djpretzel

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

One of my favorite #gamergate articles is from FORBES of all places: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/ I'm wondering how people feel about that. Andy in particular - you've pointed out (correctly, I think) the speculative nature of many of the accusations, but this writer is at least willing to treat some of the nastiest stuff as "alleged"...is that reluctance victim-blaming or harassment in and of itself, or just good journalism, displaying equal skepticism for information supporting either argument?On victim blaming: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/03/nude-pictures-hackers-advice-blame-freedom-and-timing/ Makes some solid points - anyone beg to differ? This is exactly how I feel - sound advice is sound advice, the probability of becoming a victim CAN be reduced by avoiding certain behaviors, there IS often a sacrifice involved in terms of personal freedom that shouldn't be minimized, and timing is important. Is there more to say? What part of that don't we all actually agree with?

I mostly stayed on-topic and had ONE line on Joss Whedon, just as a segue, and that's what gets talked about? That's cool, that's fine... honestly, I love Firefly/Serenity enough that nothing he could ever say or do would take that away. I'll say this... he might have opinions I disagree with, OR that I agree with, but I DO think he's "allowed" to have them. People often get hung up on that, with the "What the HELL do YOU know about X?? You're just a celebrity/director/musician/whatever!!" - but they're still people, eh? And what are all of us - professional experts? So I'm fine with Joss Whedon weighing in, but I don't think he gave it much thought - not even enough thought to say "hey, maybe siding with Anita will get me some good press!" - but perhaps I'm just naive. At any rate, timaeus222 made an observation on my point about antiquity/ancient environments needing to identify themselves as such at least in part by depictions of gender inequality because that's how we ourselves think of the past, in general terms... he indicated that most people wouldn't give it that much thought, and I totally agree. Most people don't give much thought in general to the media they consume. But here's the thing - I don't think they really have to. It's a subconscious thing, and before you point out that I'm the one that's been OBJECTING to "subconscious things," let me clarify that it is not that I think they don't EXIST, but rather that I am reluctant to draw hard & fast conclusions about their effects. Generally speaking, my own anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that when people play games or consume media that is fanciful in nature, even those of below average intelligence and above average impressionability seem to grok the disconnect between how we behave nowadays, in the real world. And I'd like to reiterate a concern - if we whitewash environments that either closely resemble periods of human history or are even roughly going for antiquity (Middle Earth-type jams, etc.), isn't that creating revisionist problems of its own, and sending the wrong message - that the increased proximity to equality that women have achieved in modern times has somehow been ever-present, and did not need to be FOUGHT for in the first place? Ironically, it almost undersells/diminishes the achievements of the movement on whose behalf it is being advocated!! Actual human history is much, much darker and worse for almost everyone involved than is depicted in games... games usually try and connect with that darkness on some level, but it's often superficial... I'd argue that trying at ALL is still better than painting fanciful lands in which the issues of gender equality have magically been resolved without conflict or even discussion. What type of crap is that?

