Pro-Gamergate is pro-life
-
I'll field this one: how about not having a new label at all?
How would we talk about it? Answer: someone would come up with a label.
-
Darn, I had a feeling that was too easy!
-
You're still missing the point though. Far more people identify with GG than against it. That implies that less people consider it toxic than think it's important.
I'd like to know where you get your numbers from. At best, you know how many people speak out against it, not how many people consider it toxic. There are people that might disagree or see it in a negative light and simply not write about it because they have other things to do. It's generally what happens with fringe groups. People that identify with a group have more to gain from public awareness/acceptance, so they have more incentive to be vocal and a higher percentage of the group speaks up.
People that don't view the group positively don't generally have anything to win from trying to stamp it out, so there is less incentive to be vocal about a negative opinion of the group.
GG is funding womens' and anti-bullying charities.
I thought GG was about ethics in journalism? I'm sure those are worthy causes, but why are they funding unrelated things?Those against it have tried to destroy the Fine Young Capitalists, and are still trying to ignore the damage this has caused.
I don't know who that is. I'm also now confused as to what GG stands for. Is it not about journalism ethics then? What would being anti-GG (which I understood up to this point to mean that they didn't believe the issues GG raised were real) have to do with a specific group of people?suggesting abandoning the label will do nothing more than encourage more people to see it in a negative light, along with gamers in general.
Please don't exaggerate the importance of your internet pissing match. The only people that care about GG or anti-GG are the people participating in it.
-
Maybe by talking about the actual thing that is being argued? Labels aren't created to identify arguments, they are used to identify people. People talk about how terrible Discourse is without creating a #hashtagDiscourseSucks. You can talk about how Discourse sucks without needing to refer to all the other anti-Discourse people. You just point out the actual flaws in Discourse.
-
Maybe by talking about the actual thing that is being argued?
But no one is interesting in describing the whole idea every time they want to talk about an idea. They'll come up with a short hand that eventually boils down to a couple of words. This works well when people can agree what those words represent. But people with different ideas or values or motives will twist or appropriate the meaning or the label.
-
The first rumblings of this all were when a group of SJWs took negative criticism for the game Depression Quest on a site called wizardchan as harassment, and used the justification that the gamer nerd misogynists therein were scum and anti-women to attack gamers in general. The label has since shifted to those who tried to defend them.
It got amplified when The Fine Young Capitalists started an IndieGoGo campaign to support women in game development, and, when 4chan's /v/ decided that, as a measure of good faith, they would donate large amounts of money to the campaign to help counter accusations that they are anti-women. As a result, TFYC were suddenly attacked as anti-women, doxxed, and had their campaign temporarily taken down on altogether spurious charges.
The thing that caused GG to become a movement, the last straw that inflamed it, was a large number of articles written across two days from a number of gaming news sites proclaiming that 'gamers are dead' and that gamers are all misogynist. This continued to spread the narrative that GG was designed to attack women.
GG's primary focus is on journalistic ethics, but has had the constant need to fight off the argument 'but you hate women so anything you say is invalid'. So, GG makes an effort to support women and anti-bullying, as proof that they are not purely scum. It's rather horrifying to watch people try to ask the charities to stop accepting money from people who are donating because they are apparently lying.
-
Simplifying an idea and boiling it down can help when everyone involved in the conversation agrees what those words mean. But this is not the case with GG. Gamergate doesn't tell me anything about what the issue is, other than gaming related and probably a scandal (from the gate ending).
I consume a fair amount of games related media (I was even a professional game developer for a while, and it's still a hobbie of mine), and I've heard more about the drama than the supposed issue. Even after participating in this thread, I still don't know what the GG position is, and what the anti-GG position is. So clearly, GG is a poor label to introduce new people to the debate. In that light, ditching the label would probably be more constructive.
-
As far as I've been able to tell, the majority of the opposition is 'But you like videos of thunderf00t attacking Anita Sarkeesian!' and 'But GG sends hate mail and death threats anonymously!' and 'GG encourages harassment and bullying and is therefore evil'.
I'm rather unhappy with this, because the points GG generally makes make a lot of sense to me, and see a lot of unfounded claims that it is evil.
-
But this is not the case with GG.
Yes, this one has been especially appropriated and twisted. My view is that some people with an agenda (i.e., the people calling gamers misogynists, etc) are going to do everything they can to make their message heard above anyone else, and I don't think they even hear what anyone else is saying.
