Bull :shit: and more bull :shit: and lots of bull :shit: (content warning: StarGate)
-
Incredibly washed-up actor who played Superman
#If you're into gaming, and your stance is "I'm not on the gamer's side", then what exactly do you want to do with and to video games?
I think it's perfectly rational to say, I'm for games that fulfill the desires of the people that want to play them. If someone wants a gender-neutral game, and someone wants to make one, let them have that business opportunity.
If there's someone that wants to play as McBarbarian Barbarianasaur and burninate a village that happens to have women in it, and then have an orgy, so be it.
And I have to be that way.
Because if I regulated my moral beliefs on people, I'd have a my work cut out, outlawing content in rap songs about killing people and burying bodies and doing crack and heroin, moving all sex scenes to rated X movies. Outlawing porn and prostitution everywhere. And limiting alcohol to a couple of drinks a day.
Because my great granparent's generation tried to do that, and that effort only created MORE of it.
I prefer freedom to do immoral things, because that means freedom for me too.
-
I prefer freedom to do immoral things, because that means freedom for me too.
CecilLions!
-
But, that's a logical goal, one that we either agree on or not.
Lions are losing their numbers; let's limit how many we kill.
I find it ironic that people are worried that another male will kill cecil's cubs.
- The other male will make more cubs.
- Some Zebra somewhere is grateful that cecil is dead.
We have more attachment to a bunch of cubs that nature will kill because nature has always killed them, than to premature babies that would have lived otherwise.
Let the other male lion have his right to his family's autonomy and stay out of it. It's between the new male lion, and his new female mate.
-
I find it ironic that people are worried that another male will kill cecil's cubs.
These are people who think nature is nice and people are mean. Also, they don't watch enough Animal Planet.
Some Zebra somewhere is grateful that cecil is dead.
I pretty much always root for the predator on nature shows.
It's between the new male lion, and his new female mate.
Fuck you and your gender lion binary and the zebra it rode in on.
-
If you're into gaming, and your stance is "I'm not on the gamer's side", then what exactly do you want to do with and to video games?
No-one who is into games holds that stance, so the question is pointless. Not even the likes of Anita are against gamers. So it's either a dumb assertion to make, or an attempt to establish a strawman to get people on your side before you start selling your actual point.
I think it's perfectly rational to say, I'm for games that fulfill the desires of the people that want to play them. If someone wants a gender-neutral game, and someone wants to make one, let them have that business opportunity.
Again, you're not arguing against anyone here. No one has suggested they're against that. So so far, you've got your imaginary opponent on the ropes. Good going.The problem is that the movement objected to people making the statement "Hey, we want not-sexist games!" so that developers could hear that that market exists and take advantage of THAT business opportunity.
And again, what does that have to do with "ethics in journalism", if that was the point of GG? Do you not see how GG's supposed goal is completely orthogonal to their actual rethoric and actions? The movement pays lip service to a resonable goal to deflect objections to their actual goals.
-
And again, what does that have to do with "ethics in journalism", if that was the point of GG? Do you not see how GG's supposed goal is completely orthogonal to their actual rethoric and actions? The movement pays lip service to a resonable goal to deflect objections to their actual goals.
Is that because of what the "movement" did or because of the shoulder aliens of people like Anita who brought all that stuff into the conversation in bad faith after the whole Depression Quest imbroglio?
Filed Under: Like guns, always assume questions are loaded
-
No-one who is into games holds that stance
That's my point.
so the question is pointless
Yep.
completely orthogonal to their actual rethoric and actions
Both sides are. Which is why this whole debate is pointless.
Both sides can "win". Both sides are being misrepresented.
If you would like, I could rephrase it as, I want ethical journalism.
I don't want a game to get good reviews because of two people having sex.
That actually happened, there's evidence it happened, and it's a reasonable request.I want it. Fuck whatever anyone thinks GG wants.
Feel better?
"Hey, we want not-sexist games!"
There's no concrete definition of that. It's a never-ending
. Lara is too sexy, not sexy enough, more like a man, more like an object.Show too much skin and it's sexist. Show too little, and it's just a replacement for a man. Not enough dimorphism and you're not including women.
Define goals.
-
Is there a bi-partisan support badge? If not, can someone create it and give me one?
Fuck. We'll need to put a stop to that.
-
Both sides are.
Who is the "other side"? The "other side" wants less sexism and makes videos and reviews about sexism. Their goals seem pretty much aligned with their rhetoric and actions. The question is why is the conversation with them, if you care about ethics in journalism.Both sides are being misrepresented.
How is the other side misrepresented? They were doing their thing before GG existed, and they had nothing to gain from engaging it. They could even be considered natural allies, since "don't trade reviews for sex" should also fall under "don't be sexist".That actually happened, there's evidence it happened, and it's a reasonable request.
Did it happen? Because the original review that started that whole thing NEVER EXISTED. Yes, a reviewer had a relationship with a game developer. But he didn't review her game. Nor did the site he worked for. That's what my cursory glance into the issue turned up, anyway. Do you have evidence of it? I suspect money buys reviews a lot more than sex, so why the overwhelming focus on the sex issue?
There's no concrete definition of that. It's a never-ending . Lara is too sexy, not sexy enough, more like a man, more like an object.
Show too much skin and it's sexist. Show too little, and it's just a replacement for a man. Not enough dimorphism and you're not including women.
The question is, why do you care? Are you trying to make games for them and frustrated because you fall short? The developers that care to sell to them will adjust their games until it's either no longer profitable or they finally hit the magic formula.
If (and I stress the conditional, I'm not saying this is your actual position, although it's what it comes across as and I welcome your clarification of why you care, as I asked above) your objection is that you don't want to play those games, and are concerned that developers will stop making the games you enjoy, you are a hypocrite. You are all in favor of the free market, so long as the free market gives you what you want. As soon as you start fearing the free market may turn it's back to you, you try to silence people asking for things you don't like.
