• Corruption in Gaming Journalism Discussion V2 - Back from the dead!
    5,003 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Zet;47201475]It's really painful to see gawker as one of the top results.[/QUOTE] the day gawker burns in hell is the day i will only laugh
Gamergate is kind of an open discussion about sexism in gamer culture, it's certainly opened a lot of those floodgates This is a dumb question but what does Gamergate do, really? Just kind of sit around these days? I know it useed to be sending emails to gawker ad providers and the likes but I don't know what anyone does anymore. It seems to be cooling off.
[QUOTE=Dick Slamfist;47201551]Gamergate is kind of an open discussion about sexism in gamer culture, it's certainly opened a lot of those floodgates This is a dumb question but what does Gamergate do, really? Just kind of sit around these days? I know it useed to be sending emails to gawker ad providers and the likes but I don't know what anyone does anymore. It seems to be cooling off.[/QUOTE] I don't think Mark Kern duking it out with Ben Kuchera and the rest of Polygon and Kotaku, The Escapist outright hiring people that others have been trying to practically excommunicate, and the fact that lawyers for the Gawker interns are coming to us to disseminate info, counts as Gamergate cooling off. Hell, under oath Gawker admitted that Gamergate is a criticism of Gaming Journalism sites. [img]http://i.imgur.com/ITMijbX.png[/img]
Million dollar extreme never ceases to impress me they convinced buzzfeed that they are targets of gamergate. i fuckin love it. [url]https://archive.today/KaKNt[/url]
[QUOTE=Tetsmega;47201016]I think that character trope is used so well in the Half-Life series and Metroid Fusion. When you first encounter Sa-X the game doesn't tell you to run or fight. The player can place them self in Samus's suit and assess the situation themself.[/QUOTE] Im pretty sure that weird computer Adam told you to avoid Sa-X before that encounter
Someone on r/AgainstGamerGate just blurted out that GG is full of racists and bigots. I asked them to provide evidence of that. This was the response: [quote]There are varying degrees, of course. Even those who are just in it to "improve video game journalism", since the entire premise/birth of GG was on a sexist attack on someone who slept with men, some who were journalists, but no one bothered giving half the amount of flak ZQ did to any of the men, arguably the most important people involved in the "scandal". There are those who use the anonymous nature of GG to do bad things to people, and you have the rest of GG saying "no that's only a small part of GG and you know what you can't even prove it was a GGer" or derivatives of trying to explain how person X never really was harassed. There are also those who rally under the "anti-SJW" flag, and lord knows they're bigots--and not only that, but they're hunting spectres.[/quote] Textbook Genetic and Associative fallacies. Now having fallacies in your arguments doesn't necessarily mean your conclusion is wrong but it does mean the path you took to get there needs to be re-evaluated. That said in this case they're clearly wrong and this user's habitual pseudo-intellectualism is rubbing me the wrong way.
[url]http://www.gameinformer.com/blogs/members/b/codenamecrono_blog/archive/2015/02/23/saint-sarkeesian-and-the-root-of-all-evil.aspx[/url] Saint Sarkeesian and the root of all evil, a insanely well sourced article
[QUOTE=Tamschi;47201404]"[There are reliable sources reporting on it.]" (I'm pretty sure it's part of the fake news that were copied verbatim from @FemFreq, or was outright made up.) [editline]24th February 2015[/editline] That's very unlikely, except maybe imposing rules so admins can't mess with other admins' sanctions and not taking existing sanctions into account when determining new sanctions (so ban evasion by banning is rooted out). [I]Normally[/I] the system kind of works, except probably for it's tendency to turn new users away. Wikipedia also needs a big technical overhaul, the discussion pages really aren't anywhere close to what's needed in terms of forum software.[/QUOTE] My common sense says that if sources are caught lying or inventing facts, they're no longer reliable.
[QUOTE=Wii60;47202263][URL]http://www.gameinformer.com/blogs/members/b/codenamecrono_blog/archive/2015/02/23/saint-sarkeesian-and-the-root-of-all-evil.aspx[/URL] Saint Sarkeesian and the root of all evil, a insanely well sourced article[/QUOTE] Wow this article is actually really good. I was just talking to some friends a few days ago about how SJW arguments feel exactly like far-right fundamentalist arguments. And the comparison of gaming journalism's ridiculous circlejerk to the media circus surrounding the Scopes trial... this writer nailed it. (On the topic of the Scopes trial every single one of you should watch Inherit the Wind, amazing movie.) Going to read this through, it's great.
