I have a question about Gamergate

[Kalyx triaD]

On the upside, it's interesting where we get support from. Here's feminist Christina Sommers:

[The Rogerer]

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD Her making a post like is that is a parody of why feminism has the image issue it has, and it puts her in opposition of people much smarter than her. She's playing big girl games now and her reputation will crumble now that she chose to elevate herself beyond talking down to gamers. In the forum of ideas you can't just say damning things about any group of people without some damn good backup, and her worst trait is her dishonest research. I'm very happy she said what she said. And your cute thing about burden of proof and hotlinks doesn't change the fact that she went overbaord.

Where's your reputation? Please punch holes in the relationship between violent crime and males. Go right ahead. You don't even have to cite sources. Just do it. It's an open goal. Let's have it. FINISH HER. All you have to do is post the explanation. It's right there Kalyx. Come on. You can do it.

[Inadequacy]

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD Her (or Jon, I guess) ideology has been shown to be ultimately anti-artistic freedom, with thinly veiled shaming as icing on the cake for anyone who tries to engage her. It's so formulaic that a documentary is being made to focus on how she and other SJW/Feminists conduct themselves when called on their arguments/actions.

Are you referring to the documentary that Davis Aurini needs 15,000 dollars a month to make?

[Vastardikai]

[Kalyx triaD]

Originally Posted by Inadequacy Are you referring to the documentary that Davis Aurini needs 15,000 dollars a month to make?

Yeah they have some interesting guests planned.

[El Capitano Gatisto]

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD Her making a post like is that is a parody of why feminism has the image issue it has, and it puts her in opposition of people much smarter than her. She's playing big girl games now and her reputation will crumble now that she chose to elevate herself beyond talking down to gamers. In the forum of ideas you can't just say damning things about any group of people without some damn good backup, and her worst trait is her dishonest research. I'm very happy she said what she said. And your cute thing about burden of proof and hotlinks doesn't change the fact that she went overbaord.

She only has a reputation because "gamers" couldn't handle her quite legitimate criticism about games and the way they portray females. In mainstream terms, culturally, she's a nobody precisely because gaming is largely still portrayed as a niche pursuit indulged by teenage nerds and over-grown man-children in their dark bedrooms. Even whether you agree her criticism is legitimate or not, the response to it effectively supports the fact that gaming as an art form or form of media, whichever way you see it, is far too immature to be seen as "mainstream" at this point. There won't be the media crackdown you expect against Anita Sarkeesian because the only people who care about what she says are you and the other overly-sensitive misogynists she antagonises. The response from her detractors will be the same whatever she says and her career as a talking head exists only in opposition to the bone-headed morons who react the most. In fact, throwing this embarrassing behaviour into sharp focus is a good thing. Her remark on males and male culture being mainly responsible for gun violence in the US is not even remotely controversial.

I don't consider myself a "gamer" but someone who has played games my whole life, just as I have watched films and listened to music my whole life. I don't take criticism of games personally, in other words, by someone who takes the time to at least analyse them.

[El Capitano Gatisto]

I have ever once seen any GamerGate person satisfactorily explain how a personal hissy fit from a journalist about an independent games developer has really led to a campaign about journalistic ethics. Taking your cue from a total fuckwit like Adam Baldwin isn't a good start.

[Hanso Amore]

I still love that these fags think game journalism is...journalism. It's fags reviewing games. It's opinions at its core.

Loser fag video gamers trying to justify their actions and pretend they have anything worth living for.

[Hanso Amore]

The fact that this five guys burgers and fries name or topic was ever even involved shows this is just a sophomoric farce. People living in a false world.

[road doggy dogg]

Originally Posted by MatthewAllenHanso I still love that these fags think game journalism is...journalism. It's fags reviewing games. It's opinions at its core. Loser fag video gamers trying to justify their actions and pretend they have anything worth living for.

This is why I'm having a difficult time seeing the "message" here.

