[GG-TB] TotalBiscuit did a nice summary on the movement.

[Redheadsrule13]

I didn't really keep up with the whole GamerGate thing, but as far as I know, it started as a discussion about ethics in games journalism, then just turned to a feminism based shitstorm that no-one wants to be near any more. In which case, I understand why people want to be done with it, but it doesn't stop the fact that the original issue is still an issue. Props for TB and the way that he's tackled this though, nice to see someone with that sort of influence take some action.

[Yoinkerman]

I didn't really keep up with the whole GamerGate thing, but as far as I know, it started as a discussion about ethics in games journalism, then just turned to a feminism based shitstorm that no-one wants to be near any more. In which case, I understand why people want to be done with it, but it doesn't stop the fact that the original issue is still an issue. Props for TB and the way that he's tackled this though, nice to see someone with that sort of influence take some action.

 

I think the guy adequately addressed every point TB brought up during the interview.  That TB can't agree to disagree, and leave it be since the websites already updated their policies speaks of a non rational vendetta on his part.  Some writer not disclosing she lived with someone at one point while writing a non biased article isn't even a controversy.  Sure, it needs to be corrected going forward and that was addressed.  The writer probably got her proverbial peepee slapped internally as well.  Same with the Quinn/whatshisface debacle.

 

What wasn't addressed, which the kotaku guy couldn't address, was the 10+ same day articles. That still doesn't pass the sniff test.

 

It was also puzzling how TB couldn't wrap his head around people being business associates, who go to dinner and drink, but aren't friends.  I do this with coworkers, but they're not my friends.  Some of them anyway.  Or how people can develop a relationship immediately after an article.  People who have never met before start relationships after meeting for a single night at the bar.  It happens all the time.  That two people become closer after going through an extensive interview process doesn't seem unimaginable.  It may be poor form, but we're just humans.

[Kick]

Not that way... You do know about this copypasta, right?

 

The lines "I keel yu" and "1v1 me IRL" can be considered as baseless... I mean, lines like these are being thrown about regularly...

 

Legit threats have a different, more serious tone to them and they usually show telltale signs if they're dead serious...

 

A question that arises from this is how do they differentiate? (yes it's a basic question, yet  a deep one from my perspective).. Do they report even the lightest of empty taunts to the authorities, or do they only report the more serious ones (later to broadcast that the threat has been reported and that they are under protection, which can further aggravate the situation)?

I think we are missing the larger issue in this discussion about the severity and/or legitimacy of death threats, and that's that they are death threats.

 

Threats have no place in civilized society, and we should be more concerned with the fact that (even you mention) these are thrown around regularly. We call people "trolls" who do not follow societal guidelines for general decency, who attempt to start arguments for their own enjoyment and who put others down to make themselves feel better on some level. It is this vocal minority of trolls that are muddying the waters, making it hard to tell the sincere from the insincere. As the Internet becomes more and more a part of everyday life, we live in a world where it is easy to find the physical location of someone based simply off a screen-name, and it is because of this that I feel we shouldn't take threats lightly at all. We cannot shout fire in a crowded theater because it could incite panic, so how is telling someone that you are going to violently end their life any different? 

 

You ask how one would differentiate but then compare taunts to death threats. These are not in the same category, threats should always be reported and investigated and taunts should be dealt with however the recipient feels prudent (i.e. blocking and moving on). 

[IdortMasterRace]

I think the guy adequately addressed every point TB brought up during the interview.  That TB can't agree to disagree, and leave it be since the websites already updated their policies speaks of a non rational vendetta on his part.  Some writer not disclosing she lived with someone at one point while writing a non biased article isn't even a controversy.  Sure, it needs to be corrected going forward and that was addressed.  The writer probably got her proverbial peepee slapped internally as well.  Same with the Quinn/whatshisface debacle.

 

What wasn't addressed, which the kotaku guy couldn't address, was the 10+ same day articles. That still doesn't pass the sniff test.

 

It was also puzzling how TB couldn't wrap his head around people being business associates, who go to dinner and drink, but aren't friends.  I do this with coworkers, but they're not my friends.  Some of them anyway.  Or how people can develop a relationship immediately after an article.  People who have never met before start relationships after meeting for a single night at the bar.  It happens all the time.  That two people become closer after going through an extensive interview process doesn't seem unimaginable.  It may be poor form, but we're just humans.