I still don't know what the GG position is, and what the anti-GG position is.
Sometimes I think I do, but then I read stuff and get all confused again. But I don't game so it's just an amusing diversion for me.
-
To the extent that I understand it, it hinges on these points:
- GG does not encourage harassment.
- GG wants to establish checks and balances in games media in an effort to prevent the continued promotion of games created by close friends of journalists, and people they pay Patreon support to.
- GG would really like people to stop calling all gamers 'misogynerds'
And the opposition primarily debates the first, and claims that infinite harm has come from it.
-
I wasn't aware that the Poppy symbolism was particular to the UK, that's interesting to know.
Canada uses it, too. Coaches wear them in the NHL this time of year.
-
GG does not...
The other problem is that GG isn't, like, a particular organization. It's like saying, "The Tea Party." It's a bunch of people. Maybe some organizations are using the label (probably with different levels of legitimacy) but really people going around doing their own things.
-
It's like the difference between "ISIS" and "terrorists"
-
GG also is generally against having leadership for the movement, because they don't want to suffer the fate of Occupy.
-
They're already better than Occupy (aside from IMNSHO having a clue about what they're upset about). How many public areas have GG supporters shat upon?
-
From the tone of the opposition, apparently all of them. Every single public area.
-
GG would really like people to stop calling all gamers 'misogynerds'
Ah, I see what the problem is. There are two kinds of people that don't like to be called "misogynerds". People that deserve to be called that, and people that don't. As a consequence, your "movement" appeals to both, and since you don't have any sort of filter (essentially, anyone that identifies with GG "belongs" to GG), you're in the unfortunate position of standing with the same guys you don't want to be identified as.Gamers reflect the society they live in. There are going to be asshole gamers just as there are assholes in every other group of people. Trying to argue "we're not all like that" just highlights the ones that are. And turning it into a movement just legitimizes the opposing side. Instead of it being a bunch of morons screaming at the internet, there's now a "debate".
-
There are two kinds of people that don't like to be called "misogynerds". People that deserve to be called that, and people that don't.
I think you have to appreciate the irony of people who scream about gender stereotypes by stereotyping gamers, though. That's just genius.
-
Not just that. They also *le gasp* gender stereotype gamers as white male MRAs.
-
Thanks. That's a clearer way of saying what I was trying to say.
-
There are going to be asshole gamers just as there are assholes in every other group of people.
That's what pretty much every pro-GG person on Youtube has been trying to get across.
I think you have to appreciate the irony of people who scream about gender stereotypes by stereotyping gamers, though. That's just genius.
And that.
Not just that. They also le gasp gender stereotype gamers as white male MRAs.
And that.
Search #NotYourShield, a GG tag spread by non-white-male GG members.
-
Is this the same as the lame-ass Million Masks March (MMM)? Basically there was one (group)people with issue X and then a whole load of people came along with issue Y, Z, A, B and of cause issue C.
To the point that the public regular journalists etc can't really say what the issue is about because they are used to black and white issues.
-
What it is, essentially, is that the movement, which contains people of pretty much every description who want to talk about games journalism, is being written off as 'white male MRAs' as aliceif so succinctly put it, and any attempt to say otherwise is labeled as an attempt excuse harassment.
But as hard as they try to write it off, they are failing, and positive results are happening, which only weakens their position.
-
'white male MRAs'
While you guys are getting off my lawn, know that when I hear MRA I think of the guys working to change divorce laws. I'm not really sure what all it's come to mean these days.
-
That's what pretty much every pro-GG person on Youtube has been trying to get across.
That's something that anyone that's not an idiot already knows, and you won't be able to convince idiots because they are idiots.Search #NotYourShield, a GG tag spread by non-white-male GG members.
You realize at this point it feels as though the movement spends more time justifying it's own existence than actually pushing it's agenda, right?Also, the other position about games journalism is never going to be successful, because people (including the ones supporting GG) are cheap, want free entertainment, and don't have attention spans. Simply put, the people who run the games sites need to eat. Since no one is going to pay a subscription to a games site, that means their revenue streams are advertisement, merchandise, and premium content. And because people are cheap, as posited earlier, advertisement composes the bigger share.
