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

[DigitalHermit]

*takes a bite out of my sisig sandwich*

 

How did we end up in the sexism in video games again? We can have this discussion all day but the preexisting content won't change...

 

My personal stance in the whole representation of women in games shall remain "It is to be left at the creator's discretion, without external influence, unless said influence is that of the rule of law"...

 

On death threats:

They are never acceptable, legitimate or empty... S.O.P would be to report, then ignore... Publicizing them would only give the culprit what he wants...

 

On the threat of a school shooting:
If the authorities say that there is no threat, then I shall trust that, while still remaining wary... It's the wise way to proceed... Same with the death threats, report, then ignore...

 

*sigh*

 

I'm out... @cae, @ComradeHX, @IdortMasterRace, good luck talking to that brick wall...

[cae]

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.

How can they not be out for attention? They fail in every other regard. Even if trolls' harassment affects them, if it doesn't appear to affect them, it's a waste of the trolls' time. This is Internet 101.

 

There's never a guarantee of safety. If she feels safer behind a sign that says guns are prohibited, that's her prerogative. It's completely possible for one of these "deranged misogynists" to show up to any one of her events unannounced with a weapon, yet she has no problem with speeches elsewhere. Utah was different because of their laws regarding firearm carry, and that's why I must infer that she withdrew from the event with some mildly bigoted views towards concealed carry permit holders.

 

And now for the easily dismissed personal opinions: Trolls and threats are not ignored, but used. It works. Instead of talking about anything else, here we are talking about threats. It's a deflection, and an effective one. It's effective because the sane individual finds harassment to be deplorable. We don't like seeing it happen, even if we disagree with its victim on something. No matter how many times we tell them to ignore the trolls, they act like it's their first day on the internet and play right into it, not because they're stupid, but because they profit from it. It's clear from rhetoric used in this thread. "You're trying to silence them." We get stuck explaining how anonymity on the internet works, but they know. This is why they will continue to invite, broadcast, and profit from their harassment.

 

[BallGum]

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.

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.

Those are heavily slanted articles. This part in particular stood out at me:

" What it comes down to is this: an intelligent woman uploaded an academic analysis of females as tropes in video games, and this caused such fury that one person created a specific Twitter account just to abuse her. This Twitter user sought out her home address, and her parents’ home address. He said he would kill her parents, after telling her he would “drink your blood out of your cunt.” Because she analyzed a video game."

Her analysis was far from academic and held hardly any studies or research, unlike Christina H Sommer's (I think that's her name). Thunderf00t has a good breakdown of that. I'll link it.

I condemn harassment just like any other sane individual but I have to question was she really harassed there? There have been a lot of people analysing that screenshot and it doesn't add up. The span between tweets are very small, and yet despite this, the tweets are grammatically correct, suggesting the tweets were written somewhere else then copy/pasted and tweeted.

This in itself isn't conclusive at all but further along we notice that she is not logged in. And the time between the last tweet is just large enough for someone to log out of an account. I think it's definitely arguable that it may have been faked.

And before someone calls me out on victim blaming... This is not victim blaming. Victim blaming is when we have confirmed that someone is a victim of something, and then we blame it on the victim: for example we confirm that someone was indeed raped, but we say it's their own fault for dressing provocatively.

At this point I'm saying she's not a victim. We haven't confirmed that yet.

Now, if it turns out that these definitely weren't faked, I apologise and take back what I said.

But I also don't think that the actions of a minority should mean that the actions of the moderate majority get disregarded entirely. Guilt by association needs to stop.

Edit:

Kind of getting tired of the "sexism" argument. How do I conclusively prove gg is not sexist? Oh wait, that burden of proof is on you.

What I can provide evidence for is that it is about ethics. Why are all media trying so hard to silence it, and write such hugely slanted articles? Because it affects them. Because it is calling them out.

Additionally we have some of these media publications writing out code of ethics.

We also have Newsweek inadvertently stating that 95% of the tweets with the gamergate hash tag were neutral. That's extremely high especially considering the low barrier to entry with a hash tag.

[IdortMasterRace]

good luck talking to that brick wall...

 

It's alright, seems like he has nothing more to say. Interesting.

[kingkickolas]

It's alright, seems like he has nothing more to say. Interesting.

Oh don't worry, I'm just getting started sweetheart.

 

Now I've been quite busy lately, so I'll have to be brief. But don't worry, I'll address all your objections.

 

 

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.

They're doing more harm than good. Gaming journalism is a really sweet cause to rally around, but the way that it's being done is toxic to the women (and men) in our society.

 

 

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.

Not even gonna bother with these; that's just a matter of public record.

 

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?

It is rightly being called out by that exact tumblr. And well done, because those tweets are disgusting and disgraceful.

(However, it's worth noting that the tumblr does post a certain amount of admittedly faked threats and insults.)

 

No obviously not, but if a sufficiently large section of the LTT community did (which I'm beginning to think is not that implausible), it could be argued that there is a problem with sexism in the 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.

I fail to see how you think I've changed the subject. Sexism is reflected in nearly every aspect of our lives, for some to a much larger to degree than others. And it is massively prevalent in the gaming industry.

 

 

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

Good thing there aren't any then.

To deny that is prevalent is one thing, to deny its existence altogether is an even more impressive claim.

 

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.

If they say that, I guess they're just demonstrably wrong. But I have to admit that I couldn't really care less.

Unless of course, they're saying that the community has sexist overtones, which is naturally undeniable.

 

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.

It seems like you're taking issue with the irrelevant part of my objection. It's not the fact that it was specifically Zoe's sex life that started it that's shameful; but that anyone's sex life is the business of the public and subject to scrutiny, when it was shown to be entirely fictional. (As published in the Newsweek article mentioned in a previous post here: http://www.newsweek.com/gamergate-about-media-ethics-or-harassing-women-harassment-data-show-279736.)