-
Show too much skin and it's sexist. Show too little, and it's just a replacement for a man. Not enough dimorphism and you're not including women.
Never mind artists that want to put visually dimorphic features on races where they don't belong.
Oviparous lizardpeople/dragonpeople don't need a pair of lumps of fat mounted to their chests to house mammary glands, unlike mammalians...
-
No, @xaade is saying that the SJ crowd isn't just happy with a few folks making games for them. They want everybody to bow to their agenda.
-
Well, sure. Interest groups have interests, and want those interests to spread as far as possible. What makes that surprising?
And what is his objection to that? That he's willing to cede "some" developers? Let the free market do it's thing. It's obvious that even if they want that, that's not what's going to happen, and they don't have the power to make it happen. And anyway, that has nothing to do with ethics in journalism, so why is it mixed up in that "debate". That no one argues against, too.
It's like they made a "bold stand", found no one arguing against it, and decided to target some other unrelated people under that banner. "We want ethics in journalism, but SJW are trying to get developers to cater to them!"
-
It's like they made a "bold stand", found no one arguing against it, and decided to target some other unrelated people under that banner. "We want ethics in journalism, but SJW are trying to get developers to cater to them!"
I don't see evidence that you read our first topic on GamerGate (started nearly a year ago):
https://what.thedailywtf.com/t/unsexy-zoe-quinn-drollness-prepare-the-lawyers/2624?u=boomzilla
-
I did not. Will do.
-
And now I have.
Ok, so this Zoe Quinn is probably a terrible person, and while her game can spark debate about depression it is not itself a "fun" game. She didn't set out to make a fun game, though, so she did kind of succeed at her stated goal. I dunno, I don't know any depressed people so I don't know if the game itself is positive or negative for them. I'm not going to play it, either.
Still, two issues. In the threads linked there, there's this q/a, between some person and someone claiming to be the ex-boyfriend:
[...]
- Did Nathan Grayson ever publish any articles about Quinn or Depression Quest after their relationship began?
[...]
And the boyfriend:
[...]
- Not that I know of? I guess you can try to figure out whatever using this for a timeline.
[...]
Look, if there is any doubt about whether the article that supposedly started this whole thing ever existed, it didn't. Not when things like the wayback machine and screenshots exist. I mean, has anyone read any of these articles that gave positive reviews before the whole shit-storm started? We get examples of people making dumb tweets or facebook posts and trying to delete them hours later only for screenshots to surface, but apparently some site publishes an article for days and not a single backup exists?
And again, why the vitriol against this person, if your movement is about something systemic? Sure, she's a shitty person, but the movement should have moved beyond her and looked into the wider problem after a week. There should be lots of examples so you don't look like you're ganging up on specific people. To an outside observer, it doesn't matter how shitty a person is. Once a mob is chasing her down she looks like a victim. Even if she does deserve it. If you can't come up with a lot of examples, then you are not fighting against something systemic. You're making a fuss over something a couple of people did.
Only apparently there's not even evidence that they did do the specific shitty thing you are fighting against. So instead your fight for ethics turns into how shitty this one person is.
Also, ex-boyfriends, 4chan and reddit don't give you credibility. If anything, to anyone with a perception of the internet, whatever side 4chan is on is probably the wrong one. They built their reputation as the lawless, anything-goes, degenerate frontier of the internet. No-one is going to believe them when they say they've suddenly developed an interest in ethics.
- Did Nathan Grayson ever publish any articles about Quinn or Depression Quest after their relationship began?
-
And again, why the vitriol against this person, if your movement is about something systemic? Sure, she's a shitty person, but the movement should have moved beyond her and looked into the wider problem after a week. There should be lots of examples so you don't look like you're ganging up on specific people. To an outside observer, it doesn't matter how shitty a person is. Once a mob is chasing her down she looks like a victim. Even if she does deserve it. If you can't come up with a lot of examples, then you are not fighting against something systemic. You're making a fuss over something a couple of people did.
If you're talking about gamergate, Zoe Quinn is way off their radar. In fact, they are activelly trying to distance themselves from that whole "affair". I don't remember the last time I've seen her mentioned on /r/KotakuInAction (my main gamergate place I follow).
-
Zoe Quinn is way off their radar
For the whole sex thing, I agree. But making games this bad should be an offence.
-
If you're talking about gamergate, Zoe Quinn is way off their radar.
Well, I don't know why I had to read that other thread then. I thought it was related, and it focused on her.
-
Well, I don't know why I had to read that other thread then. I thought it was related, and it focused on her.
That thread was from before gamergate. Twas a more innocent, sane time. When games were games, rags were rags and people could just enjoy whatever entertainment they wanted, without turning every little thing into a feminist drama.
-
Wasn't that sorta the spark that ignited all this?
-
Wasn't that sorta the spark that ignited all this?
Kind of. People just wanted to gossip about this Quinn sex scandal, but a bunch of places decided to censor any discussion about her (even 4chan!). So in a predictable Streisand effect, the affair ballooned beyond it ever would have if people had been allowed to just get their jollies out.
A lot of it was just the usual glee at seeing a self-righteous moralizing person exposed as a flawed or even corrupt individual. Kind of like when a conservative anti-gay preacher is caught with their pants down with a male prostitute. But since that kind of reaction sounds venal, the "Quinn gossipers" started shifting their attention more towards the objective criticisms of Quinn, like the fact she was very friendly with a lot of gaming press that covered her career. It didn't help that this same journalists were at the forefront of silencing the discussion about her cheating affair.
A lot of people suddenly realized that virtually all the major sites seemed to be allied behind a similar social justice agenda. Seemed like they cared more about their ideology than the gamers they were supposed to cater to. And these suspicions were (in their minds) confirmed when the journalists hit back with the organized "Gamers are dead" campaign.
