GamerGate - and it's continuing aftermath.

[BIL]

Is this the post with the spoiler tag in it? I'm just seeing "image" text when I click it.

Highlight that motherfucker and hit "view image"

Or click this ^_~

I had a girlfriend at university who liked the occasional PS2 game. Stuff like LEGO HARRY POTTER and LARA CROFT 10 to be sure, but I loved to snuggle up on the couch and watch her play. My chubby little English rose. ¦3 Perhaps those were the fabled GAMES 4 WIMMINZ...

All I know is if someone were to replace my copies of Alien Soldier, Gimmick or Silent Hill 2 with GAMES 4 MENZ like Calladoodie XVI, I'd politely wait for them to turn around then choke them out (edit: cricket bat if they're a big fucker) and proceed to take an enormous shit on their face.

What I'm saying is, what is a GAME 4 (GENDER) anyway? All sounds a bit patronising.

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

That's just the thing, it's an incredibly small and incredibly loud group that the vast majority of "socially aware" people are nowhere near on the spectrum - however much bluster they make, their efforts are going to go nowhere, because even more "progressively-minded" people will look at what they're doing and say "yeah, I'm out". They're basically the Westboro Church - highly visible, highly irritating, highly reviled and highly ineffectual. If what they're doing is that distasteful their support will remain minuscule and flat whether we "remain vigilant" or not.

They have more than enough insecure readers, desperate to distance themselves from BryanM's stereotype and become the One Good GamerTM. It's much easier to believe these self-righteous curtain-twitchers are a big problem when theres a 200 man lynch mob outside your window.

And even if the obtuse shitslinger stereotype is real, they don't deserve to be punished for someone else's corruption.

[BulletMagnet]

They have more than enough insecure readers, desperate to distance themselves from BryanM's stereotype and become the One Good GamerTM. It's much easier to believe these self-righteous curtain-twitchers are a big problem when theres a 200 man lynch mob outside your window.

If that's the angle you want to take, you leave yourself open to the "well, there are certainly enough outright misogynists sending rape threats to make me feel justified in my own actions" response from the other end of the room - I honestly think (or at the very least hope) both sides of the argument are vastly overestimating the number of radicals in the opposite camp, and the ensuing "they're everywhere and they're coming to get me" reactions to every little flare-up just feeds the fire and keeps the truly extreme elements going. Frankly, this kerfluffle will simply go on forever until the more moderate elements on either end tell their more visible and belligerent figureheads to chill out and get back to real life instead of gobbling up the "See? See? I knew it!" hype every time it's poured into the trough, because the supply is simply never going to run out.

[Ed Oscuro]

Having a huge and basically indestructible meme that goes against the core ideal of modern freedom and legal structure certainly worries me.

It's not a problem that people are getting into activism without bothering to understand why? I think that's called being in denial. Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition, either!

[Mischief Maker]

I feel like I've been saying the same thing over and over in this thread.

Women in gaming/SJWs/Sarkeesian are all decoys, pure and simple, to draw attention away from nepotism in the gaming press. People got on a few critics for possible nepotism with Zoe Quinn, and suddenly the entire gaming press tipped its hand by simultaneously saying all those asking nepotism questions were actually "slut shaming" Quinn. And holy shit did that tactic work!

Dunno how legit this image is, but it sums up the situation pretty well:

Spoiler

[Ed Oscuro]

You've got the causes backwards.

Zoe was just a semi-beneficiary of ongoing trends in outrage culture. But nobody controls anonymous. Sure, everybody is onboard with this idea that some people are above reproach, but what issues are important and what people actually spend their time on is up to the whims of fate. I wouldn't be surprised if the beneficiaries of this movement end up becoming forgotten within some years' time, like any z-list celebrities from years past.

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

If that's the angle you want to take, you leave yourself open to the "well, there are certainly enough outright misogynists sending rape threats to make me feel justified in my own actions" response from the other end of the room.

Read Mischeif Makers post above for a good reason why this position doesn't carry much weight. Sure there are assholes on the internet but if you watched this thing as it unfolded you'd see how journos are attributing their actions to us to cover their asses.

Frankly, this kerfluffle will simply go on forever until the more moderate elements on either end tell their more visible and belligerent figureheads to chill out and get back to real life instead of gobbling up the "See? See? I knew it!" hype every time it's poured into the trough, because the supply is simply never going to run out.

Well, the Gamergate Harrassment Patrol rose up to tackle this. They exposed that brazilian journo that was attacking Anita and Gamergate funded the feminist project that Zoe wrecked. These facts are handwaved and ignored as frequently as the 'ethics in journalism' argument.

