I wonder how much longer they'll try to pretend that the criticism of journalism is still just a cover for harassing poor women they need to swoop in to protect.
Nobody's pretending that. Both of the recently linked articles state that there real issues in gaming journalism. Unfortunately, the sexist assholes are distracting from the "real" issues by creating an issue of their own.
Swindling people, slandering people, and fabricating problems for personal gain are all far more offensive to me than anonymous insults on the internet. Anita Sarkeesian is just experiencing the consequences of her deplorable behavior.
It goes both ways. Anita Sarkeesian is being an asshole online, and now she's experiencing the consequences of that behavior. Clearly some of the reactions to her behavior have crossed way over the line of what's acceptable, but the majority of the criticism she has received is appropriate and warranted. White guys who behave like Sarkeesian can and have received a similar level of harassment.
Who has a problem with the "appropriate and warranted" criticism she's received? Not me. Not anybody, as far as I know. If you think the people complaining about the assholes who've "crossed way over the line of what's acceptable" somehow think Sarkeesian is a flawless angel of truth, I'd like to see you back that up. Most of the people criticizing these assholes are doing just that:Criticizing these assholes.It's an issue now. You don't have to pay attention to it if you don't want to, but it's an issue and you saying it isn't isn't going to change that.
I don't know what you're talking about here. One of the points made was that there ARE real problems in gaming journalism, but
a) A lot of these problems didn't get much attention because they didn't involve a woman and/or who she was fucking, and
b) The way these problems are being addressed by sexist assholes is actively creating another problem, a problem that has gotten a lot bigger for a lot of people and which is now (justifiably) being treated as its own issue, much to the dismay of both the sexist assholes in question and the entirely reasonable people who'd like to discuss the real issues with gaming journalism.
The article by Zoe Quinn also mentions the legitimate issues in gaming journalism and how those are being ignored in favor of making an example out of her, by the way.
Of course not. But when certain people are disproportionately targeted for hate campaigns, that becomes its own issue. I've seen repeatedly that it bothers you that what you consider the "real" issues are ignored or dismissed in order to focus on what you apparently consider to be harmless trolls. But see, these trolls are a problem, whether you choose to believe it or not. The worse they act, the more attention they are going to get. I've said it before, but if you want legitimate criticism to get the attention it deserves, we need to stop the sexist assholes from hijacking these topics with their assholery.
How? When I point out someone being a sexist asshole here, I'm dragged across the coals. Frankly, I have zero problem with mainstream media (or any media) taking a moment to point out that unacceptably shitty behavior is unacceptably shitty.
I don't think they are. I'm a hardcore gamer, I live and breathe gaming, and I never once, in thatCrackedarticle or any other, ever felt that I was being unfairly judged or categorized. I think it's always made extremely clear that these articles are talking about the sexist assholes of the gaming community, so I have no reason to be offended. No reasonable people believes all gamers are sexist assholes, just as no reasonable people believe all feminists are screaming angry redheads.
Like I said in my quotes from your last post, I'm totally OK with pointing out that shitty feminists are shitty. Go ahead and criticize their ignorance to your heart's content. My problem is with assuming these idiots somehow represent their movement when they flat-out don't. Similarly, we should not hesitate to point out when sexist asshole gamers are shitting up whatever "cause" they choose to use as an excuse to be hateful, misogynist pricks. I never said they represented gamers or gaming as a whole, and I don't think any of the articles I linked did either. But their behavior has become a problem, and right now their favorite targets are women. Just because these women may be deserving of legitimate criticism, it doesn't mean these assholes haven't become an issue. Whether or not you believe this is (or should be) a "real" issue, it is.
I'll make this suggestion for the second time: If you have legitimate issues you'd like to discuss, whether it be about gaming journalism or the portrayal of women in video games, let's discuss it. I think those would be fantastic discussions. You're upset that the media is putting so much attention on internet assholes, but you don't hesitate to speak extensively about just that every chance you get. You're doing the exact same thing you're criticizing the media for doing. Be the change you want to see, Lith.
Such a load of horseshit. The idea that you have to stomp out all negative behavior before any issues can be discusses is a fantastic way to never get anything done. I see this tactic used all the time and it's always bullshit. I am not responsible for anyone else's actions and you can't use them to deflect my criticisms. How do you propose to stop all these "sexist assholes" you talk about? It's not like this is a formal organization or protest. Its a fucking twitter hash tag.
