What the Daily WTF?

Cartman seems to be doing the linking, so I'll leave that to him.

Nice try.

But you still haven't cited your claim about video games encouraging violent rape. And Cartman said he's never heard of that before.

The ball is still in your court, you little weasel.

I am not nearly as stupid as you seem to think I am.

Magus

The ball is still in your court, you little weasel.

So I'm a liar and a weasel now. I get that you only communicate through insults, but can you not? I've been respectful of you this whole time, and all you've done is make up false things about me. Believe my reasons for not linking yet or not.

I am not nearly as stupid as you seem to think I am.

I haven't called you stupid, or implied that you are, yet you still treat me as if I am. Why?

When did you have to worry about that?

When certain people were able to win indie game competitions because they were friends of judges and slept with the people reporting on their stuff. That can probably still happen, but it'd at least be harder to get away with now.

CreatedToDislikeThis

This is too good, please stop.

tarunik

The current climate of 'accusation == proof' is rather awful, and I hope we're able to kill it off at least somewhat, and soon.

Yeah -- some people need to be hit over the head with a gigantic gavel labeled DUE PROCESS, MORON! After all the appropriate hearings, of course.

blakeyrat

So I'm a liar and a weasel now.

Yeah you get respectively worse every time you reply to this thread but neglect to cite your shit. You liar.

I've been respectful of you this whole time,

No, you haven't. You lied to me. I challenged you to provide some evidence, but you've been doing nothing but dodging the question. Note you're still dodging it.

That is not "respectful".

When certain people were able to win indie game competitions because they were friends of judges and slept with the people reporting on their stuff.

Seriously?

So nobody's stopping you from completing your game or making it fun. But you're terrified of a hypothetical scenario (and I want to re-iterate: you used the word "terrified") where your game is entered into a competition and someone else in the competition does a sexual favor for a judge and your game as a result loses the competition?

That is the terrifying thing?

You must be living the World's Most Sheltered Life. Goddamned. I was strangled to near-unconsciousness last year by a 6'3" ex-Marine, but you're terrified of possibly losing a hypothetical contest in a hypothetical future.

s73v3r

I think the point is that, if the people claiming "critical discourse" of your works were surrounded by thousands of people calling for you to be raped, killed, and any other unpleasant things to happen to you, you'd probably just ignore the whole lot. And I can't say I blame anyone for doing just that.

s73v3r

You are free to wade through the mountain of triceratops droppings to find the poison berry all you want. Most people, however, have a limit to how much bullshit they will tolerate, and once that's exceeded, will simply turn off the fountain.

Magus

but you're terrified of possibly losing a hypothetical contest in a hypothetical future.

I'm terrified that I will lose my career because someone lied about something I make. The worst such a competition would result in is me being ignored, which would be horribly unfair, but not the end of the world. I'm a programmer, I can find work.

I'm only worried about it at all because of the precedent that we're supposed to ignore because idiots sent the person rape threats afterward.

blakeyrat

I'm terrified that I will lose my career because someone lied about something I make.

Making games is your day job?

Ho boy.

Tell me the name of that sucker, so I can pro-actively add it to my "Blakeyrat Plays Indies" playlist.

xaade

I've never seen a "serious and respectful refutation" of any of the arguments put forward by Anita Sarkeesian.

How about the fact that she points to games where actions can equally be performed against male and female, and then says, look there's a man assaulting a woman....
... sexism.

How about the fact that Laura Croft has went from model to badass, and now she says the producers of the game really want Laura to be a man and don't admit it.

My interpretation is that sexism will exist for as long as Anita needs it for getting the attention she wants. Because without her, we are unable to perceive the sexism!!!! And that's where the respect ends, because I can't bring myself to respect a woman that is dishonest in her portrayal of video games.

Does that mean there is no sexism in video games?

No it does not.

What it means is that the sexism in videogames is not an epidemic, and some games are better off not having more attention drawn to them, if the problem is that those games are SEXIST!!!

If "critical discourse" of my works were basically a constant river of rape threats, I'd probably block them too. So a tiny bit of the stuff I blocked is a false-positive? Well, sorry I guess.

What was that feminist that attacked a Muslim man's home because she didn't like his criticism of her ideas, then later argued that American Sniper was a threat to Muslims. It's hilarious. I've only linked it about twice.

If you think being threatened is validation of your argument, then do I have a list of victims for you. We're in for a paradox, because about every argument gets bomb threats on both sides.

These guys are heros!

Why is it that I either side with Anita, or I side with rapists.

Fuck the stereotypes....

I'm my own person.

I don't agree with either Anita, or rape threateners(?)!!!!

More or less ridiculous and disrespectful than making rape threats

Ok, this is pointless.

Anybody that disagrees with her is going to get a wall full of rape threats thrown back at them.

It's almost as if that is proof that the people making these rape theats against Anita Sarkeesian are misogynists!

How many people are making the threats, compared to how many people are in GG?

You're going to let the actions of 1% control the narrative and validate whatever side you want, without providing good arguments for the shit being poured down everyone's throats.

How about, if feminists want non-sexist games, they make them.
And please do that without fucking men for good reviews. That would be helpful.

blakeyrat

How about the fact that she points to games where actions can equally be performed against male and female, and then says, look there's a man assaulting a woman....... sexism.

Cite?

How about the fact that Laura Croft has went from model to badass, and now she says the producers of the game really want Laura to be a man and don't admit it.

You have a link to that?

And that's where the respect ends, because I can't bring myself to respect a woman that is dishonest in her portrayal of video games.

