Beamer wrote on Oct 18, 2014, 18:22:

Dmitri_M wrote on Oct 18, 2014, 17:56:

Beamer wrote on Oct 17, 2014, 20:12:

Prez wrote on Oct 17, 2014, 20:04:
Yeah, you are right -it was Escapist, not Gamasutra. My mistake.

...one that has a lovely "GIRLS!" section and runs regular articles on hot female teachers sleeping with students.

Not surprisingly, they're considered one of the few "pro-GG" sites.

See, this is what I don't get. So if you have a site geared towards gaming males, and you show images of the beautiful female form, "naturally" you are pro Gamergate, and by extension, misogynist. I cannot get that logic. I don't find it to be sexist that guys like seeing images of gorgeous women, any more than I view seeing my hundreds of female Facebook friends pass around images of mostly naked strapping men as sexist. I view it as human.

EDIT: And before anyone asks, I have hundreds of female Facebook friends because I work in animal rescue which for reasons I won't go into is predominantly female (we are talking by a factor of 20 to 1 by my estimation), and I network with rescues across the country.

It is human. Absolutely.
But, again, things come down to trends. Someone telling one racist joke isn't necessarily a racist. Someone telling many racist jokes almost definitely is.

Are you equating love of the female form to racism?

Misogyny to it, yes. A penchant for treating women like meat is misogyny. It's accepted misogyny, institutionalized, but still the same. See: Discussions on booth babes.

I'll take this non-answer as a yes.

sdgundamx wrote on Oct 18, 2014, 12:01:

Prez wrote on Oct 18, 2014, 03:06:

Where I see the problem occurring is if a website claims that it is a site for gaming and then has a bunch of pictures of scantily clad women. That's implicitly sending the message that gaming is only for hetero boys and the site is going to ignore the female/homosexual gamers.

So a website needs to claim that it's for hetero men for this to be okay? Somehow I think you and your ilk would still bitch about it. Hell, I would think that would be inherently obvious if they are showing pictures of hot scantily dressed women. (EDIT: Of course one could argue it is also geared towards lesbian gamers...) The way I see it, if you have a problem with sites like Action Trip which proudly posts a new "babe of the day" (today's is awesome too) then in the name of consistency you should have a problem with Vogue, Self, Glamour, and other rags for women because they ignore the hetero/homosexual male. Most websites cater to all types of gamers so what the hell is wrong with having a few that focus on a select group?

***Really long response***

Well our first interaction began with you making baseless assumptions about my intelligence when I wasn't even speaking to you, so yeah, that was a good way to get on my bad side. But you apologized, so I will temper my tone.

I don't get the 'disingenuous' claim. If we continue to use Action Trip as an example, they do reviews, previews, editorials, and contests for everyone just like any gaming website. They do not constantly make sophomoric remarks or drool over every woman or obsess how "hot" she is. Any female, homosexual, or sensitive male can read the majority of the site without issue. They have a link (usually at the bottom of their home page) to the "babe of the day" but you don't have to click on it. If the very existence of such a thing turns you off to the site at large, like I said there are many alternatives. The shots are extremely tasteful and the subjects don't seem to mind, so I fail to see the problem. I don't classify it as viewing women "as pieces of meat" to use Beamer's words, and I don't understand how someone else could. If that's the case then every time your wife/husband/girlfriend/boyfriend/mate/partner gets you aroused is it to be assumed that you are viewing them as a piece of meat too? At what point is okay to satisfy natural and normal human impulses?

Dmitri_M wrote on Oct 18, 2014, 17:56:

Beamer wrote on Oct 17, 2014, 20:12:

Prez wrote on Oct 17, 2014, 20:04:
Yeah, you are right -it was Escapist, not Gamasutra. My mistake.

...one that has a lovely "GIRLS!" section and runs regular articles on hot female teachers sleeping with students.

Not surprisingly, they're considered one of the few "pro-GG" sites.

See, this is what I don't get. So if you have a site geared towards gaming males, and you show images of the beautiful female form, "naturally" you are pro Gamergate, and by extension, misogynist. I cannot get that logic. I don't find it to be sexist that guys like seeing images of gorgeous women, any more than I view seeing my hundreds of female Facebook friends pass around images of mostly naked strapping men as sexist. I view it as human.

EDIT: And before anyone asks, I have hundreds of female Facebook friends because I work in animal rescue which for reasons I won't go into is predominantly female (we are talking by a factor of 20 to 1 by my estimation), and I network with rescues across the country.

It is human. Absolutely.
But, again, things come down to trends. Someone telling one racist joke isn't necessarily a racist. Someone telling many racist jokes almost definitely is.

Are you equating love of the female form to racism?

Misogyny to it, yes. A penchant for treating women like meat is misogyny. It's accepted misogyny, institutionalized, but still the same. See: Discussions on booth babes.