Afterwards, the hashtag "gamergate" exploded and was mostly concerned with the feminist ideology and/or corruption in gaming journalism, with Zoe Quinn thing quickly disappearing from the radars.
-
-
The question is why is the conversation with them, if you care about ethics in journalism.
Because of the overlap with the people that acted unethically, from what I understand.
Generally speaking though, the conversation isn't about sexism in videogames from the GG perspective.
I said they aren't mutually exclusive positions, but each "side" makes it out like the other "side" is arguing against their points.
since "don't trade reviews for sex" should also fall under "don't be sexist"
Perspective matters.
From the editor's standpoint (male or female), yes, it is sexist if they requested it first.
But the developer (male or female) is consenting, which is not sexist, just unethical.It's not impossible to have sexual harassment from a subordinate to a boss. Imagine the subordinate offering sex for a promotion. Of course the boss could just fire the subordinate, but without proof of the encounter, it becomes difficult. If the boss accepts, it is unethical, but not sexist or harassment from the boss' perspective. In other words, the person that accepts the offer is not sexist or the harasser, regardless of who has power.
so why the overwhelming focus on the sex issue?
Because that's what gets the attention.
But literally none of what GG or the feminists are doing matters. If money or sex or quid pro quo is being offered for reviews, it needs to stop.
I don't see why, when I state that, I'm pointed at all the things GG has done wrong.
Nothing either "side" has done changes the requirement for ethical behavior.
The question is, why do you care?
Grand Theft Auto 5 banned by Australian chain due to violence against women
Retail chain Target says it has removed the R-rated game from shelves in stores across Australia due to complaints from customers
until it's no longer profitable, or they finally hit the magic forumla
That's the ideal for me.
As soon as you start fearing the free market may turn it's back to you
The market isn't free if a few people have undue weight in what happens.
Oviparous lizardpeople/dragonpeople don't need a pair of lumps of fat mounted to their chests to house mammary glands
TES lore says they're actually mammals, and that they developed those features due to biological and religious interference.
TES orcs are actually mutated elves, and were mutated as a curse. There's no biological advantage to their tusks.
Fantasy doesn't have to care about reality.
they don't have the power to make it happen
If it were the case, I'd just ignore them.
Funny no one seemed to ignore it when politicians and their interest groups tried to shut down games due to violence in video games. Even though it's been proven that video games don't affect the outcome of violence. That's it's always another factor that created the environment.
Likewise, games that represent women in gender roles, or abuse women, do not statistically lead to sexist behavior.
"We want ethics in journalism, but SJW are trying to get developers to cater to them!"
That's exactly it.
There's a cross-section, where activism gives undue weight and reviews to crappy video games.
so this Zoe Quinn is probably a terrible person
angelic singing
ah aaaaah aaaaaaaaahsystemic
Apparently, seeing women in bikinis makes you violent against women.
And I'm all for taking half nude women out of children's eyes, but the reason for doing so is concerning to me. I would think putting them in their own corner and putting up a sign would be enough. Not covering them up so no one can see it on the shelf.
Censorship is the goal of feminists, not new content.
the organized "Gamers are dead" campaign.
Yeah, the whole, anyone can play games, so it's ok if we market whatever shit we want, and turn the magazine into a propaganda tool.
-
Funny no one seemed to ignore it when politicians and their interest groups tried to shut down games due to violence in video games. Even though it's been proven that video games don't affect the outcome of violence. That's it's always another factor that created the environment.
That's not "funny" (in the sense of "weird" or ironic). Politicians can control the market from outside by simply writing bad legislation. Legislation that has zero cost to them, but results in silencing people through the use of force. So when they have stupid ideas, it's important to correct them.
When a group of civilians, even organized people, with no direct power to change legislation tries to push for their agenda, that's fine. Now, there's going to be parts of the group that does resort to unlawful means, like doxxing and hacking, and that's always wrong, no matter who does it. But sites choosing to remove content? That's their prerogative. If you go into someone's backyard to talk about things, the owner gets to make the rules.
See, this group doesn't have "undue weight in what happens". You simply perceive any power to change things from how you want them to be to be "undue power", because you think "free market" is one that gives you what you want and ignores what other people want. You have a skewed vision.
Take the example you repeated. One store chain decided not to sell one kind of game, because what they perceive as their target demographic doesn't like that game. That's their right as a private business. They aren't required to fight for freedom, they are free to do whatever they think is best for them.
You are free to complain about their decision, and boycott or do other organized campaigns to get them to reverse their decision, but to say that this is proof of "undue weight in what happens" is to not respect other people's right to not cater to you.
You are starting from the apparent assumption that people must cater to you, so if they don't, they must have been forced unlawfully. Otherwise, I'd be interested to know what "undue weight" means for you.
But literally none of what GG or the feminists are doing matters. If money or sex or quid pro quo is being offered for reviews, it needs to stop.
I don't see why, when I state that, I'm pointed at all the things GG has done wrong.
Everyone already agrees that journalists should behave ethically. So when you show up and say it, people start doubting your motives. Specially when you add the GG label to your request. Specially because of this:@Kian said:
These two things aren't related! See, this is the definition of an ulterior motive. You don't want SJW to get their way with developers, but saying "We don't want developers to pay attention to SJW!" is unpopular, because on the surface, the SJW fight for things that sound nice. So you cover that argument with the more acceptable "We want ethics in game journalism" excuse. But no one is arguing against it, so the ulterior motive is obvious to everyone."We want ethics in journalism, but SJW are trying to get developers to cater to them!"
That's exactly it.
When what you say has no relation to what you do, people don't believe that you are sincere. Specially when you freely admit it!
