Brandon Strader

Tropes vs. Women / #GamerGate Conspiracies

Recommended Posts

IMO, The Onion nailed it. Gamergate on the whole is getting nothing productive done so far. :lol:.

I don't understand... you give Anita credit JUST for getting people talking about a topic, being an "agitator," "agent of change," etc. even when you acknowledge that there are good reasons to have numerous objections to both the form AND substance of her actual work. If she's been productive in getting people talking, surely #gamergate has been productive in getting people talking, too. As for anything substantive/tangible, well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand... you give Anita credit JUST for getting people talking about a topic, being an "agitator," "agent of change," etc. even when you acknowledge that there are good reasons to have numerous objections to both the form AND substance of her actual work. If she's been productive in getting people talking, surely #gamergate has been productive in getting people talking, too. As for anything substantive/tangible, well...

It's all a matter of degrees, yes. Game journalism does have ethics/transparency improvements it needs, so Gamergate will help in that regard, but that movement is overall less helpful and more misguided due to the other fears that have been too much of a part of it. The other stuff that's being protested -- women/minority developers and fears of "social justice warrior" progressive changes -- the people against that can't stop it, they'll only hasten it by reacting with fear, threats, and harassment. Being remotely anywhere in the ballpark on only 1 out of 3 core points is pretty bad.

To me, Gamergate here would would be like a bunch of people coming into OCR, claiming 1) the judges are all corrupt and only approve the ReMixes they like or are from their friends by quoting positive/negative judging comments, and 2) the judges approve "objectively bad music like dubstep/rap/metal" to pursue an SJW all-genre inclusion agenda, then also complaining that 3) the submissions take too long to be judged. And those people harassing you and staff to "fix" our judging policies. Well, one out of those three issues has a point. But if you base an anti-OCR Judgegate movement assuming all three things are right, and a lot of vitriol gets used on points 1 & 2, well... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To me, Gamergate here would would be like a bunch of people coming into OCR, claiming 1) the judges are all corrupt and only approve the ReMixes they like or are from their friends by quoting positive/negative judging comments, and 2) the judges approve "objectively bad music like dubstep/rap/metal" to pursue an SJW all-genre inclusion agenda, then also complaining that 3) the submissions take too long to be judged. And those people harassing you and staff to "fix" our judging policies. Well, one out of those three issues has a point. But if you base an anti-OCR Judgegate movement assuming all three things are right, and a lot of vitriol gets used on points 1 & 2, well... :lol:

Are you suggesting that isn't what actually happens? :<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To me, Gamergate here would would be like a bunch of people coming into OCR, claiming 1) the judges are all corrupt and only approve the ReMixes they like or are from their friends by quoting positive/negative judging comments, and 2) the judges approve "objectively bad music like dubstep/rap/metal" to pursue an SJW all-genre inclusion agenda, then also complaining that 3) the submissions take too long to be judged. And those people harassing you and staff to "fix" our judging policies. Well, one out of those three issues has a point. But if you base an anti-OCR Judgegate movement assuming all three things are right, and a lot of vitriol gets used on points 1 & 2, well... :lol:

can the judges djp #judgegate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone tell me where exactly the whole games journalism ethics thing intersects with the whole doxxing/harassing/douchebaggery thing? Because I have no idea what one has to do with the other, other than the fact that it's apparently the same group of people doing both. I get that people being assholes on the internet "for a cause" is a thing, but if "the cause" is ethics in gaming journalism, then what does going after critics and developers have to do with that? If they're going to go after anybody, shouldn't it be, you know, game journalists?

Personally, I'm just tired of hearing about it. It's fucking everywhere, and has been for weeks. Twitter and blogs and every gaming news site on the internet just won't shut up about it. The signal to noise ratio on the subject is incredibly low -- they're producing a lot of words, but not really saying anything. Most of the stuff I see from the gaming news side of things boils down to "#gamergate is terrible and wrong. If you aren't terrible and wrong but you still associate yourself with #gamergate, you need to think long and hard about your position" which just comes off as dismissive and condescending. There's a lot of talk but no discussion. It's just lobbing "you're wrong!" "no, you're wrong!" back and forth at each other endlessly.