The article also makes the following great point:

"Twitter users have tweeted at Quinn using the #GamerGate hashtag 10,400 times since September 1. Grayson has received 732 tweets with the same hashtag during the same period. If GamerGate is about ethics among journalists, why is the female developer receiving 14 times as many outraged tweets as the male journalist?"

 

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

Completely and utterly wrong.

Well I've only every seen hatred for her and her ideas from gamergaters. And never once seen a gamergater defend her or her position. I'll leave that to you to ponder.

 

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.

I'm glad to hear you say that. But I don't think it's up to you to determine who is and isn't part of gamergate. They say these things under the same hashtag and with the same purpose. I, just like you, wish they would cut it right out as well.

 

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'd have to kindly ask you to rephrase your objection, because that means literally nothing to me.

If you haven't denied the existence of sexism in video game culture or in society as a whole, please set that record straight.

 

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.

Everything you could want to know is in those videos by Anita Sarkeesian, which I'm sure you've seen already.

Or innumerable other sources online, in the form of articles and videos.

 

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.

Bayonetta is in fact a great idea for a character. Unfortunately, every shot of her is hypersexual and masturbatory for straight male gamers.

It serves to undermine her as a character, and presents her as a sexual object.

 

 

(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.

To your first point, I don't think -- in fact, I'm sure -- that I didn't say naked. But since you brought it up, Bayonetta is a great example of a game in which the frame is taken up entirely by her crotch, tits, or ass.

 

And to your other point, this is exactly the same kind of thing that is offensive. A big strong muscly man is the fantasy that men have about how men should look. Everything in these games is tuned to be pleasing to men.

Unless the only interaction between men and women with which you're familiar is The Jersey Shore, then you have to be aware that there are other types of attractive men who would make excellent protagonists and would appeal to women as well as men.

[kingkickolas]

Those are heavily slanted articles. This part in particular stood out at me:

" What it comes down to is this: an intelligent woman uploaded an academic analysis of females as tropes in video games, and this caused such fury that one person created a specific Twitter account just to abuse her. This Twitter user sought out her home address, and her parents’ home address. He said he would kill her parents, after telling her he would “drink your blood out of your cunt.” Because she analyzed a video game."

Her analysis was far from academic and held hardly any studies or research, unlike Christina H Sommer's (I think that's her name). Thunderf00t has a good breakdown of that. I'll link it.

Yes I'm familiar with Thunderf00t and Sommer's work. I don't see how any of this makes Anita's any less of an academic analysis. But even so, if you remove the word "academic" from that sentence, it should still have the same effect on you.

 

 

I condemn harassment just like any other sane individual but I have to question was she really harassed there? There have been a lot of people analysing that screenshot and it doesn't add up. The span between tweets are very small, and yet despite this, the tweets are grammatically correct, suggesting the tweets were written somewhere else then copy/pasted and tweeted.

This in itself isn't conclusive at all but further along we notice that she is not logged in. And the time between the last tweet is just large enough for someone to log out of an account. I think it's definitely arguable that it may have been faked.

And before someone calls me out on victim blaming... This is not victim blaming. Victim blaming is when we have confirmed that someone is a victim of something, and then we blame it on the victim: for example we confirm that someone was indeed raped, but we say it's their own fault for dressing provocatively.

At this point I'm saying she's not a victim. We haven't confirmed that yet.

Now, if it turns out that these definitely weren't faked, I apologise and take back what I said.

But I also don't think that the actions of a minority should mean that the actions of the moderate majority get disregarded entirely. Guilt by association needs to stop.

I still struggle to see how any of this proves that the tweets were faked. What exactly prevents this person from being a good typist? Even if they were prepared previously, you're still not an inch closer to showing that they're fabricated tweets.

And since when do you have to be logged in to be on twitter? I access a lot of what these people have written, and I don't even have a twitter account at all.

 

I'd hate to nitpick here, but victim blaming is blaming the victim from the outset, before facts are even presented. For example, if you friend is sexually assaulted, your first response should be to express care and compassion, not to ask what they were wearing. The second response is obviously victim blaming.

 

 

Edit:

Kind of getting tired of the "sexism" argument. How do I conclusively prove gg is not sexist? Oh wait, that burden of proof is on you.

What I can provide evidence for is that it is about ethics. Why are all media trying so hard to silence it, and write such hugely slanted articles? Because it affects them. Because it is calling them out.

Additionally we have some of these media publications writing out code of ethics.

We also have Newsweek inadvertently stating that 95% of the tweets with the gamergate hash tag were neutral. That's extremely high especially considering the low barrier to entry with a hash tag.

You'll find all the proof you need under the gamergate hashtag on twitter.

 

And I'm so glad you brought up that Newsweek article. I'd advise you to take another look at it (assuming you read it in the first place) before citing it in your defense. Here is a small excerpt.

 

"Twitter users have tweeted at Quinn using the #GamerGate hashtag 10,400 times since September 1. Grayson has received 732 tweets with the same hashtag during the same period. If GamerGate is about ethics among journalists, why is the female developer receiving 14 times as many outraged tweets as the male journalist?

 

Totilo has received 1,708 tweets since September 1—more than Grayson but fewer than Leigh Alexander. Alexander got 13,296 tweets, nearly eight times as many as Totilo. And Alexander’s only crime was writing an op-ed critical of so-called gaming culture—GamerGate hasn’t even accused her of any malfeasance.

 

The discrepancies there seem to suggest GamerGaters cares less about ethics and more about harassing women.

