Brandon Strader

Tropes vs. Women / #GamerGate Conspiracies

Recommended Posts

So basically you admit that you're deliberately writing incomprehensible convoluted sentences for... why again? You're trying to make impossible to understand posts because you think the situation is confusing and therefore everyone deserves to be confused? And I'm not even going to touch that stuff about the distinction between two objectively definable and distinct groups being "arbitrary".
Have you read the other posts here saying that the poster says he or she is confused? It's not just me. <--- I already said that. And those people (e.g. PI511, Anorax, etc.) therefore made the same conclusion I made. Are you going to criticize all of us, or just me? Like I said, it's inherently a dilemma, based on how people change their standards on who they call anti- or pro-. You mentioned the double standards inherent in the GG situation, which I quoted below for extra emphasis. I already expounded on the dilemma. I'm not making this up. Take it or leave it.
You wouldn't happen to be a postmodernist would you? Because all of this is starting to sound a LOT like their "nothing truly means anything" rejections of an objective knowable truth.
Not worth my time to discuss analytical and synthetic practical propositions or subjective relativism. You can read up on that if you wish, but I am NOT subjectively relative. In fact, I'm much closer to favoring objectivity than subjectivity by a long shot.
[The] double standard is that gamergate is utterly [censured] for literally everything on the internet even when there's proof it wasn't gamergate [that did something bad in particular] (like with the GNAA and SomethingAwful trolls), while on the other hand the other side (GameJournoPros members and supporters) has been proven to publicly condone and even outright engage in not only more but more severe attacks. But unlike gamergate the GJP members and their supporters' proven behavior is barely even mentioned, let alone criticized, let alone to the absurdist levels of hyperbole thrown at gamergate.
I already addressed this. You criticize, and you have to do it very carefully. If you don't, you risk getting 'doxxed', etc. The double standards that you continue to assert would create this dilemma. And again (with the purposeful double negative), although we ought to try to fix this, it's too large of a problem to try to fix unless a fairly high number of people actually can and choose to do it. It's so large that, as you said, "the GJP members and their supporters' proven behavior is barely even mentioned", i.e. GG overshadows them in that we might actually be too afraid of them to attack them, yet we don't want to do nothing. We're torn. In despair over this. Honestly, you'd be debating "why aren't things more ideal?? Why don't all people do what they ought??". Well, the world isn't ideal. Not everyone does what they ought. We make large simplifications and assumptions to understand it, in many cases. For example, how hard is it really to distill real life phenomena down to mathematical equations, integrals, etc.? How hard would it be to calculate the Schrodinger equation in full detail for something above Helium (the answer is, time-wastingly hard, and you're going to make at least one mistake)? Why is it most (not all) philosophers accept that humans are superior to animals in intellect and not question much of it? Why is racism still a problem? The list goes on, and I'm not going to ask you to answer the previous question, obviously, for the very reason I'm even talking about it in this light.

But anyways, that's only to illustrate the point that we can't approach solving a complex problem such as this one thinking that there's a great possibility we can fix it (No, I'm not saying you said this. I'M saying this; get that straight). We have to approach it with a certain skepticism... a tight filter. After all, there were posts in this topic (which I'm not going to bother to try to find, as it's fairly clear) mentioning something like, "how can you tell what GG articles are telling the truth and what articles are just voicing smartly guised lashes against GG? How do you know which ones to trust?"

Your response to this has been to repeat what you now admit to be deliberately incomprehensible convoluted questions that as near as I can tell boil down to something I've never even said.
Again with the hostility, as if I'm trying to waste your time or something. Ignoring.
As for what Sarkeesian/McIntosh, Quinn, and "etc" have experienced there are multiple statistical analyses proving objectively that 85-90% of all tweets directed at them are neutral at minimum ranging up to positive. If I were you I would be far more concerned about the real world violence and harm suffered by an extremely disproportionate number of gamergate supporters, which starts with people losing their jobs or having their income and utilities interfered with and escalates to multiple people nearly losing their lives in SWATting attacks or getting mailed knives, syringes, and dead animals.
There's nothing wrong with saying etc. I'm not going to bother trying to find the list of people who have had similar things as above happen to them. I don't care if I say etc. or et al. or and so on. It saves time. And I already addressed this above in another way. They're complex moral issues such as this one (see summary) that are most easily solved by changing habits. Changing habits requires changing fundamental beliefs. That takes the cake right there. You realize how hard that is, right? If the so-called supporters were truly seen as supporters, they wouldn't be attacked. There's likely an emotional factor or something that blinds those attackers, because under the supposition that some supporters got attacked, that's just preposterous and ought not to be happening. Any truly rational, sober, sane being would not attack his or her or its community unless out of some uncontrollable state of being. Edited by timaeus222

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Women are valuable in raids and usually less obnoxious with the voice chat, they may not always get the raid gear but they fight like they're gonna get it

Unless you have broad statistical data to back up statements like this, don't make them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless you have broad statistical data to back up statements like this, don't make them.