 

Uh, positively reviewing something on someone you have a relationship with is unethical no matter how you try to spin it. There's masses of bias to be had there, whether intended, or subconsciously, or whatever.

 

In fact, Kotaku, Rock Paper Shotgun, etc. obviously agree otherwise they wouldn't have changed their ethical policies.

[cae]

Of course the sociopaths are terrible. They make threats on the internet because it's the only place they're granted power. You grant them that power by acknowledging it in the first place. This is why we report and ignore.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/10/30/twitter_death_threats_are_meaningless_you_should_ignore_them.html

[Yoinkerman]

Uh, positively reviewing something on someone you have a relationship with is unethical no matter how you try to spin it. There's masses of bias to be had there, whether intended, or subconsciously, or whatever.

 

In fact, Kotaku, Rock Paper Shotgun, etc. obviously agree otherwise they wouldn't have changed their ethical policies.

 

Right.  But it's not particularly controversial.  A new, young, untrained writer made a few mistakes.  Life happens.  They've made changes to address it.  Idk why we should beat that particular horse anymore.  It's dead.

[IdortMasterRace]

Right.  But it's not particularly controversial.  A new, young, untrained writer made a few mistakes.  Life happens.  They've made changes to address it.  Idk why we should beat that particular horse anymore.  It's dead.

 

Well it's not just one writer, is it? And it's not just new, young, untrained writers either.

 

The Grayson/Kotaku stuff is months old. GamerGate has moved on from that.

[kingkickolas]

When it comes to death threats over the web, shouldn't people take it with a grain of salt, unless it was a serious aggravated threat?

If I had an interest in stopping, or at least minimizing the volume of threats received, I would not then give the aggressor a podium and say "Look at this man! Look at his threats and know that he exists! What better way to attract a mob of scum than to acknowledge their efforts? It's exactly why you don't feed trolls. The rules don't change for any threats perceived as legitimate either. Notify authorities, maintain your safety, but don't broadcast doing so, or the reasons for doing so!

You said it...

 

Another solution I thought of is relocation... secretly (not broadcasting where you are)... Nothing says safety like disappearing from your general area for a while...

 

Also, this is the internet... Who knows if the threats are real, empty, or fabricated... Impostor/dupe accounts are easy to make...

Not that way... You do know about this copypasta, right?

 

The lines "I keel yu" and "1v1 me IRL" can be considered as baseless... I mean, lines like these are being thrown about regularly...

 

Legit threats have a different, more serious tone to them and they usually show telltale signs if they're dead serious...

 

A question that arises from this is how do they differentiate? (yes it's a basic question, yet  a deep one from my perspective).. Do they report even the lightest of empty taunts to the authorities, or do they only report the more serious ones (later to broadcast that the threat has been reported and that they are under protection, which can further aggravate the situation)?

 

See, it's exactly ignorant suggestions like these that make it seem like you're trying to silence her.

Here are just a couple examples of threats she's received. And keep in mind, this is even before the Utah bombing/shooting threats.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/37756-death-threats-against-anita-sarkeesian-force-the-inspirational-feminist-from-her-home

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2013/07/30/twitter-ignores-rape-threats-aimed-anita-sarkeesian#.VFhW8vnF9UM

 

People know where she lives, where she works, and even where her parents live, and they want to harm her. Seriously, read what just one person said he was going to do to her in that first link.

 

People want to threaten her so that she will retreat and hide. But it's exactly the opposite thing that she must do. Call out your abusers, make it known that you will not stand down no matter how much hate they throw at you.

Unfortunately, she did have to back down at Utah. Her safety could not be guaranteed, in addition to the safety of the hundreds of other students and attendees who were also threatened. These things need to made public more than ever. We should always stand up to hatred and bigotry, not play it off, or retreat, or hide.

 

 

 

 

I didn't really keep up with the whole GamerGate thing, but as far as I know, it started as a discussion about ethics in games journalism, then just turned to a feminism based shitstorm that no-one wants to be near any more. In which case, I understand why people want to be done with it, but it doesn't stop the fact that the original issue is still an issue. Props for TB and the way that he's tackled this though, nice to see someone with that sort of influence take some action.

Actually, it was the other way around. It started as personal attacks on Zoe Quinn, then generalizing to all women in game development. Only recently has the mainstream movement tried to backtrack enough to call itself a movement about "ethics in video game journalism". Even though it's still heavily entrenched in sexism.

