Corruption in gaming journalism discussion and update thread. - General

Toxic literally means nothing anymore. It's a dead word.

toxic waste still means something

[QUOTE=Zyler;46478074]Again, sorry for bringing up more not directly video game related things (even though this does have some relevancy). This is a video by a self-proclaimed anti-feminist woman by the name of Karen Straughan. In the video she talks about Anita Sarkesian, Academics, Social Justice, misogyny-blaming and just in general the problems with feminism today. Watch the previous video I posted, if you haven't already as it kind of connects. [video=youtube;FXm49_B4oiM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXm49_B4oiM&list=UUcmnLu5cGUGeLy744WS-fsg[/video][/QUOTE] Karren Straughan does some really good talks on Feminism bullshit and Men's Rights issues. This is another good talk she did: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e92u5U3Acgs[/url] 24:50 in this video of the Q&A session from the above talk, there is a feminist who starts going on about safe spaces on campus for various minorities but none for men and other shit while the audience starts arguing with her then Karren lets her know how wrong she is. Watch from 19:10 for better context of Karen's response to the question. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfgbIM3gvyI[/url]

[QUOTE=Zyler;46478074]Again, sorry for bringing up more not directly video game related things (even though this does have some relevancy). This is a video by a self-proclaimed anti-feminist woman by the name of Karen Straughan. In the video she talks about Anita Sarkesian, Academics, Social Justice, misogyny-blaming and just in general the problems with feminism today. Watch the previous video I posted, if you haven't already as it kind of connects. [video=youtube;FXm49_B4oiM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXm49_B4oiM&list=UUcmnLu5cGUGeLy744WS-fsg[/video][/QUOTE] If I'm not mistaken she also did a few things on Gamergate and, with others, did a fairly interesting talk podcast with Matt from TFYC pretty early on: [quote][video=youtube;mcJDbZ_oZAg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcJDbZ_oZAg[/video][/quote] Also not necessarily terribly related, but since he works in television he has quite a few interesting things to say about character writing and target demographics. [editline]13th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Pteradactyl;46472453][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/k2X5EsJ.png[/IMG] Milo wrote an article about Wu, but won't post it due to fear that she'd get even crazier and kill herself.[/QUOTE] There's also that woman who has been threatening suicide more or less all the time, but I suppose she's not exactly relevant since that fraudulent Indiegogo campaign. It could be any of a few people, really.

Why do you guys talk about feminism so much? The title is "corruption in games journalism". It exists regardless of feminism.

[QUOTE=Teddybeer;46478802]Because its heavily intertwined. Name a prominent anti-gg that is not involved in feminist extremism and/or media. For me that list is very short.[/QUOTE] I will not deny that, but you have to be careful since it fits perfectly in their "its really about ethics in game journalism" narrative.

The two are heavily intertwined in that a lot of people try to turn it into a feminist issue and use a lot of the same shaming tactics to try and spoil the debate. It's worth being aware of, but it isn't exactly relevant and should be kept to a minimum, same as the e-celeb stuff like Wu or McIntosh. Straight bashing of feminism or SJWs should be avoided outright for a number of reasons, the least of all being people trying to drive a narrative. Let's take this as a cue to drop the topic for now, there can be other threads dedicated to that.

