The Big Picture: Remembering the Real Jack Thompson

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

Three things:

-Oh dear, this will blow up in massive flames at this rate

-Honestly, I'm trying to step back and view the whole thing from above but this whole Gamergate thing is nuts so here is my probably controversial statement. How about instead of making a figurehead enemy that would unite the people but lead to nothing, you target something that is more ambiguous but will yield better results: lack of intelligence. It would seem that internet discourse has degraded into what I sadly call Neanderthal head bashing. Basic argument structure in a debate is as follows: constructing the argument, someone makes a refutation, you make a refutation of that refutation that supports your initial argument and so on. Instead, I see a whole lot of personal attacks and topic diverting. I understand that people are angry and pissed but in the long run leaving your rage at the door will enable you to articulate your point better. I admit I have not fully demonstrated that principle given my reaction threads but at the same time, the pissing contest is making me very very tired and annoyed.

- I don't quite understand why we are targeting critics? I don't like Anita on grounds of lack of citation, updates, or even basic academic research but the points themselves have merit. Gaming culture wanted to be treated on the same level as movies and books but we only want the positive in terms of acceptance and influence, not the negative in terms of unfortunate implications and tired tropes being brought up.

Your last point is pretty much why no one will ever take gaming seriously as anything more than a hobby with little educational worth or artistic merit.

Oh the great folly of our little community to be causing their own artistic demise with our own lack of self-analysis.

At some point, we will adapt and change but I doubt it will happen within the next few decades.

 

[crimsonshrouds]

snip

I think i stopped watching thunderfoot before the whole femnist shit started which makes me happier. I stopped watching him because he seemed to show that he had a "god complex" of sorts. He also seemed like kind of an arse. Thats wherer i'm pretty much going to end this. I'm against corruption but i don't see the leaderless angry mob GamerGate as against corruption esspecially when its members wish to censor a polygon review for giving bayonetta 2 a 7.5....

 

[crimsonshrouds]

snip

I think i stopped watching thunderfoot before the whole femnist shit started which makes me happier. I stopped watching him because he seemed to show that he had a "god complex" of sorts. He also seemed like kind of an arse. Thats wherer i'm pretty much going to end this. I'm against corruption but i don't see the leaderless angry mob GamerGate as against corruption esspecially when its members wish to censor a polygon review for giving bayonetta 2 a 7.5....

Well considering how much work has successfully been put in to slandering #gamergate and it's """"""members"""""", members being highly quoted considering the bullshit nature of hash tag politics, is it any surprise that people who actually have an interest in seeing gaming journalism be refined (like myself) aren't affiliating with it? And all because the match that got thrown on the gasoline happened to involve a woman, and to so many people, being a woman excepts you from any and all criticism. After all, the modern sensibility is the all the evil in the entire world somehow ties back to my people, the straight white dude, huh?

I kinda wonder what scenario would it be ok to criticism someone for sleeping with someone to promote a game. Since the rule is only straight white guys are capable of doing something immoral, and two straight guys wouldn't sleep with each other (due to the straight part). I suppose if the person in quin's place were a straight dude, then we could criticize that, and of course the women he slept with would just be practicing "internalized sexism", which again, modern sensibility translates into any woman who is comfortable in her heterosexuality and is totally cool with having sex with men, comes in. So of course it's impossible for them to do anything wrong, because after all, if you're not a straight white dude, you're just a victim of our evil shit .

[EDITED BECAUSE I DON"T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT BEING SEEING PEOPLE TRYING TO PROVE IT I DON'T CARE] If you are thinking I'm going to agree with your anti-sjw rhetoric just because I ignore idiots on tumbler and anita, you are wrong. Also Slandering is not what hurt GamerGate, Its the fact that its a leaderless angry mob where the only requirement to be in it is a Hashtag. Seriously, How hard is it for people to understand this?

 

[Dakkagor]

What we know
Nathan Grayson did write at least three pieces about Zoe only one around the time they were sleeping together.
Nathan Grayson did know Zoe for a long time before sleeping with her and was good friends including a trip to vegas and his name in the HTML code for her game (yes really).
a Twitter account belonging to Zoe did get sent and possibly distributed Docs of a member of The fine young Capitalists.
Zoe Quinn did file a false DMCA claim against a youtuber (with suggestion more DMCA claims have been filed but they're harder to verify).

