#Gamergate, the war on nerds, and the corruption of the left and the free press

[Commodus]

Gonna ignore the mindless copy-paste propaganda from the usual suspects and just note another example of how GG didn't "win" against feminists:

Remember Overwatch, seen by many as the game of the year? Not only does it have a ton of women characters, they're not just sex kittens meant to please guys (particularly Ana, Mei, Pharah and Zarya). I'm half-surprised that some of the people here didn't boycott the game in protest of the "evil" SJWs supposedly corrupting Blizzard. Would the game have been as diverse if not for the events of the past couple of years? I suspect not.

 

[werepossum]

Gonna ignore the mindless copy-paste propaganda from the usual suspects and just note another example of how GG didn't "win" against feminists:

Remember Overwatch, seen by many as the game of the year? Not only does it have a ton of women characters, they're not just sex kittens meant to please guys (particularly Ana, Mei, Pharah and Zarya). I'm half-surprised that some of the people here didn't boycott the game in protest of the "evil" SJWs supposedly corrupting Blizzard. Would the game have been as diverse if not for the events of the past couple of years? I suspect not.

You have completely missed not only the point of GamerGate, but even their position on that one tiny aspect. Their point has never been that games cannot have female characters or non-eye candy female characters, but that games should not be platforms for "social justice". As more and more females and older males game, games will naturally get less sexist. Literally no one has a problem with that. That's a far cry from pushing Depression Quest because women deserve to have games published regardless of whether those games have any merit.

A much bigger aspect is that gaming magazines and sites should be honest in their reportage. If your focus is to be on "social justice" rather than on good games, don't pretend to be covering games based on their quality. If a journalist is sleeping with (or related to, or roommates or old friends with) someone involved in a game, DON'T cover that game, period.

 

[Commodus]

You have completely missed not only the point of GamerGate, but even their position on that one tiny aspect. Their point has never been that games cannot have female characters or non-eye candy female characters, but that games should not be platforms for "social justice". As more and more females and older males game, games will naturally get less sexist. Literally no one has a problem with that. That's a far cry from pushing Depression Quest because women deserve to have games published regardless of whether those games have any merit.

A much bigger aspect is that gaming magazines and sites should be honest in their reportage. If your focus is to be on "social justice" rather than on good games, don't pretend to be covering games based on their quality. If a journalist is sleeping with (or related to, or roommates or old friends with) someone involved in a game, DON'T cover that game, period.

Here's an important point that you seem to overlook:

Games can be whatever they damn well want to be.

Who is GG or anyone else to say what a game "should" have as a platform? What exactly is the natural timetable for when games are more inclusive -- are developers supposed to get rid of gratuitous hookers in games by June 2018, or is December 2016 rushing it a bit? That future isn't going to happen if you wail and gnash teeth whenever someone appears to be moving "too fast."

If you believe games have a degree of artistic expression to them, then you should be prepared for games that make social justice statements. And game publications are entirely justified in giving them a reasonable amount of coverage as a result. If it's a game that explores an area rarely touched by gaming (say, mental illness or racism) and it's interesting enough, then cover it. And why do you think that game coverage has to be an either/or, where you have to choose between in-depth discussions of the cultural aspects of gaming and deciding on a review score for the latest dudebro shooter?

That's one of the most frustrating parts of GG. It's trying to enshrine the stereotypical GamePro approach to games journalism: don't make me think about the significance, just tell me how well the game mechanics work and slap a rating on it. And definitely don't question the status quo. That's extremely limiting, like telling a movie publication that it's only allowed to write reviews (and even then, based solely on technical merits) instead of talking about thematic goals.

 

[werepossum]

Here's an important point that you seem to overlook:

Games can be whatever they damn well want to be.

Who is GG or anyone else to say what a game "should" have as a platform? What exactly is the natural timetable for when games are more inclusive -- are developers supposed to get rid of gratuitous hookers in games by June 2018, or is December 2016 rushing it a bit? That future isn't going to happen if you wail and gnash teeth whenever someone appears to be moving "too fast."

If you believe games have a degree of artistic expression to them, then you should be prepared for games that make social justice statements. And game publications are entirely justified in giving them a reasonable amount of coverage as a result. If it's a game that explores an area rarely touched by gaming (say, mental illness or racism) and it's interesting enough, then cover it. And why do you think that game coverage has to be an either/or, where you have to choose between in-depth discussions of the cultural aspects of gaming and deciding on a review score for the latest dudebro shooter?

That's one of the most frustrating parts of GG. It's trying to enshrine the stereotypical GamePro approach to games journalism: don't make me think about the significance, just tell me how well the game mechanics work and slap a rating on it. And definitely don't question the status quo. That's extremely limiting, like telling a movie publication that it's only allowed to write reviews (and even then, based solely on technical merits) instead of talking about thematic goals.