If you want to be taken seriously, you aren't supposed to say "That's exactly it," when the incongruence is pointed out. You are supposed to try to link the two things together in a believable manner. If the SJW disappeared tomorrow, what would that accomplish in terms of ethics in journalism? How would that lead to publishers not paying for better reviews?
-
Everyone already agrees that journalists should behave ethically. So when you show up and say it, people start doubting your motives.
:PJH's_eyebrow_unicode_characters:
-
TES lore says they're actually mammals, and that they developed those features due to biological and religious interference.
I wasn't speaking of the Argonians -- it sounds like the TES lore twists itself into a bit of a knot here BTW, but that's just me.
TES orcs are actually mutated elves, and were mutated as a curse. There's no biological advantage to their tusks.
Do orcs and elves get along in the TES 'verse? (It seems that the TES take on Orcs is far less...barbaric than the norm, but again, that's just a first impression.)Censorship is the goal of feminists, not new content.
QFT -- this is the fundamental flaw of the whole SJ movement. They got a F in civics, and are showing their ignorance everywhere they spout off.
-
because you think "free market" is one that gives you what you want and ignores what other people want.
You keep saying that.
I haven't shown that to be true.
If someone wants to make a game and claim "non-sexist", feel free.
But that's not what they want. They want every game to abide by their standards. That's not free market.
because what they perceive as their target demographic doesn't like that game
No, it's because they don't want negative PR.
They serve a diverse group of people, and someone may not enter their store because they have GTA there. Whereas the target market still wants the game.
Therefore, the market isn't free, it's co-dependent.
You are starting from the apparent assumption that people must cater to you
No, I'm starting from the assumption that there is a developer out there that wants to cater to me, there's me that has a demand for that product, and somehow something got between us and caused the market to not be free.
You don't want SJW to get their way with developers
Not true.
Again, I don't care if someone makes a game where a single woman kills thousands of men for breakfast.
I just don't want all the games I care about to be injected with material I don't care about, because they feel an obligation to satisfy a small minority of people that don't even belong to their customer base.
You keep saying that it's the business' choice, and talk about customer bases.
But if a feminist hates GTA so much because a woman can get smacked by a man, why the hell don't they just:
- Not play the game.
- Demonstrate that their is a market for the game they want, and see if someone will develop for it.
- Make their own game.
Their crux of their arguments isn't that we want not-sexist-games and there is a market for it, please develop to that market. The crux of their argument is that violence against women in videogames leads to violence against women in real life, therefore censor games.
That's not a fucking market.
Censor games!
IS NOT A MARKET.
If you want to be taken seriously, you aren't supposed to say "That's exactly it," when the incongruence is pointed out. You are supposed to try to link the two things together in a believable manner. If the SJW disappeared tomorrow, what would that accomplish in terms of ethics in journalism? How would that lead to publishers not paying for better reviews?
You're putting me into this false dichotomy argument.
- Feminist are wrong for wanting to censor games.
- Specific women that happen to be feminist are wrong for "paying" for reviews. Particular gamers got burned by buying games they thought would be good, and don't want that to happen again.
Two completely different arguments, different metrics, different spectrums.
-
Everyone already agrees that journalists should behave ethically.
That's the strawman the feminists are using.
They point out that they have nothing to do with a lack of ethics in journalism, then proceed to demand censorship.
It's two issues.
The focus has shifted.
Thunderf00t
SargonLeft leaning people that are countering the feminists about videogames. The anti-feminist-censorship crowd is one of the most diverse political groups that span across race, gender, political views, etc. There's no way the criticism is just from a bunch of narcissistic GGers that have a tin foil hat ulterior motive.
-
Do orcs and elves get along in the TES 'verse? (It seems that the TES take on Orcs is far less...barbaric than the norm, but again, that's just a first impression.)
It's not so much less barbaric. It's more of an appeal to the fact that barbarianism is misunderstood.
Both Mongolians and Norse had integrated plunderers, but that wasn't the majority of their society. They also had culture, structure, organization. It's a myth that you have a group that only raids and does nothing else, that's not sustainable.
Their social structure also doesn't work as well in the north, so their communities become smaller and appear even more undeveloped.
They also have a one male mating policy. Only the chief can mate, and he selects the roles of the various women and men. All of the women are his wives, but wife in that context has less to do with sex and more to do with managing roles for the community.
They are smithing focused, and you'll find that there are established trade routes with other culture groups among them.
They are related to the elves and their religion matches high elf religion more.
Imperials and Nords have an altered version of religion that least matches the elvish religion, but claims linkage, and that's what offends the high elves the most. Humans have injected their own understanding into their religion, but ironically enough it appears that it's respected. For example, the Nord's "heaven" actually exists, even though, according to the elves, it shouldn't. TES religion is weird that way. It's almost as if reality conforms to belief, instead of belief conforming to reality.
Many of the different races have different names for their primary three gods. And when those primary three gods interact with mortals, they take on the appearance and personality of the aspect that the race understands them to be.
The primary three dark elf gods exist, as well as the primary three for the high elves. And lore says they are the same, but from mortal eyes, you're teased into thinking they aren't.
I don't know nearly enough though, so any of this could be very wrong.
-
-
Just make it into a
-
And when those primary three gods interact with mortals, they take on the appearance and personality of the aspect that the race understands them to be.
The primary three dark elf gods exist, as well as the primary three for the high elves. And lore says they are the same, but from mortal eyes, you're teased into thinking they aren't.
Or maybe what you're seeing isn't really physically there in the first place, and you're seeing some kind of spiritual/magical projection. Not that it makes much difference; reality isn't entirely physical in that setting anyway.
-
reality isn't entirely physical
in that settinganyway.I feel like this is just as likely.
Superposition is weird like that.
-
@Kian said:
because what they perceive as their target demographic doesn't like that game
No, it's because they don't want negative PR.