But the real problem is that they just won't shut up about it. If there's anything of value to be had from engaging the movement, then have a discussion about it. If there isn't, then address it ("we're not going to argue the point with #gamergate because there's nothing of value to be had from engaging with them") and move on. By all means, continue to cover the story -- a post about a speaking engagement canceled due to bomb threats or something like that is still legitimate news and should be covered -- but don't keep doing the constant moralizing "shame on you, #gamergate!" crap. We've heard all about it. Seriously, your opinion is well and truly understood. Now either say something useful or stop talking about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thee main issue you are experiencing NJ is that the majority of the internet does not understand the concept of a discussion. They understand the concept of ultimatums and absolutes.

UR GAY!

NUH UH UR GAY!

ILL KILL U IF YOU SAY THAT TO MY FACE!

This is the kind of discourse you learn on the playground, and from there, anyone that isn't trained, and I say trained because I lack a better way of putting it, in the art of debate will default to what they know. In this case, childish bullying and a slog of "I'm right, get outta here with that burden of proof."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can someone tell me where exactly the whole games journalism ethics thing intersects with the whole doxxing/harassing/douchebaggery thing?

the gamergate nerds are a bunch of losers who got bullied 'cause they liked video games instead of sports or whatever and now that they have the opportunity to be bullies they're snatching it up like there's no tomorrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can someone tell me where exactly the whole games journalism ethics thing intersects with the whole doxxing/harassing/douchebaggery thing? Because I have no idea what one has to do with the other, other than the fact that it's apparently the same group of people doing both. I get that people being assholes on the internet "for a cause" is a thing, but if "the cause" is ethics in gaming journalism, then what does going after critics and developers have to do with that? If they're going to go after anybody, shouldn't it be, you know, game journalists

It doesn't intersect. It's a minority using the whole gamer equality and ethics in gaming journalism things as excuses to harass people, specifically the more visable people. They're probably not going after journalists because they figure they won't get a rise out of them or much of a response. They'll go after people who say "Bayonetta offends me!" because they're a whole lot more emotional and easier to pick on.

Just today Felicia Day got doxxed because she posted in her blog yesterday on how she didn't want to say much about gamergate, about how the whole thing felt awkward and made her feel alienated from other gamers. She didn't jump on a soapbox to preach whatever her opinion was, she just pretty much said "wow this makes me feel uncomfortable so here are my reasons to not talk about it", and some dipshits used that as an excuse to doxx her.

I don't doubt that there are some little keyboard warriors thinking that they're doing some social good by attacking developers or bloggers, but mostly it's the same group of assholes lurking in IRC channels and giggling about who they can go after next. They're bullies, nothing else.

Edit: Damn, beaten by Bleck with his tl;dr version

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to note that Chris Kluwe also wrote something up about Gamergate, calling them all sorts of names. And he didn't get doxxed while Felicia Day did.

If this isn't targeting women, why are women the only ones being targeted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thee main issue you are experiencing NJ is that the majority of the internet does not understand the concept of a discussion. They understand the concept of ultimatums and absolutes.

UR GAY!

NUH UH UR GAY!

ILL KILL U IF YOU SAY THAT TO MY FACE!

This is the kind of discourse you learn on the playground, and from there, anyone that isn't trained, and I say trained because I lack a better way of putting it, in the art of debate will default to what they know. In this case, childish bullying and a slog of "I'm right, get outta here with that burden of proof."

what's interesting, this is a very male/male culture thing. the internet still has this feel of a very male style playground, even though the numbers are evening out on paper.

males often like to use the internet to seem strong and unintimidable, cause interaction is round-based and no one sees you crying in the corner in the heat of the moment.

the riddle of people being assholes on the internet. it's totally a gender thing. a virtual space for males to act "manly", i.e. strongly opinionated and spiteful.