Such a load of horseshit. The idea that you have to stomp out all negative behavior before any issues can be discusses is a fantastic way to never get anything done. I see this tactic used all the time and it's always bullshit. I am not responsible for anyone else's actions and you can't use them to deflect my criticisms. How do you propose to stop all these "sexist assholes" you talk about? It's not like this is a formal organization or protest. Its a fucking twitter hash tag.
Alright, let me re-word: If you want to talk about legitimate issues, talk about them. Anybody still has the power to do that.
Right now, one of these legitimate issues is online sexist assholes. It's getting a lot of attention. But sexist assholes getting attention is NOT the same as people not being allowed to make valid criticisms. We're all still allowed to do that. Go hog wild.
Edit: I would also like to point out that my original comment was about how muchattentionissues get, and not about what people are and are notallowed tocriticize.
Who has a problem with the "appropriate and warranted" criticism she's received? Not me. Not anybody, as far as I know. If you think the people complaining about the assholes who've "crossed way over the line of what's acceptable" somehow think Sarkeesian is a flawless angel of truth, I'd like to see you back that up. Most of the people criticizing these assholes are doing just that :Criticizing these assholes.It's an issue now. You don't have to pay attention to it if you don't want to, but it's an issue and you saying it isn't isn't going to change that.
There are many people who took and continue to take issue with the warranted criticism Sarkeesian received. Attempting to win a debate by misrepresenting the opposition is a tried and true tactic that spans all areas of political and social discourse. Furthermore, focusing on the unsolvable problem of anonymous people saying mean things on the internet does nothing but help charlatans like Sarkeesian gin up drama for personal gain. As fanaskin mentioned earlier, do you really think faceless assholes on the internet care that you've "highlighted" their behavior? What are you, new here? That's exactly what they wanted you to do.
No, I'm saying that someone who has never and will never experience the level of harassment Sarkeesian has is not in the best position to dismiss that harassment as "no big deal". The Cracked article actually addresses this pretty well.
Who? Trolls? Idiots? People whose opinions can be immediately dismissed because they didn't have the decency to put the bare minimum of effort required to understand an issue? Why do we care about what these people think?
Furthermore, focusing on the unsolvable problem of anonymous people saying mean things on the internet does nothing but help charlatans like Sarkeesian gin up drama for personal gain.
I didn't realize you had proof that Sarkeesian was intentionally creating "drama for personal gain", and that she actuallywantsto be the target of harassment. I eagerly await seeing it, as well as your proof that she "swindled" somebody. I'm intrigued by how you've portrayed her as playing an active role in coordinating the actions of despicably sexist disgusting assholes. Surely, she's responsible for the deplorable acts of other people, right?
As fanaskin mentioned earlier, do you really think faceless assholes on the internet care that you've "highlighted" their behavior? What are you, new here? That's exactly what they wanted you to do.
Maybe they don't but Fanaskin clearly does. Why isn't Fanaskin ignoring their media attention the same way he thinks the media should be ignoring them?
I literally quoted where you did. The quote functions, contain links where you can jump back to a conversation. In the convsersation I was illustrating how many ideologies are ruled by their most radical elements; because those are the elements most active in their ideologies, and you said--and I quote.
......the problem is exclusively radical feminists and not feminism. As bad as some of the most active and radical feminists can be (and apparently, they can be pretty bad),dismissing the entire feminist movement because of them is foolish and counter-productive....... Thesolution seems to be to acknowledge that the radical feminists do not accurately represent the tenets of feminism while still respecting that feminism has valid reasons for existing and reasonable goals that benefit society as a whole.That, of course, would require logical thought, which is a rarity even on this board, butI don't think we can blame feminism for stupid people......
(Link back to the context of the conversation, as well as other posts made in context of the conversation, within spoilers below.)
I gotta admit, I was a bit annoyed at how the article started, but it was actually a pretty good read.
This is pretty on-balls accurate (for feminism, I could give a shit about the tea party). The "vocal misguided" (see Fig.1 below) do way more harm than they could ever even imagine, since whether they intend to or not they become the "official" face of their movement, as selected by their opponents who highlight all of their flaws and perpetuate the idea that they are the norm in their category. And then people like the majority of this board's readership watch the videos and chuckle at the memes and dismiss the feminist movement as a misguided joke at best and a society-dismantling terrorist movement at worst, based entirely on the impression given by well-intentioned but ultimately terribly confused individuals. If you guys gave enough of shit you'd probably realize most of you are already feminists.
