Prez wrote on Oct 30, 2014, 13:32:UHD wrote on Oct 30, 2014, 13:22:
The only thing it shows is that those individuals don't think it's harmful...
Jesus, that is exactly what I said. How about reading the post before going on the offensive?No, but it is a clear indication that those type X people in the group don't find your organization harmful to them...
Prez wrote on Oct 30, 2014, 12:48:
No, but it is a clear indication that those type X people in the group don't find your organization harmful to them, which is compelling evidence that it may not be.
Yeahyeah Yeah wrote on Oct 30, 2014, 13:21:
You're pretty much saying genuine collusion hasn't been happening, because collusion is actually pretty common. What you call 'talking shop' and 'having a lack of imagination' sure seems like either collusion or that which is reasonably interpreted as collusion in any other scenario.
And what's being done about it? It's being pointed out. Advertisers are contacted. What do you think should be done? If your response here amounts to 'You did all this, but look, unethical journalists still exist so you didn't accomplish anything', then alright - some sexism still exists, ergo feminism and egalitarianism generally has been a complete failure. They should just be quiet and admit defeat.
Well, no, that makes no sense. Yet that seems to be what you're saying.
Sure, they do have the right to free speech. And everyone has a right to criticize them. I think 'by complaining about them you're just giving them attention' is just obviously wrong. "Don't pay attention to the major media outlet! By criticizing them and pointing out when they're wrong, you're just helping them!"
I imagine you think Sarkeesian and feminists generally should be very, very quiet, and all this 'complaining' they do is utterly counterproductive, and harms their cause by the very act of making criticisms?
It does. I notice only one side has a massive media machine behind it. I take it you're urging the journalists to be fair? And if so - how? Apparently you view 'not talking about them, not criticizing them, and ignoring them' to be the grand strategy.
Except, oddly, the people criticizing them. Those people are game for criticism? Are you giving me power right now? Am I winning by you criticizing me?
I do. I feel the problem here may be that the words I'm choosing, you dislike. Really, if someone is prepared to completely shut me off because I criticized feminism or feminists in any way, then that's a top notch example of something that needs to be changed. And it can't be changed by doing anything other than addressing it.
Because he unwittingly serves as a great example? He's not very crafty, and he puts his thought processes on display. Pretty easy to strip him down and go, 'Alright - logical fallacy here, true believer syndrome there, dishonesty over there, lack of ethics there. Here's how not to think, if you're interested in fairness, in ethics, in this and that.' Will that persuade everyone? No. But hey, it may persuade someone.
You didn't answer my question. Did she just bow her head and walk out of the room when people made criticisms of her or her beliefs she found unfair?
She kept her mouth shut: Yes or no.
When it comes to what is fundamentally a problem of communication, talk isn't cheap. It is everything.
Oh, I think it's entirely reasonable to construe that yes, they've been harmed, and the 'tangible action' is encouraging others to speak up, disagree, and not be cowed. And that means something.
Let's get straight to the point. Is your concern here with how people critical of feminism are tarnished? How being 'pro-GG' gets turned into basically, 'That means you're pro-rape and pro-hating women.'? Or is your concern that, quite possibly, GG's going to have success in your view and in the process harm that subgroup of feminists? What's really your worry here?
Prez wrote on Oct 30, 2014, 12:48:
No, but it is a clear indication that those type X people in the group don't find your organization harmful to them, which is compelling evidence that it may not be. No offense, but I would take the word of a women who says being affiliated with Gamergate isn't harmful to women over the words of a guy who is vehemently anti-GG and more importantly isn't, ya know, a woman.
The amount of women I have seen posting pro-GG stuff clearly indicates that they aren't even close to the Nazi-loving Jews you mention. You seem to be going to great lengths in trying to dismiss the women in the group, which sounds kind of sexist to me.
MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Oct 30, 2014, 13:15:
PS. for people who don't seem to know, Colbert is on comedy network. His show is satire. Although he interviews real people, he interviews them as his right wing character almost exclusively(I think he's done what, 2 as himself?). You might as well get mad at an article from the Onion.![]()
Prez wrote on Oct 30, 2014, 12:23:UHD wrote on Oct 30, 2014, 12:16:ASeven wrote on Oct 30, 2014, 12:07:
One more real feminist writes in defense of GamerGate.
"Real feminists agree with me."
I don't know if she is actually a feminist, but she makes an interesting point
ASeven wrote on Oct 30, 2014, 12:07:
One more real feminist writes in defense of GamerGate.
ASeven wrote on Oct 30, 2014, 11:36:
Fun fact: Anita supported #CancelColbert. The creator of #CancelColbert is not pleased.