I still haven't seen any evidence of this.

If you think being threatened is validation of your argument, then do I have a list of victims for you. We're in for a paradox, because about every argument gets bomb threats on both sides.

Gonna file that one under "can't possibly be true."

Anybody that disagrees with her is going to get a wall full of rape threats thrown back at them.

I think you got things backwards here.

How many people are making the threats, compared to how many people are in GG?

I don't know.

You're going to let the actions of 1% control the narrative and validate whatever side you want, without providing good arguments for the shit being poured down everyone's throats.

The 1% I've seen. The 99% I haven't. They may not exist. The person who wrote this essay certainly isn't one.

Magus

Making games is your day job?

No, it's what I do in my spare time. But employers generally take some kind of look into what people say about you if they can. I'm not sure it's ethical, but it's understandable.

xaade

@Yamikuronue said:

the harassment isn't a problem

Harassment is a big problem. A huge fucking problem.

However...
Being harassed doesn't validate your point.

Magus

Gonna file that one under "can't possibly be true."

There was a Gamergate meetup a few months back in D.C. that got evacuated because of a bomb threat. Sommers and Yiannapoulis were there (Yes, I probably spelled the guy's name wrong). A lot of it was caught on video. Obviously there was no real bomb.

Anyway, if:

I don't know.

Then how can you say:

I think you got things backwards here.

xaade

Cite?

Mostly her criticisms of GTA and Skyrim, where you can obviously also be a woman and beat up a man, but that never seems to make it into her videos.

You have a link to that?

Can't seem to find it.

But here's this gem.

Tomb Raider: I don't need reminding that Lara Croft is a woman

The new Lara Croft may not have the massive boobs of the old version - making her more realistic to look at - but she is now a frightened, vulnerable girl trying to escape from a man's world, says Louisa Peacock.

Why do they need to show her human side? Why does she need to make
mistakes, become vulnerable? Why does the superhero need to turn into an
ordinary human being, capable of hurting herself, screaming in pain?

Because we're no longer in the Silver Age of comics, and people want to identify with the hero.

Any one of us, if we were stuck on an island without any combat training, losing our partners, and being hunted by skilled murderers, wouldn't have gotten half as far as the new Laura. I'd be pissing in my pants.

???

I mean, let's compare this to FarCry, where it's a dude that is scared shitless, and ends up being his own badass.

But no one calls FC's main character a damsel.

No, it's the SJWs that are projecting damsel in distress onto the new Laura, because, otherwise, they wouldn't have anything to fucking talk about.

Piko

but they managed to ruin the life of a guy who landed a probe on a comet, because of a shirt he wore.

That guy was being filmed, presumably for PR, and he was fully aware of it. Where I work our only dress code is please remember your pants /skirt. Even so when we put any kind of "show" even our interns know better than to sport a shirt like that unless they want to get canned. It could be that shirt or one featuring aliens disemboweling people, or .... well i dont care. When in doubt wear a white shirt, that always works. The guy is educated and smart, maybe he never thought he would get fired but any thought put on his clothes should have told him that was no good. Look if you don't want to think "Is what i am wearing okay ?" don't put yourself in front of a camera on an official recording for your work, he dug his own grave.

I don't think that shirt alone is enough to qualify him as misogynist or whatever but it sure as hell is unprofessional. I'm sorry about the guy being fired, It sucks when the world falls down on someone. I don't have any idea of how many people asked for his head and I really don't think it matters, the main reason for his firing was his idiocy not an evil feminazi crusade against awful ( as in the ugliest shirt ever) shirts.

. As a game developer, the fact that this can happen is terrifying. My game is about robots

As an example of a distopia where a feminist watches every move of every game dev hoping for the time where she can have his head and which apparently embodies the sum of all your fears, you have failed to deliver.

It was given to him by a female friend. He didn't know anyone would be offended by it at all. If he had, and wore it to offend people, he might deserve to be ridiculed a bit. Instead, it was so bad he had to cry in apology on camera,

No one can possibly believe that after an examination of his clothes he though those where appropriate for any kind of recording to be released to the public.

Also, I only know about this Anita from TDWTF and I play like 20 hours a week easily ( A lot more before I had a day job) and i don't perceive any efect of her doings so I find the power of her evil dissapointing.

Piko

@Piko said:

As an example of a distopia where a feminist watches every move of every game dev hoping for the time where she can have his head and which apparently embodies the sum of all your fears, you have failed to deliver.

Also, can we have a book about this? sound like a good story in the making

xaade

@Piko said:

power of her evil dissapointing

Mostly because people stopped giving a shit about her.

I can still say, when the topic comes up, that she's full of shit.

Some games are sexist.
Don't play those games.

I don't.

I play Elder scrolls, where my Lydia is decked out in ebony and ripping throats out for a living.

But obviously, that game is sexist, because a male guard hit her.

So far, the only games with feminists approval, happen to be games where there are only female characters.

Magus

@Piko said:

Also, I only know about this Anita from TDWTF and I play like 20 hours a week easily ( A lot more before I had a day job) and i don't perceive any efect of her doings so I find the power of her evil dissapointing.

That's good I guess. She mostly likes to show up on mainstream news and such, and at conferences and such. If memory serves, Feminist Frequency is even supported by Intel these days.

Their credibility took a major shot when her boss, McIntosh (however you spell that), posted in public that games cause violence and sexism, which caused people to coin the term 'Full McIntosh' as a new level of stupid. So, maybe the claims weren't from her personally, but she appears to agree with her boss on many things.

@xaade, can you find some kind of thing on that guy?