Journalists need advertisement, and the companies making the games need to advertise. The problem with your movement is that you think there's a conflict of interest in this relationship. However, the only people whose interests are not being served is the public's. To the extent that there is a conflict of interest, it's in the public supporting a system that doesn't serve them.
The way to fix journalism is not to set "checks and balances". Pay a subscription so that your news source doesn't rely on advertisement and you'll be able to demand quality. So long as gamers flock to free sites, they'll be served garbage.
-
You can talk about how Discourse sucks without needing to refer to all the other anti-Discourse people. You just point out the actual flaws in Discourse.
And then you get labeled as a Discohater.
-
Also, the other position about games journalism is never going to be successful, because people (including the ones supporting GG) are cheap, want free entertainment, and don't have attention spans. Simply put, the people who run the games sites need to eat. Since no one is going to pay a subscription to a games site, that means their revenue streams are advertisement, merchandise, and premium content. And because people are cheap, as posited earlier, advertisement composes the bigger share.
Journalists need advertisement, and the companies making the games need to advertise. The problem with your movement is that you think there's a conflict of interest in this relationship. However, the only people whose interests are not being served is the public's. To the extent that there is a conflict of interest, it's in the public supporting a system that doesn't serve them.
The way to fix journalism is not to set "checks and balances". Pay a subscription so that your news source doesn't rely on advertisement and you'll be able to demand quality. So long as gamers flock to free sites, they'll be served garbage.
There's only one problem with this: the sources that are subscription-based (such things exist!) still suffer from this, badly.
-
You're missing out on two main things:
- These are gamers. Gamers have very long attention spans. Gamers include people willing to play EVE Online. Gamers also tend to enjoy winning, and are good at it.
- Most of these free news sites make all their money from ad revenue. GG is going straight to the sponsors to deal with this, and it is working.
You can keep saying that all of this is ineffective and should die off, but you'll be completely ignoring reality.
-
I said it lets you demand quality, not that they'll deliver it :P
Gamers also tend to enjoy winning, and are good at it.
Bull. By definition, for there to be a person that wins another must lose. So at best you get a 1:1 relation between people that are good at winning and people that aren't.I'm skeptical of any movement, especially one without clear leadership or direction. That doesn't mean I think people shouldn't participate. Have fun, knock yourselves out. I just personally don't think anything will come of it. If I'm proven wrong, good for me. I get to enjoy the benefits without any of the costs.
-
http://www.ojr.org/ojr/ethics/1049994303.php
From 2003. Title- "Ethics in Video game journalism"
-
Bull. By definition, for there to be a person that wins another must lose. So at best you get a 1:1 relation between people that are good at winning and people that aren't.
That's rather hilarious. People actually do win at games like Castlevania. All games are not multiplayer. All gamers do not play multiplayer games. Not all multiplayer games are competitive.
-
People actually do win at games like Castlevania.
You don't "win" at games like Castlevania. You finish them. There's no fail condition other than not bothering to finish them, and if you look at game statistics, many people don't even bother to finish games (one reason developers feel justified in not polishing endings).
And if you still want to count victories against AI, for example, you should count as losing every time you need to reload. I'm sure very few people reliably win Castlevania on a single try. Being allowed infinite retries to accomplish a goal does not mean you are good at winning when you finally accomplish it.
-
Castle of Illusion is the one where you lose every time.
-
You seem to be trying to make a different point than me.
Gamers learn the rules of a game until they can do it perfectly. No, not everyone does speedruns. Not everyone posts '100% no damage perfect S-rank' plays on Youtube. But of those that do, 100% are gamers.
-
Well, most people that play games don't play them until they master them. Many don't even finish them (I have some unfinished games in my steam library, and a ton I haven't even started :P). You're now trying to redefine gamer to exclude everyone that isn't a "winner", which makes your previous statement a tautology; "Winners enjoy winning, and are good at it".
My point was to point out that you were engaging in pointless self-aggrandizing with a bit of teasing. Since you decided to defend the position, you've had to redefine winning (and I disagree with the definition you've offered, that mastery of a system makes you a winner) and gamer (I also don't agree with your redefinition of gamer to exclude people that don't seek mastery)
-
I'm not saying what you think I'm saying. I'm not saying that all gamers do seek complete mastery, just that they are more likely to. The compulsion is, as far as I know, much weaker for everyone else.
'All who seek total mastery in games are gamers' does not imply 'All who don't are not gamers'.