I'm probably in the small minority with this, but the way I view reviews is that they are entirely subjective. A review, be it of a movie, book, album, or game, is by definition subjective. You are giving YOUR OPINION on how good a piece of work is. Sure, you have the context of its contemporaries to compare it to, but really what a review is is one person's voice on why they did or didn't like the game.

The whole argument against the Bayonetta 2 review, for example, is "why are you putting your personal thoughts about sexism into the review?" My counter to that is, why WOULDN'T you? I had this discussion with a friend the other day. I could see the issue if said reviewer was inconsistent in their review process. If, say, someone was very close-to-the-vest with their reviews normally and only commented on objective benchmarks as often as possible, then suddenly went up on their soapbox to decry how the game is sexist and lowered the score because of that, I could see people being annoyed at bad "journalism" (opinion piece, remember) because of the inconsistency in the review process.



Now, I also understand that most people are fucking morons and treat reviews as gospel, and if a site like IGN gives a game a 7/10 as opposed to a 9.5/10 that can have a real, legitimate effect on the number of sales that game makes. That's unavoidable so long as moronic consumers are willing to let someone else tell them what games to play. The problem lies in that people need to take reviews less seriously and focus less on some stupid arbitrary number and read the content of the review to understand why the reviewer came to that conclusion, then decide at that point if they agree and then if they choose to buy the game as a result.


Anyway whatever, tangential post.

[El Capitano Gatisto]

My favourite film reviewer, Mark Kermode, always talks about problematic themes in films like misogyny, poor portrayal of females or foreigners or other non-white North American male characters, exploitative use of animals etc. where these are present in films. I appreciate hearing about it, that's why I listen to him. These are also problems in films and TV and it's commonly pointed out by critics. Games should be no different. Flagging up an ogling, over-sexualised view of a female protagonist in a game is no less a valid criticism than talking about the gameplay. This is an example of "gamers" needing to grow up.

[Emperor Smeat]

Adobe clarified allegations of them supporting Gamergate and stated the removal of their ads from Gawker was because of a different reason instead. Originally they wanted nothing to do with either side but felt being silent was hurting them more in the end.

Originally Posted by Adobe's official blog A quick recap, in case you haven’t followed it: A Gawker reporter posted a series of tweets that appeared to condone bullying of gamers. We were mistakenly listed as an advertiser on the Gawker website (which we are not), so we asked Gawker to remove our logo (which they did). However, as a result of our logo having appeared on the Gawker website, we received tweets that accused us of condoning bullying. One of our employees innocently responded to one of these tweets saying we don’t advertise on Gawker, that we asked them to remove our logo and that we don’t condone bullying. Unfortunately, that tweet was perceived to support Gamergaters and created a firestorm on Twitter.

https://blogs.adobe.com/conversation...-backfire.html

"Unfortunately, that tweet was perceived to support Gamergaters and created a firestorm on Twitter," Adobe wrote. A few sentences later, Adobe cut to the chase: "We are not and have never been aligned with Gamergate. We reject all forms of bullying, including the harassment of women by individuals associated with Gamergate."

http://arstechnica.com/business/2014...ate-statement/

[Savio]

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD

This is sexist.

[El Capitano Gatisto]

No it isn't. Sexism is discrimination or prejudice based on gender. What Anita Sarkeesian is doing is using twitter to offer a cultural explanation for why men commit more mass shootings and probably trolling gamer nerds who trip on her every word while she's at it. She may very well be incorrect in that reasoning, but she's not being sexist.

[Raven Reaper]

Originally Posted by El Capitano Gatisto No it isn't. Sexism is discrimination or prejudice based on gender. What Anita Sarkeesian is doing is using twitter to offer a cultural explanation for why men commit more mass shootings and probably trolling gamer nerds who trip on her every word while she's at it. She may very well be incorrect in that reasoning, but she's not being sexist.

How about Toxic Femininity? Would that be sexist too?