[QUOTE=Teddybeer;46478802]Because its heavily intertwined. Name a prominent anti-gg that is not involved in feminist extremism and/or media. For me that list is very short.[/QUOTE] Can't really name a single one because none of the people you're talking about would actually be considered "extremists". Annoying? Totally. Misguided? Most certainly. Radical? Depends on the day and the tweet. But extremist? Fuck no, these guys sit on their asses all day and whine on the Internet. "Extremist" feminists would be the likes of FEMEN who go out and about and fuck with institutions they have beef with face to face. If you're going to critique "feminism" for this stuff, it helps if you can actually identify the various sects and levels (for lack of a better term). Lumping privileged white folk who bitch and whine on Twitter and corporate owned blogs all day to feminists who actually raise awareness and annoy the fuck out of clearly wrong institutions isn't fair on the ones doing all the hard work.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;46478959]Can't really name a single one because none of the people you're talking about would actually be considered "extremists". Annoying? Totally. Misguided? Most certainly. Radical? Depends on the day and the tweet. But extremist? Fuck no, these guys sit on their asses all day and whine on the Internet. "Extremist" feminists would be the likes of FEMEN who go out and about and fuck with institutions they have beef with face to face. If you're going to critique "feminism" for this stuff, it helps if you can actually identify the various sects and levels (for lack of a better term). Lumping privileged white folk who bitch and whine on Twitter and corporate owned blogs all day to feminists who actually raise awareness and annoy the fuck out of clearly wrong institutions isn't fair on the ones doing all the hard work.[/QUOTE] In order to effectively argue the ideas these people wish to pursue, it is perhaps a good idea to understand the reasoning behind their actions. First of all, there needs to be a clear distinction made between moderate 'equity' feminists (characterised by the first and second wave of feminists) and 'gender' feminists (characterised by third wave feminism). Third wave feminisism was conceived in the 90s, coined by a woman named Rebecca Walker. It was a response to the idea that the then 'current' or 'old-fashioned' ideas of feminism, that is a movement for the better representation of women in sexuality, family, reproductive rights, legal rights (which in turn was an extension to the first wave of feminism which focused on suffrage and things such as voting rights), was out of date and that feminism needed to be extended to racial issues, gender binary, queer theory and identity politics. This actually went alright for a while (and there are still many people who campaign for this stuff responsibly, like Reimu), but then things started going to hell. This video explains some of the issues. [video=youtube;hkFT6YTnHRs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkFT6YTnHRs[/video] Most of these people saying "Gamers are dead" take cues from academic groups such as DIGRA and even quote them as evidence in their "gamers are dead" articles. These guys are all sociology majors who graduated from a university classroom to cushy jobs in online media and prettied up tumblr blogs due to their connections. If you trace back all of the corruption it will lead you back to Atheism+, JournoList and eventually academia. [video=youtube;Rouq-VdgXdo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rouq-VdgXdo[/video] Here's the article in question which sparked this all off: [url]http://adanewmedia.org/2013/06/issue2-shaw/[/url] The whole idea of destroying 'gamer' as an identity comes from a flawed use of critical theory aligned with identity politics. [QUOTE]Identity as a gamer, like all identities, exists as a conversation between the individual and social, structural discourses. Critical identity theory that build on post-structuralism are particularly useful in parsing how and when gamer identity is adopted by those that play video games. Indeed, the institutional construction of identities is a prevalent theme in both media representation and social theory. Many contemporary theorists have argued that identity exists between rather than within individuals (see for example Appiah, 2005; Gilroy, 2004; Hall, 1996). There is empirical evidence, moreover, that identities are experienced at the nexus of the individual and the social (for two recent examples see Gray, 2009; Valentine, 2007). We are not, as earlier structuralist theorists argued, wholly shaped by external forces; that everything we do is inherently social, does not mean that social structures determine our actions.[/QUOTE] They use their own personal definition of identity in order to justify that 'gamer' is a fundamentally non-inclusive monkier. [QUOTE]However, it is not the case that anyone who wishes can perform gamer identity. Indeed, central to this analysis is the ways in which gamer identity as a construction and performance is closed off for some players and in particular contexts. It is in this sense that I use Butler’s discussion of precarity. Butler (2009) has proposed that precarity works hand in hand with performativity. Precarity refers to the ways in which one must perform identities in an intelligible way, in a way that can be read by others, in order to be recognized. One might perform in a variety of transgressive ways in order to destabilize categories, but “to be a subject at all requires first complying with certain norms that govern recognition – that make a person recognizable. And so, non-compliance calls into question the viability of one’s life, the ontological conditions of one’s persistence” (p. xi). Although she is discussing this at the level of the nation-state and citizenship, in particular the way marginalized populations are at the mercy of neoliberalism and the violence of nationalism. I argue, however, that her articulation is useful in the realm of consumer culture specifically because such a term allows us to argue for a politics of representation that comes precisely from the edge rather than reimagining the center.[/QUOTE] This argument is extended to other articles that identify the 'identity' of gamers as being related to right wring politics. SOURCE: [url]http://www.firstpersonscholar.com/we-will-force-gaming-to-be-free/[/url] [QUOTE]Throughout his life the political philosopher Isaiah Berlin grappled with a haunting question: why are revolutions, especially violent ones, so often unsuccessful? In Berlin’s considered view, the great problem of utopian thinking (whatever its political provenance) is that it effaces human difference and diversity of thought: the honest and sincere disagreements about principle that characterise political life. True tragedy, he wrote, lay not in good against evil, but good against good. How, for instance, are we to always successfully reconcile justice and mercy? Revolutionary movements depended on an ideological fiction of harmony: that all conflict could be erased by their “final answer” and the cacophonous chorus of dissent would fall silent before the sight of perfection. This, Berlin believed, was a recipe for disaster. “If this is possible,” he wrote in The Crooked Timber of Humanity, “then surely no price is too heavy to pay for it; no amount of oppression, cruelty, repression, coercion will be too high… This conviction gives wide licence to inflict suffering on other men.” The ends, in other words, would justify the means because the revolutionaries always knew better. Citing Rousseau, he believes that this lies behind his conviction in “the right of society to force men to be free.” It may sound like an unwarranted compliment to see GamerGate in such consequential terms. But these social ills have their strains in all of us, and internet organising provides us with means of enacting social dynamics in miniature that once demanded the energies of mass physical crowds. Thus, on a much smaller scale, these ideas have their salience.