Magus

So far, the only games with feminists approval, happen to be games where there are only female characters.

Not true. Anita liked that game with the belly dancer who beats up men. I don't even know. I'm sure blakey has seen it on steam and gotten away from there ASAP because of the anime look of it.

FrostCat

I haven't seen any mention of it in months-- gaming or regular press.

You will still see gratuitous swipes at GG in places like the comment section of Ars. Of course, these people also blithely accept _C_AGW as proven (note the italicized letter), and shriek about deniers, too.

That might be considered seeking it out, albeit indirectly, I'll admit.

blakeyrat

I don't want to be in your cult.

Piko

Their credibility took a major shot when her boss, McIntosh (however you spell that), posted in public that games cause violence and sexism, which caused people to coin the term 'Full McIntosh' as a new level of stupid. So, maybe the claims weren't from her personally, but she appears to agree with her boss on many things.

Citation needed ? I have a feeling you are conflating/simplifying things

Also, for something not so relevant you seem to feel very strongly about it, why?

I understood you defended your right to rabidly disagree with her, without being conflated with the moob that rabidly disagrees with her and also sends her death/rape threads. Thats asking for a lot of finesse in an internet/tweeter argument, and even so you decided you needed to go fifteen rounds about it with blakey, something that usually requires motivation.

Maciejasjmj

>From what I gather, a) that the whole thing is overblown and she's making a lot of ado about nothing,

And that's worthy of the rape threats?

*sigh* No, Blakey, it's not worthy of rape threats.

#Duh.

But rape threats are one thing, and the thing being discussed is another.

>What if the argument is "games should be more inclusive even at the expense of good storytelling"?

That's a completely false dichotomy. It doesn't even make slight amounts of sense.

Not always, no. How many times have you seen a work with a token female, or a token black character, that served as a fifth wheel to the story and it was obvious they were tacked on just to please some loud people?

Point is, if a female or a black guy would've fit the writer's vision, they'd already be there. Assuming competent writers, what they've come up with can only be made worse (or at best, not better) by meddling.

That would at least kind of make sense as a motive, it's a hell of a lot better than anything Magus has come up with so far.

See, we're getting somewhere!

Right; and we're talking about an article here where the author says, "oh hey don't worry about the rape threats, sure guys were making rape threats, but they were only doing that because they think feminists hate rape threats more than the normal person." This is the essay we are talking about.

Well fine, that was a bad case of verbal diarrhoea. Still.

@s73v3r said:

I think the point is that, if the people claiming "critical discourse" of your works were surrounded by thousands of people calling for you to be raped, killed, and any other unpleasant things to happen to you, you'd probably just ignore the whole lot. And I can't say I blame anyone for doing just that.

And I don't think this is right. Otherwise anybody with controversial views would win their discussions by default, because there's got to be a lot of brainless shouting going on.

How about the fact that Laura Croft has went from model to badass, and now she says the producers of the game really want Laura to be a man and don't admit it.

If you mean Lara Croft (I think...), she's decidedly non-badass in the latest game. Unless you mean the Playmate of the Month for July 2008, but I can't see what she has to add to the discussion...

Also, a video game character now criticizes the producers of the game? Shit, I have woken up in a parallel universe.

Being harassed doesn't validate your point.

My point exactly.

https://yt3.ggpht.com/-xVY2Kq2sGLQ/U0iAT291vQI/AAAAAAAAAEo/-R44kzsV8XE/s0/channels4_banner.png

>Why do they need to show her human side? Why does she need to make mistakes, become vulnerable? Why does the superhero need to turn into an ordinary human being, capable of hurting herself, screaming in pain?

Because we're no longer in the Silver Age of comics, and people want to identify with the hero.

No, no, that was definitely annoying, I agree with that. Lara was a total ditz for like half the game.

Though it might've been the Polish dubbing...

ben_lubar

I thought the title referred to this GG:

Scarlet_Manuka

Also, a video game character now criticizes the producers of the game? Shit, I have woken up in a parallel universe.

Reminds me of the ending of Star Control 2 (an elderly - DOS - but brilliant game). For context, most of the characters in the game get a little cameo in the ending sequence, and several of them reveal the exciting news: "I've heard from the producers that the sequel is going to be all about ME!".

When it's the turn of the sexy-female-alien character (who, it's implied, you eventually end up marrying), she says the same thing, but adds that the only thing she's worried about is her costume, which is the standard as-little-as-we-can-get-away-with: "they say next time it will be REALLY revealing!"

Of course when they did make Star Control 3 it was done by different people and they made her race UGLY instead of sexy. And (fortunately, perhaps) you only ever see head-and-shoulder shots anyway.

CreatedToDislikeThis

@Scarlet_Manuka said:

Of course when they did make Star Control 3 it was done by different people and they made her race UGLY instead of sexy. And (fortunately, perhaps) you only ever see head-and-shoulder shots anyway.

So is that more or less misogynist?

blakeyrat

But rape threats are one thing, and the thing being discussed is another.

Re-read the essay in the OP.

The essay that says, "sure people are sending a lot of rape threats, but it's ok!"

Not always, no. How many times have you seen a work with a token female, or a token black character, that served as a fifth wheel to the story and it was obvious they were tacked on just to please some loud people?

Zero times.

Point is, if a female or a black guy would've fit the writer's vision, they'd already be there. Assuming competent writers, what they've come up with can only be made worse (or at best, not better) by meddling.

Ok; and yet why is this worthy of rape threats again?

Well fine, that was a bad case of verbal diarrhoea. Still.