but, it's not strictly a matter of intellectual evolution. you can see it in its lowest form in some dreadful YT comment chains, you can see more evolved versions of it when people on here try to one-up each other in philosophical matters, or whatever. just a matter of more clever sophistry, and pretending to listen to the other, while you're really just scanning the post for inconsistencies according to your paradigm. ways to pick the opponent apart.

it's not even consciously malevolent. it's just how most people are wired.

the recipe for oldfashioned manliness: stick with your paradigm, don't really listen to your opponent. else his paradigm might somehow creep up behind you and swallow you, and he'll suddenly start making sense!

there's an art to actual listening, and it's far beyond anything associated with debate.

it works best in a real life setting, and it's really hard with written text, with people you don't really know.

it really is a mystical art, and it's something that women typically are more gifted in.

really listening means suspending your judgement and just feeling for the situation. listening in that way results in empathy.

it also results in massive confusion, because if you go down that road, sooner or later you'll realise that there is no right and wrong as such, just different states of being. some of them may be characterized as poisonous, but that's not really wrong either. unpleasant maybe.

sorry if this makes no sense to you contextually...but this is precisely what it all boils down to.

the only way feminism can be successful is by reminding everyone of the female qualities that are potentials in all of us. in C.G. Jung's words, people have to re-discover their animus/anima. then the problem is history.

before that, people will just dabble in trite discussions...like, equality in video games. superficial waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gamer gate is dumb because you have gamer gate full of gullible trolls and buttjerks and you have anti-gamergate who are basically setting up women to be targeted by gamergate.. it's just a big embarrassing clusterhump.

FWIW I did add GG to the title but I can remove it if anyone objects to it being there. I'm ready to not talk about gg anymore :<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to note that Chris Kluwe also wrote something up about Gamergate, calling them all sorts of names. And he didn't get doxxed while Felicia Day did.

If this isn't targeting women, why are women the only ones being targeted?

Because the ones playing both sides are looking to cause maximum outrage. They don't care about either side's stated goals. They just like causing as much trouble as they can so they can laugh at the results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a 3 year old video relating to another event pertaining to corrupt media and social engineering.

Check out that guy that's the worst representative of the crowd he was standing in. It doesn't even matter whether he was genuinely eccentric and off guard, or paid to make a deliberate act. It's obvious to some he's not a good representative of the motives of the rally, yet for others it is all that is necessary to see to form the opinion that the news network called into question is fair and balanced. Don't worry viewers, everything is just fine, we are indeed the good guys. Don't pay any mind of the brainwashed masses who say otherwise- instead, let's get outraged about the religious persecution suffered by American Christians. Thanks Obama.

The above ideas of media narrative control is actually totally non sequitur and has nothing to do with the topic whatsoever, so I'll just move on to this little worksheet of which you should not be deriving any kind of parallels with the above situation where something is spun to be brazenly misrepresented:

I'd like you to think about the words "feminism" and its overarching ideology, "egalitarianism." Compare that to "female supremacy."

With this contrast in mind, match these behaviors to the listed idealogues by drawing lines on your screen with your favorite color of crayon!

Advocates equal and fair treatment of all people

Egalitarian

When in possession of the ability of filtering discussion, censors all opposing opinion, information, and even neutral questioning and compromises to establish echo chambers as a cult-establishing power play of a extremist fringe group

Matriarchalist

Stereotypes and villifies men

Redefines prejudice to exclude groups that qualify as a culturally ingrained norm as targets so that it impractically varies from culture to culture

Donates and makes other efforts towards equalizing opportunities available for all; does not attempt to brute force equal representation in all fields

Regularly makes public vicious statements of shaming and slander to instill the fear of peer retribution for ever publicly wavering in resolve in cult members, and encouraging culture influencing media producers to yield to their rhetoric in fear of smear campaigns, reminiscent of mafia blackmail

Bonus essay question: How would a democracy be affected if the prominent exposure of a politically relevant philosophy that most participants are provided by "journalists" is a misleading, exaggeratedly repulsive misrepresentation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With this contrast in mind, match these behaviors to the listed idealogues by drawing lines on your screen with your favorite color of crayon!