But no one wants to talk about Anita's videos anymore!! Most have seen enough to dissuade them from watching the rest - and I'm not talking about the people who disagreed with her from the outset, I'm talking about people who are all about equality and progress and cultural criticism and what not, who just want to see it done, well... better. Perhaps more on topic: https://twitter.com/josswhedon/status/504508687722250240 Now I love me some Whedon, don't get me wrong, but... Anita's latest video is on violence, and well, anyone wanna splain something to me: Feminists will argue (quite correctly, in my opinion!) that human history has been full of the barbarous, vile, possessive, and otherwise unequal treatment of women. This was clearly FAR worse in the past than it is in the present. Sometimes I feel like more radical feminists don't want to admit this because it somehow weakens their rhetorical position if things have gotten better, or (even worse!) are continuing to improve. This is silly; there are plenty of injustices left to resolve, and equating the present with the past both ignores the progress that has been made BY previous generations of feminists and flagrantly illustrates a prioritizing of rhetoric and marketing over reasonable analysis. Most video games are about the past. What do I mean by this? I mean that even when they take place in completely fictionalized universes, those universes USUALLY resemble the past in terms of their politics, social structures, and general dynamics. Of course, not the ACTUAL, historical past of the human species - which is far more complex and nuanced than most of us ever grasp through liberal arts educations - but a generalized, ancient, antiquated version of "how things used to be" that we can more or less identify as being not at ALL "how things are." And how did things used to be? They used to be bad. Especially for women, but generally for everyone. Lots of wars, lots of conflict. Pretty shitty, but a great setting for a video game! I'll agree that when things are set in a technologically advanced, clearly futuristic environment and you STILL see gratuitous violence against scantily clad women, it doesn't jive, and it would be quite odd to see it in something like Battlefield 4, which is set in something resembling the present. But when you're talking about anything less than the future or a modified present, you're usually talking about the past. Even if there's Orcs, or magic, or giant mushrooms, or WHATEVER - it's the past. And the past is good for conflict-based games, because it presents a lot of antiquated ideas about good vs. evil that don't end up seeming completely ridiculous. Why does all of this matter? Why can't violence against women be seen as one of many environmental indicators of antiquity? As such, why isn't it a GOOD thing that we see this type of behavior as indicative of a universe that is NOT like our own, that we have outgrown, and that we need to make MORE like our own & modernize as a protagonist? If we whitewash games set in the "past" (i.e. anything ancient or otherwise antiquated so as to distance itself from reality) and attempt to diminish or altogether extinguish violence against women in such universes, aren't we just running equal risk of undermining awareness about how things were, and the more RECENT progress we've made? In other words, if I could summarize in a single question: Isn't the contrast meaningful?? Of course, you know me... I'm still not sold on the overall premise that this type of content has a lasting psychological effect that manifests itself culturally. I feel like an equally supported (i.e. not at all) hypothesis is that it serves as an outlet; I don't think you eliminate adolescent male power fantasies by cutting off the supply of fictional entertainment that caters to them, and I don't think you decrease testosterone by pretending it doesn't exist. What embarrasses me is that second-wave feminists fought & lost this war with regards to film, art, and pornography back in the 1970's. Gaming culture isn't mature enough to realize that its own immaturity doesn't evaporate through demonization, and shouldn't.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

Okay, but... it's probably a bad idea, right? They did make general comments about being more transparent and bullshit-free... take any other art form, or medium that seeks to be taken seriously as an art form, and ask whether it would be weird for an artist to sleep with a critic, whether that critic writes anything relevant or not... I don't know, really. As I said before, it STILL seems tenuous to me... but it also still bugs me, at the same time. As for all the rest, I think you made some excellent points, and I can see where "reaction in kind" could be interpreted as you did. It was poor word choice on my part; "in kind" was only meant to convey "in a similarly over-generalizing, antagonizing, etc. fashion" and not the specific means. One point that bears mentioning... Zoe's attackers are in many cases cowards hiding behind anonymity or random forum-goers with little regard for their reputation outside the like-minded venues they frequent. Their vitriol is more aggressive and their threats and actions more objectionable, no argument. Something that kind of bugs me, though, is that on the other side of the fence, you've got folks who are well-known, have professional reputations to consider, are (as you point out) actual game developers themselves, and are absolutely going batshit against people like TB, in public, or making sweeping generalizations about anyone & everyone that disagrees with them, Zoe, or Anita. While you're absolutely right that there's no equivalence in the levels of harassment, there's also very little equivalence in the reputation, notoriety, and bullhorn-power of the two opposing groups. The group that has little-to-nothing to lose is (unsurprisingly) behaving far worse, but the group that should be more concerned with image - both their own and of the industry they represent - isn't really knocking it out of the park...

I hadn't seen/read that but DAMN... yeah, he said it better than I could. There needs to be room to discus topics on their merits alone, always.

That's just mean. Of course, that's the sole reason why I'm defending him here - been paid off nice & good. He made a ReMix, too, and I'm going to post it directly without even listening to it