Can you provide a link to those three pieces? I'm seriously interested in seeing this evidence, seeing as I've never seen any mention of Zoe Quinn on Kotaku before this shitstorm blew up, and I haven't seen any links to the three pieces before from any GGer.

 

[Silvanus]

Which bit was debunked ?
That she slept with him for coverage ? Well yeh assuming the deal was "I sleep with you then you give me good coverage and not give me good coverage and I'll sleep with you" Which most people tend to forget could happen.

We do not assume guilt unless we have some form of evidence. This is nothing but prurient speculation.

 

[sexy=sexist]

Which bit was debunked ?
That she slept with him for coverage ? Well yeh assuming the deal was "I sleep with you then you give me good coverage and not give me good coverage and I'll sleep with you" Which most people tend to forget could happen.

What we know
Nathan Grayson did write at least three pieces about Zoe only one around the time they were sleeping together.
Nathan Grayson did know Zoe for a long time before sleeping with her and was good friends including a trip to vegas and his name in the HTML code for her game (yes really).
a Twitter account belonging to Zoe did get sent and possibly distributed Docs of a member of The fine young Capitalists.
Zoe Quinn did file a false DMCA claim against a youtuber (with suggestion more DMCA claims have been filed but they're harder to verify).

This has been the thing that has confused me the most truth be told. I don't really know who Zoe Quinn is and I don't really care. If some guy she was dating gave her a little bit of extra coverage this is no doubt a breach of ethics... but only a wrist slap.
Honestly who really cares if some two bit game maker called in a favor from a boyfrind and got some good press. Yah that is wrong, maybe someone should be fired for abusing power to help a friend out but even that I think is heavy handed.

I do support gamergate as other issues should be addressed. I want gaming websites and shows to treat women like people and take off the kid gloves. I also find the "gamer is dead" response many websites started posting as concerning.
Ironically I also find the harassment and threats sent to members of GG something of a issue.
Gaming websites are circling the wagons to protect there own... The fact the one they are protecting is not the gamers but critics who just like Jack have issue with gaming is surprising.

Well Anita won. She started a discussion that is worthy of talking about... now can someone point me to a review of her video's here on The Escapist? I mean we are talking about them right? For the record I don't care about Anita, I want to see a "The Big Picture" of her work... I don't even care if he agrees with everything she says just so long as it is thoughtful. God knows I think MovieBob has awful taste in movies but I enjoy those anyway.

Jim's show would be perfect for this, but as he himself pointed out, you can't criticize Anita's videos because that makes you one of the bad guys who threaten women. Is this not the line Gamergate has been getting? You support GG so you must support death threats to women? Jim Sterling called this shit before GG ever happened.

anyway this was a bit of a late night drunk rant so forgive me if I rambled.

 

[Lightknight]

Point one one made it in but was far less of a focus than I thought it would be and was a rather apt point even if I do generally dislike Anita Sarkeesian. I have never found her goal as negative, her stated goal of a better image for women is a fantastic point she just make it poorly, contradicts herself,paints with a brush that is a mile to wide and denies discussion all at a very slow pace, but it is true she is not gaming bogyman.

People don't generally compare her to Thompson regarding her statement that women should have better representation in gaming. A lot of people agree completely with her on that in many ways.

What people do compare her with Thompson on is that she calls sexist games pernicious (her words, aka, Harmful) because the reinforce and perpetuate sexism. This is comparable to Thompson's claim that violent games are harmful because they make people violent.

This point is almost entirely lost on people who disagree with it. It is axiomatically similar.

I absolutely agree on that point. Do you know if she has addressed agency in any of her videos yet? Because it is something a lot of her camp do not appear to grasp. I remember her talking about how a female lets you in to the base to kill the final boss and then kind of shrugs it off as her being completely damseled as you have to kill her. (i kept that intentionally vague) and I was like... no she asked you to kill her, multiple times she that was her plan and by her order. She was also being imprisoned and in constant pain and the person that take her place even directly says the final boss killed her long before you pulled the plug.