Sorry to cut you off, here, but this is not a productive way of communicating on the forums. Say what you mean and don't obfuscate your point, otherwise I get nothing out of your poorly formatted worksheet. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great forum-productive discussion mate.

I think it fits quite well really. It presents an idea fitting to the current discussion through metaphor, kind of like sticking unlit cigarettes in your mouth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great forum-productive discussion mate.

A comic is a thought-provoking scenario, sometimes even a thought experiment.

A "worksheet" just makes you look like you want to be a schoolteacher. It has no natural flow for passive consumption. Additionally, you formatted it with left and right justification, making it extremely confusing for the eyes.

Edited by Neblix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it fits quite well really. It presents an idea fitting to the current discussion through metaphor, kind of like sticking unlit cigarettes in your mouth.

Yes, now that you mention it, it is quite a fantastic allegory for the situation of thousands of impressionable teens that--due to being subjected to oblivious parents and an undermined education system, not being raised with a shred of skeptical and critical inquiry--just take headlines of tabloid trash at face value expecting such "news" to be just as factual as scientific journals, getting sucked into a cult mindset and overcome with urges to share their strong opinions on the matter gathered from the mainstream narrative from shady journalists with motive to be dishonest to reinforce the mainstream narrative. It is quite a stunning satire of the "research justice" that attempts to validate a vocal minority of extremists' continued poisoning of everything they come into contact with by discarding the scientific method.

Or it's just the same old propaganda but in comic strip form so that the little glue eaters can understand that while both sides are being trolled, doxxed and harassed, with rumors of wants-to-watch-the-world-burn interference from a sadistic third party being responsible for the bulk of it, they can accuse their opposition of being covertly responsible because specific hashtags are magical words that only a chosen few have the misogynistic privilege to utter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you gonna back up any of this or just say 100+ word sentences and hope no one challenges you on them? You're expertly employing loaded argument tactics, bravo. :P

Explain how the comic of a guy getting robbed relates to an abandoning of the scientific method and thus a poisoning of the youth mind in regards to news consumption. I'm curious. Don't just string words together in big fluffy sentences. Get to your damn point.

I kinda liked his worksheet, personally. Better than the comic strip, which is a pretty terrible metaphor for anything related to the thread topic, in my opinion. There's an implicit message of censorship that it conveys - if you're arguing for something you feel is important, and others arguing for the same thing are using means & methods that are unethical or even downright despicable, you have a duty to shut the hell up?? I don't agree with that at all...

I'm not sure, but I think he was being sarcastic in the first paragraph, and earnest in the second.

I'm a little bummed that once this thread went GG, it seems like discussing Anita's arguments became uninteresting to everyone. I feel like we did at ONE point have some pretty staunch supporters of EVERYTHING she was saying, including arguments about sexual objectification & sexualization in general. That would have been the time to really dig into Paglia & the failures of second-wave feminism in arguing against pron, but it never happened, because all those folks either left or were eventually persuaded that Anita is full of crap a significant % of the time...

Does anyone want to mount a serious "Sexual Objectification is WRONG!!" argument? Does anyone have that in them? Is anyone besides me even interested in that topic? :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Explain how the comic of a guy getting robbed relates to an abandoning of the scientific method and thus a poisoning of the youth mind in regards to news consumption.

It doesn't. Hence interpreting it as "the current discussion through metaphor" is absurd, and I followed up with a second paragraph. Sure I could have taken "current discussion" too literally by referring to my own morbid fears of what the actions of SJWs are going to wreak. It's not really a topic for GG, but they

.