.....the problem is exclusively radical feminists and not feminism. As bad as some of the most active and radical feminists can be (and apparently, they can be pretty bad), dismissing the entire feminist movement because of them is foolish and counter-productive. As I've already said, we should by all means point out the harm that can be and is being done by radical feminism. On the other hand, there sure as fuck is such thing as patriarchy and, as a society, we should still be striving to address real systematized inequalities. Luckily, that's what feminism is trying to do. I mean, even if "reasonable" feminists disbanded and created a new group with a new name, eventually that group would also be hijacked by well-intentioned but terribly confused individuals. The solution seems to be to acknowledge that the radical feminists do not accurately represent the tenets of feminism while still respecting that feminism has valid reasons for existing and reasonable goals that benefit society as a whole. That, of course, would require logical thought, which is a rarity even on this board, but I don't think we can blame feminism for stupid people.
I'm not misquoting or even taking you out of context--once more, there click the little button in the quote to go back to conversation where you were disregarding the more outlandish acts of Rad Fem. In one case, you tell us to acknowledge that a few bad apples should NOT predispose us to rejecting the message of a group. In this case, however, you say we must address the bad apples before we can be, as your article states "allowed to get up from the kid's table".
How do you justify that kind of dissonance, Tan? (Unless you're saying the article just had some sections that were garbage; which, fair enough.)
I don't know what you're talking about here. One of the points made was that there ARE real problems in gaming journalism, but
a) A lot of these problems didn't get much attention because they didn't involve a woman and/or who she was fucking, and
b) The way these problems are being addressed by sexist assholes is actively creating another problem, a problem that has gotten a lot bigger for a lot of people and which is now (justifiably) being treated as its own issue, much to the dismay of both the sexist assholes in question and the entirely reasonable people who'd like to discuss the real issues with gaming journalism.
The article by Zoe Quinn also mentions the legitimate issues in gaming journalism and how those are being ignored in favor of making an example out of her, by the way.
The nature of the post was showing how the vast majority of gamers are illustrating the problems as the lack of ethics within gaming--and how the media itself continues to try and spin it as being more about the very small group of sexist assholes who are constantly making sexist remarks. The reality is; as you can see in threads like the Escapist, or the TF videos, of Matt Videos--the vast, vast majority of criticism is not even being leveled toward Zoe Quin anymore.But let me provide anactualexample--one of the problem with these things is we often look at abstracts; and our own bias takes hold. Here is theEscapist thread(One of the longest in the history of the board) onGamergate. This thread, in the emails, was described as an"attack" thread on Zoe Quin--and it was said to be exclusively aboutdenigratingher. Here is the OP of the thread, which gives posting instructions and resources on Gamergate.
Truth and fact must be treated with the respect they deserve. This means, at a minimum:
Opinions are not to be stated as universal truths
Hearsay is not to be reported as factual without corroborating evidence
Assumptions and speculation are not to be reported as fact
Intentionally misleading or inflammatory wording is not ever to be used, in headlines or elsewhere
When in doubt, stick only to information that would hold up under examination in a court of law
Editorials and other opinion pieces are to be kept separate from News pieces. Bias and opinion will always color a writer's work, but they should strive for as much objectivity as reasonably possible in the News. If they wish to share their opinion on the piece, something that should be encouraged, it should be done in a distinct space.
There's nothing wrong with the News article including "And I think it's great/terrible/stupid/etc, click this link to find out why" or some variation thereof. It is only within the article proper that opinions are to be avoided.
All journalists must be required to behave professionally within the public space. This includes but is by no means limited to:
No irrational, emotionally-driven rants
No insults, threats, or any of the other assorted childishness
Engage the audience calmly, reasonably, and without rancor, or do not engage them at all
Be aware when one is within the public space, especially any and all social media.
Do not treat one's audience as an enemy
Journalists must strive to be objective. No human can be truly impartial, but journalists must strive to the best of their ability to be above external bias, and to inform their readers when they cannot. Put simply, this means they must, at minimum:
Recuse themselves from reporting news regarding subjects that they have a personal or financial link to
Disclose any personal or financial connections to subjects they are giving opinion pieces on (Editorials, Op-Eds, Reviews, etc)
Engage in honest and fair coverage. Consistency and the interest of/relevance to the audience must be the deciding factor in the decision to run a story.
GamerGate simply wants gaming media websites to adopt some variation on these policies, much like the Escapist has, and actively work to adhere to them. Nothing more and nothing less.
Why is it happening?