You have to know shit's bad when Encyclopedia Dramatica's article on Gamergate is more truthful than Wikipedia's.
[QUOTE=StickyWicket;47202327]You have to know shit's bad when Encyclopedia Dramatica's article on Gamergate is more truthful than Wikipedia's.[/QUOTE] I find myself saying this a lot (especially post-gamergate) but ED's articles are generally quite accurate. They also do a great job capturing how the public feels about things as they're happening. Because they never pretend to be impartial like Wikipedia/Rationalwiki and they are intentionally inflammatory, it's very easy to find the info you're looking for with little need to read between the lines. ED also tends to be hilariously well sourced. I am constantly surprised how thorough the writers (and the trolls creating the drama in the first place) are. On the topic of their GG page, I just grabbed this from the talk page: [t]http://i.imgur.com/fD3n4T0.jpg[/t] An interesting view point from the ED perspective of what GG has accomplished.
wasn't she in a huge IRS debt or somethin
[QUOTE=Wii60;47202263][url]http://www.gameinformer.com/blogs/members/b/codenamecrono_blog/archive/2015/02/23/saint-sarkeesian-and-the-root-of-all-evil.aspx[/url] Saint Sarkeesian and the root of all evil, a insanely well sourced article[/QUOTE] Can someone archive it for me? GameInformer is blocked for my country.
[QUOTE=CroGamer002;47202383]Can someone archive it for me? GameInformer is blocked for my country.[/QUOTE] [url]https://archive.today/KWRep[/url] [editline]24th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=EditOutJ;47202382]wasn't she in a huge IRS debt or somethin[/QUOTE] IRS will let her know april 15th
[QUOTE=CroGamer002;47202383]Can someone archive it for me? GameInformer is blocked for my country.[/QUOTE] Since archive.today effectively acts like a proxy, you should also be able to hit sites with [URL="https://archive.today/"]the bookmarklet from here[/URL] even if they error for you (but doing so will give them a full pageview). Should that not work you can still paste the url and it will archive correctly as viewed from the archive.today server.
-snip-
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;47202339]never pretend to be impartial like Wikipedia/[B]Rationalwiki[/B][/QUOTE] In fairness, RW's own "who are we" page clearly points out how they are not an unbiased neutral encyclopedia. Where Wikipedia has NPOV for neutrality (as if it means anything at this point), RW has SPOV, where the S is for snarky. They've gone over the edge into shitlord freefall over gamergate, but RW was never impartial; it was born as an opposition to Conservapedia, which is now twitching limply on its side and waiting for death.
[QUOTE=Wii60;47202384][url]https://archive.today/KWRep[/url] [/QUOTE] Much thanks for the link. I kept getting an internal server error :v:.
[url]https://twitter.com/Kingofpol/status/570241135119114241[/url] [QUOTE]@Sargon_of_Akkad @TheRalphRetort Setting up an interview with Jezebel Writer @annamerlan on #GamerGate #NotYourShield & feminism! Stay tuned[/QUOTE] I'm betting 100 schmeckles this is going to be a shitfest.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;47202658]In fairness, RW's own "who are we" page clearly points out how they are not an unbiased neutral encyclopedia. Where Wikipedia has NPOV for neutrality (as if it means anything at this point), RW has SPOV, where the S is for snarky. They've gone over the edge into shitlord freefall over gamergate, but RW was never impartial; it was born as an opposition to Conservapedia, which is now twitching limply on its side and waiting for death.[/QUOTE] Every time certain posters (who are now permabanned, weird!) used rationalwiki to back up their arguments over shit, I would flip out internally.