On the flip-side, the one notable time when SJWs tried to police their own zealotry we ended up with the Gregory Elliot Case.

[BulletMagnet]

It's not a problem that people are getting into activism without bothering to understand why?

The thing is, I really don't think most people are "getting into activism" at all, at least to the extent it seems to be discussed here: most folks, when asked "do you want to see more varied viewpoints in the medium" or "do you want journalists held to high standards of honesty" will say "sure, absolutely," to varying degrees. Follow that up with "Do you think that should come about via widespread censorship" or "Do you think that should come about via hacking and doxxing" will answer "no, absolutely not." Just because you're technically "in favor" of something doesn't mean you're ready to pull out all the stops to further it.

It's like asking registered members of a political party if they're in favor of the most fringe candidates you can find; most aren't, but they don't necessarily see that as a reason to completely abandon their affiliation - in like manner, I don't think most "pro-GamerGate" folks are neanderthals, nor do I believe that most "anti-GamerGate" types want to institute a new world order. Moreover, when it comes to the noisy minorities that do go over the edge, if you automatically condemn and/or demean anyone remotely associated with them whenever they do something stupid you'll start the moderate elements thinking "hmm, maybe that nutcase is actually onto something, if that's what they really think then the other side is at least as deplorable as he is." And we're right back where we started, except the outliers will be even more obnoxious next time around.

[Ed Oscuro]

the Gregory Elliot Case.

So, there's other views on how that mess actually got started. (Of course, this random website I found sometimes comes down on the other side when it comes to issues of baiting, especially if some would-be terrorists get killed in the act. Plus, a cheap shot at Jim Sterling. Wow!)

I'm also really relieved to know that some guy signing off as Ahmed on the mens rights /r/eddit claims he sent the "conspiracy" letter. It might be true, but it's hard to avoid the feeling that some guys are spoiling for a fight here, starting with Mr. Elliott.

It's not a problem that people are getting into activism without bothering to understand why?

The thing is, I really don't think most people are "getting into activism" at all,

I count fighting with people as a species of this slacktivism (I didn't say activism in the normal sense). Yet, I'd say that the people marching are involved in protests, however peripherally. Here is a problem - as an outsider I can't well just dismiss whatever claims they have out of hand. I can say, however, that I'm fairly well certain that they have made a big mess.

As I said earlier, this kind of culture isn't new, but the amount to which it is spreading across the 'net is alarming.

I'm for de-escalation mainly. Getting involved in violent and hateful acts is not going to bring about a new age of peace, no matter what the justifications. Unless one is in a situation where actual force is needed, bringing that into the equation only will bring certainty that discussions will fail. It calls to mind Sagan's description of two men standing in a tank of gasoline, each holding thousands of matches.

[mamboFoxtrot]

the Gregory Elliot Case.

So, there's other views on how that mess actually got started.

I don't know anything about this case, but someone in the comments linked this, and in those comments, I saw this:

Her friends report his constant and unwanted attention, taking pictures of where she was and tweeting them, following her around, stalking.

Not sure of any sources validating this(I don't care enough to look for them), but it might be something to consider?

All I know is if someone were to replace my copies of Alien Soldier, Gimmick or Silent Hill 2 with GAMES 4 MENZ like Calladoodie XVI, I'd politely wait for them to turn around then choke them out (edit: cricket bat if they're a big fucker) and proceed to take an enormous shit on their face. Image

What I'm saying is, what is a GAME 4 (GENDER) anyway? All sounds a bit patronising.

Yeah, I honestly wonder where games like Okami, Beyond Good & Evil, Twinbee, Tetris, Kirby, etc fall into this. I mean, I can understand girls reacting to "testosterone-poison" games like Darksiders or Gears of War the same way guys react to My Little Pony (excepting bronies obviously) or any given chick-flick, but when people say "there's no games for women", are they really trying to say that MANLY MAN games are all there are? Or are they asking for more MLP-looking games (that aren't actually pedobear games for otaku) or games that otherwise are so "for women" that they would repel most men? I honestly haven't looked enough into this to really know what it's about.

[evil_ash_xero]

From what I can tell, they want to shoehorn women into games that are marketed towards men. And tone down the sexuality.
And Sarkeesian, in particular, really dislikes the violence in games. Also, they believe that games are affecting us, subliminally. So, after years of
journalists saying that games don't cause us to be violent...all of a sudden, games make us sexist.

Somehow, this will cause women to buy Call of Duty, I guess. It makes perfect sense.