Over the last five years, the gaming media has grown increasingly politicized, all with the same political stance and agenda. It has become almost unheard of for a gaming news piece not to include at least a passing comment about a game being retrograde for not matching this stance, or for a game to be praised to the moon because it reflects the right politics. Many gamers are sick of it. Add on to this the claims of corruption, of censorship, of blacklisting, and of careers ruined, and these gamers have become incensed.
Gamers have been lied to, belittled, shamed, stifled, and held in contempt by the industry they created and continue to drive. Developers have been attacked, silenced, belittled, and forced to compromise their art by this same industry.
It has to stop. GamerGate is a grassroots movement by the gaming community to hold the press accountable for their actions and to demand better.
Where did it come from?
GamerGate is a recent, wide-ranging controversy that began in late August 2014 as a direct result of the seemingly corrupt and wildly unprofessional behavior of the gaming press. On August 16, Eron Gjoni, ex-boyfriend of developer Zoe Quinn published a blog on wordpress called The Zoe Post. In this blog, he alleged that Quinn cheated on him with several members of the video game industry, one of whom was a writer for Kotaku. This post created a substantial uproar in the gaming community. Some took the post as license to attack Quinn, while many, many others were incensed by the relationship and potential for conflicts of interest it presented in Grayson's reporting.
Overwhelmingly, the gaming press responded to this in a markedly different fashion from previous, similar allegations and began a campaign of censorship. On nearly every gaming-related website, from user-driven sites like Reddit and NeoGAF to contributor-driven sites like Kotaku, any discussion of the topic, or even topics almost completely unrelated, was quenched immediately and without question. Even a handful of 4chan's moderators came into play and tried to silence the discussion.
This nearly universal response and behavior pattern, wildly outside the normal bounds of the sites in question, made many people suspicious of collusion or conspiracy and questions began to be asked. Such as why it was considered acceptable for a professional journalist to have sex with a subject. Or why there was a nebulous network of financial support between developers and journalists through the use of websites like Patreon. Or even simply if ethical standards existed in the gaming journalism industry.
Major industry figures confirmed that these issues existed and insisted that they were not a problem. Then on August 28/29, 11 gaming news sites (Gamasutra, DailyDot, Kotaku, Polygon, and several others) published articles declaring some variation of 'Gamers are Dead' and that any and all calls for better journalism were made only as cover for 'neckbearded misogynerds' to harass women. This incensed a large portion of their audience and even reached well known actor Adam Baldwin, who coined the Twitter hashtag #gamergate upon his getting involved, which the movement has since adopted as its moniker.
In the ensuing weeks, gamers and the entrenched gaming press have been at odds over the issues of honest and ethical reporting laid out against claims of anonymous harassment and threats.
The thread contains a rational, fairly calm discussion of the issue. It frames Gamersgate as a movement to reign in the "press" and hold them accountable, and while it does mention it began with Zoe Quin, she's not even a topic of it anymore. Then it offers a huge amount of links of various resources on the issue. The vast majority of these links are not about Zoe Quin, or Anita--but rather how the media is attempting to portray the questions. This thread, once more--in the emails, is marked as a "sexist attack on Zoe Quin" and the editor of the Escapist (Who apologized for misjudging people half way through this thread; after he witnesses the reaction from other editors) wasasked by fellow editors to take the thread down.
The above thread may be contentious, Tan--but it'snotsome misogynist, sexist attack on Zoe. So why is it being portrayed as such? Which makes you ask the question, WHO is actually illustrating the sexist, radical elements within the debate. As I quoted you above--you got upset when Feminism was disregarded and mocked because of fringe elements. So why is that narrative okay here? And in those emails, THAT reasonable thread, which is almost exclusively now about issues beyond Zoe, was highlighted as a thread being used to attack Zoe--and there is actual proof in the form of emails of that even moderate "adult" discussions are being marked as "sexism misogyny of gaming culture".
Of course not. But when certain people are disproportionately targeted for hate campaigns, that becomes its own issue. I've seen repeatedly that it bothers you that what you consider the "real" issues are ignored or dismissed in order to focus on what you apparently consider to be harmless trolls. But see, these trolls are a problem, whether you choose to believe it or not. The worse they act, the more attention they are going to get. I've said it before, but if you want legitimate criticism to get the attention it deserves, we need to stop the sexist assholes from hijacking these topics with their assholery.