[QUOTE=Wii60;47201618]Million dollar extreme never ceases to impress me they convinced buzzfeed that they are targets of gamergate. i fuckin love it. [url]https://archive.today/KaKNt[/url][/QUOTE] Oh man, this shit is gold! They're so angry, anti-gg is saying "Jace" should get jail-time for threatening Brianna Wu. [url]http://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/2wye2f/jace_conners_was_a_hoax_and_the_man_behind_him_is/[/url]
Let's stop talking, let alone linking to ghazi please Everyone knows what goes on there everyday, you don't even need to cherry pick if it's just to have a laugh
Ok, People have said they want a "rational" argument from "Anti-Gamergate".( I think AGG is a misnomer as simply disagreeing with a movement is not a part of my identity) Let my preface this by saying that if everyone involved in GamerGate was like the people in this thread, perhaps it wouldn't be such a large deal and simply be something I casually disagree with. But I also think that the whole Corruption in Games has started as a cover to specifically target Zoe Quinn. 4chan hated her long before August, and her disgruntled ex accusing her of "sleeping around" was a perfect opportunity for them to attack her while throwing up a smoke screen of "ethics in video games journalism". However I can give it a benefit of a doubt as many movements can start in unsavory ways and lead to something of value. Now, getting to my "civil" problems with GamerGate there are 2 basic issues: 1. Focusing on the wrong issues. I'll be the first to say there are indeed problems with video games Journalism. Manly the "incentive" for large publications to give triple A titles good reviews. There are so many things on the large scale in the industry that could be talked about (another being the terrible treament of workers and interns in large companies). However, GamerGate usually focuses on small "Indie devs" and writers that have a niche audience (such as Leigh Alexander). In addition to most of these allegations being false or simply without merit, it's very like focusing on a Tree when there's a whole forest next to it. Or rather trying to cut down a small sapling while there are giant redwoods all around that they don't want to touch because cutting them down would be too difficult. 2. Polarized Political Views Perhaps I'd take GG more seriously if it at least claimed to be politically neutral and only wanting to get rid of corruption. But simple looking at how common the phrase SJW is used proves this false. "Social Justice Warrior" is a buzzword created by the political right to quickly discredit their ideological opposition. It is similar to "Political Correctness" and "Feminazi" (a word actually created be right wind talk show host Rush Limbaugh). As someone who supports feminist idea's and Trans and Racial equality etc. why would I support a movement who seems to downplay there importance at every turn? As someone who thinks that mediums such as video games CAN effect how people think or even act (why else would companies spend billions on advertising every year) and that video games like every other art form should have a feminist critique why would I support I movement that has one of it's main goals be to eradicate such criticisms?
[QUOTE=Snake7;47204014] 2. Polarized Political Views Perhaps I'd take GG more seriously if it at least claimed to be politically neutral and only wanting to get rid of corruption. But simple looking at how common the phrase SJW is used proves this false. "Social Justice Warrior" is a buzzword created by the political right to quickly discredit their ideological opposition. It is similar to "Political Correctness" and "Feminazi" (a word actually created be right wind talk show host Rush Limbaugh). As someone who supports feminist idea's and Trans and Racial equality etc. why would I support a movement who seems to downplay there importance at every turn? [/QUOTE] Have you actually read what the opposition claims is their "feminist ideals"? It includes outright lying about history and articles on "How a game didn't tell the player the difference between kissing and killing". GG'ers who are more political are more often than not for feminism, they are against [B]their[/B] kind of feminism. This is not feminism, nor is it egalitarianism. It is Cronyism, they do not care about any feminist ideal, they are using the banner to boast games they have an agenda for and damn games that they don't, all the while letting the banner rot. [QUOTE=Snake7;47204014] As someone who thinks that mediums such as video games CAN effect how people think or even act (why else would companies spend billions on advertising every year) and that video games like every other art form should have a feminist critique why would I support I movement that has one of it's main goals be to eradicate such criticisms?[/QUOTE] Oh please, we are for criticism. AGG and Sarkeesian are the only ones that have been fighting against allowing criticism. It is frankly revolting how we are at a point where one person can't critique another just because of their gender. Any critique of Sarkeesian's work is deemed inflamatory harassment if done by a man and completely ignored if done by a woman. Hell this whole thing was started because these websites would outright silence our critique's of their practices.
[QUOTE=Snake7;47204014] 1. Focusing on the wrong issues. I'll be the first to say there are indeed problems with video games Journalism. Manly the "incentive" for large publications to give triple A titles good reviews. There are so many things on the large scale in the industry that could be talked about (another being the terrible treament of workers and interns in large companies). However, GamerGate usually focuses on small "Indie devs" and writers that have a niche audience (such as Leigh Alexander). In addition to most of these allegations being false or simply without merit, it's very like focusing on a Tree when there's a whole forest next to it. Or rather trying to cut down a small sapling while there are giant redwoods all around that they don't want to touch because cutting them down would be too difficult. [/QUOTE] Thats a bit like criticizing feminists for fighting with objectivisation of women in western culture because women's rights are being violated in the middle east more. The fact that there is a bigger issue nearby doesn't mean that there is no point in focusing on the smaller ones. Issues in AAA companies are relatively well-known, while most criticism of indie games in media is connected to steam greenlight nowadays.