There comes a point where you are not over simplifying or condescending you are just lying or utterly wrong. Some of her points sound like she is saying To kill a Mokingbird is in favor of racism because most of the town is raciest which is simply and objectively wrong statement. But hey it is valid because at the beginning she says we can enjoy something yet be critical of it as her entire camp says. Okay, but your argument has to be sound, your argument for the moon being made of cheese does not get more merit just because you think we need to be critical of astronomy... Well that was a fun rant.

It's really mostly her damsel discussion I have an argument. She bases her position on multiple fallacies:

1. She confuses the definition of a grammatical object with the term objectification. While they both have the word object in them, they're not the same term. So she incorrectly uses "the thing being acted upon" which is just the object of a sentence for objectification which is actually "treating a person as a thing without respect for their dignity". So, if you were to ever actually to something to or for anyone ever, by her definition, you'd be objectifying them. So, "Anita defends feminists" would actually be her objectifying them. Totally ridiculous. What's bad is she stated the actual definition of Object (grammatical). Meaning she went to a dictionary and pulled that up. She had to have known that she wasn't reading the definition of objectification. What's more is that you actually can't objectify a fictional character. They are literally objects, not people. You can personify objects though, by giving 1's and 0's qualities of a person even though they're not real. In the narrative, the villain is the only one that objectifies the girl. The hero's entire job is to give her back her agency.

2. As stated above, she claims that games make people sexist and are harmful to society. She doesn't say "makes people sexist" that overtly but she says they reinforce and perpetuate sexism which would imply that they make people more sexist at least, otherwise how would it cause harm if it didn't do so? How would it perpetuate or reinforce it if it didn't do so? Now, she has not presented any evidence of these claims at all. For example, she would have to establish that we are unable to distinguish between, say, Princess Peach and a real girl. Please remember that the inability to distinguish between reality and fiction is a condition known as schizophrenia. I would know, I lost a dear friend to it and still visit him in the mental hospital from time to time. I would actually argue that I have been taught far more regularly by games that people who kidnap people are bad and that they should be stopped if I have the means to do so. That it is not right to attack women or harm them.

3. That the damsel should have agency. Listen, if the damsel could save themselves, the hero would be unnecessary. Unless you're going for a buffoon hero like Monkey Island that's only funny a couple times, then the hero's actions should actually be necessary. The damsel not having agency is the actual conflict of the game and this is applied across all kinds of characters and situations. The entire goal of the game is to return the individual's self agency.

4. That Anita makes all these claims and then earnestly states that it's perfectly fine for males to be damsels. So then it can't be unethical for them not to have agency or to be objectified by the villain. In taking this misstep, she has basically made it so that the only problem is that the character is female. Nothing else, actually. Either that or she herself is sexist against males and thinks things that she says are bad are fine when committed against males.

5. That a female character being captured by a male character is perpetuating a false stereotype that women are the frailer, more vulnerable gender. This isn't a false stereotype. It's medical fact. Women have skills and areas they are better in while men have skills and areas we are better in. The most immediately noticeable of which is physical strength. The average man is far stronger than the average female. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_physiology#Skeleton_and_muscular_system] Men are 40-50% stronger in the upper body than females and 20-30% stronger in the lower body. So the average woman would have to double her upper body strength just to hit the level of an average man. Stereotyping isn't having an average female being depicted in a story. Stereotyping is saying that Sally is a girl therefore she is weaker than Tom even though she may in the upper spectrum of female strength while he (Tom) may be weaker than the average male. It's when averages or commonly expressed traits are automatically assigned to individuals when they aren't necessarily true. I've played numerous games, even damsel games, where there are strong females and weak females being depicted. Plenty of damsel games where the damsel is strong and capable but the villain just happens to be stronger. If nothing else, these games are a commentary on how people with power can abuse their power rather than saying anything about the individual who falls victim to them. I like to think of games like The Last of Us here. Titles where the other major friendly characters who aren't the protagonist are either strong females or gay males. The damsel who the hero has to protect the whole time has little agency because she's a child, not because she's a girl and she eventually grows in skill through Joel's teaching her. It is ridiculous to dismiss the damsel trope as automatically sexist if it involves a woman needing help.