Beamer wrote on Oct 17, 2014, 20:12:

Prez wrote on Oct 17, 2014, 20:04:
Yeah, you are right -it was Escapist, not Gamasutra. My mistake.

...one that has a lovely "GIRLS!" section and runs regular articles on hot female teachers sleeping with students.

Not surprisingly, they're considered one of the few "pro-GG" sites.

See, this is what I don't get. So if you have a site geared towards gaming males, and you show images of the beautiful female form, "naturally" you are pro Gamergate, and by extension, misogynist. I cannot get that logic. I don't find it to be sexist that guys like seeing images of gorgeous women, any more than I view seeing my hundreds of female Facebook friends pass around images of mostly naked strapping men as sexist. I view it as human.

EDIT: And before anyone asks, I have hundreds of female Facebook friends because I work in animal rescue which for reasons I won't go into is predominantly female (we are talking by a factor of 20 to 1 by my estimation), and I network with rescues across the country.

It is human. Absolutely.
But, again, things come down to trends. Someone telling one racist joke isn't necessarily a racist. Someone telling many racist jokes almost definitely is.

Are you equating love of the female form to racism?

Prez wrote on Oct 18, 2014, 03:06:

Where I see the problem occurring is if a website claims that it is a site for gaming and then has a bunch of pictures of scantily clad women. That's implicitly sending the message that gaming is only for hetero boys and the site is going to ignore the female/homosexual gamers.

So a website needs to claim that it's for hetero men for this to be okay? Somehow I think you and your ilk would still bitch about it. Hell, I would think that would be inherently obvious if they are showing pictures of hot scantily dressed women. (EDIT: Of course one could argue it is also geared towards lesbian gamers...) The way I see it, if you have a problem with sites like Action Trip which proudly posts a new "babe of the day" (today's is awesome too) then in the name of consistency you should have a problem with Vogue, Self, Glamour, and other rags for women because they ignore the hetero/homosexual male. Most websites cater to all types of gamers so what the hell is wrong with having a few that focus on a select group?

Sorry for the late reply, I had a wedding to attend today. On the plus side, it gave me a lot of time to think about how to reply to your comment.

Clearly, something I said in that comment angered you (judging by your use of the words "your ilk" and "bitch"). I apologize if you were offended by the comment because that wasn't my intent at all in quoting you. In fact, I was trying to agree with you that we shouldn't shame people for having an interest in the human form (or more specifically if you like, for males to have an interest in the female form).

You responded, though, like I'd just kicked your dog when I made what is the perfectly reasonable suggestion that it is disingenuous for a site to claim it is dedicated to gamers to then pander to only one segment of the gaming community and exclude the rest of it. I wasn't singling out any sites--it was more of a hypothetical.

Yes, you are correct--it IS inherently obvious if you visit a website that caters to a particular crowd that if you do not fit a specific gender or sexuality then you don't belong there. How is it not better better for everyone if the website either explicitly declares itself dedicated to a specific audience in the gaming community (i.e. GayGamer.net) OR provides content that is more inclusive (i.e. since you brought up the ActionTrip example, a "Hunk of the Day" to go with the "Babe of the Day")?

I'm not clear why this suggestion is outrageous to you. Vogue, Self, and Glamour are, as you said, magazines designed to entertain women. I see no problem with that as they are quite clear about who they want to attract as readers--Glamour, for instance, bills itself as the #1 magazine for women in the U.K. just as GQ makes it clear in the title (Gentlemen's Quarterly) who the magazine is designed for. All I'm saying is that gaming websites could use that same kind of clarity and easily avoid sending the message that games are only for a particular group of people.

Beamer wrote on Oct 17, 2014, 20:13:

Julio was proud because a game journalist was taken down.
Except he wasn't a game journalist.

Please reread the conversation you entered into because you're quoting it but not at all getting what was being said.

That's great, except it has nothing to do with what I was talking about now was it.

Speaking of which, remember [url=http://i.imgur.com/QpBgJGQ.jpg?1"it was all a joke, and max read supported the comments."[/url]

By the by, apparently Polygon is now on an ad-aggregator, which means that their dedicated ad placements are not being renewed. It means that advertisers know that their brand is toxic to those that they're aimed at.

Gamergate: The abuse victims the media won’t tell you about.

"Another one is not giving enough of a spotlight to the abuse being sent the other way, towards the supporters and celebrities of Gamergate. This has been under particular scrutiny lately, as Gawker professional has been in the spotlight for openly advocating bullying and nerd shaming in order to shut the movement down."

