[QUOTE=1/4 Life;53136629]This is the level of critical thinking I expect from people who don't realize gamergate is actually about ethics in games journalism.[/QUOTE]
Zoe Quinn was in a relationship with journalists who didn't disclose the relationship while some of them were reporting on her game. Literally the root cause of GamerGate.
[I]But this isn't about ethics in games journalism. /s[/I]
[QUOTE=megafat;53136794]Zoe Quinn was in a relationship with journalists who didn't disclose the relationship while some of them were reporting on her game. Literally the root cause of GamerGate.
[I]But this isn't about ethics in games journalism. /s[/I][/QUOTE]
Gamergate would have never started if that was all that happened. The drama about Zoe Quinn would have faded within a month if nothing else happened. It was the "gamers are dead" articles from multiple sources released almost simultaneouly that started Gamergate.
Even though this is just as vaguely broad as something like #MusicLoversAreGood, videogames have kind of taken music's spotlight as the thing unironically blamed for causing violence in the youths so I can at least get the motivation here.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;53136807]Gamergate would have never started if that was all that happened. The drama about Zoe Quinn would have faded within a month if nothing else happened. It was the "gamers are dead" articles from multiple sources released almost simultaneouly that started Gamergate.[/QUOTE]
I know, i was being sarcastic towards that post.
[QUOTE=snookypookums;53135329]My ex was one of them, she and I did not see eye to eye on a lot of things when it came to videogames, such as Anita Sarkeesian deliberately skewing something to make it appear sexist. For example: there was some level in Hitman that allowed you to kill the women backstage at some strip club. She took umbrage to this after seeing some Anita Sarkeesian video on the thing that made the claim that players were 'rewarded' for this, but then I clarified that this was is in fact, not true; the game actually penalizes you for killing non-targets. She then tried to ask why it was that the women were allowed to be killed like this in the first place. To make my point and to show her this argument wasn't true either, I booted up the game I just shot a dude in the head and said "See, you can kill anyone - man or woman".
Boy, she did [I]not[/I] like that :v: - she ended up choosing to double down and it became an hours long thing where she, the anthropology major, was driving me absolutely fucking bonkers with trying to apply her thing onto videogames and it was life-draining.
After much bickering, it just became one of those topics that we never discussed - I don't discuss video games with her and she won't try to tell me why she hates them purely on the basis of what Anita Sarkeesian tells her about why she should be outraged by them.[/QUOTE]
you should tell her about how many games and money it was given to Anita to make flimsy ass videos that could be done better by someone with less than half the budget all for the sake of feminism
[editline]16th February 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Natrox;53135927]Actually, GG was always a movement full of misappropriation. There are a number of videos you can watch which break it down surprisingly well. The key thing of it is not that everyone in GG was necessarily a bad person with bad ideas, but pretty much everyone who was arguing for journalistic integrity was being used by the core member group in GG to pad their numbers and spread their hate towards women. It's a very well set-up campaign by people who do not represent your interests, yet pretend to do so to get you along.
The core of GG was always about harassing women, without any real valid point. Most of the things GG had critique on turned out to be false and merely ways to further harass people.
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:
[/QUOTE]
Y'know, what you're doing could be spun right around and argued that the anti-gg movement was always about harassing any kind of gamer.
What I mean, is that you could grab any person who has a negative image in each of the sides, and paint the whole side as that.
I'm pretty sure I'm gonna find an obese basement dweller who hates/protects women which, in the minds of many people, apparently would be enough to paint the gamergate/anti-gamergate movement as a bunch of fat basement dwellers.
This happens because they are raging lunatics who don't want to admit they are wrong when presented with facts against their ideas.
Imagine if some nazi wanted to use the #gamergate hashtag. Does that mean the movement has nazi roots?
You could even search what the gamergate movement was all about on wikipedia.