[IdortMasterRace]

See, it's exactly ignorant suggestions like these that make it seem like you're trying to silence her.

Here are just a couple examples of threats she's received. And keep in mind, this is even before the Utah bombing/shooting threats.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/37756-death-threats-against-anita-sarkeesian-force-the-inspirational-feminist-from-her-home

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2013/07/30/twitter-ignores-rape-threats-aimed-anita-sarkeesian#.VFhW8vnF9UM

 

People know where she lives, where she works, and even where her parents live, and they want to harm her. Seriously, read what just one person said he was going to do to her in that first link.

 

People want to threaten her so that she will retreat and hide. But it's exactly the opposite thing that she must do. Call out your abusers, make it known that you will not stand down no matter how much hate they throw at you.

Unfortunately, she did have to back down at Utah. Her safety could not be guaranteed, in addition to the safety of the hundreds of other students and attendees who were also threatened. These things need to made public more than ever. We should always stand up to hatred and bigotry, not play it off, or retreat, or hide.

 

Hmm.

 

http://a.pomf.se/rsqcdh.png

 

How come she isn't signed in to her own Twitter, and how did she take a screenshot exactly 12 seconds after the Tweet was sent?

 

Remain sceptical.

 

Actually, it was the other way around. It started as personal attacks on Zoe Quinn, then generalizing to all women in game development. Only recently has the mainstream movement tried to backtrack enough to call itself a movement about "ethics in video game journalism". Even though it's still heavily entrenched in sexism.

 

Stop being a generalising prick. It was never about personal attacks, women, or sexism.

[kingkickolas]

Hmm.

 

http://a.pomf.se/rsqcdh.png

 

How come she isn't signed in, and how did she take a screenshot exactly 12 seconds after the Tweet was sent?

 

Remain sceptical.

Yes I've heard the argument that she fabricated those tweets. You can see the full argument here: http://www.returnofkings.com/42602/did-anita-sarkeesian-fake-death-threats-against-herself

It really doesn't amount to anything. He had been posting for a while, it's easy to keep refreshing the page and screencap after a new post is made. I'm surprised it took 12 seconds to be honest, I'd want to get it right away.

 

Stop being a generalising prick. It was never about personal attacks, women, or sexism.

I think you'll find that to just be untrue as a matter of public record.

Sure not everyone involved in the movement participated in that way. But that was how it started, and that's the tone of the movement to this day.

[IdortMasterRace]

But that was how it started, and that's the tone of the movement to this day.

 

Maybe to the people that GamerGate is rightfully criticising, but to everyone else in the sane world it's still being seen as a movement to make the industry lest corrupt.

[cae]

See, it's exactly ignorant suggestions like these that make it seem like you're trying to silence her.

 

Because silence is the best way to stop them.

 

People want to threaten her so that she will retreat and hide. But it's exactly the opposite thing that she must do. Call out your abusers, make it known that you will not stand down no matter how much hate they throw at you.

Unfortunately, she did have to back down at Utah. Her safety could not be guaranteed, in addition to the safety of the hundreds of other students and attendees who were also threatened. These things need to made public more than ever. We should always stand up to hatred and bigotry, not play it off, or retreat, or hide.

 

It does you no good to call out anonymous abusers. There's no one to pursue. She did not have to back down at Utah. She chose to. Police and security personnel were increased even after the threats made were deemed to be not credible. She cancelled because the university would not break the law for her in not allowing persons with concealed carry permits to attend her speech. That's certainly standing up to threats.

 

At no point were generalizations made of all women in game development. Several of those developers felt very strongly in crushing that narrative.

[IdortMasterRace]

Because silence is the best way to stop them.

 

 

It does you no good to call out anonymous abusers. There's no one to pursue. She did not have to back down at Utah. She chose to. Police and security personnel were increased even after the threats made were deemed to be not credible. She cancelled because the university would not break the law for her in not allowing persons with concealed carry permits to attend her speech. That's certainly standing up to threats.

 

At no point were generalizations made of all women in game development. Several of those developers felt very strongly in crushing that narrative.

 

In fact, didn't the police themselves say "yeah, there's zero reason to cancel the talk" and even admitted that the threats were entirely baseless? But nope, she carried on calling gamers sexist and terrorists.