THAT ESSAY IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT!

What the FUCK! Am I the only one who even TRIED to read it?

@ben_lubar said:

I thought the title referred to this GG:

Don't blame me; people be fucking with my thread titles.

antiquarian

There are plenty of good causes for which the only hope is conservative resistance against "progressive" changes. For example, nation state authority over corporations, privacy, right to free speech, 4th amendment (protections against police), free and open internet etc.

Good luck with that. Conservatives don't care about any of those things any more than progressives do, at least not the ones in any position to do something about them. They just pretend to care when progressives are in power.

Why do I have to go to these shitty little sites and hunt for 4chan image memes to get the other side? There's plenty of people opposed to the SJW current, but if you look in any mainstream media outlet, it's like there's only the courageous feminist heroes on one side and disgusting misogynist trolls on the other.

That's the thing about SJWs. There is no legitimate other side as far as they are concerned. You can agree with them or be misguided and/or evil. I won't provide a cite; anyone who cares can just google "if you're not a feminist you're a misogynist" and get pages of instructive examples.

blakeyrat

@antiquarian said:

That's the thing about SJWs. There is no legitimate other side as far as they are concerned.

I'm not an SJW, I don't see the "legitimate other side" either.

At best, there is one and the "anti-SJW" people in this thread (and writing that essay in the OP) are really, really, really fucking awful communicators. At worst, they're just here to defend rape threats made over trivial issues.

Of course, I'm also one of these crazy wacky people who believes maybe issues are more complicated than "there are two sides and you must be part of one of them and if it's not the one I'm a part of you're Hitler" thinking that's going on in here.

antiquarian

At best, there is one and the "anti-SJW" people in this thread (and writing that essay in the OP) are really, really, really fucking awful communicators.

Some people suck at writing, and others suck at reading. Communication requires competent people on both sides of the transaction.

blakeyrat

Right.

Well I have several open questions and requests for clarification if someone who is good at communication wishes to tackle them.

antiquarian

What if the deficiency isn't on the writing end of the transaction?

blakeyrat

I've had a bunch of people come in here and tell me it's not about rape threats, when the essay in the OP admits there are rape threats. In short, I don't think that's the case.

When I ask for explanations I get name-drops of people I don't know, which no explanation of who they are or why I should care. And random asides about Joss Whedon's Twitter account, I still have no fucking clue what that was about.

When I ask for cites for claims like, "Anita Sarkeesian believes video games can lead to violent rapes" I get :crickets: :tumbleweeds:. Hell, I couldn't even get a cite on the one about her supporting stricter copyright laws.

You know what that tells me? There is no cite, because the cite does not exist. Because Magus is sitting here spreading bullshit around. Half the stuff he's said in this thread is lies, or based on lies.

Hell, I can't even get a link to these mythical "serious and respectful refutations" of the Anita Sarkeesian videos. Why not? Well... probably because they don't exist either!

Look, if there's one thing I hate it's fuzzy Jello-headed thinking. And I've been seeing a lot of that in this thread. There's only one "side" of the argument delivering me facts, like, say, screenshots of the rape threats Magus (and I am not making this up) literally argued never existed. So what am I supposed to believe?

If you think I'm the problem here, then so be it.

Kian

Laura Croft

It's Lara Croft. I'm only pointing it out because you said it twice, so I doubt it's a typo.

You're going to let the actions of 1% control the narrative

When the other 99% refuse to condemn the 1%, and justify their actions by saying "the other side does it too!", you've already ceded that you think threats are ok.

Laura

That's three times you called her Laura. So definitely not a typo. The character's name is Lara. You'd expect someone who finds her misrepresentation so bothersome would at least know the character's name.

Mostly because people stopped giving a shit about her.

I'm ahead of the curve! I never started.

This is the problem with echo chambers. They get so loud that the people inside think the whole world must be able to hear the noise. If you stepped outside, you'd realize no one cares.

And I don't think this is right. Otherwise anybody with controversial views would win their discussions by default, because there's got to be a lot of brainless shouting going on.

In the real world, that doesn't happen because the people on either side denounce the people making the threats and behaving like assholes, even if they're on their side. The US and Iran both condemn terrorism, even if they fund different factions under the table.

People like the guy who wrote the essay in the OP, however, defend the extremists on their side, and other people then defend them in turn. So you get lumped with the extremists, and thus you're wrong.

Maciejasjmj

I've had a bunch of people come in here and tell me it's not about rape threats, when the essay in the OP admits there are rape threats.

Can you honestly not tell the difference between "there are X" and "it's all about X and there's nothing else to it"?

Yes, there are rape threats, no, the whole issue is not just about rape threats. Even in the article, it's just one point among others - and one stupid claim doesn't invalidate the other ones.

blakeyrat

Yes, there are rape threats,

Magus said there were not.

That's the kind of crazy ridiculous and obviously factually wrong arguments I was dealing with all day yesterday.

no, the whole issue is not just about rape threats.

Ok; then what is "the whole issue" about? Give me the fucking elevator pitch. Do it without name-dropping some random person I don't know, or some random celebrity/social media site combination.

Even in the article, it's just one point among others - and one stupid claim doesn't invalidate the other ones.

It does when it's that stupid.

His "defense" was, "well, sure people made rape threats, but they only made rape threats because they thought those would be the most hurtful kind of threats!"

That is a really really really fucking stupid point, buddy.

That's not even, "sure he murdered those children-- but he used a bullet to the skull so there'd be no pain." That's actually arguing, "sure he murdered those children, but he did it by disemboweling so it'd be as agonizing as possible!" And stated as a defense of the behavior! It's unbelievable.

