I think there's really deep, fundamental problems with the way you're looking at the relationship between creators, works and audience. I'm clocking out here, but that point is an empasse. I have to say it really doesn't make sense, especially when we are talking about commercially released, mass produced works. You're also inappropriately deifying creators when they are products of a culture that they are born of and shape themselves. Games are not Platonic Forms that are drawn out, they are every bit as subjective as these reviews. Of course unintended consequences are real and valid. Why on earth would you engage with an audience otherwise? You are practically saying that no one is allowed to disagree with an artists opinion. There's nothing magical about them.

Released games enter the culture. They are part of the culture, and therefore subject to it. They do this willingly. They are inviting our feelings and opinions. You don't get to cherry pick the good reactions and drop the bad.

It doesn't matter if games are not made with the express purpose of making political or rhetorical statements if there are themes there-in that people still find problematic. I appreciate that Mark Kermode, the film reviewer I refer to, points out that Sex and the City has revolting capitalist/consumerist overtones with crudely-drawn, subservient, noble savage foreign characters and that Michael Bay films have vulgar, unnecessary objectification of women. I want to know these things because I know these things will annoy me, even if the only intention of the film maker was to rope in a certain demographic.

Similarly, if a reviewer or critic wants to highlight problematic issues in story-telling or imagery in games, that is fair game. That is what critique is about. The artist's intent is utterly irrelevant, to be honest, and, indeed, this is where games designers need to realise that part of having a wider audience is acknowledging that people will have problems with the things you do.

It's not really for you to say how a reviewer or critic interprets these things. You can either argue with them or ignore it. The point is that society informs art and art informs society. If games want to be seen as something enjoyed by people other than teenage boys in their dark bedrooms then with that comes different priorities in story-telling and imagery for different audiences. Furthermore, this encourages innovation in story-telling, which is important as games attempt to be more about an encompassing experience.

Games are also yet another media frontier in challenging sociological archetypes, because young and impressionable people play them. There is, again, nothing wrong with pointing this out. As an adult male who has played games all his life, I don't want to be embarrassed by the hobby.

An issue I have with what you're saying is identifying something as "problematic" versus saying you just don't like it.

I mean, in one breath you vilify sexuality in games as juvenile while also saying games need to grow up as an art form. I suspect you'll never see certain subjects in games as legit regardless of how far it can evolve as an art form.

But you do say that this is a business, which is funny. As a capitalistic industry, games will want to appeal to either a mass populace or at least the hardcore fanbase who will recoup costs of production. Money talks, and money says people care about games as they are. These things are either art or toys when you deem fit. They are business products or photographs of society's condition when you see fit.

But back to point; I stress that that not all opinions in reviews are equal, only that one as a right to one. There's a reason you're better pressed to read another game review by me over some random. I'm sure random would find things to critique on, too, but they wouldn't be the things a potential consumer would wanna hear about a game. I've spoken about this with my Camero scenario.

So again, somebody could well critique any facet of a game. I would never say otherwise. But while everyone an opinion, they are not all equal. Certain opinion are more informed than others with the industry/game/genre in context.

You had a go at me? When?

This is just another way, a nicer way, of saying these things are toys. Everybody plays games. And "challenging sociological archetypes" is only an effort a dev should opt into, rather than the thinly veiled shaming if they choose to ignore that viewpoint ("young and impressionable kids play them, ergo..."). I'm against any idea that suggests art should be something other than what the artist intends.

That has everything to do with you. Dead or Alive should not embarrass you anymore than Human Centipede should embarrass me as a horror movie fan. Things you don't like exist within a industries you love.

I didn't vilify the concept of sexuality in games as juvenile, I said "pretty much all attempts" have been juvenile, which is true. This completely fits in with the need for games designers to keep in mind a wider audience, not a teenage boy, if the medium is to mature.

Entertainment can be both mass-market and frivolous or it can be serious and life-defining. There's no contradiction in that. Anyone who watches films understands there are different types of film that be enjoyed equally as much in different ways. Indeed, the games I have enjoyed most recently have been the Souls games that have thrown all narrative and wider character motivation out the window and went for simple objective-chasing wrapped around a superb combat mechanic and a beautifully realised world, whereas I've found attempts like GTA V and Skyrim to be more encompassing to be off-putting and got bored of Bioshock Infinite before finishing it.

But this is speaking at cross-purposes. People can make games for whatever reason they want and their target audience can enjoy them for whatever reason they want. This does not preclude the legitimate critique of what a critic may consider problematic imagery or themes in games. This drives development and innovation.

And you're also wrong, because I do want to hear about these things. I want to hear about the gameplay, the game mechanics, the sound, the graphics, the level design etc. and I want to hear if there's off-putting themes in the game. I basically lost interest in single player GTA V after the torture scene, after tolerating the appalling yoga and strip-club scenes, because it was so crass and dull-witted. A horrific misstep from a game that has traditionally been very strong on satire.

No, it's not. It's saying that you have to bear in mind that media shapes society. If you wish to interpret it in such an insecure way, that is up to you. You being against that idea is also utterly irrelevant. Nothing exists in a vacuum. Some art is made with no explanation, which precludes the idea of an observer only "appreciating" it in the way the artist intends.

Of course it has everything to do with me. Why are my priorities any less valid than yours?

Film critics regularly excoriate films like The Human Centipede and other torture porn films for being exploitative and crass, as well as just bad films. Do you have a problem with this?

O/T I hate how many people "liked" Human Centipede just to be shocking.

If we're going to compare video game reviewers to movie reviewers though, can we at least remember that Bikini Car Wash 3 didn't get reviewed by serious critics? Some films/games make the claim that they're something more than popcorn flicks or button-mashers and should be treated with the same level of seriousness as the fashion in which they are created.

Sonic and Mario games are a lot like harmlessly dumb CGI family films, Rockstar Games attempt to be a bit of everything and are usually called out on the juvenile aspects. Obviously the comparison could go on for a bit, but I'll stop there.

My only problem is when a "reviewer" has no interest in the medium and instead wants to force artists and schlock-writers/directors/game creators to stop making things that don't fit into their narrowly defined list of acceptable art. When a reviewer treats a dumb action film like it's cultural kryptonite because it doesn't attempt to display the confusion and pain of people with gender identity issues we can safely say that person is missing the point.

There are plenty of truly vile things out there to complain about though.

Who is forcing anyone to stop making anything?

A film also shouldn't get free rein to go uncriticised just because it is "supposed" to be stupid.