Hahaha.

[Heisenberg]

Originally Posted by Raven Reaper How about Toxic Femininity? Would that be sexist too? Hahaha.

Hey, check it out. *drops mic*

[Heisenberg]

[Raven Reaper]

Originally Posted by El Capitano Gatisto No it isn't. Sexism is discrimination or prejudice based on gender. What Anita Sarkeesian is doing is using twitter to offer a cultural explanation for why men commit more mass shootings and probably trolling gamer nerds who trip on her every word while she's at it. She may very well be incorrect in that reasoning, but she's not being sexist.

[Heisenberg]

I beg to differ Triple Reap, get your ass back in the ring and explain yourself!! Nobody is going to cut a promo on ECG and easily get away with it. Last week on TPWW I RKO'ed your post to the ground. I deserve a shot at the next KOTF. I'm not going to get upstaged again, no way shitstain.

I am Heisenberg, I am Borderline Jesus

[Savio]

Originally Posted by road doggy dogg This is why I'm having a difficult time seeing the "message" here. I'm probably in the small minority with this, but the way I view reviews is that they are entirely subjective. A review, be it of a movie, book, album, or game, is by definition subjective. You are giving YOUR OPINION on how good a piece of work is. Sure, you have the context of its contemporaries to compare it to, but really what a review is is one person's voice on why they did or didn't like the game. The whole argument against the Bayonetta 2 review, for example, is "why are you putting your personal thoughts about sexism into the review?" My counter to that is, why WOULDN'T you? I had this discussion with a friend the other day. I could see the issue if said reviewer was inconsistent in their review process. If, say, someone was very close-to-the-vest with their reviews normally and only commented on objective benchmarks as often as possible, then suddenly went up on their soapbox to decry how the game is sexist and lowered the score because of that, I could see people being annoyed at bad "journalism" (opinion piece, remember) because of the inconsistency in the review process. Now, I also understand that most people are fucking morons and treat reviews as gospel, and if a site like IGN gives a game a 7/10 as opposed to a 9.5/10 that can have a real, legitimate effect on the number of sales that game makes. That's unavoidable so long as moronic consumers are willing to let someone else tell them what games to play. The problem lies in that people need to take reviews less seriously and focus less on some stupid arbitrary number and read the content of the review to understand why the reviewer came to that conclusion, then decide at that point if they agree and then if they choose to buy the game as a result. Anyway whatever, tangential post.

I thought Gamer Gate was more about having game reviews not influenced by outside sources (The publishers, Doritos, Fuck Buddy of the reviewer) and not the whole sexism thing, I thought that was 2 different topics all together.

[Savio]

Originally Posted by El Capitano Gatisto No it isn't. Sexism is discrimination or prejudice based on gender. What Anita Sarkeesian is doing is using twitter to offer a cultural explanation for why men commit more mass shootings and probably trolling gamer nerds who trip on her every word while she's at it. She may very well be incorrect in that reasoning, but she's not being sexist.

If instead of saying this:

Not a coincidence it’s always men and boys committing mass shootings. The pattern is connected to ideas of toxic masculinity in our culture.

She said this:

Not a coincidence it’s always Blacks and Hispanics committing crimes. The pattern is connected to ideas of ghetto mentality in our culture.

would that not be considered racist?

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner.

[Raven Reaper]

Originally Posted by Savior If instead of saying this: She said this: would that not be considered racist?

[Vastardikai]

Originally Posted by Savior I thought Gamer Gate was more about having game reviews not influenced by outside sources (The publishers, Doritos, Fuck Buddy of the reviewer) and not the whole sexism thing, I thought that was 2 different topics all together.

It depends on who is doing the talking. At least with Kalyx, I can feel he believes in the former, to an extent. I have gotten the vibe from certain other people, they've posted a bit in this thread, they use the former as a justification to do the latter.

For instance, why are the main people the Gamergaters going after are the developers, and not the journalists?