[QUOTE=Snake7;47204014]Ok, People have said they want a "rational" argument from "Anti-Gamergate".( I think AGG is a misnomer as simply disagreeing with a movement is not a part of my identity) Let my preface this by saying that if everyone involved in GamerGate was like the people in this thread, perhaps it wouldn't be such a large deal and simply be something I casually disagree with. But I also think that the whole Corruption in Games has started as a cover to specifically target Zoe Quinn. 4chan hated her long before August, and her disgruntled ex accusing her of "sleeping around" was a perfect opportunity for them to attack her while throwing up a smoke screen of "ethics in video games journalism". However I can give it a benefit of a doubt as many movements can start in unsavory ways and lead to something of value. Now, getting to my "civil" problems with GamerGate there are 2 basic issues: 1. Focusing on the wrong issues. I'll be the first to say there are indeed problems with video games Journalism. Manly the "incentive" for large publications to give triple A titles good reviews. There are so many things on the large scale in the industry that could be talked about (another being the terrible treament of workers and interns in large companies). However, GamerGate usually focuses on small "Indie devs" and writers that have a niche audience (such as Leigh Alexander). In addition to most of these allegations being false or simply without merit, it's very like focusing on a Tree when there's a whole forest next to it. Or rather trying to cut down a small sapling while there are giant redwoods all around that they don't want to touch because cutting them down would be too difficult. 2. Polarized Political Views Perhaps I'd take GG more seriously if it at least claimed to be politically neutral and only wanting to get rid of corruption. But simple looking at how common the phrase SJW is used proves this false. "Social Justice Warrior" is a buzzword created by the political right to quickly discredit their ideological opposition. It is similar to "Political Correctness" and "Feminazi" (a word actually created be right wind talk show host Rush Limbaugh). As someone who supports feminist idea's and Trans and Racial equality etc. why would I support a movement who seems to downplay there importance at every turn? As someone who thinks that mediums such as video games CAN effect how people think or even act (why else would companies spend billions on advertising every year) and that video games like every other art form should have a feminist critique why would I support I movement that has one of it's main goals be to eradicate such criticisms?[/QUOTE] yo I'm a pro LGBT pro civil rights left leaning motherfucker and I use the term SJW. It's not just a blanket term, it refers to the cult-like attitude of many of these people, which has been proven and expounded upon by actual Social Justice activists in this very thread
Wasn't the term Social Justice Warrior, like, invented by SJW's themselves?
[QUOTE=Snake7;47204014]There are so many things on the large scale in the industry that could be talked about (another being the terrible treament of workers and interns in large companies). However, GamerGate usually focuses on small "Indie devs" and writers that have a niche audience (such as Leigh Alexander).[/QUOTE] Big game companies are not stupid enough to get caught, indie developers seem to happy to conduct their shady business in social media for all to see. They've been part of the clique for so long they have no shame in doing that at this point. This is also not true, PCGamer for example cleaned up their act when we discovered conflicts of interests. The reason why it looks like we're mostly targeting indies is because they don't just try to hide their corruption, they openly embrace it, like I will show you in a second [QUOTE=Snake7;47204014]In addition to most of these allegations being false or simply without merit[/QUOTE] You'll find there's nothing false about her openly admitting using her position to advance the standing of her and her friends. Indeed that is an [I]unethical[/I] journalistic practice [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/ps1d7Ml.png[/IMG] [QUOTE=Snake7;47204014]Perhaps I'd take GG more seriously if it at least claimed to be politically neutral and only wanting to get rid of corruption. But simple looking at how common the phrase SJW is used proves this false. "Social Justice Warrior" is a buzzword created by the political right to quickly discredit their ideological opposition. It is similar to "Political Correctness" and "Feminazi" (a word actually created be right wind talk show host Rush Limbaugh).[/QUOTE] You're confusing left vs right wing with libertarian vs authoritarian. The one thing that is greatly prevalent in gamergate's political view is libertarianism. Social Justice Warrior typically describes an individual with left wing radical authoritarian views. Ironically, the SJW type uses right-wing as a buzzword to invalidate whatever argument the other person might have. See the reason why most of them automatically think adam baldwin is human garbage. [QUOTE=Snake7;47204014]As someone who supports feminist idea's and [B]Trans and Racial equality[/B] etc. why would I support a movement who seems to downplay there importance at every turn?[/QUOTE] [B][citation needed][/B] And I'd appreciate if said citation didn't involve what some random person said on twitter Gamergate wants equality, the kind of feminism gamergate had to deal with does not want equality: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/nPWZQSn.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/8e5dUed.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTpVk8C9eXMyfXNgP19ceTKB47OdZRbIh6CTct9pxaN4VcU3VQxbw[/IMG] [QUOTE=Snake7;47204014]As someone who thinks that mediums such as video games CAN effect how people think or even act[/QUOTE] What brings you to that conclusion when there's decade long studies that say otherwise? [QUOTE=Snake7;47204014]art form should have a feminist critique[/QUOTE]It's not the critique that gamergate stands against, it's the attempt to censor or intimidate developers into self-censoring their work because of it. Example: Divinity: Original Sin. Several journalists threatened to not give the game any coverage because some of the game art had a woman showing too much skin for their taste, forcing the developers to change it.