Because women aren't buying Call of Duty, because there aren't tons of women in them. I'd LOVE to see the sales of games that up the number of female characters,
and see if the percentage of women who bought them, went up.

You know, if they put some bald marines in Candy Crush, we'd be all over it.

[Mischief Maker]

And Sarkeesian, in particular, really dislikes the violence in games. Also, they believe that games are affecting us, subliminally. So, after years of
journalists saying that games don't cause us to be violent...all of a sudden, games make us sexist.

No she doesn't. She's a press hound and that was the easiest way to generate controversy after E3, even though it had nothing to do with videogames reinforcing sexist stereotypes of women. Gamergate had nothing to do with her, originally, she shoehorned herself into the controversy to generate more press, and it worked!

Sarkeesian's interest in video games began and ended with her noticing an open niche in the yellow journalism market.

[evil_ash_xero]

And Sarkeesian, in particular, really dislikes the violence in games. Also, they believe that games are affecting us, subliminally. So, after years of
journalists saying that games don't cause us to be violent...all of a sudden, games make us sexist.

No she doesn't. She's a press hound and that was the easiest way to generate controversy after E3, even though it had nothing to do with videogames reinforcing sexist stereotypes of women. Gamergate had nothing to do with her, originally, she shoehorned herself into the controversy to generate more press, and it worked!

Sarkeesian's interest in video games began and ended with her noticing an open niche in the yellow journalism market.

Well, I know that. I'm just saying how she portrays herself. A lot of people take her seriously. The mainstream media, for instance.

I never have, but I'm just a misogynistic monster.
One thing that's kind of odd, is that most GG's hate MacIntosh, just as much, if not more than Anita. No one pays attention to that though. Since he's a guy, and it wouldn't fit into the "woman hate" narrative they like to vomit up all the time.

Haha. The pastry chef chick I knew was short and liked the pretend she was a cat!

Would be great if somehow it turned out to be the same person.

I doubt she is. But she's from Baltimore. I don't think she would pretend to be a cat. She was pretty damn butch. I would flat out say she was more masculine than me.

She was short-ish though. She was also lactose intolerant, so she couldn't eat her own creations.

[Immryr]

Why? I mean, if you hunt a lot, you're a hunter. If you fish a lot, you're a fisherman. If you do whatever sports a lot, you're an athlete.

I game a lot, so I'm a gamer. It doesn't define me, or anything. But it's a big part of my life.

When someone says "gamer", you know what they mean. Someone who games a lot, and may be into the gaming culture as well. I wouldn't look that deep into it.

what do you call someone who watches a lot of stuff on Netflix?

Bored.

so what you're saying is the form of media entertainment you engage with is akin to a job like being a fisherman or an athlete, but another is just staving off boredom. yep, definitely sounds like seeking validation to me.

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

You sound like that one cool guy, sure you play games but your not like those nerds. You don't need a label to validate yourself and for good reason! I mean, what if a girl found out?

[Immryr]

yep, you really got me pegged.

[Tregard]

I've not really been paying attention to the GG internet drama and don't intend to start. But what really bothers me about the gaming press is, well...

"One of the most dexterous words in English literature is things. Being flexible and useful is the entire point of a word like things, of course, but still: watch it sing in a book like I Capture the Castle or Cold Comfort Farm. Shall I clear away the tea things? That, I would argue, is the Early 20th Century English Novel Sentence par excellence. I didn't even look it up: I'm just assuming that Dodie Smith and Stella Gibbons will have both landed on it through sheer cultural resonance. How could they not? There will be tea so there will be tea things, and it's only polite to ask when you're thinking about getting rid of them, isn't it? And look what the word things is doing in that sentence! It is creating a friendly out-of-focus clutter of everyday objects, a nimbus of impedimenta. It is suggesting that even the most mindless of routines like serving a pot of Earl Grey will have a quiet exactitude to it, often requiring the use of tools. Life is ritual. Brew up."

B... but I came here to read about Everybody's Gone to the Rapture...

[Mischief Maker]

I've not really been paying attention to the GG internet drama and don't intend to start. But what really bothers me about the gaming press is, well...