They serve a diverse group of people, and someone may not enter their store because they have GTA there. Whereas the target market still wants the game.
The people that regularly enter their store is Target's target demographic. They don't market to everyone.If someone in that group may choose not to enter because they are carrying GTA V, then they have to make a choice: do they alienate the people that won't enter the store because they carry the game, or do they alienate the people that won't enter the store because they decided not to carry it? They decided that it was better for them to side with the group that didn't like the game.
When you run a business, you can't just do whatever you want to. You have to cater to your customers. That doesn't mean that you aren't free. It means that both you and your customers are free, and if you want them to do business with you, you have to be someone they want to do business with. You have choices, and those choices have consequences. That is what "free" means.
Sure, some people want to buy the game. The question is, are those people the people Target cares about? Apparently, that group isn't big enough or spend enough to offset the cost to the rest of the business and brand.
It's not like GTA V was difficult to get a hold of, either. It was the fastest selling game ever.
No, I'm starting from the assumption that there is a developer out there that wants to cater to me, there's me that has a demand for that product, and somehow something got between us and caused the market to not be free.
It's not enough that you want to buy a game, and someone wants to make it. There's the crucial step of getting the game to you. That step involves a lot of other people, unless the developer is also a publisher and retailer (Valve can do whatever the hell it wants, for example).That means that to get the game, you have to do business with a bunch of other people. You don't have a right to force those people to do business with you if they don't want to. Because the market is free, and you don't get to make unilateral demands. They get to set conditions for engaging with you too. And it's not required that these demands be simply money. A bar can have a dress code, "No shirt, no shoes, no service".
In particular, they get to decide what they sell. Just because someone has a store doesn't mean you can demand that they sell the stuff you want. Because again, they're free to define their business as they see fit. And they are then responsible for the consequences of those choices. If they have lower profits for not selling something, that's their problem.
You have a weird definition of free market, where you expect everything to be available all the time. But making things available is work that someone has to do. You can't abstract it away, and you can't demand that that work happen under your terms. If people object to a certain product, they're free not to carry it on their trucks, or to use their display space to show it. You'll have to work with people that don't find it objectionable.
I just don't want all the games I care about to be injected with material I don't care about, because they feel an obligation to satisfy a small minority of people that don't even belong to their customer base.
Well, then vote with your wallet and don't buy those games. Then the developers will have to decide whose business is more important. And publicize your opinions on why they should not put those elements in their games. Basically, do what the SJWs do, which is apply social pressure. That's the non-coercive, reasonable way to get people to do what you want.But understand that other people may not like what you say, and even find it offensive. Of course, if they react by unlawful, coercive means (hacking, doxxing, threats) that's wrong. And I know that people on both sides do it, no side is perfectly pure or filled with saints. It sucks, and makes exposing one's opinions difficult. Which is why I support anonymity. However, social rebuke is a perfectly appropriate response to material a person finds objectionable.
The crux of their argument is that violence against women in videogames leads to violence against women in real life, therefore censor games.
For argument's sake, let's say this is true (I doubt they would express it that way, or that they have the same definition of violence you are using, but that's beside the point). That still is part of how the market works. So long as they don't resort to coercive means. If you are morally opposed to something, you try to get it to not exist any more. So you organize campaigns and decry the act as foul and immoral, and try to get people on your side, so that social pressure can build.We are social creatures, we value social status, and having people say we're doing bad things is an effective and valid way of getting us to change our behavior. You don't live in a bubble. Even if you think you aren't bothering people, the marketing for games like GTA affect everyone. If it didn't, they wouldn't hear about it and wouldn't object to it because they wouldn't know it exists.
They point out that they have nothing to do with a lack of ethics in journalism, then proceed to demand censorship.
That's because censorship has nothing to do with ethics in journalism! Censorship is "Don't talk about that", ethics in journalism is "if you're a journalist, don't lie in a professional capacity for personal gain". Why is this so hard to understand?The anti-feminist-censorship crowd is one of the most diverse political groups that span across race, gender, political views, etc. There's no way the criticism is just from a bunch of narcissistic GGers that have a tin foil hat ulterior motive.
But that has nothing to do with ethics in journalism! If you don't like feminist censorship, then don't say you're fighting for ethics in journalism! You're fighting against feminist censorship! They are two separate things with no tie between them!
-
I feel like this is just as likely.
We could debate your position all century and make no progress on it at all (after all, we'd be only adding a molehill to the mountain of debate that's already happened) but we can be certain with the setting of TES. The rules of reality there are not required to match ours (and the rules of physics definitely seem sometimes a bit off; Bethesda don't seem really very committed to conservation of energy even in purely physical interactions, if the glitches are anything to go by ;)).
-
You have a weird definition of free market, where you expect everything to be available all the time.
I get what you're saying, but that's why I like the internet. Makes it easier to not look at something you don't want.
Well, then vote with your wallet and don't buy those games.
I do?
Basically, do what the SJWs do, which is apply social pressure.
Nobody has to do that.
I don't have to demand that every game have a male lead role and involve screwing a helpless woman. I just go play God of War. (DISCLAIMER: Not actually my personal preference.)
Games are amoral, they don't need to have moral requirements.
I can play a board game where I commit genocide every three turns. It's called Smallworld.
That's the non-coercive, reasonable way to get people to do what you want.
I don't have to get people to do what I want.
Why is that a concern in FICTION. Holy shit.
It's FICTION.
I can do some very morally reprehensible things in a videogame, then go play tea time with my daughter.
I can separate reality from fiction.
Some of these feminists don't seem to have that capability.
That's because censorship has nothing to do with ethics in journalism!
Agreed. That's why I called it a strawman.
GG: Ethics
Fem: Videogames are sexist. We need more main female leads, and less objectification of females.
Me: Both good ideas.
GG: You're defending a woman that acted unethically. Ethics! Rape threats!