Art imitates life.

I'm gonna guess we won't meet halfway here.

My priorities make it so you can have the entertainment you want. Your priorities, at its logical conclusion, eventually limits art.

I don't like the movie and sub-genre so I would be in agreement with those critics. What I didn't see is them ascribing themes to those movies where they knew wasn't intended. Imagine making an observation in Saw 5 pertaining to how hospitals should widen admissions to mental health patients. Not a bad thought per se, but ridiculous when your subject is fucking Saw 5.

When you say something is "problematic" and go out of your way to remind us that "young and impressionable" kids are playing these games, where else is that road supposed to lead but regulation of creative freedom?

We never said people aren't allowed to criticize. This is my second or third time saying this. Anybody can critique, but not all critiques are valid.

Funny that you mention that, I did a course on mental illness in film. It analysed depictions of the mentally ill and mental health professions in film. That sort of thing is actually what I'm talking about, the idea being that films (and other media) reinforcing the same themes, stereotypes, tropes and cliches over and over again informs how people see reality. The implication being that films contribute to a fear of the mentally ill and to an out-dated view of the mental health profession.

Which is all very interesting and I like to hear people talk about it. If a reviewer feels subjects like that are important then they should talk about it. The artistic value of the work they talk about is largely irrelevant if people watch it.

My approach to this is any company can make any game for anybody, and critics can have a ball after the fact.

Your viewpoint is art beholden to critics, where artists must adhere to creator whims. That is the difference between us.

Were I king of world who can allow or veto anything ever; creative freedom lives. Including garbage like Human Centipede and Hatred. You as king of the world, based on what you wrote here and in other threads, almost certainly sees the end of creative freedom.

It leads to developers adapting to different audiences. Why would you assume it means banning anything? Are you arguing that we should ban critique to protect expression? No one is forced to listen to critics or the market if they do not want to, besides the financial imperative.

Who decides what is valid or not? Ultimately that's a personal decision.

What are you talking about? Where have I said these films should be banned or censored? Please don't put words in my mouth. Where have I said artists should be beholden to critics? What I have quite clearly argued is that criticism and analysis can inform consumption and in turn artistic direction.

Is the other thread you are talking about the anime child porn one?

So who better to write a great script that challenges the public perception of the mentally ill than you. I would honestly 100% support you on that. I'm not being pandemic, either. You see an issue, you wanna see change, in a capitalistic entertainment market that's how you do it.

My nephew was recently concluded to have autism. We've never had an autistic family member, and I admit a great many things I didn't think seriously about came front and center. How hard is education going to be, how will he interact with other kids, where is he on the spectrum, etc.

If you think the mentally ill/handicapped can be better served in media, point me to the project and I'm yours - but I still don't agree that we should put any pressure on creators to do anything other what they wanna do.

Agreed.

Care to rephrase this?

You keep going back to me having a problem with people critiquing rather than the strength of their critique. For the last time: I have no problem with people analyzing art through any lens they like, but with industry context they have to be aware that not all opinions are valued equally.

Please read my Camero review scenario again where I explain more about the idea of legit, informed opinions vs people who miss the point.

None but the most strident would out and say they want something banned. Few people wanna be 'that guy'. So I'll just ask you directly:

Were you king of the earth, able to pass or deny anything; does GTA5 as it is right now exist? Does Dead or Alive 5 exist? Does Mortal Kombat exist?

Yessir.

Who better would be someone who can write good scripts. I'm not a script-writer or a film producer. I watch films and can appreciate good stories.

There is nothing wrong with highlighting the effect of art and media on society so that artists understand the potential consequences of their work. In this instance, for example, does your piece possibly further stigmatise the mentally ill? This is how criticism works, has always worked. It has never been just about saying "this is good, 8/10". Which is to say that games should be ready for that kind of criticism if the medium is to develop.

This is also how the free market/capitalism works. An amateur with no talent trying to make an issue piece is less helpful than informed criticism suggest artists consider the consequences of their work for people who may identify or be identified with the characters there-in. No one is forcing them to even listen, indeed, most don't unless the market they're marginalising is large enough to dent profits.

It's the same point said 3 different ways now. If people consume your work then you are influencing them, be it positively or negatively, so it still matters what you say with that work.

That is a redundant statement. If your opinion is not valued then no one listens or responds to it. This is simple. That's why none of us read or watch everything written or recorded about the stuff we like. This is absolutely redundant.

However, Anita Sarkeesian to name one, is only a public persona now because of the response to her criticisms. So therefore what she says has been made valid by the debate that has ensued.


Considering that I've played GTA and Mortal Kombat since both original games were released, it would be a bit ludicrous for me to have them banned. I've loved both games over the years in their various iterations. But this is not to say that when a game like GTA V throws away the sharply-observed satire of previous incarnations, and almost becomes a version of what it used to parody, that I cannot point this out, nor that it should not be pointed out by critics. GTA IV just bored me, GTA V just turned me off single player with that segment (though I may pick it up again since my internet connection is so bad here to make online play basically impossible bar some Worms 2).

Trying to paint me as a prude is wide of the mark, rather than just someone who is dismayed by artistic laziness and crassness.

In regards to the other thread, that's a side issue. Since I've had to do a bit of work on child protection and recognising/preventing abuse, I'm coming to it from that angle. What I will say is that The Rogerer made the best point in that thread, in that the prosecutors and police involved have to look at all child porn and categorise it that they bring to court for any case, so it is not a case of prudes not understanding something. They have to sit through all that shit and go home to their families afterwards. If they brought that case and achieved a conviction, I would tend to believe they had a reason to do so because what they had seen demonstrated a possible threat to the public.

An artist is not responsible for how people will take his work. That's not what he signed up for, and it's his freedom to opt in and consider what he wants to be absorbed by his potential audience.

Just now the JL8 thread got updated with something I think kids would be served well seeing. Yale knows his artwork and narrative tone could attract younger fans. He opts to plant a very important message concerning missing children, even under great fan service for us oldies. That was his decision and I support it. And then there's works that kids eat up that don't even bother with subtle PSAs. That's fine, too. These people are not your parents, counselors, teachers, or whatever else you think artists suddenly become because they're work is out there.

Actually they are responsible, they design it to influence people. But otherwise I'm not sure where I argued that anyone has any obligation to be influenced in turn by the response to their work?