You're missing the point. Nobody is saying that games are "moving too fast" or should have a certain schedule of becoming "inclusive" or should not make social statements. People are protesting activists such as Sarkeesian who are attacking gamers as being mouth-breathing subhuman basement dwellers simply for wanting to play a certain kind of game. People who are insisting that they be able to dictate to developers how many characters of each ethnicity, sex, and sexual orientation they should have, what social statement must be made, what elements must not be present. Personally I have zero interest in playing a game as the bad guy; I don't want to virtually beat up hookers or shoot cops or steal cars. In fact, I find those things to be disturbing and repugnant. But I also don't want someone telling game developers that they cannot have these elements in a game. I don't want our freedom infringed. There should be NO schedule for getting rid of "gratuitous hookers" in games, any more so than in movies or television or books. Let the developers decide what their customers want.

As far as covering social justice aspects of a game, or non-traditional games, that's fine as long as it is done honestly. Don't rave about, say, Depression Quest when it's a horrible excuse for a game. And for damned sure, don't rave about a game without disclosing that the "journalist" is the developer's lover, sibling, best friend, room mate, etc. It's entirely possible to credit Depression Quest with addressing something that is seldom addressed in games without pretending it's a good game. It's entirely possible to credit Afro Commando (made up) with having a black protagonist who deals with the Nazi Third Reich by talking to them about their feelings and social justice without making an otherwise crap game seem like a great game. It's entirely possible to say Call of Duty XXI is a short, uninspired piece of crap which brings to the table nothing new even if doing so risks EA advertising money. JUST BE HONEST.

 

[Commodus]

You're missing the point. Nobody is saying that games are "moving too fast" or should have a certain schedule of becoming "inclusive" or should not make social statements. People are protesting activists such as Sarkeesian who are attacking gamers as being mouth-breathing subhuman basement dwellers simply for wanting to play a certain kind of game. People who are insisting that they be able to dictate to developers how many characters of each ethnicity, sex, and sexual orientation they should have, what social statement must be made, what elements must not be present. Personally I have zero interest in playing a game as the bad guy; I don't want to virtually beat up hookers or shoot cops or steal cars. In fact, I find those things to be disturbing and repugnant. But I also don't want someone telling game developers that they cannot have these elements in a game. I don't want our freedom infringed. There should be NO schedule for getting rid of "gratuitous hookers" in games, any more so than in movies or television or books. Let the developers decide what their customers want.

As far as covering social justice aspects of a game, or non-traditional games, that's fine as long as it is done honestly. Don't rave about, say, Depression Quest when it's a horrible excuse for a game. And for damned sure, don't rave about a game without disclosing that the "journalist" is the developer's lover, sibling, best friend, room mate, etc. It's entirely possible to credit Depression Quest with addressing something that is seldom addressed in games without pretending it's a good game. It's entirely possible to credit Afro Commando (made up) with having a black protagonist who deals with the Nazi Third Reich by talking to them about their feelings and social justice without making an otherwise crap game seem like a great game. It's entirely possible to say Call of Duty XXI is a short, uninspired piece of crap which brings to the table nothing new even if doing so risks EA advertising money. JUST BE HONEST.

But I don't recall Sarkeesian and her kind actually being insistent that games do X or Y. They're certainly advocating for change, but there's a difference between saying "here's what's flawed, and here's a better way" (which is what Sarkeesian does) and seriously calling for bans or setting up quotas. Hell, many of the Feminist Frequency game videos start with a disclaimer that it's entirely possible to enjoy a game while pointing out problematic elements. I follow Brianna Wu on Twitter, and while she's certainly outspoken, it's obvious that she can both enjoy a game and criticize it at the same time.

One of the things I've noticed about GG is that there's little sense of proportion or nuance. Every feminist commenting on gaming is a major threat to the industry who is campaigning for censorship and forced content changes. Sarkeesian must surely be on a holy mission to destroy gaming because she noted the abuse of the damsel in distress trope. Leigh Alexander's "Gamers are Over" piece? No, it's not an intelligent discussion of the broadening definition of gamers, it's blasphemy that (kinda but not really) stereotypes current gamers. Burn the witch. There's no careful consideration, no contextualization, just constant knee-jerk reactions.

 

[Blue_Max]

But I don't recall Sarkeesian and her kind actually being insistent that games do X or Y.

Bullcrap. You know full well she's claimed video games CAUSE sexism (etc) from her very first video onward.

Oh, fun update... the FBI has not found ANYTHING to prosecute in two years. Nothing.
...which is what gamergaters have been saying since day one; we're not the sexist abusers you constantly accuse us of being.
No matter how much you falsely accuse us, it won't make it true. And f*ck you for doing it.