Necrophob wrote on Oct 30, 2014, 11:09:
I enjoy Anita Sarkeesian's Tropes videos, and I think she makes a good point on a lot of them. However, the media coverage on this issue has been extremely one-sided (I've never actually seen them ask a gamer their side).
Yeahyeah Yeah wrote on Oct 29, 2014, 19:52:
One thing I find funny: Howevermany journalists all run a 'Gamers are dead!' article on one day, and it also turns out they're regularly talking and coordinating on a mailing list? Well, speculating collusion is utter fantasy. A conspiracy theory, in fact.
The expressly leaderless gaggle of internet people, collectively sick of said journalists, react poorly online, and Sarkeesian gets a death threat from some anonymous asshole? Well that is clearly GAMERGATE at work. All of them!
Not saying you said this at all, but it suddenly occurred to me, the comparison.
I'm disagreeing because I think you are minimizing the problem, as if the key problem here is 'lack of ethics in the abstract'. Sometimes problems are a bit more specific, and this is one of those situations.
I'm not sure what you mean. "Engaging them"? How? By criticizing their ideas and claims? They're not necessarily the audience for such things. By encouraging boycotts against Gawker?
Sorry, but no. First, what is this 'manhaters trying to destroy video games'? I wouldn't even put all feminists, full stop, in a single group. I'm happy to say it's a subset of feminism. But a subset of feminists is still a group of feminists, and these also happen to be the loudest proponents. Perhaps other feminists will speak up and denounce them. I think I'd like that.
Let them. Some may say, 'Gee, YY Y has a point.' Others may be upset. Still others may not care. Que sera, sera.
The problem is, he's not exactly alone. As near as I can tell, he's a micro version of a number of people involved in games journalism, and journalism generally - who live and react by those same ideals, and who are trying desperately to force those ideals on others, often unethically.
Tell me - your grandmother. Did she react to people who thought her feminism was a joke by deciding they were all silly and just ignoring them altogether, meandering off to where she wouldn't have to deal with them? Or did she stand and criticize at some point?
I find that unconvincing. The lack of ethics in journalism is being addressed, a particularly nasty and virulent strain of it is being highlighted, and yes, the source is having a big red line drawn around it. So far the result has been extremely encouraging. Not just advertiser setbacks at gawker, but more people realizing that for as loud as these journalists and their allies have been, they're nowhere near in the majority of thought. You really can disagree with them openly. You don't have to cater to them. And that means that when they do something unethical, you can point it out and maybe get something done about it.
That didn't seem as likely before.
They aren't just losing. They have lost. Unethical people will still exist, but an important message has been communicated to people who oppose it, and that's as much a victory as anyone could have hoped for.
But that doesn't mean we can't run up the high score, so to speak.
Prez wrote on Oct 29, 2014, 20:50:
What I want to know is how everyone is so sure the people making the threats have anything to do with GG or even are aware of its existence. Reading some of the more offensive and over-the-top claims by militant feminists in the media is more than enough to get someone's ire up, affiliations be damned. The way Is see it if some random unhinged loon sees an Ana Sarkeesian video and takes to Twitter to threaten her that doesn't automatically put him in the GG camp.
Yeahyeah Yeah wrote on Oct 29, 2014, 14:22:
It's not just video game journalism, for one. For another, it's not like people just decide to become unethical for the hell of it most of the time.
I disagree. Some people think that their actions are justified, and that ethics is secondary to their mission. Other people will just conveniently define ethics away if they need to.
I assume by 'your' you mean GG's. But GG's gone after a number of things, including Gawker, for a pretty clear ethical violation. What else is there? The 'well look at how many times this word showed up' issue? But that goes back to the question: is there a particular problem with feminism in these ethical violations?
As I keep saying, one key difference between the usual ethical problems - which people still complain about - is that a quid pro quo situation, or a skewed review? That will garner criticism, and the people in play will go on the defensive, explain themselves, etc.
With VG feminist advocates? There is a habit of immediately going on the attack in a fierce way. If criticisms about review scores yielded 'Gamers are dead, they suck!' style reactions, yeah, you'd probably see a more animated focus there too.
My posts, personally? They'd get a better understanding of why I think the way I do, I suppose.
As opposed to what? Let's pretend absolutely everyone is at fault, indeed equally at fault? I'm more than happy to criticize GG idiots when they act like idiots, as well as anti-GG idiots. But so far, only one person on blues has flat out said that disagreeing with them about misogyny and feminism was equivalent to doubting evolution, and it wasn't a GG defender.
What would it take to convince you that people who see themselves on a great SJW mission are a particular problem with regards to video game ethics, as opposed to... I don't know, each and every theoretical and broad class of ethics issues being equally violated at all times?
Yeahyeah Yeah wrote on Oct 29, 2014, 13:09:
The criticism of 'if the conversation is about unethical behavior in journalism, why is there talk about feminism?' makes about as much sense as saying, 'If the problem is with dishonesty in government, then why are people talking about (insert issue of your choice) lobbyists?'