Here's another mental health example for you: it has been noted from studies that high profile reporting of suicide in the media causes a spike in suicides in the area in which it has been reported. Suicides are contagious in the media. Furthermore, media describing or depicting suicide techniques influences attempts in reality. This is why some newspapers have entered an agreement not to report suicide details. People are more psychologically malleable than any of us like to believe.

I'm not arguing the media is killing people. What I am arguing is that it is worth talking about the influence of art and media on society. Whether artists wish to let this influence their work or not depends on how much they value criticism, how much they value financial gain or how much they value their own artistic vision.

lol right

I wonder if you're consistent about this in other areas. "Backlash dignifies uninformed opinions."

So you are fine with GTA5 being out there? We're agreeing on that?

You call it whatever you like, I'm just worried that you feel it should change on your terms when you're not the creator.

I wish I was still that optimistic about our justice system.

Really now?

Depressing but not the responsibility of artists.

They can actually do all three at once. You're constructing false choices.

She would be a nobody if not for the reaction of gamers. This much is true.


In what way could I be clearer? I'd prefer it if it was a more enjoyable game since I spent money on it.[/QUOTE]



I hope you don't lose any sleep over it. I wonder, though, why you feel the criticism we've debating here is any less valid than debating criticism of other artistic decisions, such as plotting, dialogue etc.? It's almost as if you are arguing criticism should not exist.


The case discussed in that thread took place in England so it's not your justice system.

Yes. Of course. That is the point. To make people laugh/cry/think.

Some may feel it is and change their decisions based on it. That is their prerogative. Stanley Kubrick banned A Clockwork Orange himself because some youths in England kicked a tramp to death while singing Singin' in the Rain. Others may not be aware of the influence of art/media on behaviour. How they choose to work with that knowledge is up to them. Art is not so sacred that people cannot value things above an artist's conscience.


Where did I say or even imply they were mutually exclusive?

It is, but that says nothing of her rhetoric's validity.

You mean you're gonna make sure it's enjoyable before you spend money.

I'm starting to think you're trolling me with this, after me saying multiple times criticism is fine.

Thoughts on plot and dialogue is perfectly fine, as they are elements the writer is giving unto you. What's I've been arguing is how certain art should be judged on the merits it sets out for, not what the reviewer posits onto it.

Consider that you've been arguing for a freedom of critique beyond freedom the art they're reviewing.

I concede.

I have a feeling you just backed off on another point but I'll go with this.

The use of 'or'.

Let's not forget that a lot of the context of this is being used springboard to lash out at 'SJW's, criticise harrassment and other things that piss people off. If you want to act that way, knock yourself out, but it's annoying when the manifesto has fatal problems.

Everyone is invited to criticise the medium. The notion that developers and publishers shouldn't be subject to things they don't intend is a show of bias, which is only a problem when you're calling against bias. When I myself know how childish, materialistic and mercanary the games industry is, it isn't hard to connect the dots and see where these ideas are coming from. Gamers are having a hard time coming out of the treehouse, but it's better out there. You cannot hide behind your intent in this world. Imagine saying that about any other medium. Politics would be a wonderfully rosy place.

If I produce a game, and someone makes a judgement on what I presented, I would be a coward or an idiot to go "Actually, that's not fair, I didn't mean to do that, I'm special". Stories don't come from heaven, they bounce out of the collective culture. Especially when you're producing something where your express intent is mass appeal. You can't claim the precious artist defence when they are stacking them high and selling them low. They're stepping into the slings and arrows.

Come to think of it, I did produce a game at university where I was asked to change the subject matter because it was insensitive. It seems funny at the time because we were young and stupid, but it was clear that it wasn't the best idea. So we changed it. Oh, my artistic sprit died that day! Surely the angels will weep as the oppresive world kills things that are too beautiful to exist. Where was our freedom of speech? No, me, the artist, AN artist, was just being a stupid prick.

Games are games. It's not the artist's/creator's fault that you see something that isn't there. It might not even be your fault.

I remember in high-school we used to do those annoying essays about the meaning of works of literature. As long as we could make a persuasive case about what we thought the author MEANT, then we passed. It's bull-shit, basically and more so than a critique where you explain why you don't like it, it's purposely deluding yourself into thinking that you can change the meaning of something through analytic interpretation.

Maybe, the character went fishing because he liked to fish. Maybe it isn't a comment on how all men are abusive monsters attempting to lure in innocent women to gut and devour.

SJWs see meaning where there is none and ignore the obvious when it doesn't fit their preconceived notions of how the world works.

This conversation is really a shoot off from a discussion about Bayonetta's sexuality, remember, if you're talking about seeing things that aren't there. If you can find an egrious example of complete freeballing reinterpretation, go on. That's not what the gamergaters I've spoken to talk about. They complain about games with intentional overt sexuality, having that aspect commented on. Namely Bayonetta 2 and Dragon's Crown. The sexuality is there because these mass produced commercial games products are aimed and marketed at a particular demographic.

You love persuasive cases though. You were complementing Kalyx on his quoque.

Kal wasn't making a "persuasive" or "emotional" case, you're incorrect.

I tend to actually agree with the sentiment expressed by sane feminists and culture critics that almost everything is overly sexualized, more specifically almost everything that has young children as a target demo (ie. Bratz, Monster High, Thomas the Train)

However, most of the critiques from these PC Police tend to be misplaced. "Why aren't more games helmed by female protagonists? Is it because gamers are all rapists?" Isn't too far off from how SJWs think about everything.

Here is an example from a industry where I actually know something about:


If you take a moment to read this you'll see that the "critique" has nothing to do with actually making good science fiction. It is reveling in the idea of being politically correct and progressive and it is full of a singular intent to push people into group think.

Some things put sexy women in them and on them in an attempt to grab attention and money from my stupid male brain. It is a mercenary act. I am of course immune to this thanks to wXe but I'm allowed to criticise the practice. Games do this a lot.

And science fiction is at it's best when it's a playground for breaking down and reconstructing human concepts. You've lost it. You're cutting off your nose to spite your face there.

The point is rather than make a better product; these people are consumed by what they themselves decided to interpret it by. And even that would be fine on its own - except they go one step further in vilifying (directly or subtly) people who call them out or ignore them. It goes from 'personal opinion' to drawing a line, and then they fuss at people who choose the other side of the line.

Sci-Fi historically plays with conventions. That's cool. No problem with that. Some of the most progressive works ever stem from Sci-Fi. But here she comes conjuring up an issue where none existed, and then drew a line (creating a term 'post-binary sci-fi') that ironically forces a binary choice. I mean, she could have just simply wrote stories pertaining to her viewpoints. Instead it's about seeing who's down with the program and who's the 'old guard'.