Me: WTF?
Fem: GG is evil. We haven't done anything unethical. Are you sexist?
Me: WTF?!?!?!Both sides are misrepresenting each other, and blending two arguments that aren't related.
Some other place on the internet.
Fem: All games must not be sexist. God of War and GTA need to be banned!
Me: WTFOMGBBQ!?!?!
GG: Don't censor games
Fem: I already said I'm not doing anything unethical. Sexist GG.If you don't like feminist censorship, then don't say you're fighting for ethics in journalism!
It's two issues.
I can't have unrelated opinions about two issues.The only reason they are related was because of three feminists that happen to be involved in both cases.
It's almost as if saying you want "ethics in journalism" is buried because of GG. Now if anyone is ever acting unethically and you call them out on it, you'll be labeled a sexist.
Great job guys.
-
It's not so much less barbaric. It's more of an appeal to the fact that barbarianism is misunderstood.
Both Mongolians and Norse had integrated plunderers, but that wasn't the majority of their society. They also had culture, structure, organization. It's a myth that you have a group that only raids and does nothing else, that's not sustainable.
It sounds like the devs did their homework, for once ;)
(I'm actually more inclined to make my take on Orcs into semi-nomadic/tribalistic, albeit not particularly warlike, steppe herdsmen, but that's just me. *cues image of Orc walking into the inn with an injured sheep in his arms*)
I can separate reality from fiction.
Some of these feminists don't seem to have that capability.
Yeah -- is there a SJ brain-worm, just like the "everything is a phone" brain-worm? I suppose that would explain their utter ignorance of basic civics...
-
I get what you're saying, but that's why I like the internet. Makes it easier to not look at something you don't want.
Yeah, me too. Also makes it easier to get stuff you want straight from the source and cut out the middle man.Games are amoral, they don't need to have moral requirements.
Sure, they don't HAVE to. But some people want them to. Just like they want all media to conform to different ideals. Cultural drift is the result of that struggle.I don't have to get people to do what I want.
You don't have to, but other people want to. And you may want them to not want to, but then you would be wanting them to be different. Which is what they want. They want everyone to agree with them (and conform to their morals), you want everyone to agree with you (and leave you alone). These two desires are in opposition. Free speech and market forces is the best way to settle it.The only reason they are related was because of three feminists that happen to be involved in both cases.
Except they aren't in the journalism side. I'm guessing you mean Anita, Brianna Wu and Quinn. Anita makes videos (though not as many as her detractors would want her to o_O), she's not a journalist. You have not yet provided any evidence that Quinn was involved in a journalism scandal. She was accused by her ex-boyfriend, but the review apparently never existed. And Wu is another developer. So unless you have some reason to believe she was involved in another scandal, none of these are people a movement fighting for ethics in journalism should have ever been involved with.They may be shitty people (I have not read, seen or played anything by them, and I don't know them personally), but they should be beside the point as far as GG would be concerned if it were concerned with ethics in journalism.
-
And Wu is another developer. So unless you have some reason to believe she was involved in another scandal, none of these are people a movement fighting for ethics in journalism should have ever been involved with.
"We support ethics in video games."
Wu: "The people who have been harassing me for years are all part of GG! GG is evil and hates women! Games must be less sexist!"
They drag sexism in. Who started publishing articles saying that the term 'gamer' only applies to the 12yos on Xbox live who insult anyone with a female name? Was that GG? So yes, the two are horribly conflated now, because of a narrative pushed strongly by Leigh Alexander and others, saying that all gamers are sexist, and that there must be a major social change now.
"Look, we don't want to talk about this, we agree 12yos on Xbox Live are sexist, and we have no problem with more inclusive games. Now why are you all colluding to attack us?"
"SEXISTS! DIE!"
-
"We support ethics in video games."
I assume you meant game journalism? (Not trying to be pedantic, just making sure)The people who have been harassing me for years are all part of GG!
Well, is this true? Note that "all the people that harassed her are in GG" doesn't mean "everyone in GG harassed her". But if this is true, and GG didn't try to distance itself from those people, then you kind of become a shield for those people.From your description of the issue, it sounds like she had a problem with some set of people. She didn't just target GG for no reason.
-
But if this is true, and GG didn't try to distance itself from those people, then you kind of become a shield for those people.
I like your if. Prove that this hasn't happened. Everyone I've ever seen talk about this says 'She was already being harassed over the things she was doing. We have no reason to believe GG suddenly randomly took over. We don't support harassment of anyone, and if anyone following our movement were to harass her, they'd have to be a complete moron, because it's clearly counterproductive.' She has also been proven to have harassed herself in an attempt to blame people.
Again, time after time, people here say that GG condones harassment. Time after time, people in GG directly say they don't support it. How anyone ever reaches the first point is a complete mystery to me. "There are idiots" != "everyone in GG supports idiots".
From your description of the issue, it sounds like she had a problem with some set of people. She didn't just target GG for no reason.
It's entirely possible that someone in GG complained about her using kickstarter/whatever money for the sex change. But that isn't a reason to assume that all the harassment she was already getting is suddenly purely GG now, which she frequently stated.
Look, you can believe liars if you want. I can't stop you. But they are still liars. Everyone I've heard try to talk about things from a GG perspective gets ignored. They request debates or interviews, and get told that they are harassers for doing so. Where is the 'official apology and blanket condemnation' by game journalists and their commenters for threatening TotalBiscuit's family? GG members apologize and condemn that behavior all the time.
Did you know that that's why he sided with GG? Because his family was threatened when he tried to be neutral? He saw game publishers continuing to throw extravagant parties and lavishing free stuff on reviewers, and wanted to make a stand against that kind of unethical behavior in the game industry. He sided with the people who actually wanted a change in the industry, and actually listen when people talk.