 

GamerGaters do tweet a lot at the official Kotaku account—more than any individual journalist or editor. That account has been pummeled with 23,500 tweets since September 1. But that number pales in comparison to the tweets received by Brianna Wu, another female game developer who has spoken out against GamerGate, and Anita Sarkeesian, who has been a vocal critic of sexism in gaming. Sarkeesian has been bombarded with 35,188 tweets since September 1, while Wu has gotten 38,952 in the same time period. Combined, these two women have gotten more tweets on the #GamerGate hashtag than all the games journalists Newsweek looked at combined. And, again, neither of them has committed any supposed “ethics” violations. They’re just women who disagree with #GamerGate."

[kingkickolas]

One game?  Hunks Workshop

I have to admit that I had never hear of this game, but I'm so glad I do now.

The difference however, that it isn't masquerading as anything else, it knows it's a harem dating game. There's nothing wrong with that.

Further, it does nothing to represent men as occupying a lower place in society. If anything, they're still depicted as strong, muscle-bound, and in charge.

 

But if you do feel personally marginalized by this game, that I'm definitely sure you've played, please do feel free to let people know about it. I can promise you that at least I will care if you wanna talk about it.

 

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.

I'll say what I've said before; Bayonetta is a great idea for a character. However, she is constantly shot from angles that are just of her ass, tits, and crotch. She, an admittedly strong character, is being displayed as a masturbatory aid.

And I don't see how you could compare her to Duke Nukem, unless every cut scene showed off his firm bouncing buttocks and throbbing-- well, you get the idea.

 

I'm sincerely sorry to say that I literally laughed out loud when I read your defense of the Lara Croft character. Yes, you're completely right, she is well rounded, full of depth and character, and importance because of those sweet hair effects. You really must try harder than this.

The extent of her agency and character arc is to be beaten to a pulp until resilience is hammered into her. She's got about as much personality as tortoise or a snail.

 

I have to admit that I've never played the Resident Evil games, so I couldn't comment.

If they are excellent characters, that's a job well done and congratulations are in order. That is, at least as much as you can congratulate somebody for figuring out how to represent a woman as a human being.

I really hope they're great games though, but that doesn't mean the problem doesn't still exist. Let's have great female characters in all games, not just 4.

 

Please define "ideally."

As more than eye candy. Or like an autonomous human being, if you prefer.

 

 

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.

Yes I did, and to my surprise, I was actually disappointed more than anything.

I was at least hoping for a challenge or some thoughtful discourse, but it's the same old ignorant rubbish.

 

Basically, the video is saying that video games should be about what straight men want, which is guns and pussy.

He tries to justify the existence of sexist tropes by saying that they already exist, so then they must be perfectly fine. What sort of argument is that? It's barely an argument at all, I hope you'll agree.

 

 

 

 

Although I'd also like to point out that the video listed Candy Crush and Angry Birds as games, something that was mocked by much the same people on this forum when that fact was used to assert that women have a place in gaming. Tell me these aren't misogynistic reactions, I would love to believe that.

[kingkickolas]

How can they not be out for attention? They fail in every other regard. Even if trolls' harassment affects them, if it doesn't appear to affect them, it's a waste of the trolls' time. This is Internet 101.

Actually, they're not failing. The incident in Utah is a perfect example. The threats of mass murder literally silenced an entire event.

At least in the name of free speech, you have to find that disgusting, even if you don't care for what the presenters have to say.

 

 

There's never a guarantee of safety. If she feels safer behind a sign that says guns are prohibited, that's her prerogative. It's completely possible for one of these "deranged misogynists" to show up to any one of her events unannounced with a weapon, yet she has no problem with speeches elsewhere. Utah was different because of their laws regarding firearm carry, and that's why I must infer that she withdrew from the event with some mildly bigoted views towards concealed carry permit holders.

I'm sorry, I don't know how I can make this more clear. She could have been perfectly safe if it were possible to prevent guns from entering the building. That couldn't be done because of state laws, so they had to cancel.

 

 

And now for the easily dismissed personal opinions: Trolls and threats are not ignored, but used. It works. Instead of talking about anything else, here we are talking about threats. It's a deflection, and an effective one. It's effective because the sane individual finds harassment to be deplorable. We don't like seeing it happen, even if we disagree with its victim on something. No matter how many times we tell them to ignore the trolls, they act like it's their first day on the internet and play right into it, not because they're stupid, but because they profit from it. It's clear from rhetoric used in this thread. "You're trying to silence them." We get stuck explaining how anonymity on the internet works, but they know. This is why they will continue to invite, broadcast, and profit from their harassment.

I don't really know how to respond to this, except to say that you must never have faced these kinds of threats yourself, because you wouldn't be saying this otherwise.

The http://gamergateharassment.tumblr.com/ tumblr is a great example of people publishing and revealing threats made to them in order to get a point across about their opposition.

I can't decry the gamergateharassment tumblr as playing "professional victims", but you seem more than ready to. Now's you're chance, baby.

[ComradeHX]

I have to admit that I had never hear of this game, but I'm so glad I do now.

The difference however, that it isn't masquerading as anything else, it knows it's a harem dating game. There's nothing wrong with that.

Further, it does nothing to represent men as occupying a lower place in society. If anything, they're still depicted as strong, muscle-bound, and in charge.

 

But if you do feel personally marginalized by this game, that I'm definitely sure you've played, please do feel free to let people know about it. I can promise you that at least I will care if you wanna talk about it.

 

I'll say what I've said before; Bayonetta is a great idea for a character. However, she is constantly shot from angles that are just of her ass, tits, and crotch. She, an admittedly strong character, is being displayed as a masturbatory aid.

And I don't see how you could compare her to Duke Nukem, unless every cut scene showed off his firm bouncing buttocks and throbbing-- well, you get the idea.

 

I'm sincerely sorry to say that I literally laughed out loud when I read your defense of the Lara Croft character. Yes, you're completely right, she is well rounded, full of depth and character, and importance because of those sweet hair effects. You really must try harder than this.

The extent of her agency and character arc is to be beaten to a pulp until resilience is hammered into her. She's got about as much personality as tortoise or a snail.