[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;53136826]you should tell her about how many games and money it was given to Anita to make flimsy ass videos that could be done better by someone with less than half the budget all for the sake of feminism[/QUOTE]
Oh I did, also pointing out that Anita Sarkeesian also confessed to not playing games in general, which does introduce a whole lot of questions about her motives for doing the whole series in the first place. The first point (the money) was conveniently ignored and the second one she attempted to give a cop out answer of "Well I don't need to be shot to know that getting shot is bad" as an actual response, to which I laughed off (which as you can imagine is a massive problem for someone you're in a relationship with) :v:
It wasn't all bad, my ex was pretty strong on the feminism and we [I]did[/I] agree on some things, like the skimpy outfits and the overt sexualization of women in video games does get really gross beyond a point, but then there were things like this - the false narrative that Anita pushed using the Hitman game footage to suggest that players were rewarded for murdering women and stressing in a way that only the women were sexualized props for the 'male gamer' to have his way with - that really pissed me right the fuck off because for an observer who doesn't actually play video games like my ex (the most she'd do is sit quietly behind me and watch me play while occassionally ask questions), this shit actually was believable enough amongst all the other shit to actually be taken seriously.
Like, the state of how low the bar for women being in video games was set so low, that you could say something like this and people would just believe it without a second thought. Then explaining it to her and showing her that I could practically shoot anyone in the game (still facing consequences if it wasn't the target, though) became another hill for her to choose to die on because she stopped seeing that you could be equal in your massacres of either gender, but now the ability to massacre with wanton abandon was the point of contention. :v:
[QUOTE=junker|154;53136524]I feel very offended by this.[/QUOTE]
I'm not.
I'm actually very amused by it.
I'd say she could get to a point where she doesn't trusts some poor guy at McDonalds just because, well, its a guy.
How people like this actually work in reality is beyond me, and outright funny.
The whole Gamergate event is an utterly confusing clusterfuck.
[QUOTE=ASIC;53137014]The whole Gamergate event is an utterly confusing clusterfuck.[/QUOTE]
I usually find this one pretty apt at describing GG. Though is a tad dated
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fnRSL3d_xU[/media]
[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]
Yeah except your responses in the actual threads themsevles are quite otherwise. Nice revisionism, though.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;53136807] The drama about Zoe Quinn would have faded within a month if nothing else happened.[/QUOTE]
For a number of people it did, it brought up a discussion on changes to ethics and how journalists report on content, some of which in the industry regarded it as good necessity.
[QUOTE=megafat;53136794]Zoe Quinn was in a relationship with journalists who didn't disclose the relationship while some of them were reporting on her game. Literally the root cause of GamerGate.
[I]But this isn't about ethics in games journalism. /s[/I][/QUOTE]
I think one thing that bothered me even at the time of gamergate is that I think the game industry has a lot of serious ethical issues outside of what was actually being discussed. Like I don't think cases like zoe quinn are actually all that common but stuff like crunch time tends to be treated as normal. I guess since the game industry has gotten more exploitative with lootboxes and the like though, which people are clearly concerned about, but still.
I've been a "Gamer" since I was a kid (like most of us, probably), and I had no idea that there was such a negative image surrounding people who play video games?
Could someone explain to me what all this is about?
[QUOTE=IceTea;53138372]I've been a "Gamer" since I was a kid (like most of us, probably), and I had no idea that there was such a negative image surrounding people who play video games?
Could someone explain to me what all this is about?[/QUOTE]
I'll tell you how i think it was about:
GG'ers wanted game-journalists to be truthful and transparent in their "reviews" of games, and for game companies not to bribe journalists and tricking their customers to buy their shitty games.
And to disclose any relationship that made their reviews biased.
Someone who are against this made it up that GG was about hating women and how women ruined video games.
Big news outlets got bribed/fucked in the ass or outright blackmailed or harassed, because it blew up all over the news that gamers hated women and all sorts of nasty shit.
And little later on, Anita and trash like her trampled their way into the scene spouting shit like "If you're not with us, you're against us", even [url=https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2iwf40/compilation_of_harassmentinsultsdoxxing_from/]harassing[/url] other people who were gay or female and spoke about their view of GG and why they supported it.