[Kalyx triaD]

Who are the 'main people'?

It's been gaming press companies mostly.

[Kalyx triaD]

Like, what would 'going after' even mean in regard to Quinn, Fish, and Wu? For what? They certainly come up often but what they do isn't important in the bigger scheme of things.

[El Capitano Gatisto]

Originally Posted by Savior If instead of saying this: She said this: would that not be considered racist?

It could be suggested it is because you (not her) used the term "ghetto mentality." Ghetto itself is an antiquated racist term. It was utterly inevitable that you would exchange the original terms for one referring to race to hope to make your point, but you changed the entire emphasis while you were doing it. I'd like to think Anita Sarkeesian would be a bit more nuanced than you when making a statement like that.

[road doggy dogg]

Originally Posted by Savior I thought Gamer Gate was more about having game reviews not influenced by outside sources (The publishers, Doritos, Fuck Buddy of the reviewer) and not the whole sexism thing, I thought that was 2 different topics all together.

Hence why I indicated that that post was only tangentially related (seemed a fitting place to put it)

[El Capitano Gatisto]

Originally Posted by Raven Reaper How about Toxic Femininity? Would that be sexist too? Hahaha.

Always read a study yourself before believing the nice pie charts. That is an interesting finding, but one that offers no general insight into the argument you are trying to make. The authors of the study can outline this themselves:

There are several limitations of this work. The first set centers around the measures of partner violence. All measures were assessed using only participant reports about their own perpetration of violence and that of their partners. The data are thus subject to all the biases and limitations inherent to this form of data collection, such as recall bias, social desirability bias, and reporting bias. Regarding reporting biases, there has been much discussion of whether there are differences in reported IPV by the gender of the reporter. A meta-analysis of the reliability of the conflict tactics scale concluded that there is evidence of underreporting by both genders, and that underreporting may be greater for men,34 for more severe acts of IPV.21 It would have been ideal to collect violence data from both partners, but those data were not collected from the full Add Health sample. A second measurement issue pertains to the scope of violence measures. The 3 questionsincluded in the Add Health study do not capture all forms of violence that occur between relationship partners, including many of the more severe forms of partner violence on the Conflict Tactics Scale (e.g., used a knife or gun, choked, or burned). Questions about emotional, verbal, psychological, or sexual aggression were also not included. Similarly, only a single item assessed injury to victims and it focused on injury frequency and excluded injury severity and whether medical attention was needed or sought. Thus, it is unclear whether the data presented here would be similar had the violence and injury assessment been more thorough or if different forms of violence had been measured and analyzed separately. Perhaps more important than the limited measures of violence and injury is the fact that no data were collected about the causes or function of violence. Such data are needed to understand why relationships with reciprocal violence are more violent and more likely to result in injury. We speculated that retaliation may lead to escalating violence and injury, but data are needed to examine this hypothesis. Future studies should focus on the causes and context of reciprocal and nonreciprocal IPV. Another limitation is that the Add Health study obtained partner violence data primarily about relationships considered to be important as defined by the Add research team. Thus, it is not clear how this selection bias may have impacted the findings—that is, whether the findings would be the same with a fuller sample of relationships. However, our findings are consistent with previous research on other samples that have shown reciprocal partner violence is fairly common with adolescents11 and with broader populations.8,9 Finally, as noted, the data collected were part of a nationally representative sample selected when participants were in middle and high school. The use of a nationally representative sample greatly increases the generalizability of the findings, but this particular sample is of limited range in age (18–28 years) and likely does not include the most severely abused victims who are subjected to extreme control by their partners and may be unable or unwilling to participate in research.22

Apologies for the formatting, I have copied that from the study. It is a common tactic for smarmy internet sites to cherry-pick study findings from academia and employ colourful pie charts to try to make some sort of wider point. When you look at the methods of this study, all of those limitations are obvious, which is why the authors have stated them.