 

[Commodus]

Bullcrap. You know full well she's claimed video games CAUSE sexism (etc) from her very first video onward.

Oh, fun update... the FBI has not found ANYTHING to prosecute in two years. Nothing.
...which is what gamergaters have been saying since day one; we're not the sexist abusers you constantly accuse us of being.
No matter how much you falsely accuse us, it won't make it true. And f*ck you for doing it.

You misunderstood what I wrote. I'm saying that she's not ordering game developers to do X or Y. Advocating for it? Sure. But you don't get change if you never ask for it.

And just because people haven't been arrested directly due to GG doesn't mean they aren't guilty of abuse. Anonymity on the internet is great for cowards who harass women and don't want to be caught. Also, maybe you've heard of Ethan Ralph?

 

[Pens1566]

www.youtube.com

There, pre-emptive strike, negating need for further spam.

 

[werepossum]

You misunderstood what I wrote. I'm saying that she's not ordering game developers to do X or Y. Advocating for it? Sure. But you don't get change if you never ask for it.

And just because people haven't been arrested directly due to GG doesn't mean they aren't guilty of abuse. Anonymity on the internet is great for cowards who harass women and don't want to be caught. Also, maybe you've heard of Ethan Ralph?

It's one thing to try convincing people to behave as you wish, quite another to attempt to get government to force people to behave as you wish. When you wish to use government's armed might to enforce your social justice concepts over God-given freedom and free speech, expect people to push back.

 

[Commodus]

It's one thing to try convincing people to behave as you wish, quite another to attempt to get government to force people to behave as you wish. When you wish to use government's armed might to enforce your social justice concepts over God-given freedom and free speech, expect people to push back.

And I haven't seen a single one of these advocates actually suggest that the government enforce their ideas in gaming. Can we just agree that they're making recommendation and not actually calling for mandatory change?

 

[Blue_Max]

And I haven't seen a single one of these advocates actually suggest that the government enforce their ideas in gaming. Can we just agree that they're making recommendation and not actually calling for mandatory change?

Re-watch her speech at the united nations, calling for 'mandatory change' across the board. Saying "you suck" to a woman (only women) on the internet is akin to "violence" and should be abolished / punished.

That's worse than just demanding changes from movies and especially games.

 

[Commodus]

Re-watch her speech at the united nations, calling for 'mandatory change' across the board. Saying "you suck" to a woman (only women) on the internet is akin to "violence" and should be abolished / punished.

That's worse than just demanding changes from movies and especially games.

I just watched the Quinn and Sarkeesian presentations to the UN that you're thinking of... and holy hell, you're misrepresenting things in a huge way.

Quinn and Sarkeesian both ask for social media sites for "proper moderation" and for a significant rethink of how they handle sustained abuse and harassment (that is, to design an environment that discourages abuse, not just "band-aid" solutions). They do not ask for government intervention. Sarkeesian does not claim that "you suck" is just as bad as a death threat or doxxing, or that it's a problem only when applied to women. She explains that it's part of a broader spectrum of harassment, and that those minor incidents are frequently triggered by "hate videos" and other attempts to whip people into a frenzy.

The UN report does talk about encouraging laws that "enforce compliance and punitive consequences," but again, this isn't about simply being mean to someone. This is about protecting against patterns of abuse and acknowledging that most current laws aren't really equipped to address online harassment ("well, they didn't show up at your door, so there's not much we can do, ma'am"). Also, many of the calls for change are gender-neutral... and if you hadn't noticed, this was a panel talking about a specific trend of growing online harassment against women. No kidding, they're primarily going to talk about harassment of women at that kind of discussion! It's like complaining that a panel on increased gun violence isn't talking about knives.

 

[Blue_Max]

Spin, spin, spin... Jeez.... I'm just going to head over to the pet store for an oil change.

...one doesn't go to the united nations to ask social media to police (and eliminate) words they didn't like. And they most certainly did equate those awful words with violence. And call for action from the united nations to do something about it!

 

[Commodus]

Spin, spin, spin... Jeez.... I'm just going to head over to the pet store for an oil change.

...one doesn't go to the united nations to ask social media to police (and eliminate) words they didn't like. And they most certainly did equate those awful words with violence. And call for action from the united nations to do something about it!

The panel was there to discuss the nature of the problem and explore all kinds of solutions, not necessarily to mandate laws. And I'm sorry, but I paid attention to exactly what they said, in the context in which it was said. Both Quinn and Sarkeesian talked solely about asking social networks to rethink their approaches to abuse; if they wanted changes to the law, they had plenty of opportunity to say so.

 

[WelshBloke]

Spin, spin, spin...