Anita is such a big fan of harassement that she even faked it against herself, which later on everyone sooner or later found that she was indeed a [url=https://theralphretort.com/letters-fraud-anita-sarkeesian-lies-gamergate-0125015/]fraud[/url].
And the result is that most of what you google on GamerGate is false information, now the articles will tell you that GG was [b]only[/b] about hating women.
Take a look in our [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1454983]GamerGate[/url] thread when you have the time.
Just ignore the the rabid mouthbreathers who says otherwise, or educate them if you're able.
*It's also healthy to take everything you read with a pinch of salt, don't take it as absolute proof*
Kinda disappointing but in no way surprising that it turned out like this. I mean, Mark's original point was that there's a whole generation of people now who have no idea that geeks and nerds used to be bullied outcasts and instead treat being a geek as a cool and trendy thing to do. The whole point of the hashtag was to get those prior generations of geeks who remember the times where being a geek meant being bullied to recount their stories of how gaming communities helped them feel accepted and how games helped them escape from the shit times. Believe it or not, until very recently playing any game that wasn't a shooter or a sports game was looked down upon by one's peers. Try talking to a '90s jock about something like Myst or King's Quest and try not to get shoved into a locker afterwords.
But instead of understanding that, the usual suspects are instead flipping their shit because reasons. A more cynical person may say that it's because saying that gamers have also been victims of shit like bullying would ruin the "gamers are harassers" narrative some of these types have built up in order to get their precious victimbux on Patreon. A more cynical person would claim that these people only care about geeky shit because it's trendy to be into that now and that they're trying their hardest to "other" and dehumanize the people who actually enjoy games and comics and such because they want the status associated with liking this cool new "geek" thing without being associated with those "losers". A much more cynical person would probably compare this whole experience to, say, being evicted from a community you pretty much helped build with your bare hands and being forced to watch as the new tenants bulldoze the entire lot and replace it with a modern day Levittown. Now I'm not claiming that I'M that cynical, but if you've been paying attention to these past 4 years you could see why some people WOULD be.
I never understood why people here think Gamergate was about about hrassing women when game journos where under fire for being dishonest, yet they believe them when their politics match. Real mind boggling. It's like thinking Reagan didn't commit a crime for the Watergate shit because he said he is not a criminal.
[QUOTE=Tetsmega;53139960]I never understood why people here think Gamergate was about about hrassing women when game journos where under fire for being dishonest, yet they believe them when their politics match. Real mind boggling. It's like thinking Reagan didn't commit a crime for the Watergate shit because he said he is not a criminal.[/QUOTE]
I think you have the wrong president
[QUOTE=DuCT;53139982]I think you have the wrong president[/QUOTE]
Yup you're right I meant Nixon but thought of Reagan because I love the phrase Reagonmics.
[QUOTE=DuCT;53139982]I think you have the wrong president[/QUOTE]
No he's got the right one. Reagan got assassinated right after Watergate I'm pretty sure
wrong thread lol snip
[QUOTE=27X;53139894][url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1421478[/url][/QUOTE]
These threads were amazing. Day after day revelation after revelation.
Crazy times
[editline]17th February 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Raidyr;53139989]Trump is blaming the Democrats for not passing gun control under Obama
[media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/965009332042596352[/media][/QUOTE]
I think you want the Florida thread?
[QUOTE=DuCT;53139996]
I think you want the Florida thread?[/QUOTE]
Goddamnit.
Gater != Gator
So gamers are bad.
[editline]18th February 2018[/editline]
So gamers are bad.
[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]
There are still lots and lots of people who've never touched a video game, or have ever only played casual phone games like candy crush or whatever is popular right now.
Also, her stuff gets boosted like crazy because certain other people stand to gain from it too (whether politically or monetarily).
Sarkeesian is also extremely sex-negative as far as anything lewd in media goes, and there's lots of people in the US who think similarly afaik.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;53136484]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]
IMO it was a "The calm before the storm" thing.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