[IdortMasterRace]

In fact I think we should get the topic off of Anita anyway. She has nothing to do with GamerGate. In fact, a discussion board I use has this in a stickied thread:

 

The Who's:

 

These are the people that despite what the media and themselves would want you to believe, are not in any way a central point or even related to the core of our consumer's revolt.

They crave attention either for profit or to further an agenda thus we don't call them by their name.

LW1 = Z
LW2 = A
LW3 = B

 

LW1: Zoe Quinn. LW2: Anita Sarkeesian. LW3: Brianna Wu. They have nothing to do with this, they aren't journalists, and just because some pleb sent them death threats, doesn't mean it should be injected into the GG movement. It also says this too:

 

HARASSMENT AND "DOXXING"

GamerGate does not condone or support these actions in any way. We do not "Doxx" people. We are against harassment.

We are, however, often subject to it:

http://gamergateharassment.tumblr.com/

The media, somehow, seems blind to it. GamerGate supporters have lost their jobs, their friends and more as a result of the smear campaign and the harassment from those who wish to silence us.

#NOT YOUR SHIELD

GamerGate supporters are said by the corrupt media to be all white heterosexual males and teenagers.

Are we?

#NotYourShield: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYqBdCmDR0M

Women of GamerGate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXXdgfKdE8M

[ComradeHX]

 

Actually, it was the other way around. It started as personal attacks on Zoe Quinn, then generalizing to all women in game development. Only recently has the mainstream movement tried to backtrack enough to call itself a movement about "ethics in video game journalism". Even though it's still heavily entrenched in sexism.

IIRC it started with all that shitstorm with Zoe Quinn and her ex-boyfriend...etc.

 

Then that was proven to be false(the guy Zoe Quinn cheated on her ex-boyfriend with did not have anything to do with writing "review" of her "game").

But people started to actually care about ethics in gaming "journalism."

 

And then I don't remember when Anita Sarkeesian got involved...but I'm pretty sure she had a hand in fucking up the image of gamergate...as with everything she ever touched.

I guess Anita Sarkeesian did her usual thing(trying to bring spotlight onto herself), got death threats(not exactly new...I'm pretty sure she got them before)...and now bites hard on the fact that a vocal minority of "gamergater" hates her(and probably not for the reason she claims they have).

 

 

In fact I think we should get the topic off of Anita anyway. She has nothing to do with GamerGate. In fact, a discussion board I use has this in a stickied thread:

 

Anita Sarkeesian became a part of the problem when she went onto Colbert Report and openly spread bullshit about gamergate.

[kingkickolas]

Maybe to the people that GamerGate is rightfully criticising, but to everyone else in the sane world it's still being seen as a movement to make the industry lest corrupt.

 

Well I'm glad to see you're no longer bothering to argue on the other points.

You know, I hope the movement does succeed in shaking off the sexism that plagues it. But at this time, the prevailing attitude of the movement comes off as anti-woman.

 

Because silence is the best way to stop them.

 

 

It does you no good to call out anonymous abusers. There's no one to pursue. She did not have to back down at Utah. She chose to. Police and security personnel were increased even after the threats made were deemed to be not credible. She cancelled because the university would not break the law for her in not allowing persons with concealed carry permits to attend her speech. That's certainly standing up to threats.

 

At no point were generalizations made of all women in game development. Several of those developers felt very strongly in crushing that narrative.

 

To be clear, no one is calling out users on twitter or email, hoping that the FBI will track them down and arrest them. The point is that you make it publicly known what people want to do to you, and then tell them that even their threats won't stop you.

 

If I had to put myself in her position on that day, I wouldn't have gone up either. It's wonderful that the police thought the threat wasn't credible and I'm sure they did a stellar job with that. But with the amount of threats that she gets daily, I wouldn't have taken that risk, and I don't think you would have either.

 

In fact, didn't the police themselves say "yeah, there's zero reason to cancel the talk" and even admitted that the threats were entirely baseless? But nope, she carried on calling gamers sexist and terrorists.

 

Also, I hope you're not seriously under the impression that she (or those who agree with her) are calling all gamers sexists. She is a gamer herself, as am I, as are tons of feminists around the world.

The culture is sexist. The market thrives on misogynistic representations of women. That's what she's trying to bring to your attention.

 

IIRC it started with all that shitstorm with Zoe Quinn and her ex-boyfriend...etc.

 

Then that was proven to be false(the guy Zoe Quinn cheated on her ex-boyfriend with did not have anything to do with writing "review" of her "game").

