News Gamergate guy allegedly commits murder-suicide (ex-girlfriend)

[Grooveriding]

Yeah, I was talking about the GamerGate community.

I'm not expert in all the evidence. There are studies specifically on video game violence which do not suggest a connection. There is some psychoanalytic theory I've been exposed to about this suggesting that if there is in-tact reality testing, there really isn't a risk. If you can tell that something is merely fantasy, it makes sense to indulge it on that level only.

Would this mean that perhaps a serial or 'manifesto' mass killer type would have difficulty differentiating fantasy in game violence from acting on it in reality? As in, their lack of empathy, makes them unable to make the distinction that one is non harmful in its game 'bubble', unlike the catastrophic reality would be.

It sounds reasonable that violent media would be a sort of a catalyst for the homicidal. But not something you'd clamp down on, because of it. Again, my guess would be they will find something else, as they're just drawn to violence.

 

[Grooveriding]

I could see aiming the discussion that way.

On finding that "happy medium," I'd say it's fairly simple: sexualization should be positive and feel like it's a choice the character made, not a male developer putting his fantasies in the game.

An imperfect example is Bayonetta: she's still something of a male fantasy, but you get the impression that her look is her choice... and that she won't put up with anyone's crap.

That sounds right to me. Things are improving for sure. I would think it will take more women making games, not playing them, to start to see significant changes in game content from different perspectives making games.

 

[Grooveriding]

I think there's plenty of evidence in the real world to suggest that sexualization of women in various media is a symptom of pre-existing biological proclivities of men rather than causative of anything in particular.

I think this is true. I do think dominant narratives can shape opinions en masse though. I also think while we have chemical primal impulses, we also have the ability to, and need to, regulate and control them. For example, a beautiful woman with massive boobs gets on your elevator, and boobs are your thing. You'd like to stare at them, but don't because it's creepy and it's a person, not just big boobs. Some people just don't register the other as a person and stare.

Maybe more self regulation is needed of our sexualization of woman

What about porn on the internet and the effect on dudes who have grown up with it. We had to find our dad's magazines or a porn vhs from one of those rental boxes to see anything in the late 80s and early 90s as kids. Now we have hardcore porn that shows any and everything being done to women at our fingertips all the time. I wonder if that can negatively change a young man's idea of what sex is and how to approach women sexually and actually have sex with them. Or, is it analogous to fantasy violence in a game? Where the distinction between fantasy and reality is what matters? Probably not? Porn is reality, it's not a game, when you watch it, you know that whatever you saw really happened.

If you think every time you sleep with a woman you have to take her to poundtown, urinate on her, get some anal in and slap her around, you're going to be in trouble out in the real world. Then again, there is nothing in porn people have not been doing for 1000s of years already. We just get to see what all us perverts have been up to now. It could again be a case that the already predisposed to negative behaviour will use porn negatively, while most don't.

 

[fskimospy]

He clearly murdered his girlfriend because she disagreed with him about ethics in games journalism.

 

[Commodus]

He clearly murdered his girlfriend because she disagreed with him about ethics in games journalism.

I still find it sad that GGers were (and to some degree, still are) in denial about their true motivations, or at least are passive-aggressive about them.

"It's about ethics in games journalism... but for some reason, we're mostly obsessed with women, many of our members harass women, and our most extreme devotees threaten or kill women."

Hell, the movement largely got started on lies meant to smear one woman.

 

[fskimospy]

I still find it sad that GGers were (and to some degree, still are) in denial about their true motivations, or at least are passive-aggressive about them.

"It's about ethics in games journalism... but for some reason, we're mostly obsessed with women, many of our members harass women, and our most extreme devotees threaten or kill women."

Hell, the movement largely got started on lies meant to smear one woman.

Seriously.

If you look back here and online people genuinely tried to claim the whole movement was based on journalistic ideals. How fucking stupid do they look now.

It was always entirely obvious what it was.

 

[JEDIYoda]

It must be all the violent videogames that caused this.....

and the heavy rock music.....

 

[Commodus]

Seriously.

If you look back here and online people genuinely tried to claim the whole movement was based on journalistic ideals. How fucking stupid do they look now.

It was always entirely obvious what it was.

On that note, I can't help but wonder: what would happen if you could show Ferretti in 2014 how his life would end if he kept on his current path, Scrooge style? In theory he'd mend his ways, but it sounds like he was that kind of sociopath that would probably have killed the Ghost of Christmas Future rather than change himself.

 

[woolfe9998]

I think this is true. I do think dominant narratives can shape opinions en masse though. I also think while we have chemical primal impulses, we also have the ability to, and need to, regulate and control them. For example, a beautiful woman with massive boobs gets on your elevator, and boobs are your thing. You'd like to stare at them, but don't because it's creepy and it's a person, not just big boobs. Some people just don't register the other as a person and stare.