[/QUOTE] Within 5 degrees of separation we go from people being harassed for playing video games, to revolutionaries, to angry, frothing at the mouth white males. [QUOTE]The wound here comes from a sense that they as gamers are not getting what they “paid” for (if only with the micron of cents sites earn from their individual clicks and ad impressions). They identify first and foremost as consumers who see their relationship with the game press as being one that should exalt the readers as kings and their hobby as being virtually beyond reproach. Much of GamerGate felt like an ad hoc PR exercise for the beleaguered male gamer, and for the concept of gaming itself, defending both from charges no one had ever made. But, crucially, in their view a proper games press would never criticise gamers, gamer culture, or their favourite games in anything except the most “objectively” technical ways. Are the controls smooth? Are there any bugs? Are the graphics cool? Slap a score on it and tell the consumer whether or not to buy. Beyond that, games writing should serve no other purpose, no “agenda” save that of the gaming consumer defined in the narrowest terms possible. The ideology-of-no-ideology inherent to “consumer revolts” acts as an additional layer of insulation against self-reflection, making it even easier to avoid conducting moral inventories of one’s behaviour. If you believe you are fighting for something “objective,” for something you are owed (like a demanding restaurant patron expecting hand-and-foot service because she’s a “paying customer”) rather than a malleable philosophical principle, it is especially difficult to dissuade you from destructive actions. If you are merely pursuing your entitlements in an economic contract exchange, what use have you for morality? Save the one moral that says you must get what you are owed, of course. GamerGate has responded to charges that its fixation on insurgent critics like Leigh Alexander, rather than the lavishly paid corporate executives who set the agenda and tone for the whole industry, is wrongheaded by simply saying that men like Activision CEO Bobby Kotick “know how to run a business” while critics, journalist, and developers– especially those who are crowdfunded– are seen as spongers. They are now all but criminalising the very notion that writers should be paid for their work, suggesting this is a conflict of interest in its own right. The new gaming website to emerge from the movement, goodgamers.us, is proud that it does not pay writers, using the ‘dream job’ and “do what you love” rhetoric beloved of the gaming industry at large; such ideas often help impose long hours and insufferable conditions on designers, writers, and developers. If it’s your dream job, why would you ever complain? Left utopian fallacies can lead us into new layers of hell; neoliberal “consumer revolts” threaten to drown us in the one we already live in.[/QUOTE] It sounds plausible, if you only lower yourself to the level of identity politics and social dynamics. These guys simply cannot conceive of any way in which the people who support GamerGate don't have an agenda and aren't using their "consumer revolt" as a way to push it. Does GamerGate have a political agenda? Does 4chan and Reddit have a political agenda? Most institutions (and websites) have a political slant to them, but somehow on these malignant online communities filled with vile hatefilled white men we've managed to create a conglomeration of thoughts and ideas that doesn't push everyone in it to "listen and believe". People with strong political views and who only view things in political settings (you are either with us or against us, either a democrat or a republican, a liberal or a conservative) really dislike this sort of thing. This is why "Otaku" culture and Video Games have been attacked by both the right and the left. SOURCE: [url]http://www.nichegamer.net/2014/10/on-gamers-culture-and-gamergate/[/url] [QUOTE]Once I understood the perceived truths of the author of that article, the entire framework of the conflict became crystal clear. What is actually at issue here, is not ideology at all; it is a struggle between modernity, and postmodernity, where neither side accurately self identifies their place in the conflict. The assumptions, of course, are that the self-proclaimed progressives are the agents of change, attempting to modernize the status quo of the culture, and the people pushing back against the change must then be regressive defenders of the status quo. In a way that is correct. However, where it all gets very tangled, is that the alleged progressives are in fact cultural throwbacks, decades late to attempting to modernize an already thoroughly postmodern culture.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]As Hiroki notes, Otaku Culture is not a product of Japanese Culture, it is a product of Western Popular Culture, overlaid on Japanese Culture. Western Popular Culture being pretty much the perfect example of a postmodern culture devoid of grand narrative. However, even deeper than that, you have Gamer Culture, a culture so intertwined and informed by Otaku Culture, as to make the two at many points indistinguishable and interchangeable, even across national boundaries. In fact, at the core of this very dispute, are the various chans. In Japan is 2ch, the heart of Otaku Culture, and in the West, there is 4chan (copied directly from 2ch), and now 8chan (actually partnered with 2ch). From this perspective, I would argue that all of Hiroki’s observations of the nature of Otaku Culture are equally applicable to Gamer Culture. And this, is the beginning of the misunderstanding that is GamerGate. Much ink has been spilled, if you will forgive the anachronistic rhetorical flourish, about the validity, or invalidity of Gamer Culture. Williams, Hendricks and Winkler had their interpretation of Gamer Culture, Adrienne Shaw had her objections to Gamer Culture, and Dan Golding had his outright dismissal of Gamer Culture. I would argue, however, that all of these people insisted on understanding Gamer Culture through modernist grand narrative, rather than, like Hiroki or Otsuka, recognizing its postmodernity.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]By contrast, the self-proclaimed progressives dismissing Gamers, are thoroughly modern. They firmly believe in the grand narrative of Social Justice, and are so strictly ideological, that they cannot imagine anyone motivated by anything but grand narrative. They evaluate the small narratives consumed by Gamers, through the lens of Critical Theory, an intellectual tool that pretends to be postmodernism, but was actually conceived as, and to this day is used for, the creation of grand narrative to create social change. Critical Theory employs postmodernist thought, in the service of very modern goals. It is beyond a shadow of a doubt that, like all modern thinkers, they believe their grand narrative is the path to a better world, and the creation of the correct History. However it is also beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they can only experience truth as defined by their grand narrative, and suffer under the burden of the creation of new History, to which they believe there are “right” and “wrong” sides. It is a grand narrative of oppression, power, prejudice, and privilege, where all interactions must in some way fit the narrative, or be made to fit the narrative, before they can be understood. Put simply, like all believers in modern grand narratives, they think they are doing what is best for all of humanity, and therefore anyone not helping them, or standing in their way, is hurting all humanity.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]From the Gamer point of view: A group is coming in and trying to invalidate their entire culture, by corrupting their database of postmodern simulacra, and all the millions of small narratives intertwined in that database, and the nuanced meanings they are able to “read up” at the surface layer, and replace it with the modern monolithic grand narrative of Social Justice. This literally would be a complete destruction of self for the Gamers, who have contextually moved passed modern concepts of grand narrative, and embraced postmodern culture. From the point of view of the self-proclaimed progressives: They can only recognize the surface layer of Gamer Culture, and see nothing but frivolous pop culture detritus, with no inherent meaning other than that which they derive from their grand narrative of Social Justice. Where the Gamers (or Otaku) see, even if only subconsciously, a rich set of contextual clues and meanings to the Moe elements of a character, the supposed progressives see only an unrealistic and sexist depiction of a woman. Their modern view, precludes them from comprehending, or even recognizing, the dual-layer nature of the postmodern Gamer database culture, thus they predictably seek to wipe away the frivolous and offensive garbage, and plant their tree of grand narrative.[/QUOTE] If the systematic deconstruction of conservative thought in academic theory, of equity based feminism, of atheism and of any other form of thought or political thinking that has come before it is anything to go by. These people will stop at nothing until all Pro-GamerGate discussion is extinguished and all who speak it are silenced permanently. If you think that all of these people (or at least a large part of them) are driven by ill-intent, greed or any other means of insemination then you are wrong. They want to destroy your beliefs and replace them with their own. They believe they are saving the world. They believe they are doing the right thing and if they had it their way, all of us would be punished for even questioning them.