The fact is, game publishers are well known to be corrupt. Game journalists think that's great, because they get free stuff. People who run competitions don't see any problem with judges being best friends with one of the contestants. Now, some of that has to be disclosed. It's better. But you still get this flood of disgusting people saying that the people who fought for it are just evil sexists who haven't done anything good.
It's understandable that Gawker hates them. But why would you ever side with Gawker?
-
Prove that this hasn't happened.
Asking the other side to prove a negative is not allowed as a debating technique.
-
My point is, there are plenty of examples of people saying that this is unacceptable. The closest you get to someone saying that it is acceptable is the guy whose blog post started this, and from what I gather, his point was that you can't say 'GG has harassed people, argument invalid' if you've harassed people as well.
GG people condemn it all the time. Meanwhile the wonderful feminist youtubers harass women within their own movement while saying it's unacceptable. They won't name who did it and kick them out of the movement, despite knowing this. GG is almost entirely anonymous, and so no one knows who the harassers are, but they're condemned at every opportunity.
I just don't know. I'm just glad I can't think like they do. "It's okay to harass women if you're feminist"?
-
@boomzilla said:
:PJH's_eyebrow_unicode_characters:
Ò_o - that one? AltGr`O_o...
Yes. Though your AltGr is gibberish to me. To get the same effect, I need Win'shiftO_o.
-
But that has nothing to do with ethics in journalism! If you don't like feminist censorship, then don't say you're fighting for ethics in journalism! You're fighting against feminist censorship! They are two separate things with no tie between them!
Not no tie. I suspect a lot of journalists would not be fond of self (or not self) censorship due to some special interest.
-
He's not going to get it.
There is a tie between them, but it's there because the feminists forced there to be a tie between them.
Because they didn't like being criticized and use GG as a scapegoat to their criticism by deflection.
Same thing they do for abortion. "We shouldn't have partial birth abortion, whether a baby is born a day premature shouldn't determine whether we get to abort it." "But, but, republicans are waging a war on women. We are the victims here."
"Surely you can come to a compromise on air temperature" "But, but, some guy told some woman to STFU. Victims we are!"
"We should make journalists more transparent when they accept things from video game companies." "But, but, you don't want less sexist games. We are victims, of video game rape"
It's never related. That's why they're called strawmen.
-
If you're talking about gamergate, Zoe Quinn is way off their radar. In fact, they are activelly trying to distance themselves from that whole "affair". I don't remember the last time I've seen her mentioned on /r/KotakuInAction (my main gamergate place I follow).
Well, that's easy enough to reality check. Let's do a search for mentions of Zoe Quinn in the last week, and filter down to only occasions when she was mentioned in an initial post and it was upvoted:
1 (179 points)
[2] (https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3f0vii/opinion_question_2_lets_get_into_it_of_sjws/) (284 points)
3 (80 points)
4 (51 points)
5 (93 points)
6 (80 points, Quinn in title)
7 (277 points)
8 (64 points, Quinn in title)
9 (413 points)
10 (7 points)
11 (178 points)
12 (55 points)But hey, there is some discussion of how maybe the movement shouldn't be talking about Zoe Quinn all the time:
That got a big fat (0 points).
And remember, that's just from a 1 week search. So yeah, I think reality is failing to fit your narrative again.
-
Well they don't come into my RSS, so they might as well not exist.
-
She did recently show up in something called #Gamer complaining about how much of a victim of the whole thing she is. The fact is, you can't tell this story without mentioning her in some way, and as soon as you do, you get attacked. I haven't read those posts, but if any of them are just talking about history, or are talking about her recent appearance, they aren't representative of some kind of 'fixation' on her.
-
How anyone ever reaches the first point is a complete mystery to me. "There are idiots" != "everyone in GG supports idiots".
If all someone sees of the movement is harassment because the harassers are free to use it as cover because it's just a hashtag with no official stance on anything, and they don't otherwise actively follow the tag, they may reach that conclusion straightforwardly. If you add to that that while not supporting harassment, the more moderate posts simply say you suck and are unethical and misrepresent you (because their official posture isn't "we want to censor games" any more that GG's posture is "we want to harass women"), and their defense is "it can't be proven we harassed you" which is the lamest defense anyone can use, you might reach the conclusion that they support it, they just don't say they do it because that would be monumentally stupid.They only experience the idiots => they believe there are only idiots.
If it's hard for you to see this, it means you haven't tried to put yourself in someone else's shoes, ignore your own knowledge, and try to see things from their perspective.
But that isn't a reason to assume that all the harassment she was already getting is suddenly purely GG now, which she frequently stated.
A link to these frequent statements?The fact is, game publishers are well known to be corrupt. Game journalists think that's great, because they get free stuff. People who run competitions don't see any problem with judges being best friends with one of the contestants. Now, some of that has to be disclosed. It's better. But you still get this flood of disgusting people saying that the people who fought for it are just evil sexists who haven't done anything good.
This is the problem with being a loose association with no spokesperson. You can't claim credit for the good things random people do and refuse responsibility for the bad things random people do. You are both those things until you find a way to define who is in and who is out that an outside observer can use.GG is almost entirely anonymous, and so no one knows who the harassers are, but they're condemned at every opportunity.
Just to highlight that you are apparently aware of the problem. If GG is anonymous, you can't say "GG doesn't harrass", because you have no more right to declare GG's intentions than the random harasser using the tag has. GG is whatever people use it for, by definition.Not no tie. I suspect a lot of journalists would not be fond of self (or not self) censorship due to some special interest.
It doesn't matter if they're fond of it. The question is if it's an ethical concern. A publication can have an editorial line aligned with the beliefs of the owners, refuse to dedicate part of their limited resources to support contrary opinions, and that is not an ethical conflict. The question is if they're lying, or exchanging favors, or other such unethical behaviors. Choosing to silence comments on their site is fine. Choosing not to run certain stories is fine. Just because someone has a wide reach doesn't mean they have to become a platform for opposing beliefs.Well, that's easy enough to reality check.