But people started to actually care about ethics in gaming "journalism."

 

And then I don't remember when Anita Sarkeesian got involved...but I'm pretty sure she had a hand in fucking up the image of gamergate...as with everything she ever touched.

 

Yeah it started roughly like that.

As people like even Jim of Jimquisition have pointed out though, gaming journalism has never been free of corruption. And the fact that it took the Quinnspiracy scandal -- a scandal that was hopelessly entrenched in negative views of women -- to bring that out is shameful for gamers everywhere, especially those who aligned themselves with the Five Guys movement then, and gamergate now.

 

Anita got involved because she reports on and analyses the state of women in the video game industry. It's ridiculous to think that it wouldn't be her job to get involved.

[ComradeHX]

 

Also, I hope you're not seriously under the impression that she (or those who agree with her) are calling all gamers sexists. She is a gamer herself, as am I, as are tons of feminists around the world.

The culture is sexist. The market thrives on misogynistic representations of women. That's what she's trying to bring to your attention.

 

Well that's where Anita is wrong...

 

There are plenty of games that portrays MALE gender wrongfully(every game made by Nitroplus Chiral, for example), and caters to FEMALE gamers.

Yet she simply bring to people's attention whatever is convenient in supporting her ideas.

And she even gets too many things simply wrong.

She does not understand gamers or the "gaming culture"...there is literally something for EVERYONE.

 

This video helps: 

[IdortMasterRace]

Anita Sarkeesian became a part of the problem when she went onto Colbert Report and openly spread bullshit about gamergate.

 

Right, but we should be ignoring her rather than giving in to her trying to stop/slow down the good progress GG is making. She's injecting herself into it for publicity, nothing more. If people ignored her, she'd have nothing.

 

Well I'm glad to see you're no longer bothering to argue on the other points.

 

That's because you made no other points relating to GamerGate.

 

She got threats before the Utah bombings? Okay? What has that got to do with the topic? The people making death threats are idiots, but again, that's completely unrelated to this. People bullying on Twitter has nothing to do with journalism ethics in video games, as much as you keep trying to make it as such.

 

But with the amount of threats that she gets daily, I wouldn't have taken that risk, and I don't think you would have either.

 

Again, this is not related to the topic or GamerGate.

 

The culture is sexist.

 

Nope. Just stop posting at this point.

 

Jim of Jimquisition have pointed out though, gaming journalism has never been free of corruption.

 

Oh, okay, I guess we should just sit back and let it carry on then.

 

Also, I hope you're not seriously under the impression that she (or those who agree with her) are calling all gamers sexists.

 

See: http://imgur.com/a/kahzN

 

Sorry, I didn't mean she herself said it. I misspoke there.

 

And the fact that it took the Quinnspiracy scandal -- a scandal that was hopelessly entrenched in negative views of women

 

No it wasn't.

 

In fact, GamerGate was formed separately from Quinnspiracy to get it away from the topic Zoe Quinn. She has nothing to do with this. Her sex life has literally nothing to do with journalism. It's the journalist who was at fault (a man, for fuck sake) and he was the one called out and criticised. Again, it was only trolls who bandwaggoned on who were attacking Zoe Quinn, when really no one else gave a shit about her. Again, see the below quote, which says Zoe Quinn has nothing to do with this and never directly has.

 

The Who's:

 

These are the people that despite what the media and themselves would want you to believe, are not in any way a central point or even related to the core of our consumer's revolt.

They crave attention either for profit or to further an agenda thus we don't call them by their name.

LW1 = Z

LW2 = A

LW3 = B

[kingkickolas]

Well that's where Anita is wrong...

 

There are plenty of games that portrays MALE gender as the weak ones.

Yet she simply bring to people's attention whatever is convenient in supporting her ideas.

And she even gets too many things simply wrong.

 

This video helps: 

 

Sigh... Even if there is such a game -- and I don't believe there is -- it's really on its own.

This misses the point anyway. The objection is not that there are one or two or ten thousand games that portray women as inferior or decorative, the point is that the entire industry (just like our society as a whole) devalues and objectifies women.

Once this is addressed, then of course it is inevitable that some games will have stronger male characters and some will have stronger female characters. And that's perfectly fine.

[cae]

To be clear, no one is calling out users on twitter or email, hoping that the FBI will track them down and arrest them. The point is that you make it publicly known what people want to do to you, and then tell them that even their threats won't stop you.