Anyhow, have a thought experiment:

fqJQVQL.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fqJQVQL.jpg

Not really a thought experiment, it's more of an actual depiction. :P

Does anyone want to mount a serious "Sexual Objectification is WRONG!!" argument? Does anyone have that in them? Is anyone besides me even interested in that topic? :roll:

I would be interested in reading this, but not actually participating. Haven't really figured out my stance on it yet. But I will say this: the problem of unequal objectification isn't really something about fault towards developers. It's a problem with the societal mindset. Developers just play to the expectations of their audience, they cater. It's not their fault that catering has this really imbalanced aspect to it. The consumers define the output of the medium in popular/hardcore games. I would never ask developers to start making games that are completely equal and progressive; there would be so much consumer backlash and it wouldn't really solve the problem. The problem is deeper and more subconscious, the problem is that people *want* games like this, and that's a problem I'm not sure can actually be solved except over a huge amount of time and cultural reconditioning that happens through our children and their children propagating better and better standards.

Edited by Neblix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm a little bummed that once this thread went GG, it seems like discussing Anita's arguments became uninteresting to everyone. I feel like we did at ONE point have some pretty staunch supporters of EVERYTHING she was saying, including arguments about sexual objectification & sexualization in general. That would have been the time to really dig into Paglia & the failures of second-wave feminism in arguing against pron, but it never happened, because all those folks either left or were eventually persuaded that Anita is full of crap a significant % of the time...

Does anyone want to mount a serious "Sexual Objectification is WRONG!!" argument? Does anyone have that in them? Is anyone besides me even interested in that topic? :roll:

I feel like until there are more videos there isn't much more to be said about Anita's stuff, whereas Gamergate and the ongoing issues surrounding it are all over print, digital, and social media.

One thing that *sort of* relates to both is the notion that opinion pieces != censorship. Here's an article about it.

http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/24/7062267/creative-freedom-artists

I've seen a lot of GG posts to the effect of, "They're trying to FORCE diversity into our games", and backlash against Polygon's own 7.5/10 review of Bayonetta (due to the depiction of Bayonetta herself as over-the-top sexualized). But the thing is, nobody is talking about 'forcing' developers to do anything. People like Anita are at least entitled to share their opinions. People are then entitled to disagree with them - strongly, even. As for reviews, they're inherently subjective. In the film world, critics often disagree, even on movies considered to be very good or very bad by the majority.

My impression is that a lot of people in GG don't fully grasp this. And again, it seems like the majority of GG posts and tweets are not about "ethics in gaming journalism", but about feminist issues, or simply defending itself from (fair or unfair) statements and accusations. There is a distinct lack of meaningful progress being made toward their goal of improving ethics in game journalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone want to mount a serious "Sexual Objectification is WRONG!!" argument? Does anyone have that in them? Is anyone besides me even interested in that topic? :roll:

Who would argue the other side of that, though? Who would say "sexual objectification is just fine" in the gaming climate we have now?

Now granted, just to play the devil's advocate for a moment, points could be made about how a fair number of women seem to purposely objectify themselves at times. Slipping into outfits that are skimpy, tight and/or revealing as she goes out for the night. You know, attire that she likes the way it draws attention to what she feels are her best physical features, or how it makes her feel pretty/sexy, or because she liked the design of the outfit and felt it looked good on her, or whatever scores of other reasons she'd have for choosing to wear something that accentuated aspects of her physical appearance; that would get her noticed when she wants to be noticed. Someone could even argue the idea of "objectifying yourself is fine when you're in control of it, but having others objectify you crosses a line." But any such serious argument maker, no matter how they presented their opinion/argument, would be bludgeoned over the skull with "ARE YOU SAYING SHE'S ASKING TO BE OBJECTIFIED?! SO NOW IT'S WOMEN'S FAULT YOU FUCKING PIG?!" backlash that would go on for days.

Right now, the topic is basically too charged to have a real, civil discussion about it, because both sides are looking for anything to latch onto and lash out at. Hell, I fully expect someone to scold me for even mentioning the possibility of an argument with the above paragraph. So I don't know if going into a debate on both sides of the objectification issue, and how both men and women contribute to it, is doable at the moment... or at least doable without it degrading into snide comments and insults.

Edited by The Coop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.