Yes but that's not how ethics work. As I mentioned, not sure if you read it (???), but ethics are quite often about avoiding even the impression of impropriety. If you agree that Kotaku's post about clarifying ethical responsibilities of journalists was, in your OWN words, "all good stuff" then don't you ALSO agree that the public discussion of questionable ethics regarding this topic was justified in the first place? And NOT just a private matter for which "it's none of your business" was 100% acceptable? Also, I thought your point was that it was purely speculation that it resulted in anything, not that it DIDN'T result in anything, which are two different concepts? When did you leap from it being pure speculation to it being factually incorrect? How can you have it both ways? How can you feel that Kotaku's post clarifying/explaining ethical policies was positive & beneficial while at the same time insisting that the conversation that sparked it did not deserve public scrutiny to begin with? It's a somewhat paradoxical position, imo... I'd love an explanation, or perhaps I've actually changed your mind? If you're making the argument that the ends didn't justify the means - that the topic in the abstract, or with names/specifics removed, would have potentially warranted discussion, but not at the expense of Zoe's privacy & airing what was basically dirty laundry, well, I'm right there with you. That's squarely on the ex-boyfriend though, right? See what I mean? Did I claim equivalency? Where did I say that? Quote me where I said that those things were equivalent. They are not. I did not say that they were. I did not say those things were equivalent. Nowhere did I say those things are equivalent. I did not mention, imply, or otherwise state that those things are equivalent. No aspect of my writing indicated a belief that those things are equivalent. Saying: ...is exactly the type of (frankly) bullshit mischaracterization I'm talking about!! Two wrongs don't make a right, but in this case, answering ten wrongs with three wrongs ALSO doesn't make a right. It doesn't matter that the misogynist douche-wads employing methods of harassment and abuse are worse - that's not a blank check to vilify, label, antagonize, generalize, or stoop to even HALF of their level. Is it?Who's fighting the good fight, here? From my vantage point, it seems like the answer is no one... No matter how disgusting SOME percentage of your opponents are, once you cede the high ground in a polarizing debate like this, you're just arguing the benefits of "pretty terrible" against "considerably worse"... Now, I don't personally know any of the "considerably worse" crowd who would actually stoop to the lows being HIGHLY publicized, but the "pretty terrible" folk are the ones I otherwise consider the forces of progress & creativity. I'm FAR more concerned with THEM "getting it right"...aren't you? Given that, on ANY topic involving feminism & games, we are almost GUARANTEED to see worms emanating from the woodwork who pull shit like this, don't you realize this means you'll ALWAYS be saying, for ANY debate on pretty much ANYTHING, "Well, WE'RE not the ones posting nude photos and making physical threats, so WE must be RIGHT!!"?? Isn't that a massive hole in accountability and ANY potential for discourse?? Isn't that a logical/rhetorical blank check - as long as these bozos keep showing up & pulling their shit, we're irrefutable & infallible?

I'm just wondering on this: http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/815645-quinnspiracy http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/817752-quinnspiracy Does this also fall under "Not any of your business" umbrella of protection? Were these faked? Well, we know she DID sleep with the Kotaku dude, right? I mean, he indicated so, himself. What we don't know - the speculation part - is whether it did her or her game any good. It doesn't seem like it, since as you mention he didn't review it and only mentioned it briefly. She's also (alleged) to have slept with a previous employer. Again, one can only speculate. Ethics, however, are often about eliminating even the suggestion of impropriety by removing speculation from the equation. That's on journos and employers, too, of course. What I want to know, Andy, is where was "It's all just speculation" when you were talking about Ferguson? Because I agree, there IS a lot of speculation here, but it's a similar instance where there are a lot of indicators that point in a given direction, that are hard to ignore... but it's also hard to be sure. I feel like Ferguson was (and still is) a similar thing - I don't want to derail too awful much, but I appreciate your refrain from leaping to judgments and your skepticism surrounding sources of information in THIS instance, I just don't know where they were when we were discussing THAT topic. Seems highly inconsistent? Or, rather, seems consistent with skepticism and speculation only being worthwhile depending on your ideological stance on the topic... It's clearly a public matter. Whether it should be or not is up for debate; whether it IS seems rather tangibly obvious. I think people ARE almost implicitly defending that behavior by employing a mob mentality that is casting any aspersions on Zoe whatsoever as being misogynistic groupthink. No matter how ugly the ugliest of trolls gets, I don't think responding to them or criticizing them should morph into attacking ANYONE who might find certain aspects of this incident disturbing or believe, however mistakenly, that it warrants public debate. You're saying the censorship is "so-called" but I'm wondering why the qualifier was needed? Because it's alleged, or because you don't view it as legit censorship? Using DMCA to get rid of stuff that's clearly fair use, because YOU don't like what it's saying, is to me clearly censorship. As to the question of it being alleged, there appears to be proof. Also, many of those defending Zoe are doing so in the form of attacking people: http://gamesnosh.com/the-ugly-side-of-justice-total-biscuit-denounced-over-zoe-quinn-scandal-comments/ Just look at the shit TB got for making the relatively benign points that he did. https://twitter.com/devincf/status/503986333334114304 This guy appears to be a complete idiot. First he said he hated anti-quinn people more than ISIS, then he attempted to backpedal and referred to it as a joke. Which... these guys are actively beheading people.... maybe not good joke material? I do believe that if a male game developer were accused of these things: It wouldn't be as notable because you wouldn't have legions of trollish women coming out of the woodwork to make this their poster child example of what's wrong with gaming. This immature reaction is what explodified the whole thing. HOWEVER, the flip side is that I DO think the guy would be criticized, marginalized, etc. and that "it's none of your business" would not be accepted as a valid defense/point More on the "none of your business" line... does it hold up? I can see making a compelling argument that it's the way things SHOULD be, but I don't see much evidence that it's the way things ARE. I don't see it being used as an effective defense by anyone accused of anything that SHOULD be personal, and I feel like when someone makes a public accusation that involves five other people (one of whom has confirmed), numerous pieces of evidence, etc., the cat's out of the bag. If you believe this is still a viable, respectable response, I'd only suggest that you remember taking the high road here and think about whether you have in the past, or will in the future. "It's none of your business" doesn't hold water for most people, when it comes down to it, and I'd personally argue that once people start putting their professional reputations on the line to defend you, and you let them, it's all the more problematic. http://ogeeku.com/2014/08/31/war-over-zoe-quinn-nowinners/ This article seems to have it right.... no winners. It was a loser of a battle, but because of the antagonists involved (MRA-types and genuine troll/misogynists), the reaction in kind has been QUITE ridiculous and childish and disturbing in its own right.