They do this all the fucking time.

It's been observed that SJWs (and to a degree feminists) have a habit of making moves on certain industries after they've initially assimilated (or seem to have done so). They're there. Everything's gully. It would be some thing that unites people on common interests. And then BOOM; all of sudden somebody highlights an 'issue' nobody noticed. They create terms (ablist, etc) and then draw a line. It screwed with biology. It screwed with Atheism. It screwed with politics. It continues to fuck over universities. It made a mockery out of Occupy. It completely destroyed Tumblr (or made it hilarious depending on who you ask). It's slowly made moves on comics. And it's been pouring over the game industry this last generation.

And the biggest consistency is how in many of these groups/industries - they are almost NEVER the content makers or gears of that industry. If they were, they could simply subvert things on a legit scale. This is why GaymerX is great, but 'safe zones' at other conventions are insulting.

Some big sci fi writers already have plenty of LGBT style aliens and main characters. It's pretty common. Only an idiot from the outside would think the genre somehow is missing out.

Sci fi, like all other genres, is at its best when it's entertaining. If it does not entertain, then you're doing it wrong. Very simple concept.

Surely there's a page in the logical fallacy scrapbook devoted to this old chestnut? Zoe Quinn would come to mind as someone who was trying to make a better product. Otherwise, that sentiment is a meaningless platitude of "you do it". Me? I've developed small games, I can code. I've also criticised games. I don't have any special privilege to criticise games over anyone else. If I released one of my games, I'm not going to line up the people who talk about my game, pat them down for their credentials and disregard their views.

It's interesting that you paint this as a unified movement of people, and also that you refer to GamerGate in the first person plural. This really seems to be a front of two groups to you, rather than scattered individuals. I'll even grant that gamergate isn't a bunch of this or that. It's a snowball movement that people are desperate to get into. It operates via boards, where it's easy to get angry, but mostly via twitter, which is the most infuriating by design thing to enter the world since the automobile. I want it to stop because while it runs, it will activate people who need an excuse to attack. On top of all this, I don't think the movement is worth anything because, as I've said, it's demands are fatally flawed. The frontier of games has withstood criticism for a long time. Your notion of people infiltrating it doesn't work for me. There's nothing to infiltrate, unless you view gaming as a refuge, a closed society, a tree house. The shop front is open.

It was interesting to see DTTS say, 'PC Police' as a libertarian gent. Using a word that represents the authority of the state to describe the free speech of individual citizens. I am puzzled as to why none of this falls under free speech because it is absolutely that. The best thing is that the creator has openly invited people to evaluate and post their thoughts on the game. They'll even send people free copies in advance to do this! It is bizarre that here reviewers and commenters are being squashed from one side that they're not allowed to show corruption, bias or favouritism, and then are simultaneously being pushed back to erase all feelings and be objective.

DTTS, the guy has a passion and you've already got the baton out. What the fuck has he done to deserve you laying into him? He's written about a change he'd like to see, a socially progressive change, in the medum of sci-fi, which is not at it's best when it's describing the operational range of a phaser, but exploring strange new worlds, seeking out new life and new civilisations. Sci-Fi has also been mostly a masculine treehouse for a long time too. Except Star Trek, in my experience. Space travel is taken for granted in a lot of sci-fi. Someone writes an article about transhumanism and you're offended. Read again how offended you got about an article that just existed to suggest a change. I'm emotional, what's your excuse?

I was trying to think about where this love of objectivity would come from. It's a bizarre thing to fetishise and I was a bit stuck. Then I remember that Ayn Rand was absolutely furious with most philosophers because they questioned the nature of everything and she had to put her foot down and say, "No, if I say I'm right then I'm right, A is A and I'm going to lay out the society for very smart people who are practicioners of alwaysrightism." I think she was wrong, objectivity is a bit silly, and in critical opinion it's ludicrous.

lol

Are you on drugs? Free speech means I support the right of people I disagree with to say disagreeable things. It does not mean I have to like it.

You must be absolutely out of your mind on drugs if you can't understand that the PC culture is one that attacks speech at every possible chance. They are anti-speech and anti-expression. This isn't quantum physics, this is basic basic fact. I oppose the agenda, not the utterance of said agenda.

I do not seek a government solution to put an end to speech I do not like. I do not make threats of violence toward these people. I just disagree with them.

Rewrite that entire poorly thought-out post if you want to engage me in a discussion.

TheRogerer made a game about rape simulation and someone complained it was too rapey. Now he makes games about consensual sex. What a sheep.

:D

TheRogerer made a game about a 7 year old girl with super-powers fighting a multi-national corporation and someone complained that the girl was white and was not a Lesbian. He explained that she was 7 and far too young to really know what she preferred, but he agreed to change her race to appease the critics. He made her black, but did not change the dialogue or gender influence. The critics complained that her skin color did not reflect the expected cultural norms (ie. stereotypes) and told you how insulting it is to make black people too white. The proponents of child sexuality continued to complain that she wasn't able to express her desire or experiment with her body. TheRogerer then rewrote the dialogue with a black writer, but was adamant about how the 7 year old child should not have a "sexual identity". Now with a proper PC approved protagonist the critics complain that she uses violence to overcome her attackers who are predominately male, why not just teach men not to attack young women they ask? TheRogerer, being the good progressive that he is, redesigns the game from the ground up as a way to teach violent thugs not to rape, discriminate or judge anyone at anytime for any reason. Then he includes a masturbation mini-game. GamerMagazineonline gives the game 5 stars, but nobody aside from the niche enjoys it.

The spin that we are the ones against free speech is innovative, I admit.

Not just gaming, many other groups and industries. And yes, when outsiders who don't seem to share the common interests/goals of the collective make moves against the collective under guise of improving the collective - the collective has been 'infiltrated'. Sorry if it sounds malicious but that's what it is.

Who is the collective? The developers or the audience? Because the audience is the world. How can you be an outsider to a mass produced product stacked at the door of Walmart? It is pop culture. It is multi million dollar advertising budgets. Is Arthur Gies somehow an outsider? Why is Anita Sarkeesian an outsider? She's an 18-35 tech savvy American. Am I an infiltrator?

Don't think I've seen DTTS break as much as this. He's acting like me. Polemic is everything. All the chess pieces go back in the same box.

Don't simplify what I'm saying. There are markets, demographics, niche interests. This is fact.