And this is the essay that Cartman thought was worth sharing to all of us! And Magus thought was worth spending thousands of words defending!

To be generous to Cartman, maybe he didn't actually read it before pasting the link. But Jesus, guys.

Kian

Here's my problem with GG (both pro- and anti- sides). It's a meaningless label. It means whatever the person using it at the time wants it to mean. So it's about "ethics in game journalism", but for some reason it's also about hating Anita Whatever, despite her not being related to it. And it's also about all the other bullshit other people quoted. Or it's about sending death and rape threats.

Neither side has a consistent definition of the label. Compare this to the abortion debate, where you have people that describe themselves as "pro life" and "pro choice". There's a clear definition of what each side stands for. Pro and anti GG, however, doesn't have that.

And the reason it doesn't have that, is because GG isn't about ideas, it's about people. There's just two groups of people that hate each other, and they hate each other simply for subscribing to one side of the label. That's why every story about GG is centered on the people involved, and not on actual events. It's all about what people say and how that's offensive.

It's also why people have to defend rape and death threats. Because you hate the people on the other team, and whatever bad thing that happens to them is good for your team. Oh, you're not so uncivilized as to do it yourself, no, but you'll go out of your way to defend that it happens.

Threats should always be condemned, even when the people on your team do it. Otherwise, you're no better than the people sending the threats. You should not send threats, nor tolerate others who do it. Especially when they do it in your name. Because the fact that there are people that send threats is a bigger problem than the fact that there's someone making shitty videos, and if you feel you have to choose between defending shitty videos and defending threats, you either defend shitty videos or you're an asshole.

Magus

Magus said there were not.

Cite? If you want to call me a liar, don't lie about me. I've said I haven't sent any and condemn them, but you keep making up this garbage about me.

xaade

When the other 99% refuse to condemn the 1%, and justify their actions by saying "the other side does it too!", you've already ceded that you think threats are ok.

Maybe you're just not giving GG a chance to speak, because they have condemned the threats, on every occasion.

You're doing the same thing to GG that the media does to "Muslims", lumping them all in one group, and ignoring the ones that condemn the violence.

would at least know the character's name

Can't help it that I grew up with the game, and a classmate that I liked looked like her, and spelled her name with a U. It's stuck in my head now.

Do it without name-dropping

And somehow also do it while citing your sources.

If you win the paradox, you get a cookie.

That is a really really really fucking stupid point, buddy.

Yeah, it's a stupid point. Got it.

This isn't representative of everyone who dislikes critics like Anita.

There's a clear definition

???

Oh, also, there have been real actual physical acts of violence in that debate.

I suppose I have to defend the abortion center bombers.

if you feel you have to choose between

Red fucking flag.

Magus

When this all started out, gg was poorly about ethics. When all mentions of it were deleted on several sites, people got mad. People react differently when angry, and its safe to assume some resorted to threats. Obviously that was unacceptable, but what can you do? Every group has it's idiots, and no one thinks they're positive, except perhaps this one stupid blogger. At some point, though, some people started blaming all their threats on gg, when they were getting them already. I can't remember when that started, because it's been a long time now. But there are several, including Wu, who will not accept that not every threat automatically comes from gg, and they don't care about her anyway. This is the thing that I most object to. They go on tv and claim to be the targets of an internet hate group, and anyone who denies that all anonymous trolls are gg members is ignored. I've spent enough time on this discussion, and have been personally lied about multiple times for relating my experiences, do I think I'm done here.

xaade

who will not accept that not every threat automatically comes from gg

I don't remember if it was anita or not. But one of the latest threat tweets, they looked up the guy that did it, and the only post he had with #gg, was the threat.

So, either he was two birds one stone douchebag to the woman and GG, or it was a planted threat.

Either way, it was dishonest to post that tweet as an actual threat from GG.

The problem is that GG started about ethics in journalism, and instead of the "other side" saying, "Yeah we need that", they said, "Oh, you're talking about a feminist, so GG is anti-feminist", and then lines were drawn in the sand against two mutually exclusive concepts from separate debates.

And we all know how stupid those debates end up being.

You see, people like Anita have some good arguments, but then they set the bar so fucking high that only their highness can say when the problem is solved.

This turns the problem solving from a community activity to a dictatorship activity.

And people resent that.

And then the bad arguments from the opposite side get drawn in.
Then it happens for both groups.

And now you have anti-feminists calling themselves GG, and people who see no ethics problems in gaming defending the feminists, and then the arguments from both sides degrade into nonsense.

Some good points exist in both groups, but they're tainted from bad arguments in ancillary groups.

And all this happens because Feminists and GG shouldn't be arguing in the first place.

Those aren't mutually exclusive positions.

When you create a scenario were people can't own the problem themselves, and solve it on their terms, you end up creating polarization, and make the problem worse.

The key is to let everyone own and solve their own problems, and to make obvious end goals that are achievable, and to reward progress.

"Skryim is good because it let's you pick your own sex, and you aren't treated differently by the game if you are a woman. However, there is too much abuse of women characters in the game. I know that some of that will occur because of narrative, but almost every active character in the civil war is male. It would be nice to have at least a few female characters participating."

Instead of "Oh look, I can make a male character and slap that female character around, the game allows it, so it's sexist."

If someone asks, "How do we solve the problem".

And your response is, "I don't know. I'll let you know when it is solved, though."

That causes people to actively disengage.

cartman82

His "defense" was, "well, sure people made rape threats, but they only made rape threats because they thought those would be the most hurtful kind of threats!"