Maybe more self regulation is needed of our sexualization of woman

The very idea of civilization is premised on the notion that we all have to control certain base instincts. Yet there are those who have trouble controlling them. Which is why we have laws.

Saying we need to control our impulses doesn't really mean much. It's like saying everyone should quit smoking. We all got that message a long while ago. Some stopped, some didn't.

What about porn on the internet and the effect on dudes who have grown up with it. We had to find our dad's magazines or a porn vhs from one of those rental boxes to see anything in the late 80s and early 90s as kids. Now we have hardcore porn that shows any and everything being done to women at our fingertips all the time. I wonder if that can negatively change a young man's idea of what sex is and how to approach women sexually and actually have sex with them. Or, is it analogous to fantasy violence in a game? Where the distinction between fantasy and reality is what matters? Probably not? Porn is reality, it's not a game, when you watch it, you know that whatever you saw really happened.

If you think every time you sleep with a woman you have to take her to poundtown, urinate on her, get some anal in and slap her around, you're going to be in trouble out in the real world. Then again, there is nothing in porn people have not been doing for 1000s of years already. We just get to see what all us perverts have been up to now. It could again be a case that the already predisposed to negative behaviour will use porn negatively, while most don't.

I've seen some evidence that men who watch lots of porn are less interested in sexual relationships with women in their own lives. That is a problem in those relationships where it occurs. Then again, lots of people have problems in their lives from doing things to excess, such as spending so much time playing World of Warcraft to where you neglect your job or your family.

There appears to be a negative correlation between porn consumption and violence toward women. Porn consumption increased quite a lot starting in the mid 90's and continuing thereafter with the expansion of the internet. Yet rape has gone down. Not just here, also in Japan.

We can't say for sure if porn availability causes less rape because there are too many other variables, but the strong negative correlation does not bode well for the feminist notion that porn causes rape.

I understand why feminists react to porn the way they do. It's content is intensely misogynistic. But if men with impulse control don't have one outlet, they'll find another. Sex is biological at its core. There are always going to be limits to any attempt to combat male sexual impulses with social pressure. We're lucky when we can stop men from engaging in behavior that is criminal. If we're waiting for a world where men don't stare at boobs, we're going to be waiting a very long time.

 

[woolfe9998]

Seriously.

If you look back here and online people genuinely tried to claim the whole movement was based on journalistic ideals. How fucking stupid do they look now.

It was always entirely obvious what it was.

Of course. I thought that was a joke until I started to realize they were saying it with a straight face.

What I have always wondered is why this cultural flashpoint bubbling over to rank misogyny played itself out in the arena of video games, as opposed to any number of other traditionally male dominated areas that women have broken into over the years. Is it that gamers are just more internet savvy to get this kind of messaging out, or is there a preponderance of pathetic incels who play video games, or both?

On a personal note, I've played video games for 40 years now and it boggles my mind that there are men playing who feel threatened by women having anything to do with them. I've always wanted more women in video games, not less. All the testosterone and over-inflated egos in online gaming has been grating on me for a long time.

 

[fskimospy]

Of course. I thought that was a joke until I started to realize they were saying it with a straight face.

What I have always wondered is why this cultural flashpoint bubbling over to rank misogyny played itself out in the arena of video games, as opposed to any number of other traditionally male dominated areas that women have broken into over the years. Is it that gamers are just more internet savvy to get this kind of messaging out, or is there a preponderance of pathetic incels who play video games, or both?

On a personal note, I've played video games for 40 years now and it boggles my mind that there are men playing who feel threatened by women having anything to do with them. I've always wanted more women in video games, not less. All the testosterone and over-inflated egos in online gaming has been grating on me for a long time.

I don’t know, maybe both. I turned 40 this year, which makes me feel old, but I’ve played video games pretty constantly since I was like six. My wife is continually baffled as to why I’m playing Civ6 or whatever to this day.

I have never once been angry at women in video games. If anything in my teenage years that would have been very welcome.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Methinks the majority of people here have zero clue as to what gamer gate was about....

 

[brycejones]

Methinks the majority of people here have zero clue as to what gamer gate was about....

What do you think it was about?

 

[Greenman]

Methinks the majority of people here have zero clue as to what gamer gate was about....

That would be me.

 

[fskimospy]

Methinks the majority of people here have zero clue as to what gamer gate was about....

Methinks you have no idea what gamer gate was about. But please, tell us about how it was about ethics in games journalism.

Please, try and tell us that.

 

[ralfy]

https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/if9mw5

 

[Commodus]

Methinks the majority of people here have zero clue as to what gamer gate was about....