 

I have to admit that I've never played the Resident Evil games, so I couldn't comment.

If they are excellent characters, that's a job well done and congratulations are in order. That is, at least as much as you can congratulate somebody for figuring out how to represent a woman as a human being.

I really hope they're great games though, but that doesn't mean the problem doesn't still exist. Let's have great female characters in all games, not just 4.

 

As more than eye candy. Or like an autonomous human being, if you prefer.

 

 

Yes I did, and to my surprise, I was actually disappointed more than anything.

I was at least hoping for a challenge or some thoughtful discourse, but it's the same old ignorant rubbish.

 

Basically, the video is saying that video games should be about what straight men want, which is guns and pussy.

He tries to justify the existence of sexist tropes by saying that they already exist, so then they must be perfectly fine. What sort of argument is that? It's barely an argument at all, I hope you'll agree.

 

 

 

 

Although I'd also like to point out that the video listed Candy Crush and Angry Birds as games, something that was mocked by much the same people on this forum when that fact was used to assert that women have a place in gaming. Tell me these aren't misogynistic reactions, I would love to believe that.

I bet you never even used google.

"spends his days living a life of self-indulgence and depravity" is even in part of the description.  Apparently you conveniently missed that part about the player character.

Men are often portrayed as useless...

 

Bayonetta = masturbatory aid?  How much of Anita Sarkeesian's bullshit have you eaten up?

Bayonetta has not been shown in the nude even once that I recall(not in official canon material, anyway)...if that is masturbatory aid to you, then so is EVERY OTHER FEMALE CHARACTER IN GAME(including Ms. Pacman).  Otherwise you simply have no understanding of mind of men(and you assumed that we fap to everything).

Men DO NOT HAVE(under normal circumstances) visibly bouncing...anything. Your argument is irrelevant.

Bayonetta and Duke Nukem are both (over)confident and represent the "ideal"(exaggerated) female and male respectively.

Feminist propagandist pick on Bayonetta because she's female, that's all. Who's being sexist now?

It's hilarious how you complain that Lara Croft has no character(irrelevant) and that she is weak(incorrect), when the game is all about how she became strong while fighting for her life.

WHY should we have female characters forcefully inserted into all games? There is something for everyone in the gaming world. Some people may not want to see females being killed left and right, ever considered that?

You didn't watch the video, at least you conveniently ignored the part where video pointed out the hypocrisy of Anita Sarkeesian.

The point is that whether a game has strong female character or the generic "damsel in distress" is purely dependent on what the writer needs, not because of some conspiracy to misrepresent females(the numbers are there, females do make up a significant portion of gamers...even if it included every kind)...etc.  It's person A vs. person B of some sort(because there needs to be a conflict), gender does not matter.

And that all this anti-female crap is made up(at least, it's not the idea of the majority).  It's all to shift attention away from how people actually care about biased "gaming journalism" full of bullshit...not that Anita Sarkeesian was a journalist, but she had plenty of bullshit.

Some vocal minority might have been actually misogynist...but everything has those extremists...you and everyone else know it(some people just choose to avoid thinking about that fact).

 

And we have these fantasy characters because games are a form of ENTERTAINMENT, not supposed to be 100% reflection of real life.

People WANT to play as something they are not, therefore characters like Duke Nukem and Bayonetta are made as main characters in games.

 

Candy Crush and Angry Birds ARE games... "much the same people on this forum" = irrelevant here.

The point is that if females took up more percentage of the HARDcore gaming market, you would see more strong female characters or WHATEVER that would appeal to females in those bigger/more complex games that anita sarkeesian loves to bite on.  Those numbers are out there, available for anyone.  And if developers decided that it's good idea to attract females by adding strong female character(not sure how that would work, are females really attracted to a game by female character?) or something...it will be done.

 

 

...No wonder you think females are underrepresented in video games...

You simply didn't play enough games.

 

 

 

As more than eye candy. Or like an autonomous human being, if you prefer.

Autonomous player character would make for a very bad game.

 

 

Actually, they're not failing. The incident in Utah is a perfect example. The threats of mass murder literally silenced an entire event.

At least in the name of free speech, you have to find that disgusting, even if you don't care for what the presenters have to say.

 

IIRC the event was called off by Anita Sarkeesian after University of Utah refused to conduct body searches of all attendees.

 

It was herself that silenced herself...

[Mooshi]

For those who don't understand the significance of GamerGate or confused why it won't go away, think of it this way. Imagine if Linus all of a sudden were to start pushing Raidmax and other crappy PC tech onto his audience because he was paid to give glowing press. Now also imagine if other respected brands like Seasonic didn't give Linus a nice chunk of dosh and he gave them low reviews accordingly. Would you still support Linus? A sensible person would rid their hands of him because of this corruption. Replace PC tech with gaming and this is exactly what's going on, only with more crazy accusations if you don't agree with them that you are clearly an angry white cis male woman hating bigot. Yes, this is actually happening and yes, it is completely mental.

[kingkickolas]

I bet you never even used google.

"spends his days living a life of self-indulgence and depravity" is even in part of the description.  Apparently you conveniently missed that part about the player character.

Men are often portrayed as useless...

I don't know how much clearer I can say this. Yes, men are often portrayed as useless; I've had shits that were more interesting than Kaidan.

But women are portrayed as useless because they're women. This is not the case with male characters. If you only try to understand one thing I've said, please make it that point.

 

 

Bayonetta = masturbatory aid?  How much of Anita Sarkeesian's bullshit have you eaten up?

Bayonetta has not been shown in the nude even once that I recall(not in official canon material, anyway)...if that is masturbatory aid to you, then so is EVERY OTHER FEMALE CHARACTER IN GAME(including Ms. Pacman).  Otherwise you simply have no understanding of mind of men(and you assumed that we fap to everything).