"One of the most dexterous words in English literature is things. Being flexible and useful is the entire point of a word like things, of course, but still: watch it sing in a book like I Capture the Castle or Cold Comfort Farm. Shall I clear away the tea things? That, I would argue, is the Early 20th Century English Novel Sentence par excellence. I didn't even look it up: I'm just assuming that Dodie Smith and Stella Gibbons will have both landed on it through sheer cultural resonance. How could they not? There will be tea so there will be tea things, and it's only polite to ask when you're thinking about getting rid of them, isn't it? And look what the word things is doing in that sentence! It is creating a friendly out-of-focus clutter of everyday objects, a nimbus of impedimenta. It is suggesting that even the most mindless of routines like serving a pot of Earl Grey will have a quiet exactitude to it, often requiring the use of tools. Life is ritual. Brew up."

B... but I came here to read about Everybody's Gone to the Rapture...

Like I said, they want games to be art so they can be as respected as dead movie critic Roger Ebert and have their parents stop pestering them to get a "real job."

Nevermind "sportswriter" being the more realistic goal for game critics, if there's one thing Penny Arcade has taught us, the internet media is filled with guys in their 30s and 40s who still obsess about jocks who picked on them in high school. How on earth could they become sports writers?!! Eww, I must spit after uttering that filthy word. It would be an unforgivable betrayal to my Breakfast Club stereotype to become one of those!

[Lobinden]

From what I can tell, they want to shoehorn women into games that are marketed towards men. And tone down the sexuality.
And Sarkeesian, in particular, really dislikes the violence in games. Also, they believe that games are affecting us, subliminally. So, after years of
journalists saying that games don't cause us to be violent...all of a sudden, games make us sexist.

I don't really think that Sarkeesian actually believes in the drivel McIntosh tells her to spout out. She just continues to perpetuate these disingenuous ideas because it gives her fans, and fans give her money and popularity.

I think the same applies to all progressives who focus on the media. They don't actually give a shit about social issues. They don't care when women are literally killed in Saudi Arabia for *having been* raped, but if some japanese guy draws a woman with a pretty face and larger than average chest size for a videogame, they activate their moral panic buttons and fling shit at everyone. The progressives just spout what they think is the most ideal, liberal viewpoint to earn respect among their peers, and don't actually do research into social issues and expand beyond trivial media stuff that doesn't affect anyone.

Modern Progressivism is a movement rooted entirely in vanity.

[evil_ash_xero]

From what I can tell, they want to shoehorn women into games that are marketed towards men. And tone down the sexuality.
And Sarkeesian, in particular, really dislikes the violence in games. Also, they believe that games are affecting us, subliminally. So, after years of
journalists saying that games don't cause us to be violent...all of a sudden, games make us sexist.

I don't really think that Sarkeesian actually believes in the drivel McIntosh tells her to spout out. She just continues to perpetuate these disingenuous ideas because it gives her fans, and fans give her money and popularity.

I think the same applies to all progressives who focus on the media. They don't actually give a shit about social issues. They don't care when women are literally killed in Saudi Arabia for *having been* raped, but if some japanese guy draws a woman with a pretty face and larger than average chest size for a videogame, they activate their moral panic buttons and fling shit at everyone. The progressives just spout what they think is the most ideal, liberal viewpoint to earn respect among their peers, and don't actually do research into social issues and expand beyond trivial media stuff that doesn't affect anyone.

Modern Progressivism is a movement rooted entirely in vanity.

I believe a lot of what you say. Sarkeesian, in my eyes, is a con artist. McIntosh seems....REALLY into this stuff. But I guess he needed a female face to sell his garbage? I dunno.

Modern progressives don't make a lot of sense to me, at all. I mean, what you said about Saudia Arabia. Most SJWs are really defensive of Muslims. I don't think they realize in Middle Eastern countries, they would be the first to get their heads chopped off.
They seem to not know much about what they are attacking, or who they are defending.

And good lord, are they buzz killers. I was raised a Jehovah's Witness, and they're pretty anti-fun. But at least they didn't bitch constantly.
They would just kind of give this look of disapproval.

The SJWs are weird as Hell. They're totally into the "representation" of gays, transgendered people, people of color etc. etc.", but when it comes to showing a body part, they're like the Puritans.
Odd, odd people.
Like they would be fine, seeing two guys fucking on a daytime soap opera, but if a woman is in a bikini, in an advert....they go nuts. Bizarro World.

[Eaglet]

The main problem with these "progressives" or "SJW's" (over here we just call them PC-people) is that they have a complete lack of historical and general knowledge.
Most of them claim to be "world citizens" but don't know shit about any other cultures than their own niche sub-culture.
It's all so incredibly immature. "I don't like the way society or people are in general - that's why they all have to change to accomodate me! Or else." is the general sentiment.
Like a 3-year old crying over not having the same toys as some other kid. There is no sense of personal responsibility whatsoever. Everything has to be given to them for no effort.
Combine white guilt with socialism, stupidity and ideologies proponed by paranoid schizophrenics and this is what you get.