Now, Anita's arguments on sexual objectification in games? Totally accurate in a lot of ways. Not just that the individuals are attractive with larger breasts and butts than normal, that's no different than casting a sexy actress in a movie roll, but in the way they're dressed in chainmail bikinis and have unrealistic attraction to you that they can't control. Female gamers should have an option to play as a realistic female character that's not just a male fantasy. I totally get that and agree with that. It's just that there's also nothing wrong with games that have male fantasy females in it. No moreso than movies with them either. So while I agree that female gamers need to have better options to play as, I don't think the existing sort of games need to stop either. Both should coexist as long as there's demand for either. Otherwise we'd just be imposing our own moralities on the market. Additionally, just because some female gamers want realistic characters doesn't necessarily mean they just want plain females. They can still be attractive and females do tend to choose an attractive option when given a choice in the same way males typically choose an attractive and capable male over the muscle-bound or boy-toy options (that would be a fascinating study to do on a larger scale, wouldn't it? Have a list of about 15 avatars for women to choose from. 5 plain, 5 attractive but properly dressed, 5 attractive and scantily clad. Then see which types the women choose from? Hmm, someone get me a lab coat and a randomized sample of females and a character selection program with the 15 specified types...).

 

[Netrigan]

I find it hillarious the Gamergate people say that Anita denies discussion.. How does she do that? Has she gotten a law passed that says no one can disscuss sexism in video games????

We are dealing with people who think a Twitter block list is "silencing" them.

https://medium.com/@melectable/you-need-to-stop-an-open-letter-to-femfreq-freebsdgirl-et-al-fde8629bab3

Until, that is, I realized that Randi Harper has been diligently at work creating a Twitter block bot designed to silence people who have spoken out in support of Gamergate

The Sarkeesian situation is amusing, because so many people seem to think the hundreds of YouTube videos and blog posts and tweets and assorted other criticisms of her work aren't enough. We've had two freakin' years of nothing but criticism of her work and it's not enough. It will never be enough. How much Free Speech do you need?

 

[Netrigan]

Wait, people still talk about the guy?

I've seen maybe 3 people in the last 4 years mention him, one of whom was saying "Hey, you know, the harassment HE got wasn't right either, you know" and the other two were certified idiots.

*scratches head* Who else is talking about him and hasn't gotten over him?

MovieBob is complaining about people comparing Anita's claim that games reinforce and perpetuate sexism with Thompson's claim that games encourage violence behaviors. He is being subtle about it but you'll see his intention at the 4:52 minute mark and if you're aware that Anita is the one being accused of claiming that games are harmful in the same way Thompson did.

It is apparently beyond Bob's comprehension that two people claiming that games do X which is harmful could warrant comparison.

It's almost as if he has a dog in this fight. But it's not like Bob would make an entire article on the matter just to defend a friend or anything without disclosing a friendly relationship with said friend after this whole shitstorm of gamergate broke, right (FYI, Bob is the one in black and I'm betting both of the below pictures were taken on the same day even though Anita is wearing a larger jacket in one)?

http://www.gamebits.net/wp-content/uploads/gallery/femfreq/feministfrequency5.jpg

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w3/randomfox12245/1387160436306_zps5d0b1d80.png

Perhaps he thinks that because it was subtle and that he didn't mention her by name he didn't have to explain that he's an avid fan of hers. But she's the only one who is getting compared to him right now. So, even without him using pictures of her work when discussing who is being compared we would know exactly who he is talking about.

He's not been the slightest bit shy about telling everyone who will listen that he's a fan of her work and that he considers himself friendly with her. Once more, she's not a part of the industry he covers, she's a fellow commentator, so there's relatively little chance of conflict of interest happening. He's clearly admires her work (and became friendly with her because of it), something which comes through every single time he's discussed her, so what more do you need to know?