Maybe it's a reflection of the times we live in, where pictures of naked people are so easy to get, but she doesn't have to be nude to be sexually objectified.

 

Men DO NOT HAVE(under normal circumstances) visibly bouncing...anything. Your argument is irrelevant.

Bayonetta and Duke Nukem are both (over)confident and represent the "ideal"(exaggerated) female and male respectively.

Feminist propagandist pick on Bayonetta because she's female, that's all. Who's being sexist now?

Lots of men have lovely bouncy butts, and you're really missing out on life if you haven't seen a man do a "helicopter" (or done it yourself), if you catch my meaning.

See, this is the crux of our misunderstanding; Bayonetta and Duke Nukem are the ideals of body and behavior for men. The cheeky girl with the huge tits and obliging smile, and the ripped powerful muscle man are the standards as dictated by a male-dominated culture.

 

It's hilarious how you complain that Lara Croft has no character(irrelevant) and that she is weak(incorrect), when the game is all about how she became strong while fighting for her life.

I don't think I could be misquoted as saying she's weak. What I do say is that she has the personality of a hot pocket.

If I can't convince you of this, that's fine I suppose; but take a look at how Yahtzee Croshaw puts it in the last half of his review of the game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw-MjVvFjwc.

 

WHY should we have female characters forcefully inserted into all games? There is something for everyone in the gaming world. Some people may not want to see females being killed left and right, ever considered that?

You are completely free to make games with no women, or poorly written women, or hypersexualized women. But it will be on your conscience that you are doing something harmful to society. And your freedom to do so doesn't put you above criticism. That's all Anita and co are doing. Criticizing things that are problematic in our culture. People can obviously feel free to make more games like that, but they'll have to live with themselves for having done that, and there is only so much of it that society will take before they stop supporting it.

 

You didn't watch the video, at least you conveniently ignored the part where video pointed out the hypocrisy of Anita Sarkeesian.

The point is that whether a game has strong female character or the generic "damsel in distress" is purely dependent on what the writer needs, not because of some conspiracy to misrepresent females...etc.

Well I can't exactly prove to you that I did watch it, so excellent point made on your part. I didn't see any hypocrisy of Anita Sarkeesian mentioned; unless you're referring to the bits where the speaker just disagrees with her?

I don't doubt that a writer might need that sometimes, and I don't think it's a conscious conspiracy to oppress women. I do, however, think that it's lazy, thoughtless writing, and an unconscious internalized view of women which causes people to not even question whether they are representing women properly.

 

And we have these fantasy characters because games are a form of ENTERTAINMENT, not supposed to be 100% reflection of real life.

People WANT to play as something they are not, therefore characters like Duke Nukem and Bayonetta are made as main characters in games.

I'll just have to make the point again that these are characters of the male fantasy.

I totally understand the desire to escape into a fictional world, but it seems odd that even the most realistic ones contain a fair amount of sexist representations.

 

Candy Crush and Angry Birds ARE games... "much the same people on this forum" = irrelevant.

I'm glad to hear you say that, and you say it so adamantly. It's a shame you didn't seem to care in that thread.

 

The point is that if females took up more percentage of the HARDcore gaming market, there would be more strong female characters or WHATEVER that would appeal to females in those bigger/more complex games.

There are two points I can make about this. Firstly, I'd encourage you to consider that possibility that the male-dominated aspect of these games (and consequently, the way they disrespect women) is preventative to the enjoyment of the games for some women.

Secondly, I'll echo what I said somewhere above in this post. People are free to make games to appeal to whoever they want, but that doesn't make it right. It shouldn't take a feminist movement to stop people making sexist products; one would think that they would do so because it's the right thing to do (especially if these content creators are claiming the moral high ground).

But I'll say again, society will only support this for so long. Whether we like it or not, bigotry and misogyny should be phased out of the industry regardless of the size of the female playerbase. 

 

Autonomous player character would make for a very bad game.

On this point, I can only politely disagree. Although there may be some confusion about what "autonomous" means.

[BallGum]

 

I still struggle to see how any of this proves that the tweets were faked. What exactly prevents this person from being a good typist? Even if they were prepared previously, you're still not an inch closer to showing that they're fabricated tweets.

And since when do you have to be logged in to be on twitter? I access a lot of what these people have written, and I don't even have a twitter account at all.

 

I'd hate to nitpick here, but victim blaming is blaming the victim from the outset, before facts are even presented. For example, if you friend is sexually assaulted, your first response should be to express care and compassion, not to ask what they were wearing. The second response is obviously victim blaming.

 

In that example we have already asserted that your friend was raped, so you'd obviously be caring and helpful. Victim blaming is when you have already asserted that someone is indeed a victim and then you blame it on them. It would be victim blaming if I said it is all Anita's fault for being harassed. It is not victim blaming when I am calling her evidence into question.

 

Here is wikipedia: "Victim blaming occurs when the victim of a crime or any wrongful act is held entirely or partially^{[citation needed]} responsible for the harm that befell them."

 

Even if we use your definition of victim blaming it would still fall flat. She has presented her facts.

 

 

You'll find all the proof you need under the gamergate hashtag on twitter.

 

And I'm so glad you brought up that Newsweek article. I'd advise you to take another look at it (assuming you read it in the first place) before citing it in your defense. Here is a small excerpt.

 

And here is an article that blows Newsweek pretty much out of the water. Also, that doesn't refute the fact that the vast majority of tweets were deemed neutral.

Additionally, the newsweek article's statistics included followers who retweet tweets of people. That would explain why some of the women have higher number of tweets than the men. If this doesnt conclusively prove that gamergate is about ethics and not about sexism I don't know what will.

 

I'd advise checking out the r/KotakuInAction subreddit. They do pretty well.