[QUOTE=Zyler;46479131]Most of these people take cues from academic groups such as DIGRA and even quote them as evidence in their "gamers are dead" articles. These guys are all sociology majors who graduated from a university classroom to cushy jobs in online media and prettied up tumblr blogs due to their connections. If you trace back all of the corruption it will lead you back to Atheism+, JournoList and eventually academia.[/QUOTE] What does this have to do with my post? I know a lot of these guys did social studies for degrees, mostly useless degrees really. I know where the corruption roughly traces back to. But again, none of this is even relevant to my post about how these guys are nowhere near "extremist", just complete morons.

[QUOTE=Zyler;46479131]Most of these people take cues from academic groups such as DIGRA and even quote them as evidence in their "gamers are dead" articles. These guys are all sociology majors who graduated from a university classroom to cushy jobs in online media and prettied up tumblr blogs due to their connections. If you trace back all of the corruption it will lead you back to Atheism+, JournoList and eventually academia.[/QUOTE] And eventually the American 60's and the Soviet demoralisation of the US.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;46479195]What does this have to do with my post? I know a lot of these guys did social studies for degrees, mostly useless degrees really. I know where the corruption roughly traces back to. But again, none of this is even relevant to my post about how these guys are nowhere near "extremist", just complete morons.[/QUOTE] just because someone isn't actually killing people doesn't mean they don't have extremist views though? I mean, people call WBC extremist even though all they do is stand around holding placards. I agree that we should drop this topic for now though

