[QUOTE=Natrox;53136068]Just because I didn't outline the information in a huge forum post, doesn't mean the videos don't count as information. You can watch them, and it will give you the information I intend to give you.
I'd be very interested to know why people regard these videos as nonsense, but nobody will tell me anything except "these videos are nonsense because I know better".[/QUOTE]
If you can't be bothered to give any information yourself you can hardly demand that people put any real effort into responding to you. You want people to give a detailed argument to counter you yet you can't be bothered to give a detailed post yourself, or even a real summary. "I'm right because these videos told me stuff" isn't effort. Tell me, why should I even consider watching the videos in the first place? What makes them valid and worth my time?
[QUOTE=Anderan;53136078]If you can't be bothered to give any information yourself you can hardly demand that people put any real effort into responding to you. You want people to give a detailed argument to counter you yet you can't be bothered to give a detailed post yourself, or even a real summary. "I'm right because these videos told me stuff" isn't effort. Tell me, why should I even consider watching the videos in the first place? What makes them valid and worth my time?[/QUOTE]
Okay, let me tell you why you should watch these videos:
The videos explore the types of people ("Angry Jack") who are easily influenced by movements like GG, which use his feelings of disillusion concerning society and gaming culture to achieve a point different from the one they pretend to support.
GamerGate, on the surface, is a movement which aims to improve ethics in video game journalism. In actuality, this goal is a mantle which is used to rally people to direct anger towards specific targets.
For example, Zoe Quinn was alleged to have sexual relations with game journalists in return for positive coverage. Information on this allegation was carefully constructed to convince people that there was something wrong with gaming journalism, while in actuality Quinn was simply targeted because the manipulative core of GG wanted to harass her. Except, surprise surprise, these allegations turned out to be false;
[quote] It was alleged that an affair with Nathan Grayson, a journalist at the website Kotaku, had led to favourable critical treatment of her game. In was later established that Grayson had only written about Quinn once, before they started a relationship, and had never reviewed Depression Quest.[/quote]
From: [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/11180510/gamergate-misogynist-felicia-day-zoe-quinn-brianna-wu.html[/url]
The key point of these videos is not that GG supporters are scum. It explains how people in GG were manipulated to direct hate towards feminists, women and other personalities in the gaming sphere by the use of blatant misinformation. These videos also explain how to deal with this issue, which is by challenging the beliefs of an Angry Jack. Ultimately, these videos attempt to teach people to be more critical of a situation (and that movements can be more nuanced than being either for or against it).
Additionally, these videos also explain why people like Anita Sarkeesian are receiving hate by people who are like Angry Jack. Essentially it comes down to groups of gamers who feel threatened and attacked by women giving criticism on female representation within games. Despite Sarkeesian's work not being critical of gamers themselves - the content in these videos is often taken super personally. Sarkeesian merely wants to improve inclusion and representation of women and other groups within games. Of course, this isn't totally related to GG, but you asked me to tell you why these videos were worth watching.
Zoe was the drop that overflowed the bucket for people who had grown exceedingly disillusioned with the gaming industry and how gamers are treated not as customers but as walking wallets by triple A publishers for the benefit of their shareholders, and the games "journalism" industry that transformed itself as an anti-consumer propaganda machine either to push an agenda or in collusion with developers for the purpose of mutual enrichment at the cost of gamers.
If you honestly, truly believe it's about mysoginy, then you are an idiot who bought into the excuses and misinformation of the industries desperately trying to deflect the fact that they were found out.
[QUOTE=Natrox;53135927]
Here's a series of videos which explain GG and why it happened (and why it will happen again and again) pretty well. Part 4 actually delves into GG itself, but the series as a whole is important for pretext. Try to keep an open mind:
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y8XgGhXkTQ[/media][/QUOTE]
I don't have a septic tank large enough to store the bullshit spewing out of that video.
Read the Know Your Meme article instead. It's much more informative: [url]http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/gamergate[/url]
I'm getting actual GamerGate flashback here. I swear I've seen this very same argument at least 5 times with the end result is everyone telling the person who posted the video that he's wrong and then they just leave only to repeat the process somewhere else.