 

If I had to put myself in her position on that day, I wouldn't have gone up either. It's wonderful that the police thought the threat wasn't credible and I'm sure they did a stellar job with that. But with the amount of threats that she gets daily, I wouldn't have taken that risk, and I don't think you would have either.

 

In making it publicly known that you were threatened on the internet, you're inviting more sociopaths to do the same, so that they may also be acknowledged. That's their goal, they're sociopaths. You can still rise up and overcome those threats without acknowledging them in the process.

 

So what makes Utah special? You say that threats won't stop you, and then say you're stopping because of a threat? Again, she didn't like Utah's laws regarding firearm carry. I find the association of concealed carry permit holders with threatening sociopaths to be rather bigoted, but that's just me. I would have had no problem speaking, especially given all the protection the university granted.

[IdortMasterRace]

Even if there is such a game -- and I don't believe there is

 

the point is that the entire industry (just like our society as a whole) devalues and objectifies women.

 

[ComradeHX]

Sigh... Even if there is such a game -- and I don't believe there is -- it's really on its own.

This misses the point anyway. The objection is not that there are one or two or ten thousand games that portray women as inferior or decorative, the point is that the entire industry (just like our society as a whole) devalues and objectifies women.

Once this is addressed, then of course it is inevitable that some games will have stronger male characters and some will have stronger female characters. And that's perfectly fine.

Entire industry devalues and objectifies women, yet many games devalues and objectifies men instead.

 

Sounds legit.

 

There ARE games with strong female characters.  But look at how Anita talk about Bayonetta and Lara Croft...etc.

And I don't think she ever heard of Jill Valentine, Rebecca Chambers, or Claire Redfield.

[kingkickolas]

Right, but we should be ignoring her rather than giving in to her trying to stop/slow down the good progress GG is making. She's injecting herself into it for publicity, nothing more. If people ignored her, she'd have nothing.

GG isn't making any progress. If anything, it's moving society backwards.

 

That's because you made no other points relating to GamerGate.

 

She got threats before the Utah bombings? Okay? What has that got to do with the topic? The people making death threats are idiots, but again, that's completely unrelated to this. People bullying on Twitter has nothing to do with journalism ethics in video games, as much as you keep trying to make it as such.

The people making threats are the same people who claim to be fighting for "journalism ethics in video games". The GG movement is more to do with the bullying than it is to do with journalism.

Look up the number of pro-GG tweets directed at Feminist Frequency, and then tell me the two aren't related.

 

Again, this is not related to the topic or GamerGate.

It is, as gamergaters were the ones making the threats.

 

Nope. Just stop posting at this point.

You know, I was expecting to see some denial on the sexist culture within GG, but that someone would outright sexism as a whole, that's a whole other level.

I don't know what world you're living in, in which sexism doesn't exist, but please invite me and the rest of humanity to it.

 

Oh, okay, I guess we should just sit back and let it carry on then.

You've missed the point.

Of course something should be done about it. But without the misogynistic overtones, if you'd be so kind.

 

See: http://imgur.com/a/kahzN

 

Sorry, I didn't mean she herself said it. I misspoke there.

Oh I see what the problem is here; you've mistaken me for the editor and PR representative of a dozen different media outlets.

I'm not here to speak about or defend a single thing they've said.

 

No it wasn't.

 

In fact, GamerGate was formed separately from Quinnspiracy to get it away from the topic Zoe Quinn. She has nothing to do with this. Her sex life has literally nothing to do with journalism. It's the journalist who was at fault (a man, for fuck sake) and he was the one called out and criticised. Again, it was only trolls who bandwaggoned on who were attacking Zoe Quinn, when really no one else gave a shit about her. Again, see the below quote, which says Zoe Quinn has nothing to do with this and never directly has.

Her sex life started the discussion on "gaming journalism". And unfortunately, to this day, women like Anita are still public enemy number one of gamergaters.

 

 

 

 

 

In making it publicly known that you were threatened on the internet, you're inviting more sociopaths to do the same, so that they may also be acknowledged. That's their goal, they're sociopaths. You can still rise up and overcome those threats without acknowledging them in the process.

 

So what makes Utah special? You say that threats won't stop you, and then say you're stopping because of a threat? Again, she didn't like Utah's laws regarding firearm carry. I find the association of concealed carry permit holders with threatening sociopaths to be rather bigoted, but that's just me. I would have had no problem speaking, especially given all the protection the university granted.