[QUOTE=Turnips5;46479461]just because someone isn't actually killing people doesn't mean they don't have extremist views though? I mean, people call WBC extremist even though all they do is stand around holding placards. I agree that we should drop this topic for now though[/QUOTE] I never said extremism requires killing (or violence, but it normally does). Just that these guys aren't extremist in any sense. Nobody really knows or cares about them, they don't make names for themselves by performing controversial actions with the intention of annoying or horrifying the public. They just bitch and moan on their pristine, corporate, moderated blogs all day. But the topic clearly isn't going to go anywhere. My main reason for even bringing it up is that for a consumer revolt where a lot of people identify as more "liberal" (must be in the US terms, which translates to "half arsed conservative" elsewhere), they sure as hell don't seem to understand the social movements they criticise or accuse of causing problems. It's entirely the people causing these problems, not so much the social movement they hide behind.

[QUOTE]gaming is very much a boys' club and there's this idea that you can't be considered a hardcore gamer unless you fit a certain description[/QUOTE] Chris Kluwe is still trapped in the 90's, isn't he?

[QUOTE=uber.;46479532]Chris Kluwe is still trapped in the 90's, isn't he?[/QUOTE] I might have considered gaming to be a boys' club back when I was a kid (so 90s) but nowadays I really don't see that. Gaming is pretty mainstream. You can go to Walmart and get a console. You can play games on your phone. Anyone can get a Steam and start playing games. I mean, hell, even Steam has stuff for everyone. It has everything from Metro: Last Light to Nancy Drew and the Haunted Carousel. I should know. I own them both. It's pretty insulting that they keep pushing this "boys' club" idea.

[QUOTE=Penultimate;46479666]I might have considered gaming to be a boys' club back when I was a kid (so 90s) but nowadays I really don't see that. Gaming is pretty mainstream. You can go to Walmart and get a console. You can play games on your phone. Anyone can get a Steam and start playing games. I mean, hell, even Steam has stuff for everyone. It has everything from Metro: Last Light to Nancy Drew and the Haunted Carousel. I should know. I own them both. It's pretty insulting that they keep pushing this "boys' club" idea.[/QUOTE] My sister plays games and eventually enjoyed them so much she became a concept artist at a company. All her friends are boys! Wildly enough, she doesn't receive ANY harassment, simply because she plays, enjoys and appreciates games instead of trying to make a mockery of them.