[Mischief Maker]

Okay, now I gotta change hats again. You guys agree that Anita Sarkeesian is a jackass press hound who's more interested in publicity than the progressive movement, but then turn around and use the jackassery of her and other press hounds as an example of the actual progressive movement's goals and motivations?

C'mon! I was being snide when I suggested that Trump represented the true face of conservativsm. Next you'll use the antics of PETA to prove the ASPCA is a group of crazies.

Let's apply occam's razor, here. Is it more likely that progressive ideas cause people to become mentally unhinged and lose all sense of logic and priority like reading a Sutter Cane novel? Or is it more likely that the press hounds, left or right, who are willing to say ANYTHING for a click, no matter how silly, get the most attention?

[Eaglet]

My post wasn't about Sarkeesian in particular (I'm honestly not that knowledgable about the whole Gamergate thing). She just seems like an unscupulous asshole capitalizing on the same people i wrote (ranted) about from what i've read about her.

[Obscura]

Is it more likely that progressive ideas cause people to become mentally unhinged and lose all sense of logic and priority

This is actually happening: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... nd/399356/

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

Let's apply occam's razor, here. Is it more likely that progressive ideas cause people to become mentally unhinged and lose all sense of logic and priority like reading a Sutter Cane novel? Or is it more likely that the press hounds, left or right, who are willing to say ANYTHING for a click, no matter how silly, get the most attention?

Why not both? Obscura's article perfectly explains the kind of climate that makes this kind of journalism so marketable - and why any question of their narrative is met with censorship and other forms of silencing rather than debate. Groupthink will not allow it.

I'm not willing to admit that Gawker were smart enough to predict and exploit such a niche though. As well as the "games are art" thing, I think they're all just rebelling against their rich, republican daddies.

[Mischief Maker]

Fuck that Atlantic article and fuck all of you for obligating me to slog through it! It's a perfect example of a conclusion in search of evidence.

We do not mean to imply simple causation, but rates of mental illness in young adults have been rising, both on campus and off, in recent decades.

Then he proceeds to go on the rest of the article describing a psychological disorder, following with a selection of out-of-context stories, then implying causation. Repeat ad nauseum.

Now he COULD have written an article about two interesting points he quickly glossed over:

1. Millennials growing up in an internet culture have started to assert internet values on the real world. Specifically the values of block lists, unfriending, and forum admins turning into tinpot dictators and banning people who disagree with them on trumped up charges of "trolling."

2. In 2013 the department of education broadened the definition of sexual harassment from "objectively offensive" to "unwelcome" which has resulted in some wacky interpretations by college administrators trying to put the vague new standard into effect.

But neither of these topics quite have the sensationalist sizzle of "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IZ MAKING UR KIDZ KEEEERAZY!!!" so the author (speaking of press hounds) stretched the truth to meet his own agenda.

Anyhoo, if you're going to talk about mental illness and Millennials, there's a much bigger and more significant thing affecting that generation's mental health that the article curiously failed to mention: Ritalin.

[BryanM]

C'mon! I was being snide when I suggested that Trump represented the true face of conservativsm.

True. Trump actually has a couple policies that approach being humane.

[evil_ash_xero]

I remember when Trump did Pizza Hut ads. Those were better times.

And I wouldn't say he's the true face of "Conservatism". He's more of the true face of the Republican Party.

[BryanM]

He's more of the true face of the Republican Party.

It was amazing seeing Rand (it was Rand who was stupid enough to touch the poop, right?) try to attack him for supporting Single Payer. And seeing the attack slide right off of Trump like it was nothin'.

It encapsulates that topic so beautifully - they don't hate Obamacare because of what it is. They hate it because of who created it.

[evil_ash_xero]

He's more of the true face of the Republican Party.

It encapsulates that topic so beautifully - they don't hate Obamacare because of what it is. They hate it because of who created it.

That's always been VERY apparent to me. You know, if they had a decent alternative, I'd listen. But they don't. They just allow the drug companies to crank the prices to the moon. Make it easier for HMOs to deny insurance to people.

So then you have expensive ass drugs, and hospitals. And then you can't get insurance, because you had depression or whatever. So, basically..you die.
Not that great an alternative, in my opinion.

OR even if they would come to the table, and bring forth ideas that maybe helped the budget of it, but it didn't always favor doctors and the medical institution...that would be good as well. But with today's Republican Party...ain't happening.

But that's a whole other topic.