Transparency isn't exactly an all-or-nothing thing. Roger Ebert was friendly with lots of directors and actors, a fact he rarely mentioned in reviews. He never hid his connections with these people and talked openly about his friendships within the industry. I don't think he could ever discuss a Russ Mayer film without talking about his personal relationship with the man, but does he have to talk about all the times he hung out with Clint Eastwood to review The Unforgiven.

Being friendly with someone isn't necessarily being friends with them. Admiring their work doesn't exclude you from commenting on their work, otherwise we'd require no Halo fan to ever review a Halo game, because how can they possibly be unbiased. MovieBob admires her work and mentions that virtually every time he discusses her work... it's usually self-evident, just as all those Halo reviews written by Halo fans; they can't shut up about how much they love it.

The key here is Conflict of Interest. Is there a conflict of interest involving MovieBob covering Sarkeesian? Again, she's not even a part of the industry he's covering. They're both working to the same stated goal. Everything is above board and Bristol fashion.

 

[RicanGamerr]

When is Bob going to acknowledge minority gamers in #NotYourShield instead of stroking his ego by defending Jack Thompson of all people! I wonder if I should watch this just to see how worse things have gotten since the last video of Bob's I watched.

 

[Lightknight]

I believe the quinnspiracy was debunked but then again I don't care. If you are thinking I'm going to agree with your anti-sjw rhetoric just because I ignore idiots on tumbler and anita, you are wrong. Also Slandering is not what hurt GamerGate, Its the fact that its a leaderless angry mob where the only requirement to be in it is a Hashtag. Seriously, How hard is it for people to understand this?

Eh, please bear in mind that what I'm about to say about Nathan Grayson should never have been put on Quinn's shoulders. Even if Quinn did get media attention from Nathan Grayson (he, for sure, wrote one article about a game jam session that Zoe played a pivotal role in [http://tmi.kotaku.com/the-indie-game-reality-tv-show-that-went-to-hell-1555599284]), the issue would be a Grayson-spiracy as the party at fault rather than a Quinnspiracy. Because it's a journalist's job to recuse themselves or disclose the relationship of these kinds of articles and not the job of a lover to police their lover's work. I mean, that's just common sense. But basically, we have the claim that Zoe admitted to a relationship with Nathan before April 1st according to the Zoe Post while the article linked above was from March 31st.

Unfortunately, according to Zoe's words Here's a similar compilation of Zoe's words in addition to the infamous picture of him in bed with her (along with other men, all dressed) on March 22nd. [https://40.media.tumblr.com/e8245c316c455a1308550d4b72222e8e/tumblr_nau7xs3fpf1tbk3two1_1280.jpg] Again, less than two weeks before he posted the article about the game jam session without disclosing his relationship to one of the parties involved. Unfortunately, this means that either he lied to Stephen Tortilo or Tortilo contributed to the lie. Don't know which until they respond.

Additionally, we do see Grayson as giving Depression Quest high praise [http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/01/08/admission-quest-valve-greenlights-50-more-games/] in January while he was still at rockpapershotgun. The article starts with an image from her game despite her game being 1 of 50. The name of the article is "admission quest". And he says in the opening and only paragraph: "Anyway, standouts: powerful Twine darling Depression Quest, "

I will specify however, while we do see evidence of him in an active relationship for the first article, I haven't seen any evidence that he was actually intimate with her before then. However, we do have evidence that he was involved in Depression Quest because he was actually thanked in it back in February of 2013.

http://theralphretort.com/zoe-quinn-couldnt-have-made-depression-quest-without-grayson/

While the first archive that source links to has since been removed the second one still shows the archive of the game credits from February 2013. [http://archive.today/LFrir]

Furthermore, Zoe admitted that he was not only involved in the game but had also helped beta test it. [https://twitter.com/TheRalphRetort/status/525004896115118080/photo/1] Nathan admitted to having played it in an early state (aka beta testing) but denied having 'worked on the game' which wasn't actually any claim we made.

So we have two fairly clear instances where Nathan Grayson appears to have breached journalistic ethics by writing an article about someone he was intimately involved with just a couple weeks prior, but also elevated a game that listed him in the credits eleven months before the article he made.