Keep in mind he mentioned the "hardcore" gaming communities. So things like your CoD and ~esports~ oriented games that do have a noticeably smaller female user base. And do still have a problem with toxic assholes harrasing female players (thankfully this has dropped a lot in the last few years). They are still pretty heavily male oriented, almost all the content and advertising for shooters makes them look like "you are muscular mcdudebro with his crew of Bros. Save the world and be gruff". And sure, some female gamers don't give a shit and play it because the actual game might not be like that. But the advertising and shit pushes the " manly for MEN" angle a ton. Just because there are exceptions of women playing these and then maybe moving into industry does not mean the issues are long gone or anything. You're naieve to believe such a thing.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;46479710]Keep in mind he mentioned the "hardcore" gaming communities. So things like your CoD and ~esports~ oriented games that do have a noticeably smaller female user base. And do still have a problem with toxic assholes harrasing female players (thankfully this has dropped a lot in the last few years). They are still pretty heavily male oriented, almost all the content and advertising for shooters makes them look like "you are muscular mcdudebro with his crew of Bros. Save the world and be gruff". And sure, some female gamers don't give a shit and play it because the actual game might not be like that. But the advertising and shit pushes the " manly for MEN" angle a ton. Just because there are exceptions of women playing these and then maybe moving into industry does not mean the issues are long gone or anything. You're naieve to believe such a thing.[/QUOTE] You have to remember, the cases of which women playing games and moving onto the industry and being harassed are low, usually the reason they are harassed is because they are very vocal about a trivial (or, rarely) major issue. Why don't we see more women in games then? The reason is simple : "Girl" or "Womanly" things are advertised to them at a young age - it is hard for a girl to get into video-games when advertising in movies, books, and basically everything dictates video-games as a "Boy" thing to do. If you want to go into it scientifically and statistically, girls generally have more patience and develop at a younger age, while boys find it harder to concentrate in school and prefer more going on, with exceptions to both causes, this is what it is like for many people. "Hardcore" gaming can be considered anything really. It's a vague term. I think what he is trying to defer it as "People who play a lot of games and spend most of their life doing so." Not "Call of duty e-sports fans." Call of duty does have a problem harassing females - but you have to remember that those people are almost ALWAYS under 18 years of age, simply because COD is marketed towards that age group. Needless to say, toxic communities do not represent all of gaming - most of us I think we can say we are "hardcore" gamers and in this particular community we do not harass females and even have a mod who is a female. Advertisers push male related videogame concepts because the demographic of people who play videogames ARE male. If I am trying to make lode-a-money, I am probably going to advertise to appease the overwhelming large demographic, not the minority one. So I disagree with you. Here's an article to help understand what's going on : [URL]http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeswomanfiles/2013/01/18/women-and-video-gamings-dirty-little-secrets/[/URL] (Great read, btw, written in 2013) [quote] If women don’t join this industry because they believe sexism will limit them, they’re missing out. The sky is the limit when it comes to career opportunities for women (and men) in games. If we want the tide to turn and the ratio of men to women to really change then we need to start making women realize that fact. From foundational employee benefits to playful and creative work spaces, the culture of video game design that I know embraces the values of [I]all [/I]our employees like nowhere else. Sexism is an unfortunate reality of our times, but as women we must seek the power and ability in ourselves to change the dynamic. Cast aside the preconceptions, and look for the opportunities and places to make an impact. And I can tell you firsthand that in the video game industry women are not just welcome, we are necessary and we are equal.[/quote] [I][/I]

[QUOTE=uber.;46479532]Chris Kluwe is still trapped in the 90's, isn't he?[/QUOTE] I think so I am betting he was the bully in highschool and is just continuing the behavior.

[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;46479689]My sister plays games and eventually enjoyed them so much she became a concept artist at a company. All her friends are boys! Wildly enough, she doesn't receive ANY harassment, simply because she plays, enjoys and appreciates games instead of trying to make a mockery of them.[/QUOTE] That poor girl. I'm sending her 20 care packages as we speak, so I can be her single shining knight in this dark chasm of misogyny.