-
I wonder how much SJWs actually makes things worse.
Some time ago I got pointed to the Tropes Vs. Women so I watched some of the videos. And many of the points are good. But there is this part which mentions various games that had characters of indeterminate gender (animals, birds, fictional species, aliens, blobs, etc.). So they didn't really underrepresent any gender and race. But then they got this great idea that they have to represent women, so they added a totally clichéd female character and actually started discriminating rather than ended. They'd never get that idea without the SJW pressure.
I am not saying discrimination didn't or doesn't exist, just that some efforts may not actually be helping.
-
Movie Bob deserves a kick in the teeth for using a four-pixel-high font.
-
Canada uses it, too. Coaches wear them in the NHL this time of year.
Pretty much everyone in polite society (and this being Canada, that's most of us) wear them. It's for Remembrance Day, as the day that WWI ended.
Something along the lines of "At the 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month, we Remember."
-
I wonder how much SJWs actually makes things worse.
I wonder how many Autistic Spectrum Disorder types are actually discriminated against by SJWs. Essentially, a lot of tech companies and places that are considered "hostile" to women are "safer" places for those with social disorders. They have often just created their own language that's impenetrable by normal social types.
So now that those with social disorders are finding a way to positively contribute to the world and not be marginalized, they are being marginalized and barred from contributing to world in the name of "fairness."
Knowing quite a few ASD types, I really don't have any patience for SJWs.
-
As a married, white male with a college education, I'm fine SJWs being marginalized.
-
Okay good.
Now it's the autists (including aspergerers to keep things interesting) vs the women (including warriors or whatever).
That's what I call thread progress.
-
@created_just_to_disl said:
That's what I call thread progress.
My main point being is that the SJWs are not actually able to follow through on their mission without marginalizing someone, and doing an injustice to someone.
The world is unfair. It's fairly fair in the West, but it's still unfair at times, and that's how it's going to stay, whosoever it happens to be unfair to. At least ASD types aren't being killed off as children anymore though, so that's progress.
-
I just had a scary thought - what if an autist was a woman. What would the resulting combination even be like?!
-
Funny how I never actually limited ASD or any social disorder to males only. Someone's prejudices are showing.
-
I've noticed that SJWs have created their own social hierarchy that is a mirror image of the present social hierarchy (i.e. the least privileged in life are the most revered in their eyes). It's delightfully hypocritical, coming from a group that purports to be champions of social justice.
Also, any statement involving privilege pretty much boils down to an argumentum ad hominem. It's a shame that these people are so loud and getting so much attention.
'But you like videos of thunderf00t attacking Anita Sarkeesian!'
thunderf00t makes some good points.
I tire of Sarkeesian's bloviating. But she should be able to bloviate freely without threats on her life, in an environment where each side's arguments are not confined to 140 characters.
I think Maddox has the ultimate solution:
Quick Rant - The solution to sexism In video games! | Maddox – 02:21
— Maddox
-
The compulsion is, as far as I know, much weaker for everyone else.
Oh, you're just plain wrong then. The desire to be better at something has nothing to do with video games. People who like music and play an instrument follow the same pattern as people that want to be good at video games. So do people that practice sports. And people that fix cars. And anyone who is in any way invested in their hobby, whatever that hobby is. It's how humans are wired. Even science is just that same impulse aimed at an useful purpose.My main point being is that the SJWs are not actually able to follow through on their mission without marginalizing someone, and doing an injustice to someone.
SJWs mission is only to feel better about themselves and gain status among other SJWs. There's only so much that "raising awareness" can do to help a situation. At some point you have to care enough to get your hands dirty and actually fix things. SJWs want other people to fix things and only focus on pissing on everyone else, taking advantage of the supposed "higher moral ground" to shield themselves. As most people on the internet, the best you can do is ignore them.For example, in the case of sexism in games, the solution to that is to buy non-sexist games. There are plenty, they're just not made by big publishers with gigantic launch campaigns. But if the non-sexist games were making money, the publishers would copy them because that's their entire business model: copy success. SJWs would do more for their cause by advertising good games than by denouncing bad ones, but trolling gets more of a reaction and is free.
-
-
Barack Obama: "I'm a single mom and at the end of the month it's reallyhard for me to pay the bills." (starts around 1:15)
-
Spelling Justice Warrior