I followed it virtually from the beginning. It started with false accusations against a woman game developer and spiralled from there.

 

[Commodus]

*snip*

First: please don't ever share content from that subreddit again. It's still a cesspool where you're "notorious" for... investigating GG's known toxic behavior.

I do have to love that poster's grasping at straws, though. First, Ferretti publicly listing GG as one of his interests is evidence he supported it. Hence "proponent." There's also a distinct lack of self-awareness here -- at the height of GG and years afterward, you'd see many posters in that subreddit using the same language Ferretti did (i.e. calling virtually any feminist a "radical"). They just put a different label on their version.

 

[JEDIYoda]

gamer gate was all Trumps fault!!

 

[mikeymikec]

https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/if9mw5

Uh... the guy takes the time to point out the evidence and then says there's zero evidence.

In his view (and likely yours) it may not constitute compelling evidence, but it is evidence, like it or not.

As a side note, I love it how conspiracy theorists always try to dress up their "research", with a tag such as "news" and "a detailed analysis"; it reminds me of 'Scott Pilgrim vs the world' where the antagonist complains about how long it took him to execute his evil scheme, like twenty minutes!!

Nowhere in this opinion piece does it refute any of the assertions from the Wired article (which is where the Slashdot submitter got the article from, good job with your "research", conspiracy theorist guy!), or even suggest why anyone would be on an apparent vendetta for a well-and-truly dead movement years after the fact.

I'm wondering whether the researcher has difficulty understanding the word "proponent":

 

[Commodus]

Uh... the guy takes the time to point out the evidence and then says there's zero evidence.

In his view (and likely yours) it may not constitute compelling evidence, but it is evidence, like it or not.

As a side note, I love it how conspiracy theorists always try to dress up their "research", with a tag such as "news" and "a detailed analysis"; it reminds me of 'Scott Pilgrim vs the world' where the antagonist complains about how long it took him to execute his evil scheme, like twenty minutes!!

Nowhere in this opinion piece does it refute any of the assertions from the Wired article (which is where the Slashdot submitter got the article from, good job with your "research", conspiracy theorist guy!), or even suggest why anyone would be on an apparent vendetta for a well-and-truly dead movement years after the fact.

I'm wondering whether the researcher has difficulty understanding the word "proponent":

The whole post made me laugh the more I think about it. That subreddit is a bunch of pathetic, angry men stroking each other's egos without realizing that they've sunk into irrelevance. They're still trying to fight a war they lost years ago.

 

[ralfy]

First: please don't ever share content from that subreddit again. It's still a cesspool where you're "notorious" for... investigating GG's known toxic behavior.

I do have to love that poster's grasping at straws, though. First, Ferretti publicly listing GG as one of his interests is evidence he supported it. Hence "proponent." There's also a distinct lack of self-awareness here -- at the height of GG and years afterward, you'd see many posters in that subreddit using the same language Ferretti did (i.e. calling virtually any feminist a "radical"). They just put a different label on their version.

Suddenly, being interested in something now makes one a proponent of such. So much for grasping at straws!

 

[ralfy]

Uh... the guy takes the time to point out the evidence and then says there's zero evidence.

In his view (and likely yours) it may not constitute compelling evidence, but it is evidence, like it or not.

As a side note, I love it how conspiracy theorists always try to dress up their "research", with a tag such as "news" and "a detailed analysis"; it reminds me of 'Scott Pilgrim vs the world' where the antagonist complains about how long it took him to execute his evil scheme, like twenty minutes!!

Nowhere in this opinion piece does it refute any of the assertions from the Wired article (which is where the Slashdot submitter got the article from, good job with your "research", conspiracy theorist guy!), or even suggest why anyone would be on an apparent vendetta for a well-and-truly dead movement years after the fact.

I'm wondering whether the researcher has difficulty understanding the word "proponent":

I'm wondering where you have difficulty understanding the word "proponent."

 

[ralfy]

The whole post made me laugh the more I think about it. That subreddit is a bunch of pathetic, angry men stroking each other's egos without realizing that they've sunk into irrelevance. They're still trying to fight a war they lost years ago.

Interest - wanting to know about something

Proponent - advocating that something

Learn the difference between the two first before resorting to drama queen antics.

 

[fskimospy]

Suddenly, being interested in something now makes one a proponent of such. So much for grasping at straws!

Wait, you're seriously arguing that this guy was listing gamergate as an interest, intending to indicate that he was interested in it in an academic sense?

So to be clear if you were a WW2 aficionado and were on a dating website you would put Nazism as an interest and expect people to be like 'surely he means this in an academic sense and not as a proponent!'.