[Big Vic]

You are wrong ECG, it doesn't matter if ghetto mentality, or thug mentality or whatever was plugged in there.

Saying "It's always *this group of people* that does *this bad thing*" is prejudicial. It doesn't matter what hypothesis she put there afterwards.

[El Capitano Gatisto]

Originally Posted by Big Vic You are wrong ECG, it doesn't matter if ghetto mentality, or thug mentality or whatever was plugged in there. Saying "It's always *this group of people* that does *this bad thing*" is prejudicial. It doesn't matter what hypothesis she put there afterwards.

Incorrect. Only if it is not "always" men or boys committing these mass shootings would it be prejudicial. I suppose you could quibble the use of "always" if you wanted to be anal in an effort to try to pin the "sexist" label on her, but it is, essentially, males who commit these acts of violence with some rare exceptions. Her point also, is not that males are inherently more violent but that problematic social ideas of masculinity are responsible. She doesn't say "masculine culture" is responsible, which would be the analogous term to using the racial terms you are using, she says "toxic ideas of masculinity" and of "manhood" which is completely different. This should be obvious, but the desperation to pin hypocritic bigotry on a social commentator who is making uncomfortable arguments is always more appealing than actually examining the argument she is making. Even if she was sexist, she would still have a point about mass shootings.

[Big Vic]

The word "always" makes it sexist though, if she replaced "always" with "emotionally troubled" it would have made it better.

[road doggy dogg]

what

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

Also why is she trying to equate sexism to why shootings occur? Isn't it usually just being bullied or some sort of isolation or mental illness? Seems like she's just grasping at straws because she wants to make some grand point that falls way short.

It's a two-way street for parenting. If parenting has anything to do with it. Trying to blame it all on the men is sexist. Just because males commit the violence doesn't mean sexism has anything to do with it. She's nothing more than another person blaming "rock music" or "rap lyrics." A Full of shit, opportunistic, liar.

[Heisenberg]

she is somebody's daughter and until you've walked a mile in her heels I suggest laying off the threats to her life

[road doggy dogg]

This thread is becoming fantastically derailed with all sorts of ridiculousness.

[Big Vic]

Originally Posted by SlickyTrickyDamon Also why is she trying to equate sexism to why shootings occur? Isn't it usually just being bullied or some sort of isolation or mental illness? Seems like she's just grasping at straws because she wants to make some grand point that falls way short. It's a two-way street for parenting. If parenting has anything to do with it. Trying to blame it all on the men is sexist. Just because males commit the violence doesn't mean sexism has anything to do with it. She's nothing more than another person blaming "rock music" or "rap lyrics." A Full of shit, opportunistic, liar.

I don't think she is blaming sexism. I think what she is saying is that the men and boys play the video games (or watch the action movies) and want to act it out in real life.

[El Capitano Gatisto]

Originally Posted by Big Vic The word "always" makes it sexist though, if she replaced "always" with "emotionally troubled" it would have made it better.

What are you on about?

"Always" only makes it sexist if you're trying to make a boring semantic argument about whether "always" means 100% of the time vs 99% of the time. Either way her argument is true that the vast majority of mass shootings are carried out by males and if you start quibbling it with exceptions, you're only really strengthening her argument by highlighting the massive gender discrepancy.

[El Capitano Gatisto]

Originally Posted by Big Vic I don't think she is blaming sexism. I think what she is saying is that the men and boys play the video games (or watch the action movies) and want to act it out in real life.

She didn't say anything about games in those tweets. Where have you got this from? Were there further tweets where she blamed games for mass shootings?

She clearly states she feels sexist ideas are behind it, makes no mention of games, yet you say here she is not blaming sexism and is blaming games.

[drave]

Originally Posted by road doggy dogg This thread is becoming fantastically derailed with all sorts of ridiculousness.

Kinda like the whole "movement". Honestly feel as if it has become a parody of itself.