You might want to reword that part... unless you've got that folder Mitt Romney supposedly had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So out of curiosity, where do people here stand on Austrailia's Target and K-Mart removing GTA V off of shelves? I've seen a few journalists saying that the reasoning for doing it is sound and justified, but isn't that walking a slippery slope? It almost looks like they're in full support of censorship now, which given the way they've been acting, isn't surprising in the slightest. That store can do as it wants, but then where does this end? I know it's an extreme example, but will we see stores pull Mario games off the shelf because he advocates drug use by eating mushrooms? Or that he promotes animal cruelty for jumping on them? PETA tried that, and was laughed at, but as tin foil crazy as it sounds, I won't be surprised to see them attacking other games for that or far less.

Look, I'm not even a fan of the GTA games, I appreciate the development time, the craftsmanship, and huge landscape to explore, but the content isn't something I care to play through. But the way the press is acting about this is really a bit concerning, even though I don't have much respect or pay attention to the gaming press these days anyhow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So out of curiosity, where do people here stand on Austrailia's Target and K-Mart removing GTA V off of shelves? I've seen a few journalists saying that the reasoning for doing it is sound and justified, but isn't that walking a slippery slope? It almost looks like they're in full support of censorship now, which given the way they've been acting, isn't surprising in the slightest. That store can do as it wants, but then where does this end? I know it's an extreme example, but will we see stores pull Mario games off the shelf because he advocates drug use by eating mushrooms? Or that he promotes animal cruelty for jumping on them? PETA tried that, and was laughed at, but as tin foil crazy as it sounds, I won't be surprised to see them attacking other games for that or far less.

Look, I'm not even a fan of the GTA games, I appreciate the development time, the craftsmanship, and huge landscape to explore, but the content isn't something I care to play through. But the way the press is acting about this is really a bit concerning, even though I don't have much respect or pay attention to the gaming press these days anyhow.

Unfortunately...it's Australia. :x I've heard all sorts of outlandish tales of games being banned or censored in that country over the years. It's kinda weird that people are acting like this is a NEW thing when I heard Yahtzee complaining about it back when I was in high school (so...six years ago).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So out of curiosity, where do people here stand on Austrailia's Target and K-Mart removing GTA V off of shelves? I've seen a few journalists saying that the reasoning for doing it is sound and justified, but isn't that walking a slippery slope? It almost looks like they're in full support of censorship now, which given the way they've been acting, isn't surprising in the slightest. That store can do as it wants, but then where does this end? I know it's an extreme example, but will we see stores pull Mario games off the shelf because he advocates drug use by eating mushrooms? Or that he promotes animal cruelty for jumping on them? PETA tried that, and was laughed at, but as tin foil crazy as it sounds, I won't be surprised to see them attacking other games for that or far less.

Look, I'm not even a fan of the GTA games, I appreciate the development time, the craftsmanship, and huge landscape to explore, but the content isn't something I care to play through. But the way the press is acting about this is really a bit concerning, even though I don't have much respect or pay attention to the gaming press these days anyhow.

I don't particularly like it, but it doesn't bother me too much. The stores are acting on their own, right? If management wants to not sell it, that's ultimately their decision. Besides, it doesn't seem as much of a "You shouldn't be playing this" as it is a "We don't want to be associated with this". And I can see why they wouldn't want to be.

To me it's essentially the same as a bookstore not carrying hardcore erotica. It already happens but it doesn't make me worried that censorship is taking over books.

But if the journalists are saying that it's good because we shouldn't be exposing our society to such things, that's a little worrying. But since it's just gaming press, I probably won't lose any sleep over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HO. LEE. SHIT.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-11-07-zoe-quinns-memoir-crash-override-picked-up-by-ghostbusters-producer

Just when you thought the circus freakshow that is everything Gamergate-related was dead and couldn't possibly be any more batshit insane, THIS happens. And it's even going to be done by the lady bringing us the thoroughly unnecessary Feminist vehicle Ghostbusters remake. You know this thing is going to be completely one-sided vag-power that seems to be a big selling point in Hollywood these days. Kinda makes me want to puke.