You need to go a step further and ask, 'Are people part of that subgroup engaged in what is alleged to be unethical behavior?' With the case of journalists, then yes, feminist advocacy - like nepotism, like other things - is a factor. That doesn't make 'feminism' itself directly a factor necessarily, but it can well make its advocacy and advocates a factor. In the GG case, a large factor, but nevertheless not the only one.
But the willingess of some anti-GG people to accept that their advocates could be at fault is pretty low. Some seem unwilling to accept the idea that some people may disagree with them, or even simply not care about their favored issues - and, most difficult to accept of all - that these are not terrible, evil people for doing exactly that. Treating them as much finally got out of hand, lo and behold, there's backlash.
Julio wrote on Oct 29, 2014, 12:38:
Finally some more balanced coverage from MSNBC.
eRe4s3r wrote on Oct 29, 2014, 11:14:
You just basically summed up 3rd generation feminists without intentionally doing that I thinkIt could be different per country, but in Germany femnazi's are trying to subvert the actual language that is taught at schools and universities in order to push their bullshit into the mainstream.
If you think Gamergate is only an Internet thing you must have missed the past 6 years of 3rd generation feminist bullshit groups springing up everywhere. And those do NOT have the goal of gender quality, they want to suppress males entirely. Going so far as demanding that women dominate certain industries, and having some success with it.
This entire topic isn't still alive because Gamergate exists (That was always a clusterfuck without direction) but because feminists of the 3rd generation are creating an extremely hostile atmosphere. Just look at the crap FEMEN and the likes pulled.
Verno wrote on Oct 29, 2014, 09:19:
Using the word conspiracy is intended to make people look unreasonable or paranoid. There is no "conspiracy" but the gaming press is certainly one sided and there is literal precedent for at least some collusion, they had their little mailing list and then dumped a dozen like minded articles in a 2 day period, all coincidentally saying basically the same thing. That's pretty convincing to me.
The frustration that pushes people towards supporting some of the concepts behind GamerGate (and pushing back against these kinds of editorials) is very understandable, the press doesn't give any of these issues a fair shake and has been pushing an agenda from the beginning. Where was the press reporting on Zoe Quinns fake DMCAs and actively trying to censor reddit? Where are the counter points to Sarkeesian? Many readers like me have sent in editorials, rebuttals and so on, all of it ignored. The only thing that gets press play is essentially men bad, women good.
beremot wrote on Oct 29, 2014, 00:04:UHD wrote on Oct 28, 2014, 23:34:beremot wrote on Oct 28, 2014, 22:55:
Just read the entirety of the Adobe statement (not that it's all that long).
I've always disliked Adobe as a company, but I found their statement to be pretty impressive. Devoid of corporate speak, and willing to call a spade, a spade, despite the risk that doing so might pull them in even farther.
Talk is pretty cheap, and I doubt they made a lot of money off Gawker.
Interpret it however you want, but I don't think they really care one way or the other about gamergate or their complaints. Same can be said for any of the other advertisers.
I don't think they made any money off gawker, since they didn't advertise there. As for--did I read this right?--them caring about gamergate's complaints, they actually managed to include a not so flattering description of gamergate--the kind that tends to drive GG'er true believers bananas ..
"We reject all forms of bullying, including the harassment of women by individuals associated with Gamergate."
That's what I meant when I said they call a spade, a spade.
beremot wrote on Oct 28, 2014, 22:55:
Just read the entirety of the Adobe statement (not that it's all that long).
I've always disliked Adobe as a company, but I found their statement to be pretty impressive. Devoid of corporate speak, and willing to call a spade, a spade, despite the risk that doing so might pull them in even farther.
Squirmer wrote on Oct 28, 2014, 21:49:
*This is precisely why the Gamergaters invented that young girl cartoon as their figurehead: because considering a "gamer" to be that is unusual.
Yeahyeah Yeah wrote on Oct 28, 2014, 17:55:LittleMe wrote on Oct 28, 2014, 17:34:Yeahyeah Yeah wrote on Oct 28, 2014, 16:22:
I think there may be another reason for this.
If someone accidentally had a "wardrobe malfunction" on twitch, I wonder if there'd be a liability issue for Twitch if it got distributed, as per the most recent "revenge porn" laws in some areas?
That's a separate issue.
Is it? I have no idea about the laws, just asking. I don't know how the hell 'tits unintentionally fall out during a live internet broadcast' is legally parsed.
nin wrote on Oct 28, 2014, 16:14:
I wonder about that as well. We're already seeing compromises, when traditionally we see the power of the system as it ages, as programmers learn the various tricks to get more out of it.