A couple points Nothing her ex has alleged has been directly refuted/contradicted, has it? I was under the impression she basically agreed to all those things, did not refute the evidence he presented as being false/doctored? Just to be clear, airing personal dirty laundry = not cool, at all. Doesn't make it false, though. "Most game journalists and developers are on the developer's side" vs. "various randos" - this sounds an awful lot like a combination of bandwagon & appeal to authority fallacies. Does being a game journalist make you right, and being a "various rando" make you wrong? Is TotalBiscuit a rando? JonTron? The former made his thoughts known, the latter at the least has indicated that the issue is far from clear and that bullying/mob mentality is taking effect just as much, if not moreso, in her defense. "Misogyny" really DOES start to lose its teeth as a label when it's used willy-nilly... all I'm seeing are a bunch of posts from people who want to spin the whole story to support their own individual worldview. Assuming the information is true, I don't know too many people who would approve of someone cheating on their partner five times, having unprotected sex, and not informing them. That's not behavior to champion, or defend. Most of what I'm seeing here is a "my enemies' enemies are my friends" mentality, which has never seemed particularly admirable to me, personally... I certainly agree that this isn't primarily about the ethics and corruption of game journalism... to me, it's another sad case of the schism that's created wherein you're either "against" or "for" something, and little room for nuance or alternative exists. The cultural significance and polarizing nature of the events seem to have transcended their need to be considered

NECROBUMP OF DOOM - no thoughts at all on latest episodes and/or Quinnspiracy and related? I just saw an article this morning, and it reminded me of this thread: http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/ IIRC, several of those stats were quoted as absolute truths during the course of conversations here, and I thought it was at least worthwhile to link...

I played Euphonium in high school band - true story. Low brass represent. Switching between clefs was less challenging because (shame) I never really played by note names, mentally, but rather valve combinations - I associated specific notes (visually) with specific valve combos, so to me it wasn't about playing a B or C or whatever, it was about playing open valve, or 1&3, or 2&3, or 1&2 Terrible habit, do not emulate Excellent instrument though - for low brass, you get a lot of melodic material, hence the habit of parts being scored in either clef. My advice? Look for MIDIs instead of sheet music, and learn to transpose - there's not a lot of stuff out there written specifically for euph/baritone, but if you get a little proficient at editing a MIDI file, transposing it, and printing new notation, with the notation editor of your choice, you'll be opening a lot of doors in the process.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.