How? When I point out someone being a sexist asshole here, I'm dragged across the coals. Frankly, I have zero problem with mainstream media (or any media) taking a moment to point out that unacceptably shitty behavior is unacceptably shitty. I don't think they are. I'm a hardcore gamer, I live and breathe gaming, and I never once, in thatCrackedarticle or any other, ever felt that I was being unfairly judged or categorized. I think it's always made extremely clear that these articles are talking about the sexist assholes of the gaming community, so I have no reason to be offended. No reasonable people believes all gamers are sexist assholes, just as no reasonable people believe all feminists are screaming angry redheads.
Oh, I agree the trolls are a problem; but again, context matters. When Jack Thompson had his street address posted and a mod for a video game outlining his death appear (Much like Anita)--Kotaku edited out the address but allowed the death threat and mod to remain within their own article,on their site. With Anita, even mundane criticism is disregarded for fear it could be construed as sexist. So why the disproportionate response Tan?
As for the rest, I think you're dragged across the coals because, a lot of times, you don't realize how readily you agree with the broad brush others attempt to paint in (Except when that same brush attempts to paint women in the same light.)--It's okay, everyone has the same problem. I'm susceptible to it too--I have no doubt my own bias is playing a factor in this, but that's why I try to force myself to read the articles that run counter to my views; mainly to keep that in mind. But lets look at your article; a key point is thatif male gamers can't reign in their fringe element--we shouldn't be able to get up from the "kiddy table".Here, let me quote it. (In it, he admits this is a very vocal minority; but that all men can't get up from the kid's table until we silence them. Yuck yuck--and he's funny about it!) Now, I know what you're thinking. "Mark, you're just cherry-picking comments from trolls! Plenty of people were polite!Also, I think you're incredibly attractive and I secretly pine for you!" You're right on the last two. But as much as I hate to say it, I think those comments exemplify, if not a majority, then one incredibly fucking loud minority.
Well, guess what? If you can't talk like an adult, then you have to keep sitting at the kids table.
Tan, just try to imagine that dialogue being used against women in Feminism? I betyou don't have to--because it's used all the time (Except it's they shouldn't come out of the kitchen.). And it's just as condescending and petty when it's used on women, and justified with a fringe element. (He goes onto say it's not a fringe issue because 63% of women have had a sexist remark used on them while they were playing a game--linking the same study you did earlier in this thread. However, he's attempting to correlate criticism in game journalism...to general sexism playing online games. He's ALSO using a study that marks slurs used on competative online matches--like calling someone a whore or other derogatory term, which is also used on men---as evidence of actual sexist campaigns and threats. There is no evidence there is a correlation--it's only his supposition. All in all, once more, he's using examples of sexism out of context, to apply a defense to a different issue.)
Like I said in my quotes from your last post, I'm totally OK with pointing out that shitty feminists are shitty. Go ahead and criticize their ignorance to your heart's content. My problem is with assuming these idiots somehow represent their movement when they flat-out don't. Similarly, we should not hesitate to point out when sexist asshole gamers are shitting up whatever "cause" they choose to use as an excuse to be hateful, misogynist pricks. I never said they represented gamers or gaming as a whole, and I don't think any of the articles I linked did either. But their behavior has become a problem, and right now their favorite targets are women. Just because these women may be deserving of legitimate criticism, it doesn't mean these assholes haven't become an issue. Whether or not you believe this is (or should be) a "real" issue, it is.
Again, read your article. Because it says gamers are not allowed to get up from the children's table without adressing these issues. That is not simply adressing the small group doing this--it's addressing all gamers WITH the small groups actions. You were not comfortable with that--you said so, here.
The solution seems to be to acknowledge that the radical feminists do not accurately represent the tenets of feminism while still respecting that feminism has valid reasons for existing and reasonable goals that benefit society as a whole. That, of course, would require logical thought, which is a rarity even on this board, but I don't think we can blame feminism for stupid people.
Now, remember--these media sites, as I've posted before, actually allowed death threats against men to be posted and categorized them as innocuous hyperbole that shouldn't be used to stop criticism. But now no criticism can be had while sexist comments are happening. (Because all men are man babies...I guess? The worst part about that article is he admits there are valid criticisms and then says "there is no way men can be thinking about that'; it's obvious all these guys are just sexually frustrated losers...lulz and he does this, here.)
After all, what's more likely? A minor controversy about an obscure woman (in an industry where a major publication once fired a reporter because a large developer and advertiser was unhappy with a review) has finally proven that the gaming media has problems that we need to speak out against? Or a bunch of sexually frustrated and generally terrible human beings saw the chance to insult and harass a woman without reprisal because they could do it under the guise of having a valid cause?