[kingkickolas]

In that example we have already asserted that your friend was raped, so you'd obviously be caring and helpful. Victim blaming is when you have already asserted that someone is indeed a victim and then you blame it on them. It would be victim blaming if I said it is all Anita's fault for being harassed. It is not victim blaming when I am calling her evidence into question.

 

Here is wikipedia: "Victim blaming occurs when the victim of a crime or any wrongful act is held entirely or partially^{[citation needed]} responsible for the harm that befell them."

 

Even if we use your definition of victim blaming it would still fall flat. She has presented her facts.

I'd have thought it were clear that I meant "if your friend [came to you saying he/she was] sexually assaulted", but I apologize for the misunderstanding. (Although I guess the alternative is that you were there and witnessed it?)

Victim blaming includes blaming someone for something that happened to them from the onset, even and especially before all the facts are presented (if all of the facts can even be known, that is).

 

 

And here is an article that blows Newsweek pretty much out of the water. Also, that doesn't refute the fact that the vast majority of tweets were deemed neutral.

Additionally, the newsweek article's statistics included followers who retweet tweets of people. That would explain why some of the women have higher number of tweets than the men. If this doesnt conclusively prove that gamergate is about ethics and not about sexism I don't know what will.

 

I'd advise checking out the r/KotakuInAction subreddit. They do pretty well.

Yes I've read that article, nothing about it really challenges the parts of the Newsweek article that I quoted to you. (If anything, it raises doubts about the 95% of statistics that were deemed neutral.) As a reminder, the part that I quoted to you established that the gamergate hashtag cares more about harassing women for their beliefs than about ethical journalism.

[Zulkkis]

Sarkeesian is gaining more and more attention and even got on the Colbert show thanks to all the attention this is getting. She's also getting to work with EA as a "consult".

 

Quinn has more than tripled her Patreon donations, and even originally it was probably due to the more non-explosive media coverage (depression quest) that had her up to a point with the donations, now it's just exploded thanks to the recent "scandal".

 

Polygon continues to create clickbait articles because that's what pulls in the traffic.

 

They're all benefitting from this, though as TB said about Sarkeesian I'm not sure how healthy the practise of turning threats into media coverage is. I've never been in that situation so I can not really relate to it but it feels pretty dangerous.

 

The best way to react to this is simply to not visit the clickbait articles. Don't read a Bayonetta 2 review if you've already made up your mind about getting the game or not and just go and read it because hey, that's what people are up on about on twitter. It was designed to be that way - it pulls in the traffic. Don't give games or content that you don't think are deserving of attention, any more of that attention.

 

Much rather than condemning videos about games that have already been made, I'd like to see a kickstarter about making a game that's just according to your values and ideals. Document the creation process so that other developers can take note and then see it for themselves whether if they want take those methods or ideas into their games.

 

But then again, "solving the problem", would essentially put these people out of their jobs or at least make them financially worse off.

[BallGum]

I'd have thought it were clear that I meant "if your friend [came to you saying he/she was] sexually assaulted", but I apologize for the misunderstanding. (Although I guess the alternative is that you were there and witnessed it?)

Victim blaming includes blaming someone for something that happened to them from the onset, even and especially before all the facts are presented (if all of the facts can even be known, that is).

 

 

Yes I've read that article, nothing about it really challenges the parts of the Newsweek article that I quoted to you. (If anything, it raises doubts about the 95% of statistics that were deemed neutral.) As a reminder, the part that I quoted to you established that the gamergate hashtag cares more about harassing women for their beliefs than about ethical journalism.

 

It absolutely challenges it. It suggests that the vast majority of tweets aren't directed to women.

Also, as I said earlier, the reason for the larger amount of tweets at the women is because of their followers retweeting things that they say. It has nothing to do with sexism within gamergate. Even if it were not so, you are suggesting that the entirety of gamergate is about sexual harassment due to the actions of a minority. That's silly.

 

As for victim blaming, we have not asserted that she is a victim. I'm not blaming her for what's happening, I am saying that I don't believe her evidence because of reason X or Y. That is not victim blaming. If someone claimed they were raped I would be supportive but also ask for evidence and see if that evidence is plausible. If I feel he or she is lying then I'd say so. I'm doing the same thing here. That's not victim blaming, that's just investigating.

[kingkickolas]

It absolutely challenges it. It suggests that the vast majority of tweets aren't directed to women.

Also, as I said earlier, the reason for the larger amount of tweets at the women is because of their followers retweeting things that they say. It has nothing to do with sexism within gamergate. Even if it were not so, you are suggesting that the entirety of gamergate is about sexual harassment due to the actions of a minority. That's silly.

 

As for victim blaming, we have not asserted that she is a victim. I'm not blaming her for what's happening, I am saying that I don't believe her evidence because of reason X or Y. That is not victim blaming. If someone claimed they were raped I would be supportive but also ask for evidence and see if that evidence is plausible. If I feel he or she is lying then I'd say so. I'm doing the same thing here. That's not victim blaming, that's just investigating.

Oh dear, it looks like I'm going to have to hold your hand through this.

 

It has not been demonstrated that including retweets accounts for the difference. I'll tell you why now, try not to get lost.

Let's assume 75% of the tweets are retweets. There are still 14 times more original tweets to the female game dev than to the male journalist, because (.25*x) / (.25*y) is still the same as x/y.

Now, you would have to demonstrate that a much larger proportion of tweets to the female game dev are retweeted than the proportion of tweets to the male journalist are retweeted for your argument to have any basis.

However, let's even assume that you have done that, what does it show? Aren't retweets a reflection of the population's feelings as much as original tweets? I hope you see that point, and I don't have to go on.

 

As for victim blaming, I'll have to take you by the hand again.

Let's say that something may or may not have happened to your friend. Half an hour later, s/he comes to you saying that s/he has been sexually assaulted. What is your response? Obviously a supportive one. If you were to say, "Well yeah that makes sense, you were wearing that top," that would be blaming the victim.