That is a really really really fucking stupid point, buddy.

That's not even, "sure he murdered those children-- but he used a bullet to the skull so there'd be no pain." That's actually arguing, "sure he murdered those children, but he did it by disemboweling so it'd be as agonizing as possible!" And stated as a defense of the behavior! It's unbelievable.

You're still missing the point. It's not a defense of anyone's behavior. It's a refutation of the feminist claim that their detractors are misogynists.

Pay attention.

And this is the essay that Cartman thought was worth sharing to all of us! And Magus thought was worth spending thousands of words defending!

To be generous to Cartman, maybe he didn't actually read it before pasting the link. But Jesus, guys.

Hey I only posted a quick link to a rant I found interesting. You were the one who started the discussion thread.

I did read the article. I found plenty of interesting thoughts in it. Stuff like:

Nothing this guy said is in any way hurtful towards anyone. He's not calling for abuse or attack or anything immoral. So why is he forced to post this anonymously? People who are posting pro-feminist articles are doing so under their real names. What does that tell you?
People like Zoe Queen and Anita Sarkeesian are nowadays 100% supported through donations. Donations are generally based on the sense of urgency and emotional investment of the donors. What kind of incentive it gives them in terms of abuse they are receiving? What if the abuse stops?
Did this whole gender war actually deter women from wanting to get into the gaming and IT industry? Would we be better off without both gamergate AND Sarkeesian's popularity?

I just don't care about the nitpicky bullshit details you focused on. And I'm certainly not gonna jump around, trying to compile a scientific study to refute your 100 little weasel questions.

Maciejasjmj

Ok; then what is "the whole issue" about? Give me the fucking elevator pitch. Do it without name-dropping some random person I don't know, or some random celebrity/social media site combination.

Well, AFAICT and based on the site that's biased towards Sarkeesian, she's doing videos and talks on how bad the video game industry is for perpetuating ages-old tropes related to women and how it should change. The arguments range from sensible (overly sexualized animation) through less of an issue than they appear (lack of female protagonists, really? Almost every game does that now, and they don't even get any differences other than appearance), up to kind of ass-pulls ("sexualized grunts", come on, it's females recording those).

Now, you can see that it's at the very least up for debate - but instead, quote:

I think if anyone in this audience is here for Gamergate they are not here because they genuinely care and want to learn. They are coming here to be, like, 'oh my god, that woman, that horrible evil woman that's ruining video games.

In other words, "either you come here to be convinced by me, or you hate me personally". How's that for a false dichotomy?

That's not even, "sure he murdered those children-- but he used a bullet to the skull so there'd be no pain." That's actually arguing, "sure he murdered those children, but he did it by disemboweling so it'd be as agonizing as possible!" And stated as a defense of the behavior! It's unbelievable.

But again, there's the whole rest of the article. It's like "sure he disemboweled those children, but that other related guy was a Nobel Prize winner and advanced the Earth's technology by 500 years". The mistake was bringing up the guy who went around killing children. That Nobel prize winner probably couldn't give a fuck about him, and he'd rather not be associated with it, but ended up with shit stuck to him.

Kian

Maybe you're just not giving GG a chance to speak, because they have condemned the threats, on every occasion.

Who is GG? Because the essay in the OP claims to be on the pro-GG's side (whatever that means) and he never condemns the threats. He is upset that everyone is painted with the same brush because of a few that send threats, and says the targets look for it and even benefit from it, and that it has happened to other people and they didn't make a fuss over it. No clear condemnation of the action itself or saying it is never justified.

I suppose I have to defend the abortion center bombers.

How do you get from "bad actions have to be condemned, even when done by those on your side" to "I have to defend the bad actors on my side"? No, you have to do the OPPOSITE of defending them. That's the only way reasonable discussion can flourish. So long as you defend the actions of the extremists, you can't have a discussion.

Obviously that was unacceptable, but what can you do?

You can say "I'm not going to side with the guy sending threats, and until they stop I won't associate myself with any label they apply to themselves". Because ultimately, GG is a label, and you can continue your crusade for ethics in journalism without the label. But it's not about ethics, it's about hating people, and you need the label so you can know who you're supposed to hate.

except perhaps this one stupid blogger

He has company. And dismissing a problem is not the same thing as condemning it.

including Wu, who will not accept that not every threat automatically comes from gg, and they don't care about her anyway.

Because as I said, GG is a label for both sides to know who they are supposed to hate. And everyone they want to hate gets lumped in, on both sides. Which is why it's a meaningless label. Siding with either side just means choosing what people you want to hate and who you want to be hated by.

But one of the latest threat tweets, they looked up the guy that did it, and the only post he had with #gg, was the threat.

If you want to make a threat, would you use your regular online persona or a one time disposable account? It could be a false flag op, but false flag ops work because they look like the real thing. You could also look at it from the other side. Why did they follow up this one threat tweet and not the others? Did they do a study of how tweet threats work? Maybe they planted the tweet so they could expose it as being planted! A reverse false flag op!

You're still missing the point. It's not a defense of anyone's behavior. It's a refutation of the feminist claim that their detractors are misogynists.

That's still not a condemnation of their actions, even if it was an accurate refutation of their motives. Which it isn't. You simply explained their MO, not their motives. They could still be threatening her for being a woman with outspoken opinions, which is pretty misogynist. They simply chose rape for effectiveness, not because they go around raping people.

Also, saying "they didn't threaten to rape you because they like to rape, they did it to scare you more effectively" is pretty close to trying to justify the behavior. It's nearly opposite of condemning it.