And when people who have little interest in the core expectations and culture of any given group, while trying to subvert it, they are outsiders. Call it a boys club. Call it a women's club. Doesn't matter.

Sarkeesian is an outsider because she doesn't know how games work, while taking what she thinks and running with it. It's not because she's a woman (we have those). It's not even because she's feminist (we have those too). It's because she doesn't know the industry. And the running theme with people like her is they take their uninformed viewership and make proclamations about what they think are problems and solutions. I can talk about why Anita is pedestrian all day; beginning with her hilariously erroneous definition of fail states and endgame goals. She wondered why you couldn't call EMTs after a person is killed in Watch_Dogs. This is not something a core gamer would say. It's not a progressive or enlightened thought. It's something somebody who doesn't understand goal progression in games would think. She showed her lack of understanding while 'critiquing' Assassins Creed as well, wondering why a mission constantly saw a villain kidnapping and killing women in one mission.

It's a soft fail state, Anita, it loops until you find a stealthy way to stop the badguy. She and her supporters may think she found a crushing example of why a game is sexist, but AssCreed players who watched her video just saw her (or whoever) play the game incorrectly.

And no; don't even think about saying she was only playing it a certain way to highlight a problem. Her argument was not the restructure of fail states - she did not understand why the game looped the challenge. I watched her videos. All of them. I would not say she doesn't know what she's talking about to slight her or belittle her argument. I'm not saying saying she's an outsider as some kneejerk reaction to a woman reviewing game mechanics. It's my conclusion. My critique of her work.

If she wants to highlight issues with games, it would behoove her to educate herself about how and why certain genres work the way they do. I hope that answer your questions.

"Acting like me" as an insult. I think you're done here, my child.

You're right. It's something a child, or an adult, or someone with something new or vital to say. I'm sure a woman watching you game has asked such a question, and I'm sure you snorted with derision. Haven't you heard there are no stupid questions? You wouldn't hear it from someone who just trudges through game after game, accepting the status quo and the contrivances again and again and again. I welcome it. Fuck this 'core gamer', he can stick his Doritos up his arse. Games are costing more and getting more and more homogenised. The Spectrum and Commodore had an unbelievable rainbow of crazy, imaginative games. I've watched it get dumber over the years.

What you think of as this 'collective' is just tribal stagnation. You know why genres become niche? Because they're no longer appealing on their own - they rely on nostalgia, habit and people who stopped expecting new things.

The defence of this sort of idea, of 'core' gamers, is something that everyone should try and break out of. I become more and more conscious of how dumb games are. Destiny feels like a peak. There are so many things in destiny that don't make any intuitive sense whatsoever. Why is this here? Because another game did it, that is an answer you'll hear again and again looking at Destiny. We're sleepwalking. Be fucking grateful that someone has the interest to question it.

I've been gaming longer than you, I typed my first code to make a game as soon as I could learn to read. If you want to play this tribe shit, then it's you that's on my turf. And I want the petty minded manchildren out of MY gaming. Except I don't really. You can play in the treehouse all you want. There will be more than enough of the same stories, over and over again, coming. Kill and kill again.

This thread use to be awesome. Now it is this :'(

I'm glad you see absolutely nothing negative about acting like TheRogerer. It really warms my heart.

Oh yes what we've been doing is trudge through game after game. We've never challenged the status quo and "contrivances" concerning game mechanics. You are correct. And by correct I mean off your rocker.

So what?

You really think games are some sort of social service, do you?

She's not questioning anything concerning game design (and certainly not intuitive options/UI... HA!). I'm starting to think you don't actually watch her videos. Hell, what you;ve said about Destiny is more informed and valid than any of her vids so far.

On the core gaming thing; how identifying groups work is you see the trends and label them after the fact. Nobody just out and said these are core gamers and these are casuals. Nor is it a hard rule - but you have to recognize trends. There are people who drop 20+hrs a week on gaming, and most of them play certain types of genres. Conversely, there are people who spend a few hours a week on games, and there's also correlation between the genres they play. If you're a game company you would be risking a great deal pretending these groups are the same because of outliers and exceptional cases, all because some people don't like that there are core gamers and casual gamers overall.

Then code yourself something that moves the industry away from us manchildren until the most profitable action is to service non-manchildren. Take it back.

And I'm not posting that last little challenge to shift the goal post, like anybody could just up and make a game. I said that, as I did with EGC about the mental illness/film thing, because that is the language of change in these industries. I feel a great many things are sub-par in certain genres. I've written some blogs and posts here about them, but these are also things that sell. At some point I know if I firmly believe something should work a certain way and it would light a fire in that genre I gotta put the damn thing together or support people who are speaking my language. Actions speak louder than words and barring that - money talks. That's why I asked if you think gaming is some kind of social service.

I'll code a JS script that hides all your posts. Outside of that, 'Do better' is empty bootstrappy rhetoric. You wrote a big article to Bungie telling them why they should put the sword in Destiny, why didn't you just make your own MMO shooter with a sword? Huh?

I don't know what you mean as a social service? I think games are entertaining but they're also generally really stupid. They put stories in these games with the purpose of making them appealing experiences and ultimately, they want my money. If they want my money then I'm allowed to make a decision on whether their story is good or bad or smart or dumb or whatever. I can write about that. I can talk about trends. I can guess as to why they wrote things this way or that. A lot of decisions are stupid, and they only appeal to an audience who don't know any better, so the whole thing becomes an echo chamber. I feel like I grew up and they didn't necessarily grow up with me. These games are sold around their story - at this point it's the only thing that differentiates many of them - so it's almost the most important thing. Is every story about a sociopath with a gun?

Dear TheRogerer,

I don't hate you. I don't think you're a bad person. I'm pretty sure you're a very generous and caring lover too.

Please, stop acting this way.

Sincerely,
DTTS

Funny you say that. :)

But I'm glad you mentioned my post (which can be found right here on my blog >>> HERE!!), because it highlights the difference between criticism and solution orientation from an informed person versus an uninformed person (why can't I ride the ambulance with hurt people in this shooting game).

I disagree with this. *sips tea*

Making games is serious business, Kal.

We must make sure that all games made are in line with the accepted social views...just like in science fiction.

Oh I know it's serious business.

I'm all about... Serious Business.

You're not allowed to say that! As a qualified insider and certified game maker I disqualify your opinion and give it the RED CARD. You're outta here!

I did not know you were a coder, though. I wonder; would you approach a game project story first or gameplay?