Gamergate Raises $10,000 for Charity in Less Than a Day

"Gamergate is easily one of the most polarizing topics currently being discussed on the Internet. The movement began roughly two months ago, and has been pushing game journalists to begin disclosing their relationships with developers and each other, so that readers are aware of any possible bias that may be consciously or unconsciously influencing the writer’s work. A number of people have been less than receptive to this goal, and have treated Gamergate with hostility, as summarized here. Yesterday, Gamergate set a ball in motion that would end up picking up more than $10,000 in less than 24 hours."

Beamer wrote on Oct 17, 2014, 20:13:
Julio was proud because a game journalist was taken down. Except he wasn't a game journalist.

No - I'm pleased because another advertiser looks to be pulling their support for Gawker.

I have no illusions that these sites will fire their 'journalists' over it. As it was pointed out already, the retweeters represented a number of sites and journalists. In normal business, you would expect these journalists to be fired for their hatred of their customers, but the gaming press is anything but normal.

Edit: Looks like Ford may be next to drop them, wonderful to see
https://twitter.com/kingtytankhamen/status/523211988848369664

This comment was edited on Oct 18, 2014, 05:20.

Beamer wrote on Oct 18, 2014, 03:24:
Prez, I'd also like to formally say, I apologize for when I was a dick to you in the past. I can't say you never deserved it, because I don't remember why, but I can say you probably didn't. I was probably just being entirely a dick. We don't see eye to eye on everything, but you clearly put thought into things and I have a ton of respect for it.

No worries. I remember having you blocked for a while but that seemed kind of childish. I don't mind disagreeing when there is a mutual respect shared.

This comment was edited on Oct 18, 2014, 03:41.

Prez, I'd also like to formally say, I apologize for when I was a dick to you in the past. I can't say you never deserved it, because I don't remember why, but I can say you probably didn't. I was probably just being entirely a dick. We don't see eye to eye on everything, but you clearly put thought into things and I have a ton of respect for it.

Where I see the problem occurring is if a website claims that it is a site for gaming and then has a bunch of pictures of scantily clad women. That's implicitly sending the message that gaming is only for hetero boys and the site is going to ignore the female/homosexual gamers.

So a website needs to claim that it's for hetero men for this to be okay? Somehow I think you and your ilk would still bitch about it. Hell, I would think that would be inherently obvious if they are showing pictures of hot scantily dressed women. (EDIT: Of course one could argue it is also geared towards lesbian gamers...) The way I see it, if you have a problem with sites like Action Trip which proudly posts a new "babe of the day" (today's is awesome too) then in the name of consistency you should have a problem with Vogue, Self, Glamour, and other rags for women because they ignore the hetero/homosexual male. Most websites cater to all types of gamers so what the hell is wrong with having a few that focus on a select group?

This comment was edited on Oct 18, 2014, 03:13.

Prez wrote on Oct 17, 2014, 20:16:

But, again, things come down to trends. Someone telling one racist joke isn't necessarily a racist. Someone telling many racist jokes almost definitely is.

I don't necessarily agree. But the more important part I think is to make a distinction between appreciating the human form and telling racially charged jokes. The former is natural and not at all off-putting to me, while the latter makes me squirm a bit when I hear it because of the consequences it can have.

I agree there is nothing wrong with appreciating the human form.

Where I see the problem occurring is if a website claims that it is a site for gaming and then has a bunch of pictures of scantily clad women. That's implicitly sending the message that gaming is only for hetero boys and the site is going to ignore the female/homosexual gamers.

Personally, I think that is most certainly worth criticizing. The "appreciate the human form" defense in that case would be dishonest as there are no pictures of the scantily clad men and, last I checked, they had human forms too.

Now, I don't see anything wrong with a website branding itself as a young mens' online magazine that focuses heavily on gaming and then including only pictures of female models in various states of undress. You go there and you get what's advertised.

I do find it disingenuous though for a website to brand itself as a gaming (or even entertainment website) and then blithely disregard large segments of the audience for games/entertainment.

Is anyone really surprised? Gawker is bottom tier Internet. It's sensationalized, dishonest, hypocritical, and unrepentant. And so are the people who work for Gawker and the people who continue to give them page views.

But, again, things come down to trends. Someone telling one racist joke isn't necessarily a racist. Someone telling many racist jokes almost definitely is.

I don't necessarily agree. But the more important part I think is to make a distinction between appreciating the human form and telling racially charged jokes. The former is natural and not at all off-putting to me, while the latter makes me squirm a bit when I hear it because of the consequences it can have.

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Oct 17, 2014, 19:40:

Beamer wrote on Oct 17, 2014, 19:33:
None of this has anything to do with anything we were discussing.
Thanks for trying. Everyone agrees Sam Biddle is a moron. Everyone thinks the people favoriting it were idiots. Only you are getting angry at people saying he isn't a games journalist.