Disclosure: I didn't and still don't support Gamergate, so don't take my criticism here as a show of support for them. I pretty much think everyone taking a side on this, those siding with Gamergate and those siding with Zoe and FemFreq and all that are all garbage. The whole thing was two types of single, small-minded people with victim complexes fight a war that didn't exist and see who could take home the Gold for being the most useless group of primates to ever soil planet Earth with their unnecessary existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really understand where the whole "both sides" thinking comes from. You either condone harrassment or you don't.

 

GG may not have been primarily about "ethics in game journalism," as it has been thoroughly lambasted for claiming, but it also wasn't just about being in "favor" of harassment in the abstract. More of a sociopolitical schism between gamers at large, who are a diverse lot, and game journos, who seem to not only lean hard left, but be okay with injecting that ideology into something that ostensibly should be a little more neutral... if you ask me. No need for a reductionist counterclaim... much of what GG has been associated with, accurately or otherwise, impeaches itself without the need for oversimplification.

 

Speaking as a liberal, I think the medium is rich enough to support works that speak to many different audiences, with criticism & coverage to match.

 

I'm all for resuscitating this thread and seeing where people stand, a year later... as for this movie, well... do video game movies ever work out well? Will nuance even be considered, or are we looking at a feel-good tale of "good" vs. "evil"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GG may not have been primarily about "ethics in game journalism," as it has been thoroughly lambasted for claiming, but it also wasn't just about being in "favor" of harassment in the abstract. More of a sociopolitical schism between gamers at large, who are a diverse lot, and game journos, who seem to not only lean hard left, but be okay with injecting that ideology into something that ostensibly should be a little more neutral... if you ask me. No need for a reductionist counterclaim... much of what GG has been associated with, accurately or otherwise, impeaches itself without the need for oversimplification.

 

That's more of a different thing than what I was refering to. I'm talking about the mindset that somehow Zoe and Anita are just as bad, they are opportunists who relish in the attention, etc etc. Mostly just comes down to thinly veiled victim blaming in my eyes.

 

It's both disheartening and fascinating watching both this and several concurrent social trends unfold the past years. That includes stuff like the countless internet lynch mobs out to shame people and even ruin their careers (anything from Zoe Quinn, to that poaching dentist, to that "dongle incident" at a tech firm), and the rise of xenophobic attitudes shedding their taboo with the European immigrant crisis, etc. Perhaps in 15 years or so we can look back at these things as a whole with some historical clarity and put it in a better understood context. What I find particularly interesting about both gamergate and the immigrant crisis (and I suppose also MRA) are the connections found to extreme right wing organizations, how they actively fan the flames and use these sentiments as a means to boost recruitment. In particular with gamergate they have better success at reaching out towards young, liberal-leaning men who would otherwise not sympathize with their ideologies.

 

Inbetween the downtime of this thread there was also an interesting video series released which I think did a good attempt at dissecting the underlying psychology behind the gamergate movement

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RE: on opportunists who relish attention being thinly veiled victim blaming

See: the book and movie

Also very much of the accusations were fabricated, see: Brianna Wu, who posted her own information on 8chan then claimed to have been doxxed.

To blame a victim there must be a victim.

All I see is profit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but at this point it's blatantly obvious these people are just milking money from their fans/followers by over-blowing the problem. I don't know how anyone can not see that.

Its worked out for politicians for the better part of a century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gamergate started because the ex-boyfriend of a female game developer, Zoe Quinn, posted an angry rant full of bullshit acusations about her. It then morphed into a campaign of harrassment directed at (mainly) female game developers and activists who dared to speak out about the portrayal of women in video games. Developers and activists such as Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu, and others faced constant harrassment across social media and other online platforms (such as YouTube). Complete with numerous death threats, and leaking of personal information, while calling for violence against them. These women are absolutely victims of sustained harrassment.

 

These accussations of profit are completely absurd. None of these women made a profit. People keep talking about profit, yet never provide any evidence. Who made money? How do people know they made money?

 

This idea that these wanted the attention is disgusting. They wanted contant harrassment and continous death threats? They wanted to have their addresses posted online and have people call for and threaten their murder and for the murder of their families?

 

 

RE: on opportunists who relish attention being thinly veiled victim blaming

See: the book and movie

Also very much of the accusations were fabricated, see: Brianna Wu, who posted her own information on 8chan then claimed to have been doxxed.