And finally, you don't understand threats. Threats are not about enjoying doing the thing you threaten to do. Threats are about getting the other person to change their behavior WITHOUT doing the thing you threaten to do. Someone might find murder distasteful and never have done it, but still threaten someone else with it if they thought it would be effective, and not follow through if it isn't. Anonymity helps there because you can never know if the anonymous threat comes from someone who would never murder anyone or from someone who would.

cartman82

That's still not a condemnation of their actions, even if it was an accurate refutation of their motives. Which it isn't. You simply explained their MO, not their motives. They could still be threatening her for being a woman with outspoken opinions, which is pretty misogynist. They simply chose rape for effectiveness, not because they go around raping people.

Yup, who knows why people do what they do. The point is, feminists don't know either.

Sarkeesian sees the abusive tweets and concludes: "Wow, a lot of people seem to hate women".

Maybe. Or maybe some hate women, some hate feminists, some hate Sarkeesian, some are just trolls and some are any combination of these and more.

Also, saying "they didn't threaten to rape you because they like to rape, they did it to scare you more effectively" is pretty close to trying to justify the behavior. It's nearly opposite of condemning it.

Why do I have to either approve or condemn something before discussing it? Like, I can discuss the mechanics of a murder without stopping every 5 seconds to put out a disclaimer that murder is wrong. What makes fucking twitter trolling so special?

And finally, you don't understand threats. Threats are not about enjoying doing the thing you threaten to do. Threats are about getting the other person to change their behavior WITHOUT doing the thing you threaten to do. Someone might find murder distasteful and never have done it, but still threaten someone else with it if they thought it would be effective, and not follow through if it isn't. Anonymity helps there because you can never know if the anonymous threat comes from someone who would never murder anyone or from someone who would.

You don't think some people are just angry and want to vent out? Or enjoy being trolls or engaged in a war of their group against an enemy group? Or have a sexual fetish at imagining Sarkeesian scared for her life?

There's a lot of emotion involved here at both sides, things are never as rational as you make them sound.

Kian

Maybe. Or maybe some hate women, some hate feminists, some hate Sarkeesian, some are just trolls and some are any combination of these and more.

Why do you feel it's more important to clarify "they may have other reasons for sending threats" than it is to condemn that they do it at all? Why do you even care if a group of assholes is being accused of being a different kind of asshole?

Why do I have to either approve or condemn something before discussing it?

Because if someone claims to represent your group, and you don't say "Fuck no, those guys don't represent us or what we stand for", you are conceding that they do represent your group. Because discussions inside groups that identify as pro GG includes some pretty abhorrent content, even if it is not published where the target of the comments can see it, and rarely are the posters rebuked for it.

Basically, GG has a tiny vocal group that behaves like assholes and a wider more moderate group that justifies or defends the assholes, before you get to the "reasonable" people espousing the excuses of why the group is a positive thing, like ethics in journalism, who still don't condemn the first or second groups.

So if you put yourself in either side, you're saying "these other people speak for me", and those other people are assholes and cowards. Don't lump yourself with assholes and cowards if you don't want others to think you support assholes and cowards.

For my part, I'm in favor of ethics in journalism and fair reporting, and personally prefer long-form analysis of games rather than reviews of gameplay and graphics with a score attached. Kind of like how Shamus Young (wee! More Mass Effect analysis there now!) or Zero Punctuation do.

I'm also in favor of less sexism in games (both in regards to women and men, since I don't identify with the hyper-macho caricatures some player avatars are presented as).

I don't give two shits about GG either way, and I find it hard to take seriously the opinion of anyone who does, or who identifies with either side. Though I do make the effort. I also never saw Anita's videos, and I don't care if she was a "real gamer" or just faked it for quick money. I find it hilarious that she is attacked by people who hated her videos for not making more videos, though.

Or have a sexual fetish at imagining Sarkeesian scared for her life?

I seriously didn't even consider this one. As to the greater point, though, I don't think it's relevant why they do it. I'm not their counselor, and I'm not trying to fix their socialization issues. I don't even engage with them. I'd be happy if they stopped embarrassing my hobby publicly, but not really invested since my hobby is not part of my identity.

blakeyrat

Cite? If you want to call me a liar, don't lie about me.

I said, "and that justifies rape threats?" and you replied:

No one thinks so.

Click the little up arrow there for context.

I've said I haven't sent any and condemn them, but you keep making up this garbage about me.

You also said no one thinks Anita Sarkeesian's comments are worthy of rape threats, which is clearly wrong because there were rape threats. As even you yourself admit in other posts.

I'm not making up garbage. I'm reading what you typed.

Maybe you're just not giving GG a chance to speak, because they have condemned the threats, on every occasion.

Hey look, no links.

And somehow also do it while citing your sources.

If you win the paradox, you get a cookie.

What paradox? If you actually believe in some movement/philosophy, surely you can describe it in an elevator pitch.

Yeah, it's a stupid point. Got it.

This isn't representative of everyone who dislikes critics like Anita.

Maybe not, but that essay is what this thread is about.

When this all started out, gg was poorly about ethics.

What does "poorly about" mean?

At some point, though, some people started blaming all their threats on gg, when they were getting them already.

So is GG actually a thing? Does it have a website? Press releases?

I've spent enough time on this discussion, and have been personally lied about multiple times for relating my experiences, do I think I'm done here.

I don't know, do you?