So again, Nathan totally breached ethics, not technically Zoe's fault at all.

Now, the only thing we can blame Zoe for is accusing a group of harassing her (Wizardchan) that was reported on without any fact checking (journalists making more mistakes). These articles have sense been redacted or updated on sites that realized the problem with having done so. She is also for blacklisting TFYC as well as doxxing its creators while having a similar dev jam planned herself (a competing event). Those she played a direct role in and we should be mad at her for those in addition to the sites that enabled her to harm those groups.

It's really a shame that she got as much attention as she did. But such was the nature of the evidence being released by a spurned Ex and journalistic cites not responding to the accusations in a way that gave gamergate individuals a second opinion from the other side. In maintaining silence, all we had was the zoe post, internetaristocrat, and a few other voices that were clearly on one side. They (journalists) failed us pretty hard here. If you care, I can provide a link to my first post on the subject around two days after the ZoePost was made in which I pleaded with journalists to respond to the journalist issues with me explicitly saying that I wasn't talking about the "nitty gritty" and also saying I don't give a damn about who slept with whom. So... to people saying that this was only ever about her and slut shaming I can definitely show that both issues were up there and fast.

 

[GloatingSwine]

So... to people saying that this was only ever about her and slut shaming I can definitely show that both issues were up there and fast.

Yeah, trouble is that one issue was a great seething torrent of bile and twattery and the other was a tiny piteous squeak.

And that isn't the fault of the gaming press, it's the fault of the people directly engaged in spreading the twattery because it fit their priorities to do so.

I remember it, because I was involved in the arguments right when they were happening.

 

[The Deadpool]

Here [http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2008-04614-005] are [http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/107/1/54.short] some [http://dro.deakin.edu.au/view/DU:30001199] studies [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224490209552118#.VFuA-PRdV2E] on [http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1010397809136#page-1] media [http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/733627/] influencing [http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/dev/42/5/929/] outlooks [http://scx.sagepub.com/content/29/1/35.short] and [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10640269708249203#.VFuBrfRdV2E] attitudes [http://jmq.sagepub.com/content/79/2/427.short].

A few details:

1) That's conclusion, not evidence. I could go google old "experiments" with conclusions that say lead isn't that bad for you, cigarettes are healthy, the Earth is 6,000 years old and all sorts of fun things. The evidence matters more.

2) Advertisement and Propaganda are quite different from novels and movies and games.

3) The results are STILL inconclusive. They've proven that media MAY have an effect. MAY.

You said, "[...]YOUR argument as YOU put for-- Well, you haven't put it forth, just believed it in your head". So, yes, my asking what you believe my position is has a lot to do with that.

The [...] was "WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT."

If you want us to talk about your argument, then present it. But that's not the subject matter at the time.

Anita Sarkeesian has never called for censorship.

Which is a REACTION to the ARGUMENT.

Her REACTION is different. Her ARGUMENT is the same.

Yours is the positive claim, by the way. The onus is on you to support it.

I have to support the null position?

I have already addressed, over and over again, that influence is not the same thing as causation.

Then how is it harmful if it doesn't CAUSE anything?

I never said any of those things. Men are not the cause of violence, but the traditional ideas of masculinity that society puts forth are very toxic because they are intrinsically tied to violence. This helps to explain why such a disproportionate number of violent acts are committed by men.

Oy... WHAT? I am a man, raised in a far less progressive about women rights society than your own and we are STILL taught that violence is terrible and never solves anything. And that was decades ago.

What idea of masculinity do you think our society is pushing forward today?

No, it doesn't. Tropes "helps to normalize" sexism against women because it helps to keep the negative stereotypes alive in the collective unconsciousness, not because it CAUSES sexism.

Except negative sterotypes are slowly dying in the collective unconsciousness over time. What makes you think ANYTHING besides human aversion to changing its mind has anything to do with it still being alive?

Look, you are a gamer (assumption, based on the site and subject matter). You fancy yourself someone who looks at women like normal human beings (another assumption, based on conversation).