Both. Sometimes you have a notion that you want to communicate via the medium of gameplay. Sometimes you think 'Nobody's made anything like Cannon Fodder since Cannon Fodder'

http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/i/20...rd-d56l1hb.jpg

I feel you brother

Interesting.

When making a story do you pull out your Social justice warrior checklist or do you let it happen organically?

Stand down, private (or are you captain or whatever by now?); I was legitimately interested in what he thinks is important in game production. Doing my Prime Factors thing. We can find the source of rifts this way.

I'm the highest rank of all. Civilian.

That's gay. Tell me your damn rank, soldier.

Seriously though, I will reword my question.

Do you write a story with the intent of conveying a social message or do you write what entertains you?

Also, can you describe your reasoning for being anti-GamerGate? What is it about them that is bothering you so much?

You're going to let him talk to you like that?

I wrote a text adventure about how disappointing a life focused around 3d printers would be. I think of mechanics and story quite separately. I would say that I usually try and stick with traditional mechanics in the stuff I make for a variety of reasons, bearing in mind a lot of the reason I'm making a game is more to test and sharpen my skills, or get to grips with a certain technology. Making things happen on a screen presents a number of problems that are educational to solve. You can bung any old story in there if you want to.

If I think of a story first, then I want to tell something quite distinct that I don't think I've seen before. Papers Please is probably the best example of this I've played within the last year. That is something I wish I had made.

I like text adventures in general btw.

May I continue asking questions in the hopes that I can better understand your over-all thinking on this?

I will add to that in that a game like Papers, Please is practically perfect because the mechanics ARE the story. They are intwined in a way that places you inside that scenario and the rules of the game force decisions that match up to the scenario that the player character is in. It's not just a game about shooting that has cutscenes and audio clips giving exposition between shooting sessions.

I still have to play it. I was obsessed with text games throughout my childhood. I, Damiano is probably my favorite. Ended up finding the book it was based on when I was in high-school at a used book store.

I will deign to answer your questions, although you are an outsider. Please complete a NDA form and wear your black lanyard at all times.

Two steps ahead of you. I already filed the i983 forms and received my Press Badge.

Do you have a problem with Kalyx and the gamer gate movement? If so, why?

My short prelude answer is yes. Like all good hatred, it is a projection of personal guilt

What about Kal's position do you dislike? What would you advise the Gamer Gate people to do?

Stop shooting themselves in the foot and everyone wins. Sarkeesian's Tropes vs Videogames received a massive dose of it's funding after it was DDOSed by 4chan. She would be almost nobody if it were not for the boatloads of sympathy people end up having for her. Also any GG I meet will state that it's not about harassment or women, but when I came into this thread Kalyx was directly tweeting Anita telling her that she was wrong to feel harassed. My number 2 GGer keeps denying that it's about women but he first posted about it fuming about Zoe Quinn 'acting like a whore' and complaining, literally, about 'females in gaming'.

As I have also said, I think the supposed manifesto of gamergate is fundamentally misguided, and frankly just too silly. Also many members seem happy for a moral race to the bottom, justifying behavour by acting in the way that they disparage their enemies for. At that point, what separates you from what you hate?

Can you point me to the post where Kal told someone she was wrong to feel harassed? Who is your #2 GGer? Do you think Kal is somehow sexist?

Do you think a majority of Gamer Gate members act in a way that is unethical? How would we go about figuring out the difference between a few fringe lunatics and a significant trend here?

What do you find silly about the "manifesto"?

I am still very ignorant of "gamer gate" on account of a shoddy memory. All I have defended is Kalyx's posts here which have been extremely clear and concise. I believe in giving credit where it's due. No one, from what I have seen, has really made the case against the group, and more often than not some people in this thread have willfully ignored Kal's points and explanations just to continue feeling the way they do.

I can't make a judgement on all the members of gamergate. My experience with Adam Baldwin is that he enjoys playing the cigar chomping Reaganite and he's addicted to arguing, and serious gamergaters should probably regret his involvement because he's a big shitehawke.

I don't think Anita's videos are very good. I thought her original youtube series was interesting enough and I was curious to see what money could to do them. I was pretty disappointed with the results there.

Anyway, the real problem with GG is that a)with the best will in the world, it will never be able to separate itself from the Zoe Quinn stuff, b)it's a breeding ground for shitehawkes on both sides and c)as I say, I think talking about objectivity and journalistic ethics just has no place in something that is enthusiast press, and I really cannot shake the feeling that the core arguments about this really are a disproportionate response to radical feminism. Tumblrites and these 'SJW' people, if I must, do often have a shocking lack of perspective and are probably contributing a fair amount of shit.

If all things are equal, and nobody commited any wrongdoing, I would still be against the aims of gamergate. Trying to place this at the feet of the press, now, doesn't make any sense. Gaming press had a power over the industry and a position to abuse it in the 90s. This was in reponse to their relevance at the time. Gaming press is now less and less relevant and any consumer is in a position to completely bypass them, not only from the wide range of opinions out there, but also the opportunity to instantly watch masses of streamed footage of a game, which probably gives the best impression on it's quality without any editorial interference.

To then complain to care about a lower review score because of a personal quabble that a reviewer has:

a)tries to deny the inherent personal subjective experience of engaging these things, which you'll never be able to successfully do and so it's better to meet it head on than try to repress it
b)implies that there's some sort of dishonesty from the perspective of the reviewer
c)tries to paint the notion of the 'core' gamer being the true voice, when that's a self defeating perspective as it is
d)plays into the hands of, as I said, people putting boobs in games because it takes money out of your pocket

I say let everyone have their say. I love reading reviews of things that hate what I love. I love reading reviews that love what I hate. Let my opinion change. I go back to things I played or watched or read years ago and I look at it in a whole new light, with my experience and age. I would crumple up those old reviews I wrote. We're young and dumb.

Aside from the logical fallacy fencing and freedom of speech and what not, GamerGate is just too embroiled in the origins of attacks against women, regarding an industry that has historically been a young boys club, and that's something I've always been conscious of. Once it got onto twitter and forums, it's too hard to pin it down to anything after that. The root of it is still that it too often gets away from what it pretends to be about, and I think what it claims to be about isn't good either. It doesn't make sense. Games journalism is already defanged. It's future is to be as subjective as possible. My favourite reviewer is Tim Rogers. His reviews are about 50,000 words long and usually end up mostly talking about what he was doing in the mid 90s or how the game reminds him of playing Mario 3. He is also absurdly game intelligent and is able to dissect the experience in a way that cuts right to the core. Objectivity means nothing to a Tim Rogers review.