So you're going to leave without giving a cite that Anita Sarkeesian feels that games can lead to violent rapes? You're going to leave without giving a link to one of those fair and respectful criticism of her videos?

That sounds like a Blakeyvictory to me.

You see, people like Anita have some good arguments, but then they set the bar so fucking high that only their highness can say when the problem is solved.

So? Eric Raymond does the same thing. People don't send him rape threats. (I hope!)

This turns the problem solving from a community activity to a dictatorship activity.

Evidence? Cite? Anything other than these vague conspiracy theories, unbacked by anything resembling reality?

Who is the "dictator"? What is the "dictatorship activity" that has occurred? Show me. Prove it to me. Demonstrate that you're talking about something with some meat to it.

And then the bad arguments from the opposite side get drawn in.Then it happens for both groups.

Because, like in Magus' tiny little worldview, it's impossible to have an opinion without being in one of two diametrically-opposed groups.

And now you have anti-feminists calling themselves GG, and people who see no ethics problems in gaming defending the feminists, and then the arguments from both sides degrade into nonsense.

They started in this thread as nonsense. And you're just adding to the pile.

Look, if GG is a "thing", then show me their official website. If it's not a "thing", then you have absolutely no grounds to complain about bad actors claiming to be in GG when they aren't, because it's not a thing. At that point, it's your responsibility to get away from the not-a-thing and make a thing that properly represents your belief.

You're still missing the point. It's not a defense of anyone's behavior. It's a refutation of the feminist claim that their detractors are misogynists.

Jesus that's a stretch of logic I'm afraid my brain isn't flexible enough to replicate. They send rape threats to people they don't know who have frankly harmless opinions, but they aren't misogynists?

Hey I only posted a quick link to a rant I found interesting.

I hope the only thing you found "interesting" about it is how poorly it was written.

Nothing this guy said is in any way hurtful towards anyone. He's not calling for abuse or attack or anything immoral. So why is he forced to post this anonymously?

He's not. Who forced him? Using what form of coercion?

People who are posting pro-feminist articles are doing so under their real names. What does that tell you?

Well the conclusion I draw, which is probably not the one you want me to draw, is that the anti-feminists are using aliases because they don't want their real names attached to legally-actionable rape threats.

People like Zoe Queen and Anita Sarkeesian are nowadays 100% supported through donations. Donations are generally based on the sense of urgency and emotional investment of the donors. What kind of incentive it gives them in terms of abuse they are receiving?

You could say the same thing for the Pink Ribbon campaign against cancer. Why pick on Zoe Queen and Anita Sarkeesian and not the people who (based on your little conspiracy theory here) have an incentive to infect more people with cancer!?

What if the abuse stops?

That would be great.

Did this whole gender war

Where did THIS come from? WTF!

actually deter women from wanting to get into the gaming and IT industry?

That's quite a claim that's going to need quite a bit of convincing evidence to back.

Of course, it's more likely you're just asking a bunch of leading questions without bothering to actually find evidence to answer them one way or the other, which is the strategy a lot of crazy conspiracy theory videos take.

Would we be better off without both gamergate AND Sarkeesian's popularity?

I think we'd be better off without one of those two things. GUESS WHICH.

I just don't care about the nitpicky bullshit details you focused on.

... like saying rape threats were only made because they were the most emotionally damaging kind of threats they could think of. So it's all ok!

Yes, I know I keep echoing that point, but it's so awful. So awful.

And I'm certainly not gonna jump around, trying to compile a scientific study to refute your 100 little weasel questions.

I've asked very few questions. And the ones I have asked I think are all reasonable.

The arguments range from sensible (overly sexualized animation) through less of an issue than they appear (lack of female protagonists, really? Almost every game does that now, and they don't even get any differences other than appearance),

There are still far too many games where the male avatar is the unquestioned protagonist. To name some examples off the top of my heat, The Witcher 3, the two Metro games. Shadow of Mordor (which, as I said above, they crudely hacked-in a female avatar but it was obviously a last-minute thing and they did a really half-assed job), the Far Cry series.

Even Bethesda, who is usually really good about this, has Dishonored and The Evil Within. It's especially egregious in first-person games, where adding a female protagonist is really cheap.

cartman82

Because if someone claims to represent your group, and you don't say "Fuck no, those guys don't represent us or what we stand for", you are conceding that they do represent your group. Because discussions inside groups that identify as pro GG includes some pretty abhorrent content, even if it is not published where the target of the comments can see it, and rarely are the posters rebuked for it.

All true if we were talking about a group. GG is more like a movement.

Does a Christian need to disclaim abortion clinic bombings every time they argue for the ensoulment of fetus at conception? Maybe. Some would argue that's a sneaky tactics to paintbrush all the people that hold certain beliefs based on actions of other people who hold similar beliefs.

Either way, I'm not part of any ideology or group. So I can analyze this shit all I want without the disclaimers. There.

Why do you feel it's more important to clarify "they may have other reasons for sending threats" than it is to condemn that they do it at all? Why do you even care if a group of assholes is being accused of being a different kind of asshole?

As to the greater point, though, I don't think it's relevant why they do it. I'm not their counselor, and I'm not trying to fix their socialization issues. I don't even engage with them. I'd be happy if they stopped embarrassing my hobby publicly, but not really invested since my hobby is not part of my identity.

Are you fucking serious?

How are you going to address an issue if you don't understand why it exist and what are the motivations of people involved?

"I've seen the stats. I don't care why they do it. Negros just need to stop killing each other, end of story. Why do you talk about the history of slavery and socio-economic circumstances? Just condemn the criminals for what they are!"

blakeyrat