Actually it has plenty to do with what we're discussing. He is a journalist, he is a member of gawker. No one is disputing that. What you're failing to catch is that other "game journalists" retweeted it, and marked it as a favorite. Not rocket surgery. Yep they are idiots for doing so, but this reflects directly on them now. That means there's at least 5 other major sites where people also believe that this is acceptable.

Strange, but I don't seem to be angry at anything. Actually I just had a great breakfast for supper. AKA french toast, and am in quite a good mood.

Julio was proud because a game journalist was taken down.
Except he wasn't a game journalist.

Please reread the conversation you entered into because you're quoting it but not at all getting what was being said.

Prez wrote on Oct 17, 2014, 20:04:
Yeah, you are right -it was Escapist, not Gamasutra. My mistake.

...one that has a lovely "GIRLS!" section and runs regular articles on hot female teachers sleeping with students.

Not surprisingly, they're considered one of the few "pro-GG" sites.

See, this is what I don't get. So if you have a site geared towards gaming males, and you show images of the beautiful female form, "naturally" you are pro Gamergate, and by extension, misogynist. I cannot get that logic. I don't find it to be sexist that guys like seeing images of gorgeous women, any more than I view seeing my hundreds of female Facebook friends pass around images of mostly naked strapping men as sexist. I view it as human.

EDIT: And before anyone asks, I have hundreds of female Facebook friends because I work in animal rescue which for reasons I won't go into is predominantly female (we are talking by a factor of 20 to 1 by my estimation), and I network with rescues across the country.

It is human. Absolutely.
But, again, things come down to trends. Someone telling one racist joke isn't necessarily a racist. Someone telling many racist jokes almost definitely is.

Yeah, you are right -it was Escapist, not Gamasutra. My mistake.

...one that has a lovely "GIRLS!" section and runs regular articles on hot female teachers sleeping with students.

Not surprisingly, they're considered one of the few "pro-GG" sites.

See, this is what I don't get. So if you have a site geared towards gaming males, and you show images of the beautiful female form, "naturally" you are pro Gamergate, and by extension, misogynist. I cannot get that logic. I don't find it to be sexist that guys like seeing images of gorgeous women, any more than I view seeing my hundreds of female Facebook friends pass around images of mostly naked strapping men as sexist. I view it as human.

EDIT: And before anyone asks, I have hundreds of female Facebook friends because I work in animal rescue which for reasons I won't go into is predominantly female (we are talking by a factor of 20 to 1 by my estimation), and I network with rescues across the country.

This comment was edited on Oct 17, 2014, 20:10.

Beamer wrote on Oct 17, 2014, 19:33:
None of this has anything to do with anything we were discussing.
Thanks for trying. Everyone agrees Sam Biddle is a moron. Everyone thinks the people favoriting it were idiots. Only you are getting angry at people saying he isn't a games journalist.

Actually it has plenty to do with what we're discussing. He is a journalist, he is a member of gawker. No one is disputing that. What you're failing to catch is that other "game journalists" retweeted it, and marked it as a favorite. Not rocket surgery. Yep they are idiots for doing so, but this reflects directly on them now. That means there's at least 5 other major sites where people also believe that this is acceptable.

Strange, but I don't seem to be angry at anything. Actually I just had a great breakfast for supper. AKA french toast, and am in quite a good mood.

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Oct 17, 2014, 19:25:

UHD wrote on Oct 17, 2014, 18:35:
It means they agreed with it. It doesn't mean Sam Biddle is a gaming journalist. You can agree with someone without being a part of their clique. The world is not that black and white.

So you're telling me that said "journalists" agree that bullying is a good thing? You're also telling me that in "anti-bullying month" we have this swath of journalists who don't have the optics to see why this is bad. And you're also telling me that these are the people support what many kids in school suffered through and want to do it again.

You know what this seems like? The bullies simply grew up, and got jobs as "social advocates" and "journalists" because the only thing they know how to do is bully people. Well taking a page out of their book, this means that the entire anti-gg segment supports bullying.

None of this has anything to do with anything we were discussing.
Thanks for trying. Everyone agrees Sam Biddle is a moron. Everyone thinks the people favoriting it were idiots. Only you are getting angry at people saying he isn't a games journalist.

UHD wrote on Oct 17, 2014, 18:35:
It means they agreed with it. It doesn't mean Sam Biddle is a gaming journalist. You can agree with someone without being a part of their clique. The world is not that black and white.

So you're telling me that said "journalists" agree that bullying is a good thing? You're also telling me that in "anti-bullying month" we have this swath of journalists who don't have the optics to see why this is bad. And you're also telling me that these are the people support what many kids in school suffered through and want to do it again.

You know what this seems like? The bullies simply grew up, and got jobs as "social advocates" and "journalists" because the only thing they know how to do is bully people. Well taking a page out of their book, this means that the entire anti-gg segment supports bullying.