I honestly don't get it, is it a really popular and amazing game series? I can honestly never heard of anyone talk about it being really good or talk about it at all.
But when it comes to gamergate and Anita people defend it as if it was the Alamo.
In the same video where Anita critizises Hitman she also talks about God of War but i've never seen anyone defend God of War.
But when it comes to gamergate and Anita people defend it as if it was the Alamo.
In the same video where Anita critizises Hitman she also talks about God of War but i've never seen anyone defend God of War.
Liking videos is scary? Let me tell you about this great horror series from the 90s called Siskel and Ebert. I definitely wouldn't watch it before bed. There are some other good video liking shows on now like Tosh.0 or @ Midnight, but they aren't as good.Zontar said:
Jumplion said:
I was referring to this
http://youtu.be/5i_RPr9DwMA?t=6m34s
Seeing sexism there is silly. That pimp is a bad guy. Was Anita expecting him to be a perfect gentleman
She brought up the "Dastardly" achievement earlier in the video, and yeah that's sexist, I don't think anyone would argue with that.
But then she goes and ruins it by being stupid.
Everything else you said was so far off base it's not worth responding to.
Except this,
And I'm still not going to respond to it, I'll just let you ruminate on what you said.
Shocking, and you should apologize to literally everyone, including your parents.
Yeah she pretty much in that clip ignores the possibility that the woman could be a creep or a stalker and just goes "Ohh maybe women deserve better" but as soon as a guy sings the song it's always stalkerish and creepy. *bleh* That "woman can do no wrong" bullcrap needs to end in the media the song itself btw is not gender situated it's actually gender neutral. It's made so a person can sing their love for their significant other and enjoy the holidays.Mikeyfell said:
Likewise, she now faces the consequences of her own speech, none of which are legally binding or government supported.MaddKossack115 said:
Why the concern over silencing critics when no one is actually being censored?
False; Anita made the decision to cancel her talk even after being assured the threat the school had received was not credible by the police. Many college campuses allow guns to be carried, typically in states with similar laws. She's been giving talks at length across the country for some times, she knows these laws exist. Refusing to talk at a previously planned presentation because of death threats she has allegedly been receiving this entire time because of a common firearm law she would have undoubtedly encountered before is disingenuous.MaddKossack115 said:
False; The threat of posting an address of a public figure, or the address of a public figure's family with nothing more than words to back it up is not a credible threat. Considering Anita continues to make public appearances in well-populated spaces to this day, and much of her personal information can be found online through completely legal means with nothing more than her full name, it is laughable to asserts this had any more reason to 'drive Anita from her home' than any other anonymous death threats.MaddKossack115 said:
Also? Gamergate is pretty sure they found 'Kevin Dobson'. He was a Brazilian journalist by the name of Mateus Prado Sousa doing it to stir up controversy: http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2j2gun/identity_of_one_of_anita_sarkeesians_harassers/
GG has no membership, no leader, no organized methodology. It simply is. Trying to call out anonymous users who engage in bad behavior for no other reason than they used the GG hash tag is beyond impractical.MaddKossack115 said:
You are being further disengenuous. We're not talking about whether or not a pimp is acting "realistically" in a game. Literally, just three minutes before your quote (3:50);Mikeyfell said:
"Developers regularly utilize the brutilization of women's bodies and especially the bodies of prostitutes as an indicator of how 'harsh', 'cruel', and 'unforgiving' their game worlds are" and they are utilized to "evoke a sexually charged, 'creepy' or 'edgy' environment."
Her point isn't that a pimp shouldn't be hitting people. Her point is that the constant use of women in these sorts of portrayals is lazy and problematic when it is so prevalent and comman among representations in our media.
And we are talking about broad aspects of video games, not individual games. These individual games are being used as examples of the broader issue.
I, Sarkeesian, and many others (including yourself) have stated that the use of these sorts of tropes are in an effort to be "edgy". I'm unsure what is the hullaballo at this point.
¯\_(ツ
_/¯ I have no idea what you're going on about. My statement on how having a penis or a vagina or a different mixture of melatonin may affect how people percieve you was fairly well supported by my examples. Her interpretation of the Christmas songs is just that, an interpretation, and as I said not indicative of any "bigotry" towards men. Whether its valid or not, I can certainly see what she's getting at, sure. I asked a fairly studious, and frankly smarter, friend of mine who is far more knowlegable on these sorts of issues/debates and he found nothing wrong with it. So, yeah.
For everyone claiming that Feminist Frequency is "ruining the gaming industry", I think you're being hyperbolic.
Feminist Frequency causes more damage to feminism than they do to gaming.
---
(I say Feminist Frequency and not Anita Sarkeesian as it is clear that Jonathan McIntosh is the actual lunatic of the two, Anita's just the shield he uses)
Feminist Frequency causes more damage to feminism than they do to gaming.
---
(I say Feminist Frequency and not Anita Sarkeesian as it is clear that Jonathan McIntosh is the actual lunatic of the two, Anita's just the shield he uses)
1. They do, there is actually a "Gamergate Harassment Watch" that actively seeks out people that make threats before they can get publicity.MaddKossack115 said:
2. In Anita Sarkeesian's case, members of Gamergate have actually tracked down at least one of the people that sent her death threats.
3. Gamergate has recently redirected their attacks towards Jonathan McIntosh rather than Anita because they see him as a much more hypocritical and unreasonable voice in modern feminism. The term "Full McIntosh" has recently become a meme to refer to instances of extreme delusion on the part of certain feminists and game journalists.
Gamergate is unfortunately suffering from a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type scenario at the moment. It doesn't matter how many good things they do, it's the actions of trolls that will dictate how they are portrayed in mainstream media. It's like Occupy Wall Street all over again.
What next? Accusing people that leaked info regarding collusion and unethical behaviour of treason?
Why would it damage either? What happened to your stance on "personal responsibility?"DizzyChuggernaut said:
You were outraged that people would hold the actions of individuals against gamergate. Why is this so different?
Well, no. They claimed to have found them based on some rather tenuous evidence and have declared that a victory.DizzyChuggernaut said:
These constant zealous charges are ridiculous, and should not be held up as a positive example.
I'm not claiming that Feminist Frequency is sabotaging feminism, rather they do more damage to the image of feminism than to the image of gaming.Zachary Amaranth said:
I don't believe they're doing it maliciously of course. I think they are at least moderately sincere when it comes to the views they express. However I can't help but lament the fact that whenever I sympathise with feminist causes or identify patriarchal double-standards as serious issues, I get lumped in with those that believe patriarchy is the Fratboy Illuminati.
Feminist Frequency are a microcosm of Tumblr feminism. While lately I've tried as much as possible to distance "my feminism" from that of McIntosh et al., they are regarded as the easy target to attack the entirety of feminism. It's actually very similar to my concern about Gamergate. The views of a few people are misinterpreted as the views of the entire group. The bigots in Gamergate are not "the final boss of Gamergate" and Feminist Frequency are not "the final boss of feminism", yet that's how they're portrayed.
Thanks for giving me an opportunity to elaborate on what I meant, I actually look forward to you calling me out on stuff.
I'm not sure how compelling you'd find this https://storify.com/LadyFuzztail/gamergate-may-be-a-victim-of-a-false-flag-operati but it indicates a focussed effort on the part of some (not all) users of the Gamergate hashtag to stop harassment.Zachary Amaranth said:
I can't speak for all of Gamergate of course. I can't claim that they are universally for one thing or universally against another thing. Even the ethics part has become extremely debatable.