[QUOTE=Snake7;47204014]Ok, People have said they want a "rational" argument from "Anti-Gamergate".( I think AGG is a misnomer as simply disagreeing with a movement is not a part of my identity) Let my preface this by saying that if everyone involved in GamerGate was like the people in this thread, perhaps it wouldn't be such a large deal and simply be something I casually disagree with. But I also think that the whole Corruption in Games has started as a cover to specifically target Zoe Quinn. 4chan hated her long before August, and her disgruntled ex accusing her of "sleeping around" was a perfect opportunity for them to attack her while throwing up a smoke screen of "ethics in video games journalism". However I can give it a benefit of a doubt as many movements can start in unsavory ways and lead to something of value. [/quote] Do you know why they were upset with Quinn beforehand? She attacked another chan that is full of mostly depressed people and sicced her followers on them and made a news story out of it so that her game could get greenlit.(It wasn't doing so well until this "incident") So yeah they had a laugh at her when the Zoepost came out(Though I'm sure they would've even if she hadn't been an asshole to wizchan. It is 4chan after all). Eventually someone noticed the Grayson connection and the MundaneMatt video gets created. It gets falsely DMCAed, which prompts a reaction from several other internet personalities. One being Totalbiscuit. He made a twitlonger on the issue that was pretty neutral, and it got linked to the games subreddit. The entire thing got nuked, several websites started censoring anything to do with the issue and it started off the snowball which eventually led to the gamers are dead articles and gamergate being created. Quinnspiracy or BurgersandFries was the part that was laughing about Quinn. Gamergate came weeks after and was focused on the game industry issues.(I think by this time, Grayson, Hernandez, and the Phil Fish/Polytron stuff had come out) So yeah you're looking at two different movements(If Quinnspiracy could even be called one) [QUOTE=Snake7;47204014] 1. Focusing on the wrong issues. I'll be the first to say there are indeed problems with video games Journalism. Manly the "incentive" for large publications to give triple A titles good reviews. There are so many things on the large scale in the industry that could be talked about (another being the terrible treament of workers and interns in large companies). However, GamerGate usually focuses on small "Indie devs" and writers that have a niche audience (such as Leigh Alexander). In addition to most of these allegations being false or simply without merit, it's very like focusing on a Tree when there's a whole forest next to it. Or rather trying to cut down a small sapling while there are giant redwoods all around that they don't want to touch because cutting them down would be too difficult.[/quote] To put this in game terms. Consider minecraft. You don't mine diamonds without getting an iron pickaxe first. Similarly, how do you address industry standards without a tool? Despite what you may think, a lot of people rely on the gaming press for gaming news. If they are unwilling to help against the industry, you're beating the diamond vein with your fists. [QUOTE=Snake7;47204014] 2. Polarized Political Views Perhaps I'd take GG more seriously if it at least claimed to be politically neutral and only wanting to get rid of corruption. But simple looking at how common the phrase SJW is used proves this false. "Social Justice Warrior" is a buzzword created by the political right to quickly discredit their ideological opposition. It is similar to "Political Correctness" and "Feminazi" (a word actually created be right wind talk show host Rush Limbaugh). As someone who supports feminist idea's and Trans and Racial equality etc. why would I support a movement who seems to downplay there importance at every turn? As someone who thinks that mediums such as video games CAN effect how people think or even act (why else would companies spend billions on advertising every year) and that video games like every other art form should have a feminist critique why would I support I movement that has one of it's main goals be to eradicate such criticisms?[/QUOTE] Perhaps you should ask yourself why you equate SJW and feminist. Just as I wouldn't take criticism against TERFs as against feminism itself, so to would I do the same for SJWs. SJW does not refer to feminists. The general public doesn't know that though, and I'd say that's a failing of us not getting the message out that SJWs don't represent us, nor are they even feminists as they don't believe in equality of the sexes. When the media is mainly the batshit insane SJW calling themselves feminist with no other voices to balance it out, it sticks in their minds as "This is what feminism is". You can either help undo the damage or further entrench them. I prefer the former option. They don't have an issue with social criticism on games. They have an issue with poor and incorrect criticism. [url]http://metaleater.com/video-games/feature/why-feminist-frequency-almost-made-me-quit-writing-about-video-games-part-1[/url] Was very well received on KiA. [url]http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2vdfs0/liana_k_why_feminist_frequency_almost_made_me/cogqq85[/url]