They're going to be harassing her regardless, whether she publishes it or not. They're not out for attention; I don't know you got this idea. They're out to scare and harass her out of the public forum. They don't like the things she's saying, and they would rather threaten her with rape and murder than let her speak her mind.

 

To be clear, the university didn't grant her protection. There was nothing to stop an attendee from pulling a gun out and killing her, before potentially turning the firearm to more people.

Threats shouldn't stop you. As I said before, it's unfortunate that they couldn't guarantee her safety, so she had to back down.

And finally, no one has equated concealed carry permit holders to threatening sociopaths (although I'd love to have a crack at that argument at a different time); it's the intersection of deranged misogynists with concealed firearm holders who are the worrisome group. Hopefully you have it in you make that distinction.

 

 

Again, not even in my wildest dreams did I think someone would outright deny the existence of sexism.

There are only a few gutters lower than that.

 

 

Entire industry devalues and objectifies women, yet many games devalues and objectifies men instead.

 

Sounds legit.

 

There ARE games with strong female characters.  But look at how Anita talk about Bayonetta and Lara Croft...etc.

And I don't think she ever heard of Jill Valentine, Rebecca Chambers, or Claire Redfield.

I would love for you to point out one game that devalues and objectifies men in the same way that the vast majority of games do for women. I'd consider it a favor.

 

Bayonetta and Lara may be lead characters, which is a start, but they're certainly not portrayed ideally.

For starters, almost every shot of Bayonetta is a gratuitous ass, tits, or crotch shot. (I'd pay so much money to see a game with a scantily clad man waltzing around, where the camera follows his massive swaying member. Guess what? That game doesn't exist.)

As for Lara, the game doesn't even bother creating a character for her. She could have been replaced with a sack of potatoes with a drawn-on sad face, and the game would have felt exactly the same. On top of that, she has almost no control or agency in the entire game. A lead character, sure, but a strong one? Definitely not.

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: PS My keyboard is burning, but keep em coming, I've got all the time in the world for you guys.

[ComradeHX]

 

I would love for you to point out one game that devalues and objectifies men in the same way that the vast majority of games do for women. I'd consider it a favor.

 

Bayonetta and Lara may be lead characters, which is a start, but they're certainly not portrayed ideally.

For starters, almost every shot of Bayonetta is a gratuitous ass, tits, or crotch shot. (I'd pay so much money to see a game with a scantily clad man waltzing around, where the camera follows his massive swaying member. Guess what? That game doesn't exist.)

As for Lara, the game doesn't even bother creating a character for her. She could have been replaced with a sack of potatoes with a drawn-on sad face, and the game would have felt exactly the same. On top of that, she has almost no control or agency in the entire game. A lead character, sure, but a strong one? Definitely not.

 

One game?  Hunks Workshop

 

For starters, having ass/tits/crotch shot does not stop Bayonetta from being a strong female character.  Being sexy(not much...) is in the character design; there is nothing wrong with female being attractive(other than the fact that it rustles SJW's jimmies, if they had any; because, for SJW, it's only okay to show off ugly bodies).

Bayonetta is scantily-clad?  I don't know what game you have been playing; but the only time she looked a bit underdressed is when special moves happen, and those scenes were perfectly covered(to the level of being less revealing than swimsuits...).  She's like a female Duke Nukem except she's not funny.

 

As for Lara replaceable with sack of potatoes?  No...just no.  Game would not have felt exactly the same; all the details that went into the character(especially the hair, TressFX resulted in the highest performance loss out of all the settings) make the game what it is.  Lara Croft has no control or agency?  Only at first; which is working as intended.

You conveniently ignored all the Resident Evil main characters.

 

Please define "ideally."

 

 

Did you watch the video?  It points out some of Anita Sarkeesian's hypocrisy/failures.

That's why people hate her; I don't think any sensible person believes she can cause games to be made to feminist ideals.

[IdortMasterRace]

GG isn't making any progress. If anything, it's moving society backwards.

 

Yeah, I guess getting journalism sites to change their ethical policies, getting big companies including the likes of Intel and Hulu to remove their ads from corrupt sites, and making thousands and thousands of people aware of the corruption behind journalism is no progress... oh wait.

 

The GG movement is more to do with the bullying than it is to do with journalism.