I can see a lot of spin and hyperbole from someone and its not Commodus.

A little tip. When you are arguing with people from outside your little bubble you might want to stop using memes, in jokes, and downright lies.

Those things only work on people that already agree with you. Commodus has (and I cant believe the guys patience) made arguments that dont rely on image macros or crappy youtube videos. Thats why hes kicking your arse.

 

[Blue_Max]

I can see a lot of spin and hyperbole from someone and its not Commodus.

A little tip. When you are arguing with people from outside your little bubble you might want to stop using memes, in jokes, and downright lies.

Those things only work on people that already agree with you. Commodus has (and I cant believe the guys patience) made arguments that dont rely on image macros or crappy youtube videos. Thats why hes kicking your arse.

"kicking my arse" is plenty subjective... funny how the complete lack of evidence for any of your accusations over the course of TWO YEARS still means nothing to you.
No matter how much evidence is provided of your leftist f*ckery, you just double down again and again scream we're the bad ones for the same old reasons that have been proven wrong over and over again. I guess you're taking a page out of your other successful strategies, like the wage gap myth; repeat your accusation enough times and with enough emotion, the general public will believe you and assist in your attacks.

How you guys hate it when people don't jump on your bandwagon, and loathe it when your beliefs are proven not only wrong, but pure malicious fabrication.

 

[Victorian Gray]

"kicking my arse" is plenty subjective... funny how the complete lack of evidence for any of your accusations over the course of TWO YEARS still means nothing to you.
No matter how much evidence is provided of your leftist f*ckery, you just double down again and again scream we're the bad ones for the same old reasons that have been proven wrong over and over again. I guess you're taking a page out of your other successful strategies, like the wage gap myth; repeat your accusation enough times and with enough emotion, the general public will believe you and assist in your attacks.

How you guys hate it when people don't jump on your bandwagon, and loathe it when your beliefs are proven not only wrong, but pure malicious fabrication.

For that hole that you continue to dig .

 

[Blue_Max]

For that hole that you continue to dig .

Who would expect you guys to do anything but double down again. And again.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Who would expect you guys to do anything but double down again. And again.

Says the guy whose every word shows him to be what he so strenuously denies.

 

[Meghan54]

You know, we heard the same type of rhetoric when the Civil Rights Act of '64 and the Voting Rights Act of '65 passed, and most notably when George Wallace attempted to block, both legislatively and physically, court-ordered integration at the University of Alabama in 1963.

It's one thing to try convincing people to behave as you wish, quite another to attempt to get government to force people to behave as you wish. When you wish to use government's armed might to enforce your social justice concepts over God-given freedom and free speech, expect people to push back.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

"kicking my arse" is plenty subjective... funny how the complete lack of evidence for any of your accusations over the course of TWO YEARS still means nothing to you.
No matter how much evidence is provided of your leftist f*ckery, you just double down again and again scream we're the bad ones for the same old reasons that have been proven wrong over and over again. I guess you're taking a page out of your other successful strategies, like the wage gap myth; repeat your accusation enough times and with enough emotion, the general public will believe you and assist in your attacks.

How you guys hate it when people don't jump on your bandwagon, and loathe it when your beliefs are proven not only wrong, but pure malicious fabrication.

Life sucks when you misogyny is no longer accepted and facts contradict your gut feeling opinions.

 

[MajinCry]

Life sucks when you misogyny is no longer accepted and facts contradict your gut feeling opinions.

The guy sure is dedicated, though.

 

[Blue_Max]

Life sucks when you misogyny is no longer accepted and facts contradict your gut feeling opinions.

Give an example of where I hate women. Just one.

Not feminism. Women. You know, like what the word misogyny means? Or is anyone who disagrees with any woman anywhere guilty of your new definition?

 

[Commodus]

Give an example of where I hate women. Just one.

Not feminism. Women. You know, like what the word misogyny means? Or is anyone who disagrees with any woman anywhere guilty of your new definition?

If you hate feminism as a whole, then yeah, you hate women. It means you hate any attempts by women to push for greater equality, no matter how moderated they may be. You can't say you like women, but add a proviso that they have to sit down, shut up and refuse to challenge the status quo. And if you try to twist things to redefine all feminism as misandry or a power grab... then you're not really listening to what women are saying.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Give an example of where I hate women. Just one.

Not feminism. Women. You know, like what the word misogyny means? Or is anyone who disagrees with any woman anywhere guilty of your new definition?

Because feminism has nothing to do with the fight against misogyny and sexism, which apparently don't exist in your world view. Instead its all SJWs trying to curtail your rights and women whining about equal rights.

Laughable.

But please, do continue to cherry pick your examples of "SJWs" being ridiculous and tell us how its the greatest threat to civilization in modern times.