[QUOTE=Natrox;53136105]For example, Zoe Quinn was alleged to have sexual relations with game journalists in return for positive coverage. Information on this allegation was carefully constructed to convince people that there was something wrong with gaming journalism, while in actuality Quinn was simply targeted because the manipulative core of GG wanted to harass her. Except, surprise surprise, these allegations turned out to be false;[/QUOTE]
He wrote about Depression Quest, as I recall, literally the day before they started their relationship. So sure, if we're willing to accept a 24 hour period as "Before" then that is certainly true. But then there is a case to be made about using coverage, even if minor, to initiate a relationship. Also one of the other people she slept with was another games journalist who also wrote about her around the time they were in a relationship. And a major problem was the absolutely horrible treatment of her ex who brought the entire thing to light and was presented as being upset she broke up with him in much of the coverage, when literally the exact opposite was true. Further, that was only at the very beginning and very quickly people shifted focus to a lot more than her, and she largely just became a joke.
[QUOTE]Additionally, these videos also explain why people like Anita Sarkeesian are receiving hate by people who are like Angry Jack. Essentially it comes down to groups of gamers who feel threatened and attacked by women giving criticism on female representation within games. Despite Sarkeesian's work not being critical of gamers themselves - the content in these videos is often taken super personally. Sarkeesian merely wants to improve inclusion and representation of women and other groups within games. Of course, this isn't totally related to GG, but you asked me to tell you why these videos were worth watching.[/QUOTE]
She blatantly falsifies a lot of the content in her videos, regularly stole content from other channels, and is an admitted scam artist from before her work on FemFreq and FemFreq fits almost exactly the model she had proposed prior on how to exploit outrage to generate revenue. People's problem isn't with her talking about women, its the flagrant dishonesty and exploitation of a group that has had plenty of flagrant dishonesty towards in and is regularly exploited.
[QUOTE=27X;53136022]Most game journalists do not play games, in fact, which is why livestreaming is eroding "journalism" based marketing and politics at a rather brisk pace.[/QUOTE]
Idk I think it's only certain websites like Polygon that have really bad journalists.
I listen to IGN podcast a lot and they have very nuanced and analytical opinions on games. Opinions that you'd only really be able to talk about if you were actually a gamer and part of its culture.
They're articles and reviews might not entirely reflect this because of money, but in general the actual people of the site have a large variety of opinions and GAME tastes.
[QUOTE=Natrox;53136105]
Additionally, these videos also explain why people like Anita Sarkeesian are receiving hate by people who are like Angry Jack. Essentially it comes down to groups of gamers who feel threatened and attacked by women giving criticism on female representation within games. Despite Sarkeesian's work not being critical of gamers themselves - the content in these videos is often taken super personally. Sarkeesian merely wants to improve inclusion and representation of women and other groups within games. Of course, this isn't totally related to GG, but you asked me to tell you why these videos were worth watching.[/QUOTE]
You're coming across well reasoned enough, but comments like these lead me to believe you may not have as firm a grip on the situation as you're presenting. Anita gets a lot of actual, legitimate vitriol thrown at her but you know that she herself is a manipulative schemester right?
Criticisms of Anita isn't all coming from "gamers who feel threatened by her work."
[QUOTE=Natrox;53136105]Okay, let me tell you why you should watch these videos:
The videos explore the types of people ("Angry Jack") who are easily influenced by movements like GG, which use his feelings of disillusion concerning society and gaming culture to achieve a point different from the one they pretend to support.
GamerGate, on the surface, is a movement which aims to improve ethics in video game journalism. In actuality, this goal is a mantle which is used to rally people to direct anger towards specific targets.
For example, Zoe Quinn was alleged to have sexual relations with game journalists in return for positive coverage. Information on this allegation was carefully constructed to convince people that there was something wrong with gaming journalism, while in actuality Quinn was simply targeted because the manipulative core of GG wanted to harass her. Except, surprise surprise, these allegations turned out to be false;
From: [URL]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/11180510/gamergate-misogynist-felicia-day-zoe-quinn-brianna-wu.html[/URL]
The key point of these videos is not that GG supporters are scum. It explains how people in GG were manipulated to direct hate towards feminists, women and other personalities in the gaming sphere by the use of blatant misinformation. These videos also explain how to deal with this issue, which is by challenging the beliefs of an Angry Jack. Ultimately, these videos attempt to teach people to be more critical of a situation (and that movements can be more nuanced than being either for or against it).