[QUOTE=Snake7;47204014]1. Focusing on the wrong issues. I'll be the first to say there are indeed problems with video games Journalism. Manly the "incentive" for large publications to give triple A titles good reviews. There are so many things on the large scale in the industry that could be talked about (another being the terrible treament of workers and interns in large companies). However, GamerGate usually focuses on small "Indie devs" and writers that have a niche audience (such as Leigh Alexander). In addition to most of these allegations being false or simply without merit, it's very like focusing on a Tree when there's a whole forest next to it. Or rather trying to cut down a small sapling while there are giant redwoods all around that they don't want to touch because cutting them down would be too difficult.[/QUOTE] This is a rather common argument on the AGG side and I've yet to see them debunk my counterargument, if you can please do so. First off, it's way easier to try and expose corruption in the indie scene because they behave way less professionally and don't have large PR firms to back them up. For a grassroots movement without any major ties in the industry it's more likely to be effective. Secondly, indie gaming is the scene where game developers start their careers. It was seen for a long time as the last bastion of honesty in the industry, and it's also a very important sector because the comparatively lower investment means innovation and risk-taking is favored there. If there's a clique in here who prevent skilled developers from reaching the public, and instead promote their buddies even though they're comparatively worse, then it has a significant impact on the quality of innovation and creativity in the industry. Let's put it in military terms. Suppose the bulk of enemy forces are far enough from your comparatively weaker troops to not directly threaten them. However, a squad of saboteurs is rendering your hardware ineffective, in such a way that your troop's attacking power is getting lower by the minute. Do you charge the bulk of the enemy forces in a suicide attack, while letting the saboteurs dwindle your forces, or do you deal with the comparatively easier to fight saboteurs to try and maintain your force intact and more likely to eventually win? We're not focusing on the wrong issues, we're trying to solve the problems we're the most likely to solve given our limited influence, and we're doing it because it has a comparatively high impact. [QUOTE]2. Polarized Political Views Perhaps I'd take GG more seriously if it at least claimed to be politically neutral and only wanting to get rid of corruption. But simple looking at how common the phrase SJW is used proves this false. "Social Justice Warrior" is a buzzword created by the political right to quickly discredit their ideological opposition. It is similar to "Political Correctness" and "Feminazi" (a word actually created be right wind talk show host Rush Limbaugh). As someone who supports feminist idea's and Trans and Racial equality etc. why would I support a movement who seems to downplay there importance at every turn?[/QUOTE] As you can see in this thread a lot of pro-GG are feminists or even trans. The problem with your reasoning is that you equate "SJW" with feminists or progressives, which is not what the term is supposed to denote. Most people in this case are referring to people who don't believe in rational discourse and denote a rather cultish behavior. They're closet bullies who pretend to care about social issues, but it's obvious in most cases it's just a façade as they don't hesitate to violate the core principles a genuine social progressivist would abide to. The movement doesn't downplay the importance of equality, they denounce those who use it as an excuse to avoid criticism and spout hateful bullshit. These people don't help the struggle for equality you claim to support, they endanger it by going against logic and radicalizing their beliefs. [QUOTE]As someone who thinks that mediums such as video games CAN effect how people think or even act (why else would companies spend billions on advertising every year) and that video games like every other art form should have a feminist critique why would I support I movement that has one of it's main goals be to eradicate such criticisms?[/QUOTE] So would you support the claim that violent video games can cause real-life violence?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.