When you play a game where women are treated poorly, does it make you look at women worse, or does it make you look at the game worse? When you play a game where women are treated well, do you suddenly have a stronger opinion of women? Do you suddenly start to believe they are MORE human? Or does your opinion stay the same?

Now imagine random gamer X who thinks women are objects and exist only to serve. When he looks at a game where women are like normal human beings, do you think it's gonna change his mind? Or just make him dislike the game? When he plays a game where a woman is an object, does it make him look at her as more an object? Does it make him want to hit her? Or does his opinion merely stay the same?

Your preconceived notions affect how you look at games. Games do not affect your preconceived notions.

Um...what? Why would the fact that negative trends are going down have anything to do with her argument? They still exist, and the tropes she criticizes are part of why the trends haven't disappeared completely yet. Which is why it is definitely a good thing to talk about it.

No one said we shouldn't be talking about gender issues. Just like no one said we shouldn't talk about violence. It's when you draw a causality line (games are harmful to society) that I have to laugh at you.

. And I think it is you who keep forgetting an important part of the equation, that being WHY things are getting better.

Oh no, don't tell me you're going to say the media is HELPING...

The reason things are getting better is because of criticism and how it has made media better over the years.

Oh my god, you ARE.

You really think that nice female characters are what made people change their minds... How adorable.

It's not. It's time. That's it.

Okay, that's an over simplification. Part of it is technology. Sexual dimorphism was a big part of why women were considered the lesser sex for so, so, SO many years. But once industrial revolution hit sexual dimorphism became irrelevant to the discussion. From that point on it has just been people holding on to old habits because people like to hold on to old habits. It's sad, but true.

While a lot of intelligent people made strong and powerful arguments, and convinced law makers to make real changes, all of that would have been for naught with those two factors. And yes, WWII was a huge boon as well, but in the end it sped up an inevitable conclusion.

And don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with wanting to speed up the process. If we could get that done yesterday, that'd be awesome. But the media isn't a part of this.

People create media to be popular. People consume media they enjoy, and people enjoy things they AGREE WITH IT. "Man bites dog." They like things simple and safe. That's why the media will by and large REFLECT the social unconsciousness, not challenge it. Changes to the social unconsciousness will lead to changes in the media. Changes in the media will do nothing.

You want to point at games and go "see? Some people still think this is okay." then we have a conversation. You want to point at games and go "See? This hurts our society!" then you are diluding yourself.

First paragraph: Basically yes, It seems these trends have converged in this community more than others, probably because it has been such a closed and homogenous group for so long.

By closed and homogenous you mean "about 50% female and including 65% of the world population" then sure.

Second paragraph: When the threats are so clearly gendered like the ones thrown at Quinn and Saarkeesian, they ARE pretty damn sexist too.

The threats are gendered because that's what hurts her. She's a self proclaimed feminist. It's pretty obvious that she dislikes gendered insults, and thus they are chosen.

 

[The Deadpool]

So again, Nathan totally breached ethics, not technically Zoe's fault at all.

I don't know. I don't see any of Nathan's actions as particularly egregious. He didn't lie, he didn't misrepresent things. He pointed out in one article that he (and the rest of the staff) liked her game.

I would do that for a friend. I think most people in the world would do that for a friend. Plenty of other outlets do it and no one seems to be super upset about it.

And it isn't just games. I mean, how many jobs have you gotten because someone put in a good word? Friendship and work are closely tied. I don't see what either of them did as a particularly immoral thing. Well, okay, she cheated on her boyfriend, but that's no more important than Tiger Woods' infidelity...

 

[Silvanus]

A few details:

1) That's conclusion, not evidence. I could go google old "experiments" with conclusions that say lead isn't that bad for you, cigarettes are healthy, the Earth is 6,000 years old and all sorts of fun things. The evidence matters more.

2) Advertisement and Propaganda are quite different from novels and movies and games.

3) The results are STILL inconclusive. They've proven that media MAY have an effect. MAY.

1) There is both evidence and conclusion in the links I posted. That's quite clear.

2) Indeed they are. Nobody is arguing otherwise.