In addition, if you said "Yeah that sounds awful and you're clearly in a lot of pain, but can you just quickly show me where and how s/he touched you?" that would be incredibly inappropriate and insensitive. Consider how shameful and difficult it is to admit something like this to someone, let alone to the entire world, before you start dismissing their claims right off the bat. Consider, even if s/he were lying or exaggerating, what horrible thing this person must be going through to make something like that up. And consider finally how low the statistics of people who submit false reports of this kind of thing are before you presume their guilt.

[brokencross]

I always laugh when someone refers to most people, who write about games, as journalists. 

Daily reminder 99% of those didn't even graduate as journalists nor know a shit about the professional deontological code they're supposed to follow. 

This whole gamergate crap is cancer, no matter which side you're on.

[Mooshi]

Sarkeesian is gaining more and more attention and even got on the Colbert show thanks to all the attention this is getting. She's also getting to work with EA as a "consult".

 

Quinn has more than tripled her Patreon donations, and even originally it was probably due to the more non-explosive media coverage (depression quest) that had her up to a point with the donations, now it's just exploded thanks to the recent "scandal".

 

Polygon continues to create clickbait articles because that's what pulls in the traffic.

 

They're all benefitting from this, though as TB said about Sarkeesian I'm not sure how healthy the practise of turning threats into media coverage is. I've never been in that situation so I can not really relate to it but it feels pretty dangerous.

 

The best way to react to this is simply to not visit the clickbait articles. Don't read a Bayonetta 2 review if you've already made up your mind about getting the game or not and just go and read it because hey, that's what people are up on about on twitter. It was designed to be that way - it pulls in the traffic. Don't give games or content that you don't think are deserving of attention, any more of that attention.

 

Much rather than condemning videos about games that have already been made, I'd like to see a kickstarter about making a game that's just according to your values and ideals. Document the creation process so that other developers can take note and then see it for themselves whether if they want take those methods or ideas into their games.

 

But then again, "solving the problem", would essentially put these people out of their jobs or at least make them financially worse off.

 

Click bait sites aren't benefiting, some are complaining of "theft" because of their links being converted into archive.today links which means they get nothing from sharing of their tasteless articles. On top of this, many are bleeding advertising money from so many pull-outs. Gawker media being the most notable as of late. Whatever Zoe does is on her, an increase of Patreon donations is of little interest to myself and many other GamerGate supporters. The only ones who still care about her are low tier trolls most likely from Something Awful since the goons have been caught shilling on all sides to cause drama. As for Anita, well, it's not like EA was exactly well respected around LTT or many gaming communities. 

 

Actually, I'm reminded of Thunderf00t's latest video slamming Comedy Central for the recent Colbert appearance. Anita, the same woman who makes the bold claim to want equality, is given special treatment as her video was the only one given special status of having comments disabled. I disliked that video and many others as well - it's like a Bieber video. Note, my personal reason had nothing to do with her or Colbert, it had everything to do with the comments being disabled. Still a fan of Colbert and the funny thing is, while Tf00t was right how he slammed political figures and was soft on Sarkeesian vs someone like Palin, others saw it for what it was. CC being cowardly and Colbert playing her. Those not involved in GamerGate were exposed to this con artist. Yes, she's getting way more attention than she deserves, but not all of that attention is favorable. If a couple of rag tag people on the internet using a hashtag on Twitter can cause giants to lose advertisers, I can only imagine the future implications the longer GamerGate drags on. For once, the consumer is revolting and the giants are feeling it. Whatever boost Anita and others are getting is trivial to the bigger picture.

[Mooshi]

I always laugh when someone refers to most people, who write about games, as journalists. 

Daily reminder 99% of those didn't even graduate as journalists nor know a shit about the professional deontological code they're supposed to follow. 

This whole gamergate crap is cancer, no matter which side you're on.

 

A lot of "facts" are also made up on the spot. When you strip out all labels, it's angry consumers vs giants who are no longer getting their way and I like it. 

 

Don't like GamerGate, stay out of a GG topic, simple stuff here.

[DigitalHermit]

A lot of "facts" are also made up on the spot. When you strip out all labels, it's angry consumers vs giants who are no longer getting their way and I like it. 

 

Don't like GamerGate, stay out of a GG topic, simple stuff here.

Let's try to keep discussion open for all sides, shall we?

 

 

I'm stepping back in, as "arbitrator"...

 

I'd like to put some additional dimension into this discussion...

 

I'd like to ask our current main players, @kingkickolas, @cae, @BallGum, @ComradeHX, and @IdortMasterRace, what your news/knowledge sources are... (please cite/link the articles)

 

Looking at this from a non-involved perspective, it seems that all the sources for this issue are polarizing, with absolute neutrality, near impossible...

[brokencross]

A lot of "facts" are also made up on the spot. When you strip out all labels, it's angry consumers vs giants who are no longer getting their way and I like it. 

 

Don't like GamerGate, stay out of a GG topic, simple stuff here.

Who are you to say I shouldn't be entitled to my opinion and to express it?

[BallGum]

Let's try to keep discussion open for all sides, shall we?

 

 

I'm stepping back in, as "arbitrator"...

 

I'd like to put some additional dimension into this discussion...

 

I'd like to ask our current main players, @kingkickolas, @cae, @BallGum, @ComradeHX, and @IdortMasterRace, what your news/knowledge sources are... (please cite/link the articles)

 

Looking at this from a non-involved perspective, it seems that all the sources for this issue are polarizing, with absolute neutrality, near impossible...

 

I actually think we shouldn't really be arguing at all. I agree that games do have elements of sexism in them. I agree that a minority of #gamergate is sexist / are trolls. What my main complaint is that this doesn't automatically make every other point completely false just because of the actions of a few.