That seems pretty fair and concise (size withstanding). I'd like to see what Kal feels about it, but I will say a few words that I think are appropriate.

Diversity of thought is incredibly important in any organization. My favorite quote and one I used on all my email signatures at work is by Patton, "If every one is thinking alike, then someone isn't thinking."

The industry SHOULD be challenged. People should be expressing their opinions and questioning the status quo. I also believe people should be pushing back, having that public debate in the economy of ideas so that the best ones succeed and the lesser ones fade. I think a group of consumers coming together and forming a lobby (as in political lobby) is a good idea. I wish every consumer group had a lobby fighting for them right now, because as of right now it is incredibly difficult to break into gaming. Viral game hits are wonderful and all, but how many indie gamers really make anything comparable to main stream production companies (real question, I don't know).

One thing that really stands out to me is that I was asking myself the same question about the power that the game media has these days. As you pointed out, people can watch game footage on youtube and get a much better idea, much of the time, than a 3 page review as to whether or not they'll enjoy it. It'd be like if every movie that came out let people watch the first 30 minutes for free and then decide whether or not they want to pay. It'd be such a short investment of time and provide a better choice than believing that opinions of a movie critic.

Anyway, thank you TheRogerer for that explanation.

As an outsider, all I really see are the stated goals of GG vs. what they do to achieve said stated goals.

Are there serious issues with VG Journalism? Yes. Kalyx and I have both mentioned quite a few. But what how would going after game developers or critics help fix the flaws with VG Journalism? And the only Journalists again that they seem to go after are the folks who bitch about GG. How about go after the ones who kid-glove the new CoD that is at best marginally different from the old CoD? How about bitch about the companies who advertise a game showing cut-scenes or stills not used involving the game engine.

I quit really being serious about games in a very piecemeal fashion. I stand by my belief that the Skate series killed skateboarding games even more than the annualization of the Tony Hawk series did. Personally, I don't want realism. If I wanted to skateboard for real, I'd jump on a skateboard, fall off of it immediately and wear a cast on my arm for a couple of months. I really liked the music games, but that trend died off kind of quickly. I won't play another Madden game until they do a serious revamp of the engine that makes the play new and exciting. I hate FPS, and action RPGs feel really boring at the moment. Before I knew it, I wasn't really interested in playing video games anymore. (well, apart from Animal Crossing right now, but that's more boredom than anything else.) Getting old sucks. :(

I have read Kal's criticisms about that sort of thing. I want to assume that's what GG is about, but I'm happy to wait for more info.

My personal issues with games journalism, as anti-GGers I've met on Twitter have noted, seem to be much more agreeable than what GG is about. I've come across this support for my own issues with the industry so much it's made me rethink how much I participate in this mess. Not one anti-GG I had extended talks with had issue with issues I highlighted, I have noted this. The ones where me and GG meet most is journalism ethics, but honestly my personal issues are way beyond that. I consider myself a supporter still because I believe in the message.

I find myself in a weird position that some feminist may have been. Feminism says they're about equality, but their actions reek of double standards and female superiority. But what of the self identified feminist who's attachment to the name begins and ends with equality? She has nothing to do with the bint who tweeted #killallmen, or feminist groups who deny accused men rights while protecting accused women. People would say to that girl, "Equality isn't a feminist thing anyway, just believe in that and leave the baggage behind." I have said that.

So I'm in a real funny place where my own advice rears its head. I have noble intentions for the industry that people who hate GG completely agree with. I can champion the ethics in journalism, along with my more serious qualms, without considering myself GamerGate. As I said to the feminist a few weeks ago, the goal is much more important than the tag anyway.

That's where I am right now.

In a little bit I am going to respond to Rog's last big post. It's worth a reply.

I'm fine with him only as a fellow supporter of GG. I have a dislike for ever tweet he does outside of that. Love him on screen, but he's somebody I otherwise would not follow. actually, there's several people I'm only in league with by a strange bedfellows set-up. GG naturally gained the assist of conservatives because the politics being pushed back are hyper left. I'm a left guy myself, so in this bizarre thing I'm sided with people I otherwise wouldn't communicate with on a social. But I think this is a strength of a movement, if it's able to build bridges between ideologies.

And honestly; whenever something comes along and actually gets rivals to join forces, it's a huge hint that the joined forces may have some legit issues there. Righteous causes have a habit of featuring bitter rivals joined together as opposition. That's just my personal observation on history anyway.

Sad but true.

How is this a specific problem with GG? This can be an issue with any movement ever. And can GG be blamed for creating assholes on the other side?

I don't think GG wants objectivity in the sense you're thinking here. We know robots aren't writing these articles. Nobody's silly enough to mean that kind of objectivity. I don't even think GGers posit this a great deal anyway. It comes down to ethics. It was a lack of this that led to GG at the beginning, and there very simple things the journalists could have done to kill this before it started.

I don't think GG is concerned about some guy giving a low score. You are talking about the Bayo2 thing, yes? I have explained what the problem was with that piece and it had nothing to do with the score.

I wanna ask; what would the line be in your mind where something goes from pretending to being?

GG funded a feminist game jam. GG raised money for anti-bullying awareness. GG put women forward when anti-GG kept telling them to stand down and be quiet (fancy that). GG showcased the true diversity of the gaming community when anti-GG kept pushing their 'gamers are all white sexist' narrative. Every journalist who has had equal communication with both sides almost always notes how GG treated them great while anti-GG were shockingly harsh (the latest case being YTer David Packman).

At what point, to you, does this illusion of being a good cause become a good cause? Is there any action GG can take, for you, that would finally separate it from it's complicated origins (it was not about harassing a women, as somebody who seen this unfold live, but I'm done arguing this info)? Why can't you measure the good over the bad? Is it that you don't care about the lives that were improved because of us? Cancer research, female developers, people of color speaking out; are these not things you find impressive?

Vast is on the money about the hegemony of gaming mechanics and aesthetics. I'd go farther and say is kinda ruined the HD era of gaming. We'll see what this generation goes, so far so good.

I feel like I understand a lot more now. Have a good one you two.

And thank you again TheRogerer.

Um...