Additionally, these videos also explain why people like Anita Sarkeesian are receiving hate by people who are like Angry Jack. Essentially it comes down to groups of gamers who feel threatened and attacked by women giving criticism on female representation within games. Despite Sarkeesian's work not being critical of gamers themselves - the content in these videos is often taken super personally. Sarkeesian merely wants to improve inclusion and representation of women and other groups within games. Of course, this isn't totally related to GG, but you asked me to tell you why these videos were worth watching.[/QUOTE]
Two videos in and this series is already dogshit. By the 2nd video he's implying people are just angry because Anita is making them face questions they don't want to answer just by existing and yet when you make posts like these
Loading Tweet...
[URL]https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/533445611543363585[/URL]
and
[t]https://40.media.tumblr.com/a17f417e01affaed9df1c2ea754d1e29/tumblr_npysuuAubk1r5x7c3o1_1280.png[/t]
plus there's that whole thing with her causing a transgender writer to be harassed by because she threw a bitchfit when Kotaku posted an interview with TotalBiscuit because he was a "gamergater". She's clearly not just being some non-judemental individual who's mere presence pisses people off who only wants to promote inclusion.
I don't think Sarkeesian is literally Hitler, but I'm not going to waste any more time with these videos. As far as I can tell they're all done with the assumption that the people GG were mad at never did anything wrong and were just poor innocent individuals who never said or did anything that anyone could justifiably get angry about, and that Angry Jack was just a bunch of people being unreasonably angry because society is changing.
I have a big problem with people who dump videos in threads as their arguments, because they presume that the videos answer all the qualms any individual posters have with whatever subject they're discussing. In reality, it's more likely that the video contains a collection of arguments that posters [I]have already[/I] heard, and a retread of old ground isn't always necessary.
The videos rarely stand as the bastion of unbiased information they're presented as.
[QUOTE=cebceb44;53134893]oh, yeah, there's the problem
mark kern's the kinda person who-
[URL="https://archive.is/j0Hf6"]archive.is link[/URL]
i can assure y'all, like a solid 91% of the 'drama' is just people shitting on kern because he's always been the "why won't girls have sex with me" kinda guy[/QUOTE]
I have this "theory" about this whole "Gamer" thing.
I suspect there is a loose group of reactionaries, including this Kern guy, who are trying to subvert the idea of being a Gamer. They're trying to create some artificial identity, a narrative where Gamers are marginalised victims of PC culture and "SJW" nonesense.
Eg. that milo yannopolis arsehole, a few years before GG he was dicking on gamers saying peeps need to grow up and get laid. A few years later he's established himself as part of the GG movement, siding with "Gamers" against progressives.
Stuff like this:
[url]https://www.change.org/p/ubisoft-cancel-far-cry-5[/url]
[quote=unhinged kid or reactionary shill?]Enough is enough UbiSoft. We’ve sat through your multicultural lectures and your preachy games aimed at degenerates and miscegenators.
...
I would like to say that this petition has been a great success. UBISoft has created some new game images for the game that shows some black man in the villains table. We can finally move towards true equality once we ensure video game antagonists reflect reality. I think they even made some of the enemies a little more Islamic by having them invoke their religion a lot in that trailer, which is great news. UbiSoft is truly listening to gamers.
...
You targetd gamers. GAMERS.
We're a group of people who will sit for hours, days, even weeks on end performing some of the hardest, most mentally demanding tasks. Over, and over, and over all for nothing more than a little digital token saying we did.
We'll punish our selfs doing things others would consider torture, because we think it's fun.
...
Gamers are competative, hard core, by nature. We love a challange. The worst thing you did in all of this was to challange us. You're not special, you're not original, you're not the first; this is just another boss fight.[/quote]
Notice again the "underdog" narrative, the us vs them (SJWs, establishment). These arseholes dwell on the fringes, they're racists and sexists and they're trying desperately to redirect(well deserved) criticism aimed at themselves onto gamers as a whole, once those gamers feel like they're the target of (undeserved but undeserved) criticism they will feel marginalised.
It's fucking devious, more of these alt right nobs tryna corrupt peeps. Worst part is, the more egregious they get, the more criticism they receive, the more criticism is incorrectly levelled against gamers, the more support these nobs get.
Not sure if its too late to stop this from happening, best thing to do perhaps is to accept that people who play games are a majority, we don't need some bs identity as gamers because gaming is now the norm. Sadly these previously mentioned arseholes will desperately try to prove the contrary, to stir up division, separate people and lump gaming with the identity of "Gamer" which they're successfully polluted.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;53136196]I have this "theory" about this whole "Gamer" thing.