 

Anyhow, I think I have already said all I have. Just going to leave this up so that people can read through and come to their own conclusion. There's no point for all the other members here to continue bashing our heads together to persuade each other otherwise.

[PopReference]

I actually think we shouldn't really be arguing at all. I agree that games do have elements of sexism in them. I agree that a minority of #gamergate is sexist / are trolls. What my main complaint is that this doesn't automatically make every other point completely false just because of the actions of a few.

 

Anyhow, I think I have already said all I have. Just going to leave this up so that people can read through and come to their own conclusion. There's no point for all the other members here to continue bashing our heads together to persuade each other otherwise.

Oh? I thought... Guess I'll leave then.

[kingkickolas]

Actually, I'm reminded of Thunderf00t's latest video slamming Comedy Central for the recent Colbert appearance. Anita, the same woman who makes the bold claim to want equality, is given special treatment as her video was the only one given special status of having comments disabled. I disliked that video and many others as well - it's like a Bieber video. Note, my personal reason had nothing to do with her or Colbert, it had everything to do with the comments being disabled. Still a fan of Colbert and the funny thing is, while Tf00t was right how he slammed political figures and was soft on Sarkeesian vs someone like Palin, others saw it for what it was. CC being cowardly and Colbert playing her. Those not involved in GamerGate were exposed to this con artist. Yes, she's getting way more attention than she deserves, but not all of that attention is favorable. If a couple of rag tag people on the internet using a hashtag on Twitter can cause giants to lose advertisers, I can only imagine the future implications the longer GamerGate drags on. For once, the consumer is revolting and the giants are feeling it. Whatever boost Anita and others are getting is trivial to the bigger picture.

I can't imagine you're honestly saying that disabling comments on a video is some hideous violation of civil rights. It should be clear that the reason they did it is because they didn't want hatred and threats of death and rape on their comments board.

And I don't think Colbert was "soft" on her. I think he genuinely agrees with her. This is some sort of mass denial on the part of gamergaters that they like Colbert, so obviously he must believe all the things they do. Nonsense; he treated her like every other guest he's had on the show with whom he obviously agrees.

 

 

 

Let's try to keep discussion open for all sides, shall we?

 

 

I'm stepping back in, as "arbitrator"...

 

I'd like to put some additional dimension into this discussion...

 

I'd like to ask our current main players, @kingkickolas, @cae, @BallGum, @ComradeHX, and @IdortMasterRace, what your news/knowledge sources are... (please cite/link the articles)

 

Looking at this from a non-involved perspective, it seems that all the sources for this issue are polarizing, with absolute neutrality, near impossible...

For the statistics I mentioned, that would be the Newsweek article I linked to earlier, and here it is again.

Otherwise, I think I've just discussed common knowledge of tropes in gaming and the way that they undermine women in gaming and in the world. I guess if you wanted links to those topics, you could watch Anita's videos, or any of the similar articles written on the subject (perhaps even from feministing.com, if you're willing to go that far out of your comfort zone).

 

 

 

Who are you to say I shouldn't be entitled to my opinion and to express it?

Word.

 

 

I actually think we shouldn't really be arguing at all. I agree that games do have elements of sexism in them. I agree that a minority of #gamergate is sexist / are trolls. What my main complaint is that this doesn't automatically make every other point completely false just because of the actions of a few.

 

Anyhow, I think I have already said all I have. Just going to leave this up so that people can read through and come to their own conclusion. There's no point for all the other members here to continue bashing our heads together to persuade each other otherwise.

I think we can actually reach a point of agreement here. I'm glad to hear you say that games do have elements of sexism, that is really the main point I want to be sure is made clear.

 

We might disagree on what percentage of the gamergate hashtag displays sexist tendencies, but obviously that's not something that either of us can get an exact figure on.

And I also want to be clear, and I've said it before in this thread, that I too wish the gamergate hashtag could shake off the sexism that plagues it. I think ethics in gaming journalism would be a fine topic for discussion; unfortunately, a large part of the community are flying the "ethics in journalism" flag, while wearing the "murder Anita and Zoe [and/or other people]" shirt. Trust me, I want the misogyny to be gone just as much (if not maybe slightly more) than you do.

And I don't think that people who support it are necessarily sexist by association, but they do have to be very clear about who they support and why.

[cae]

Actually, they're not failing. The incident in Utah is a perfect example. The threats of mass murder literally silenced an entire event.

At least in the name of free speech, you have to find that disgusting, even if you don't care for what the presenters have to say.

 

The threat of mass murder was not credible. Security was increased. She chose to silence that event, just like she chose to use the threat of mass murder to mask her irrational and prejudiced fear of concealed carry permit holders. In the name of freeze peach, she had a choice; she silenced herself. That silence was not without purpose or incentive, look what it bought her - an invitation to the Colbert Report, and more notoriety than she would have received if she'd chosen to speak at some college in Utah. 

 

I'm sorry, I don't know how I can make this more clear. She could have been perfectly safe if it were possible to prevent guns from entering the building. That couldn't be done because of state laws, so they had to cancel.

 

And I don't know how to make it more clear that the idea of safety is not safety. I'll spare the Ben Franklin quote. It wasn't just guns (police were there, yes?), it was concealed carry permit holders with guns. They did not have to cancel, they chose to.

 

I don't really know how to respond to this, except to say that you must never have faced these kinds of threats yourself, because you wouldn't be saying this otherwise.

The http://gamergateharassment.tumblr.com/ tumblr is a great example of people publishing and revealing threats made to them in order to get a point across about their opposition.

I can't decry the gamergateharassment tumblr as playing "professional victims", but you seem more than ready to. Now's you're chance, baby.

 

Build them strawmen. :lol: That tumblr certainly is full of evidence that people on both sides of the discussion will dance to the tune of attention-seeking trolls. I offer them the same advice. What would calling them professional victims change? I'll just let their actions speak for them.

 

Cited: http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54180