To blame a victim there must be a victim.

All I see is profit!

 

Stop spouting crap. She didn't posted her own info. She absolutely was a victim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

These accussations of profit are completely absurd. None of these women made a profit. People keep talking about profit, yet never provide any evidence. Who made money? How do people know they made money?

 

tumblr_inline_mislh4ZIbv1qz4rgp.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're talking about making profit off gamergate (which I thought people were), how is the Tropes vs Women kickstarter, which was funded 2 years before gamergate, relevant?

 

The amount of complete crap in that "professional victims" video is vomit-inducing. The victim blaming in it is disgusting.

 

People are donating to Feminist Frequency, a non-profit company, donations aren't profit. That money goes back into the company (like any non-profit) in order to continue the Tropes vs Women series and other work. She's not just pocketing the money. Maybe a point could be made if Feminist Frequency hadn't made a single video, but that's not the case.

 

That's like claiming donations recieved by OCR are profit. By that logic, OCR's Balance and Ruin kickstarter was all about the profit, and OCR staff pocketed the cash. No, the money goes back into maintaining the site, just as the donations recieved by Feminist Frequency go back into the organization and towards continuing to make content.

 

If your accussations of profit stem from donations recieved by a non-profit organization that continues to produce free content, you're grasping at straws. Is it so inconcievable that people actually support Anita's content and that being the target of endless harassment could lead to an increase in support? People love to paint her as a manipulative mastermind that played the victim card to rake in cash from gullable idiots. Yet it was these types of accussations and a campaign of harrassment (shit like this) that led to a huge increase in support and recognition. This whole gamergate embarassment propeled her into national headlines, not anything that she did. That video lazygecko posted sums it up pretty well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're talking about making profit off gamergate (which I thought people were), how is the Tropes vs Women kickstarter, which was funded 2 years before gamergate, relevant?

 

The amount of complete crap in that "professional victims" video is vomit-inducing. The victim blaming in it is disgusting.

 

People are donating to Feminist Frequency, a non-profit company, donations aren't profit. That money goes back into the company (like any non-profit) in order to continue the Tropes vs Women series and other work. She's not just pocketing the money. Maybe a point could be made if Feminist Frequency hadn't made a single video, but that's not the case.

 

That's like claiming donations recieved by OCR are profit. By that logic, OCR's Balance and Ruin kickstarter was all about the profit, and OCR staff pocketed the cash. No, the money goes back into maintaining the site, just as the donations recieved by Feminist Frequency go back into the organization and towards continuing to make content.

 

If your accussations of profit stem from donations recieved by a non-profit organization that continues to produce free content, you're grasping at straws. Is it so inconcievable that people actually support Anita's content and that being the target of endless harassment could lead to an increase in support? People love to paint her as a manipulative mastermind that played the victim card to rake in cash from gullable idiots. Yet it was these types of accussations and a campaign of harrassment (shit like this) that led to a huge increase in support and recognition. This whole gamergate embarassment propeled her into national headlines, not anything that she did.

 

Literally all of the information in that video is simply discussing objective facts - things that have actually happened. You have all the access to the same info he does and that info is coming right from Feminist Frequency and Zoe Quinn.

 

In the actual feminist frequency 2014 report, they refer to the money received via donation as "revenue" which literally means income as a business and here is a quote right above those charts

 

"We only made necessary purchases for production/research needs and we were paid bare minimum salaries, volunteering much of our time to the organization." 

 

"We were paid bare minimum salaries" 

 

"Paid bare minimum salaries"

 

"Paid...Salaries

 

Whatever "minimum" is, is not defined and nor is said what "administrative" costs entail, but Anita openly is admitting here that she and maybe some of her underlings do pay their bills with this. There is also nothing stopping her from giving everyone a pay raise - you giving her your money at this point gives her every right to use it as she sees fit. Her company made over 400,000 last year and only had 64,000 in expenditures.  

 

If a company pulling in nearly half a million in a year with expenses less than 100,000 and paying some "staff" with it doesn't count as "profit" to you, then you are simply delusional. OCR provides transparency in exactly how the money is used and I'm pretty sure aren't worth over half a million. They also aren't saying "Yeah, we pay Larry a "bare minimum salary" which even if they did, we'd all know it was in McRibs.

 

Zoe Quinn has also made a shitload via the gamergate thing as also evidence in that video so she's in the same boat as Anita.

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.