Wow this thread has become MRA central all of a sudden [sp]said no one ever[/sp] [sp]sorrynotsorry[/sp] /stupid jokes [QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;46479773] Advertisers push male related videogame concepts because the demographic of people who play videogames ARE male. If I am trying to make lode-a-money, I am probably going to advertise to appease the overwhelming large demographic, not the minority one. [/QUOTE] Which is actually an outdated view. A couple of recent studies (unbiased ones, ones that don't include people who play Iphone games) showed that the portion of women in gaming (PC, console and the like) is in fact fairly noticeable and [b]rising[/b]. Despite the media's best efforts to demonize the community beyond reason. There're issues within the industry, denying that is pointless, but attributing it to misogyny like the media does is stupid. The reasons are laziness of the publishers, who refuse to review their marketing policies. Remember fairly recent AC:U debacle where the Ubisoft, shitty as it is, was unfairly branded as "misogynist" organization for not including female characters in co-op. Everyone just ignored the fact that co-op partners are literally clones of the main character (which is pretty dumb and lazy, the system was made for Watch_Dogs and then copy-pasted). No. Women-hating. [editline]13th November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Gray Altoid;46479796]That poor girl. I'm sending her 20 care packages as we speak, so I can be her single shining knight in this dark chasm of misogyny.[/QUOTE] Include a gasmask, so she knows where it's from.

Every-time I interview somebody who identifies as an anti-gg they almost always now begin with "I tried engaging with pro-gg on twitter..." after being asked if they have ever talked with somebody from pro-gg. I usually don't ask any further questions since I know their responses will be the same. I think I have had two people who haven't started with that and rather "Yeah I had a friend/somebody on a forum but I still disagree with them." If you try to "engage" with nameless, anonymous people on twitter and you expect productive conversation you are not going to have a good time. I'm beginning to see a pattern - people seem to think that pro-gg is entirely represented by twitter users, or something similar. [editline]a[/editline] Also been reading "Fanboy wars", which is a book released just before gamersgate happened, it outlines corporate, journalism and gamer relationships with each other. It's a good read and presents it one of the most neutral views I have seen in a long time. [editline]a[/editline] I have to make a fix to the post earlier above, which I can't edit, I was wrong in stating males were overwhelming large, it is infact only 53% (If you include "mobile" games.)

[video=youtube;YOioaFpZ3tU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOioaFpZ3tU[/video] Those evil GGers sent someone a knife in the mail!

Oh god I hope Sargon's okay Did he leave his home?

[QUOTE=Teddybeer;46480027]Briefly[/QUOTE] brb contacting CNN, RT, BBC, KGB, NSA, ABC, US Navy and spacemarines

[img]http://i.imgur.com/xCv54UW.png[/img] These people are insane

[QUOTE=Ryo Ohki;46480163][img]http://i.imgur.com/xCv54UW.png[/img] These people are insane[/QUOTE] Whilst he might have a point that more women have probably been killed/ mistreated because they were women than Jews because they were Jews, it's [I]kind of[/I] a bad idea when in the last 100 years they were almost obliterated by Nazis. Whilst the treatment women have faced and do still face is disgusting, they have never been in any risk of total annihilation. [editline]13th November 2014[/editline] Moreover, this isn't some kind of 'oppression Olympics'. We need to focus on solving problems; whilst prioritising is part of that, I think there are enough people in the world that we can multitask on these issues.

Let's do it their way. "It's really about sexism in the games industry" ok and the holocaust is related to that how?

[QUOTE=Jamsponge;46480406] Moreover, this isn't some kind of 'oppression Olympics'. We need to focus on solving problems; whilst prioritising is part of that, I think there are enough people in the world that we can multitask on these issues.[/QUOTE] That's the point. It's controversial not because it's necassarily "factually wrong" if you really want to treat people as a statistic, but because it's a despicable thing to exploit other people's suffering to push your agenda. [QUOTE=G-Strogg;46480416]Let's do it their way. "It's really about sexism in the games industry" ok and the holocaust is related to that how?[/QUOTE] He's defending this guy if you can believe it: [URL]http://archive.today/W2kyB[/URL]

[QUOTE=gudman;46480117]brb contacting CNN, RT, BBC, KGB, NSA, ABC, US Navy and spacemarines[/QUOTE] This isn't important enough for the Space Marines, just send in the EDF.