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>The <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/WarOnWhites?src=hash">#WarOnWhites</a> is all around you! <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/uniteblue?src=hash">#uniteblue</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/gamergate?src=hash">#gamergate</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/lorettalynch?src=hash">#lorettalynch</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/webacked?src=hash">#webacked</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/labour?src=hash">#labour</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/tcot?src=hash">#tcot</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/pjnet?src=hash">#pjnet</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/election2014?src=hash">#election2014</a> <a href="http://t.co/D8sfyjoE1D">pic.twitter.com/D8sfyjoE1D</a></p>&mdash; End Cultural Marxism (@genophilia) <a href="https://twitter.com/genophilia/status/531288244747767808">November 9, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/SQ71AVFVFdU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>What is Cultural Marxism?

See: <a href="http://t.co/2DvR8DH7IC">http://t.co/2DvR8DH7IC</a>

<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/CulturalMarxism?src=hash">#CulturalMarxism</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Marxism?src=hash">#Marxism</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/tcot?src=hash">#tcot</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ukip?src=hash">#ukip</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/edl?src=hash">#edl</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/waronwhites?src=hash">#waronwhites</a> <a href="http://t.co/pOnbYobPWQ">pic.twitter.com/pOnbYobPWQ</a></p>&mdash; End Cultural Marxism (@genophilia) <a href="https://twitter.com/genophilia/status/530512665840717824">November 7, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

wtf

"Cultural Marxism" sounds like something made up by a Neo-Nazi

Funny you say that.

I acknowledge those actions coming out of GG, and I'm not trying to discredit them, but they came at a time when GG had expanded so much that practically everyone was involved one way or another. I've taken flak for my views before but I've said that charity is often used as a modern day version of buying indulgences from the church. I won't discredit it though, just say as I did before that by this point it's really hard to define what GG even is any more.

My original GG quarrel on rajah started because I was drawn into it with the first post. It started with him posting the 'Five Guys' video, ranting about how sick he was that this whore was getting away with it and that somebody should do something. I don't particularly want to brand him with the big misogynist iron, but throughout the following weeks, when he wasn't just reposting labyrinthian composite images of twitter, he would let some really weird things about women slip out. Nobody's simple.

So I already came into this thread with my dukes up. What really posted me over the top was the link to your twitter, seeing you directly message femfreq with a pompous challenge of telling her that her suffering was relativistic and you should see how [my ebonies] have it. Whatever you think of Anita, you know how many message a second she already gets, and I felt as bad for her as I did for you getting swept up in that sort of thing. I don't think everyone sits around plotting evil, I think we get swept up in things. I don't post on twitter any more because I think it's inherently a horrible medium, and it touched me somewhat. Bloody hell, I felt uncomfortable when DTTS posted a weird article about me in the music forum, so I can only imagine what it feels like for Anita. This is the way of the world, it's fine and it's not that bad, but you did this and you labelled it #gamergate, you refer to them as 'we' and I think you should unplug from that collective. I've always felt that way, it gives people false confidence. I've apologised for throwing a few closed fists your way - at the end of the day I figure that TPWW is a closed environment so to a degree roughhousing is within context. We don't have the whole world piling on

About actual gamergate now...

I think it's too big and doesn't make sense any more. The actions of bombarding advertisers to get them to pull from gamasutra/gawker is fine in isolation, but ultimately silly too. In a way it's a sort of endorsement of advertising funded coverage by trying to police that field into something that suits your goals. However advertising funded press is the number 1 thing that's holding coverage back from being what it could be.

It reminds me of the '"'lefts'"' No To Page 3 campaign in a way. They think they're dealing a blow to feminism by taking the topless women out of newspapers, instead I think it's just a tokenistic strike agains the working class, and ultimately it says "We'll accept this paper when that's taken out!" It's a fucking Murdoch rag! The topless women are the only honest thing in the paper, they're very strict about their implant rules. Everything else in it is dodgy mass media spin, and by asking them to remove Page 3 they're endorsing them as an otherwise legitimate medium.

What was the point of that? It's hard to have a movement (especially after that pizza) that knows what it wants. Like I said, taking all negative aspects out of gamergate, if I was going to be an activist about the industry you'd more likely see me writing to publishers, not crying for coverage. We don't need to change the press at all, we don't even need to destroy them because we can ignore them.

That's without talking about how absolutely boring the constant stream of porny women in games are.

My tweets toward Anita are my tweets toward her. She's a grown woman. When you're twitter you're speaking to the world, and sometimes the world talks back. I'm sorry but she knows what she's doing and doesn't need your protection. She can block me whenever she wants.

Sorry I'll get off my steed. As Marcus Aurelius would say the victim loses nothing, it's the perp that compromises themself. Throwing shade at me doesn't change how you were acting. It wasn't good for you either.

I don't feel I've said anything out of turn. I don't need to delete anything and you're welcome to post tweets that you feel are out of line. I will defend each of them or concede if I see it's kinda wild.

We're getting into a realm of implicating me with the harassment, and if you wanna take it there I hope you're ready to discuss that.

It doesn't matter if it's harassment or not. It's not a good thing to be a part of. You wouldn't have done it if everyone else wasn't doing it.

Neither is making feminist critiques of video-games.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/LS37SNYjg8w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Every time someone tells someone else that they shouldn't exercise free speech because it isn't good for them, I am reminded how self-serving people can be.

This is an automated response to a DTTS post. Stop talking, you're being emotional. Just shut up and come back when you're speaking sense.

ok.

Kalyx, I'm not labelling you, I'm just trying to work out what was going through your head when you wrote your "ebonies and latinas" thing. Because it was as pompous as it gets. Forget her for a moment, everyone has to answer for their own actions lest they just be devolving into a game of tit for tat. Do you not think you were getting a little bit swept up in the crowd there? It's public behaviour. I regret everything in my entire life, I'm more worried if you don't think those tweets seem silly on reflection.

Tweets are silly by design. It is hard to put meaningful rational arguments into 140 characters.

Nah buddy you took it to this point and I'd like you to follow through. And it damn sure matters if it's harassment or not because if you're trying to tell me I was 'being mean'; fuck that get over it.

And I've tweeted to Anita way before GamerGate. You wanna take a look at my tweets to build a case - take a look at my tweets. Let's do this.

Nope, I stand by it.

These Bay area hipster kids are talking about how dangerous their lives are, all over non-credible threats. It is incomparable to what minority women deal with on a day to day. Not one credible threat. Nobody hurt. Ever. I was reacting to that NYC "street harassment" vid going around. I was vexed at the time, I'll admit that much.

O/T What was your take on the NYC Street Harassment video and the ensuing backlash?