One of those links has an interesting answer to my question of "why are these things related?"
**Question 2** Many gamergate supporters have spoken out very frequently and harshly against "Social Justice Warriors" (SJW's), feminism, and Anita Sarkeesian. What do these have to do with ethics in video game journalism?** **Final Top Answer** Brad, as many have said, the tie-in between Social Justice and GamerGate is intrinsic. Many of these violations of ethical journalism occur because the journalists were ditching ethical conduct for pushing an ideological narrative. Whether it came from giving games positive coverage and reviews because it fit their narrative (Gone Home) or bashing a game for being offensive (re:sexist) to them (Bayonetta, Witcher 3). This extends further to the Zoe Quinn thing in which through the GameJournoPros mailing list a narrative was formed to ignore what happened between Zoe Quinn and Nathan Grayson. Mind you, this had never stopped the press from going into detail about Brad Wardell or Max Temkin's purported scandals. And by further extension, the inability to be critical of Anita Sarkeesian despite all her issues. Stolen artwork. Stolen footage. Misrepresentation (Hitman scene). Years behind on her promised Kickstarter despite making several times over what she said she needed. Yet despite this, most outlets only talk about her claims of harassment and threats on the Internet. Yet recently, when Totalbiscut releases a SoundCloud about his own threats and harassment he received while undergoing chemotherapy for his cancer, did you see a flurry of articles? Even one? One of the biggest names in PC gaming with far more of a following where it matters (check Steam curators) barely gets a word. Why? Because they despise him and have said as much in private settings like GJP. This is part of GamerGate. The press controlling coverage and narrative not only deciding what they will cover, but how they will cover it, by asking the right questions and ignoring the ones whose answers don't fit their beliefs. Confirmation bias.
I say interesting, not "correct". Also, this is the answer that was most voted after a given amount of time. So let's call it the most representative for this subsection of the movement (since there isn't an actual spokesperson or an official stance on anything).Breaking that down:
Many of these violations of ethical journalism occur because the journalists were ditching ethical conduct for pushing an ideological narrative. Whether it came from giving games positive coverage and reviews because it fit their narrative (Gone Home) or bashing a game for being offensive (re:sexist) to them (Bayonetta, Witcher 3).
First, as I said before, having an editorial line and supporting things you think are good is not an ethical problem. Also, not enjoying something someone else enjoyed doesn't mean they lied to you when they said they enjoyed it. You can go to metacritic and see that Gone Home, for example, has many positive reviews. People enjoyed it. It has negative reviews, too, so you could at most say it's polarizing.
You can't claim that positive coverage of it was unethical without showing evidence that favors were exchanged. "I didn't like it" is not evidence of anything other than you didn't like it.
Similarly, giving a poor review based on subjective criteria is fine. It's not unethical to say "I didn't like Witcher 3 because it's sexist". You might be stepping into unethical territory if you claimed "It sucks because it has poor gameplay" when you didn't like it because it was sexist, but that's not what they are saying happened, so no unethical behavior yet.
This extends further to the Zoe Quinn thing in which through the GameJournoPros mailing list a narrative was formed to ignore what happened between Zoe Quinn and Nathan Grayson. Mind you, this had never stopped the press from going into detail about Brad Wardell or Max Temkin's purported scandals.
I don't know what the "Zoe Quinn thing" was. If there was an organized decision across publications not to speak about it, that would be going into unethical territory. It depends on exactly what the scandal was and how the conversation about burying it went.
And by further extension, the inability to be critical of Anita Sarkeesian despite all her issues. Stolen artwork. Stolen footage. Misrepresentation (Hitman scene). Years behind on her promised Kickstarter despite making several times over what she said she needed. Yet despite this, most outlets only talk about her claims of harassment and threats on the Internet.
Anita's issues would fall in a different bag. She hasn't, as far as I know, been involved in an actual scandal, and someone not choosing to criticize someone else you don't like isn't an ethical problem. Since she's not a journalists, her being unethical has nothing to do with ethics in journalism. She may be making bad videos about video games, but that's between her and the people she's plagiarized, who are free to sue her and send DMCA take-down requests for it if they owned the IP she used in her videos.
I wanted to highlight the bit about how terrible it is that she didn't make more videos because that's always funny.
So what if outlets talk about her harassment? That's the interesting bit about her. She only makes for an interesting story because of the harassment. She'd been doing videos just like Tropes Vs Women about other forms of media before and no one cared. It wasn't until she started being harassed that she became prominent. Which doesn't mean she caused it, it just shows that some people know how to take advantage of shitty things that happen to them, while other people just whine endlessly.
Yet recently, when Totalbiscut releases a SoundCloud about his own threats and harassment he received while undergoing chemotherapy for his cancer, did you see a flurry of articles? Even one? One of the biggest names in PC gaming with far more of a following where it matters (check Steam curators) barely gets a word. Why? Because they despise him and have said as much in private settings like GJP.
The big ethical "issue" this line seems to have is "these people report on things I don't care about, and don't report things I care about". That's not an ethical problem, that's freedom of speech in action. They choose what to talk about. They have tastes and interests that are at odds with yours. They follow their own interests, not yours. Talk about entitlement, thinking that if other people don't report about the things you care about, it must be proof of unethical behavior.
You can make your own online magazine, pay for journalists and hosting, and feel free to report on whatever you want to report. Don't demand that other people make their investments work for you.
I haven't read those posts, but if any of them are just talking about history, or are talking about her recent appearance, they aren't representative of some kind of 'fixation' on her.
Just read the last one, and you'll see plenty of people arguing why the fixation is right and calls to not fixate on her shouldn't be heeded.