I suspect there is a loose group of reactionaries, including this Kern guy, who are trying to subvert the idea of being a Gamer. They're trying to create some artificial identity, a narrative where Gamers are marginalised victims of PC culture and "SJW" nonesense.
[/QUOTE]
I followed the GG thing from the start. There were a lot of level headed people in it for a while. But very quickly, as they were attacked so fiercely, the "anti-SJW" crowd swooped in because they saw GG as the side that was anti-SJW.
And as much as I actually agree with the original GG, it was a breeding ground for far right garbage. Back in the day I saw far right shit being shot down by member but I think most people who are leftist like me have disengaged from it. But it's still frustrating to see people try to change history and say "GG was always an alt right movement. No it wasn't. It's a leaderless movement, there's is no "core" but there is a majority and over time that started to become alt-right.
If you look at it now without context? Yeah it's just a bunch of alt right people wielding dogwhistles.
I'm a gamer vegan runner prepper millenial youtuber and i asure you i do not use my activities to build my identity so i beg you to respect my integrity and what i represent as part of a community.
[QUOTE=dark_vivec;53136237]I followed the GG thing from the start. There were a lot of level headed people in it for a while. But very quickly, as they were attacked so fiercely, the "anti-SJW" crowd swooped in because they saw GG as the side that was anti-SJW.
And as much as I actually agree with the original GG, it was a breeding ground for far right garbage. Back in the day I saw far right shit being shot down by member but I think most people who are leftist like me have disengaged from it. But it's still frustrating to see people try to change history and say "GG was always an alt right movement. No it wasn't. It's a leaderless movement, there's is no "core" but there is a majority and over time that started to become alt-right.
If you look at it now without context? Yeah it's just a bunch of alt right people wielding dogwhistles.[/QUOTE]
Part of the problem from someone who was early GG was that the Gaming media started calling GG an alt-right movement before it ever became that, which is in part what drew the alt-right to it - because it was getting up the noses of what they perceived as SJWs so it had to be something worth supporting. So the hilarious thing is that by refusing to engage with the valid criticism GG started out with, the gaming media made it into the enemy they wanted it to be anyway.
And by hilarious I mean sad.
The best part about sarkeesian and quinn is that they managed to get to the motherfucking United Nations
only for their statements to be retracted
Get fucked you con artists
[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;53136413]The best part about sarkeesian and quinn is that they managed to get to the motherfucking United Nations
only for their statements to be retracted
Get fucked you con artists[/QUOTE]
How do you fuck up so bad to have a source link to your C:// drive?
Gotta love how a thread about a gamer-related movement causing division and drama ends up causing division and drama about a separate movement which caused division and drama. So fuckin' meta :v:
[QUOTE=Steel & Iron;53136418]How do you fuck up so bad to have a source link to your C:// drive?[/QUOTE]
[url]https://edri.org/un-withdraws-report-cyber-violence-against-women/[/url]
[url]https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/10/un-agency-backtracks-expresses-regret-over-cyberviolence-report/[/url]
[url]https://www.thecut.com/2015/09/uns-cyberharassment-report-is-really-bad.html[/url]
if you want more, just google it yourself
[QUOTE=Anderan;53136141]
[t]https://40.media.tumblr.com/a17f417e01affaed9df1c2ea754d1e29/tumblr_npysuuAubk1r5x7c3o1_1280.png[/t]
[/QUOTE]
This reads like Jack Thompson-tier censorship shit, only nicely wrapped up in a "feminist" package. How is a person this clueless taken seriously by anybody when it comes to video games?
Remember when being a gamer only got you labelled as a nerd? Now we are far right fasc-misogin-rac-ist!
What the twitter zoo says about gamers should be totally ignored and or/laughed at.
If you still don't believe anita is a clown with an axe to grind this is her current twitter background.
[t]https://i.imgur.com/3nb6c16.jpg[/t]
[URL="https://twitter.com/anitasarkeesian"]see for yourself[/URL]
Say, where did Natrox go.
I wanna learn more 'bout how disillusion affects people and their critical thinking skills.