 

Nope.

 

It is, as gamergaters were the ones making the threats.

 

Nope.

 

Also, I guess it doesn't count when pro-GG supports are threatened, insulted and abused themselves? How come no one ever calls that out?

 

http://gamergateharassment.tumblr.com/

 

Also let me ask, if I went to Twitter right now, and wrote something like "ALL WOMEN ARE SCUMBAGS #LINUSTECHTIPS", does that mean LinusTechTips is a women-hating community?

 

I don't know what world you're living in, in which sexism doesn't exist

 

Don't move the goalposts. You said the entire culture and industry was sexist. That's a lot different than sexism not existing.

 

But without the misogynistic overtones, if you'd be so kind.

 

Good thing there aren't any then.

 

Oh I see what the problem is here; you've mistaken me for the editor and PR representative of a dozen different media outlets.

I'm not here to speak about or defend a single thing they've said.

 

Again, stop trying to move the goalposts. You originally said you hoped I wasn't implying that people who agree with Anita are calling are gamers sexist, yet I just provided a dozen examples.

 

Her sex life started the discussion on "gaming journalism".

 

Nope, it was multiple journalists sex life that started the discussion, not necessarily Zoe Quinn's. Again, it was always completely irrelevent who she has sex with - what was important was the journalists who were in a relationship with her while writing positive press on her.

 

And unfortunately, to this day, women like Anita are still public enemy number one of gamergaters.

 

Completely and utterly wrong.

 

They're going to be harassing her regardless, whether she publishes it or not. They're not out for attention; I don't know you got this idea. They're out to scare and harass her out of the public forum. They don't like the things she's saying, and they would rather threaten her with rape and murder than let her speak her mind.

 

And those people are idiots. But they aren't GamerGate, nor are they what GamerGate stands for. GamerGate actually completely opposes the insults, threats, and doxxing.

 

Again, not even in my wildest dreams did I think someone would outright deny the existence of sexism.

There are only a few gutters lower than that.

 

Your entire argument is literally just strawmans, isn't it? You can't just make a godawful, enormous claim, then say "of course you'd deny it!" as soon as someone calls out how stupid the claim is.

 

I would love for you to point out one game that devalues and objectifies men in the same way that the vast majority of games do for women. I'd consider it a favor.

 

Nope - before we take the bait, first of all you need to clarify what exactly you mean by how women are devalued and objectified, and provide examples. You made the claim, so at least back it up and actually explain your flawed thinking before we counter-argue.

 

Bayonetta and Lara may be lead characters, which is a start, but they're certainly not portrayed ideally. For starters, almost every shot of Bayonetta is a gratuitous ass, tits, or crotch shot. As for Lara, the game doesn't even bother creating a character for her. She could have been replaced with a sack of potatoes with a drawn-on sad face, and the game would have felt exactly the same. On top of that, she has almost no control or agency in the entire game. A lead character, sure, but a strong one? Definitely not.

 

Bayonetta is a strong, independent women who knows she's powerful, and is going to kick ass, take names, and get things done without letting anyone stand in her way. She's also sexy, and she's knows it, and she's going to flaunt it off because she's that confident in herself. So tell me, how does that make her a weak character? As for Lara Croft, she overcomes many obstacles in the games and overcomes them coming out stronger than ever. Again, how does that make her weak? And if we're talking old school Lara Croft, you could apply the same thing I said about Bayonetta to Lara.

 

(I'd pay so much money to see a game with a scantily clad man waltzing around, where the camera follows his massive swaying member. Guess what? That game doesn't exist.)

 

Okay, now you're contradicting yourself. Does the camera have to follow his naked 'massive swaying member' around? If so, tell me just one game where a woman is running around with the camera is focusing on her bare genitals then? That'd be a much fairer comparison to a 'massive swaying member'.

 

If we go back to your previous point where women often have big breasts, an attractive figure, a nice butt, etc, should I start listing the thousands of games where the men have nice abs, big broad shoulders, a toned body, big pecks, etc? What about games like Metal Gear Solid 2 where a male character is completely naked? What about Grand Theft Auto IV where you do actually see a guy's penis?

 

And by the way, I'm not saying either example is bad. What's wrong with looking great, attractive, having a nice body, and having men/women be attracted to you? I don't mind if men are muscled with pecks in abs in the games I play - I'd rather they looked like that than the opposite.