3) They've supported the position with evidence. That's precisely what you asked for. If you're now requesting absolute proof, then I can't provide it.

However, since evidence has been given in support of my position, it would be quite reasonable to request that you provide some evidence to counter it.

The [...] was "WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT."

If you want us to talk about your argument, then present it. But that's not the subject matter at the time.

Oh, for goodness' sake. Yes, you prefaced it by saying, "we're not talking about X", but then you used the opportunity to claim that I "believed [something unspecified] in my head". It's quite reasonable for me to ask what it is you're claiming I believe.

Which is a REACTION to the ARGUMENT.

Her REACTION is different. Her ARGUMENT is the same.

You're simply conflating premise with argument. The premise is part of the argument; so is what one argues we should do.

I have to support the null position?

Obviously not. The position that Jack Thompson and Anita Sarkeesian are arguing the same thing is not the null position.

Then how is it harmful if it doesn't CAUSE anything?

It may contribute. You'll notice that almost everything on earth has more than one cause. Almost everything has contributory factors and influences. We've already covered this.

 

[Lightknight]

He's not been the slightest bit shy about telling everyone who will listen that he's a fan of her work and that he considers himself friendly with her. Once more, she's not a part of the industry he covers,

Until now, when he just made this video to comment on gaming in response to something directly involving her.

The key here is Conflict of Interest. Is there a conflict of interest involving MovieBob covering Sarkeesian? Again, she's not even a part of the industry he's covering. They're both working to the same stated goal. Everything is above board and Bristol fashion.

He's essentially using his pedestal to take a stance on the critic of Anita's work by demanding we take a particularly argument he dislikes off the table. While there's nothing wrong with him discussing it, he should probably mention that he is not an unbiased party and is a staunch advocate of her and her work. The point of a disclosure is to make the audience aware that the person doing the work is coming form a non-neutral position for specific reasons.

You seem to agree that Bob is absolutely on a side here and is friends with the individual. So why would you think that would be irrelevant to the discussion?

Bob is frustrated that people are comparing his friend to the videogame boogeyman and so creates a video to tell people to stop it. Shouldn't it be known information that the only person really being compared to Jack is his friend Anita and that's why this is being made?

Instead, he does it in a sneakily subtle manner. Not mentioning her by name, not critquing why she's being compared to Jack (which isn't censorship, by the way, it's her claim that sexist games are harmful in a way comparable to Jack's claim that violent games are harmful), and only really acknowledging it by showing a picture of her and her work while he's talking about who not to compare to Jack.

It was absolutely sneaky of him and it won't be obvious to anyone but the people he intended it for. I mean, honestly, this has actually increased my respect for his intellect. He really knows what he's doing. Were I super "gung-ho" about this stuff I guess I'd be mad at him but really, all this stuff is just interesting for me to see transpiring in the wake of gamergate and such.

Though, it may be that he's not really addressing comparing her to Thompson in the same way I use it. Perhaps he's using that for people who think she's advocating censorship, which she isn't. In which case his video would have been better served to explain what censorship is as opposed to criticism of art which Anita is doing.

 

[Netrigan]

So again, Nathan totally breached ethics, not technically Zoe's fault at all.

I don't know. I don't see any of Nathan's actions as particularly egregious. He didn't lie, he didn't misrepresent things. He pointed out in one article that he (and the rest of the staff) liked her game.

I would do that for a friend. I think most people in the world would do that for a friend. Plenty of other outlets do it and no one seems to be super upset about it.

And it isn't just games. I mean, how many jobs have you gotten because someone put in a good word? Friendship and work are closely tied. I don't see what either of them did as a particularly immoral thing. Well, okay, she cheated on her boyfriend, but that's no more important than Tiger Woods' infidelity...

Also the reality TV article is a puff piece. It's not meant to be hard-hitting journalism, it's about celebrating a bunch of game designers doing a reality TV show. His friendship-verging-on-relationship with Zoe might give her more focus, but it's really nothing more than a "Look At Me" piece to begin with. The show collapsing means there's no product being sold.

It's not an ideal situation, but it's not exactly an unforgivable breach of ethics based on the total lack of seriousness about the piece.