[QUOTE=Bertie;53136439]This reads like Jack Thompson-tier censorship shit, only nicely wrapped up in a "feminist" package. How is a person this clueless taken seriously by anybody when it comes to video games?[/QUOTE]
I had this same argument with my ex, who doesn't seem to realize that just because I can blow polygons shaped like humans/demons/cars/etc. into smaller polygons with impunity using another gun-shaped bunch of polygons, it doesn't mean I'm some sort of crazed killer under the surface that's using the game as an outlet or I would do anything to physically harm her or hurt her. Fuck, I feel bad and somewhat squeamish when I have to even lay traps for mice, forget about even ripping someone's jaws off and crushing their skull with my bare hands :frown:.
If you are a violent person in real life, chances are you'll likely [I]also[/I] be a violent person in video games. That is a pretty accurate assumption to make because you clearly show a lack of interest in consequences in real life, so why would you care about such consequences in a virtual environment that has none? Pretty much all the cases that have cropped up regarding game-related violence that have popped up in recent times have all been with people that were clearly already fucked up with rage issues or other mental illnesses that shouldn't have been near games to begin with because it exacerbated their existing condition and wasn't caught in time.
On the other hand, to brand people as being 'potentially' violent in real life purely because they play violent games, despite no single outward indication of the same and ostracizing them for it is massively presumptious and very damaging, in my opinion. If you are a 'toxic' gamer, then you were likely a 'toxic' person well before games came into play - trying to pin it on videogames is a cop out because it shows you're unwilling to accept who you are and are looking for someone to blame for you being a shitty human being.
What I think even lots of GG people forget is the whole Zoe Quinn thing was little more an amusing scandal. It was the "gamers are dead" articles and immediate closing ranks around a terrible person that really kicked things off.
[QUOTE=Rockeiro123;53136452]If you still don't believe anita is a clown with an axe to grind this is her current twitter background.
[t]https://i.imgur.com/3nb6c16.jpg[/t]
[URL="https://twitter.com/anitasarkeesian"]see for yourself[/URL][/QUOTE]
I feel very offended by this.
[QUOTE=FeartheMango;53134305]Assholes will inevitably be assholes though, and you will almost always have the ability to personally mute those spewing vitriol.
If some people just believe it's their God given right to use a meatspin spray then so be it.[/QUOTE]
I never understood why meatspin was considered horrifying.
[QUOTE=ASIC;53136572]I never understood why meatspin was considered horrifying.[/QUOTE]
It's not, it's hilarious. But not everyone wants to see full anal penetration in a game of CS
[QUOTE=Natrox;53136068]
I'd be very interested to know why people regard these videos as nonsense, but nobody will tell me anything except "these videos are nonsense because I know better".[/QUOTE]
This is the level of critical thinking I expect from people who don't realize gamergate is actually about ethics in games journalism.
[QUOTE=Bertie;53136439]This reads like Jack Thompson-tier censorship shit, only nicely wrapped up in a "feminist" package. How is a person this clueless taken seriously by anybody when it comes to video games?[/QUOTE]
It's mainly non-gamers, (like games journalists, lmao) and wider news media that pay attention to her and give her a platform. Some of that seeps back into the gaming community though.
During the latter part of gamergate, the narrative of "protect the women" overrode "but all of these journalism sites are corrupt and there's a shitton of evidence" because one is mass marketable (random idiots will agree with "protect the women" but have no opinion on complex issues of ethics, and so they will pretend the issue that is about ethics is about the "women are in danger from misogynist gamers" the gaming media pushed) and the other isn't. Anita was already getting propped up but she rode that misinformed narrative all the way to the UN, but since then i don't think she's done anything of note so whatever.
The mainstream media's narrative about video games is a reactionary one, something needs to happen before the narrative can move forward, and in Anita's case that thing was a (dubious) bomb threat, which is the scariest-sounding thing that happened in 2014 gamergate. Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu were much more practical for the MSM's narrative since they'll say exactly what the MSM wants to hear (as opposed to Anita who will try to use every opportunity to plug her brand of feminism whether they want her to or not), but a bomb threat sounds much scarier than an alleged harassment campaign or whatever the hell Wu claimed to be dealing with, so Anita was desired for the narrative.
With all that said, it's important to remember that in 2014 the MSM's narrative basically amounted to a handful of one-off news segments, a botched Stephen Colbert interview, and a Law & Order SVU episode. They weren't interested in giving anything more than a passing glance, and I think Anita mainly stayed relevant throughout most of 2015 because of constant attention from anti-SJWs, rather than the screentime she was given in late 2014.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