I'll make this suggestion for the second time: If you have legitimate issues you'd like to discuss, whether it be about gaming journalism or the portrayal of women in video games, let's discuss it. I think those would be fantastic discussions. You're upset that the media is putting so much attention on internet assholes, but you don't hesitate to speak extensively about just that every chance you get. You're doing the exact same thing you're criticizing the media for doing. Be the change you want to see, Lith..
We've been trying to discuss it, Tan. There is a 17 page thread in the other forum, mostly exclusively dedicated to the media's inaction. In every post I've made about this, I've said Zoe Quin is not the problem, and blamed the male reporters for their LACK of investigations into various issues (Which, some Zoe Quin was at the center of, but I don't believe she is the issue--I can provide multiple quotes where I say this, if you want) . However, articles from the main stream media continually try to frame the debate (And get posted here) as a sexist conspiracy with no merit because of random sexist tweets they dig up. Maybe, just maybe, you can dig through my posts and find where I've been sexist (Since I'm citing the ones you've done which I feel make my argument)--and then illuminate me about how I am focusing on Zoe Quin, and what I need to "change" in order to "be the change"? Because, again, I've never made a sexist remark about her. I've also heavily criticized and condemend that fringe element.
So what, exactly, do I need to do, Tan? Do I need to frame the whole debate around that fringe element and forgo discussing the breech of ethics in Journalism? Why? I believe a dismissal and condemnation is a pretty eloquent and succinct way to talk about trolls. Hell, I believe if "Gamer gate" got a condemnation about poor ethics; the wind would be taken right out of their sales. Instead though, aside from escapist and RPS, they've gotten a lot of articles trying to frame the debate about sexism and saying that we're not allowed to talk about the problem in game journalism until we can get up from the kid's table by silencing said fringe group. It's animpossiblestandard, especially considering, as said above, many men have been the target of these trolls too--and we've gone to great lengths to try and squelch them because they aren't good for anyone. However, they shouldn't be used as an endless shield to deflect all conversation--they should be handled like Kotaku saw fit to handle the trolls of Jack Thompson. Which, I'll remind you again.
Those people are called cranks. Years ago when their only outlet was writing to newspapers and businesses their letters would be mocked, crumpled up, and thrown away. Now they are suddenly representative of a gigantic and multifaceted group and evidence that everyone in that group needs to change? It's absurd.
Those people are called cranks. Years ago when their only outlet was writing to newspapers and businesses their letters would be mocked, crumpled up, and thrown away. Now they are suddenly representative of a gigantic and multifaceted group and evidence that everyone in that group needs to change? It's absurd.
Yep, and as seen with Jack Thompson (Who was a pure lunatic)--when Kotaku was criticizing him and the trolls essentially did the same thing to him? Kotaku refused a legal request to remove the troll posts making death threats; stating they were essentially, as you described, harmless cranks spewing hyperbole--and not representative of the broader views of Kotaku and the gaming community. So, against Thompson? Letters are from harmless crack pots and should not impede nor diminish the criticism of him.
However, when the criticism is of gaming Journalism, and sexist remarks about some of the facets of poor coverage--like Anita or Zoe--are thrown in?
No, I'm saying that someone who has never and will never experience the level of harassment Sarkeesian has is not in the best position to dismiss that harassment as "no big deal". The Cracked article actually addresses this pretty well.
If I emulated her deplorable behavior, I would experience the same level of harassment that she has experienced (maybe exchange some of the female-centric insults with their equally offensive male-centric alternatives). See: Jack Thompson. You can't win this debate on the merits of your argument, so you lazily mutter "you're a white guy" and attempt to win by default. No dice.
Who? Trolls? Idiots? People whose opinions can be immediately dismissed because they didn't have the decency to put the bare minimum of effort required to understand an issue?
I didn't realize you had proof that Sarkeesian was intentionally creating "drama for personal gain", and that she actuallywantsto be the target of harassment. I eagerly await seeing it, as well as your proof that she "swindled" somebody. I'm intrigued by how you've portrayed her as playing an active role in coordinating the actions of despicably sexist disgusting assholes. Surely, she's responsible for the deplorable acts of other people, right?
The amount and quality of content she has produced is pitiful relative to the sum of money she was given to produce it. She has plagiarized the work of others. She has misrepresented several video games in ways that suggest she is being intentionally dishonest. Based on her own words and behavior in the past, there are significant reasons to believe she's not even really interested in video games. She attempts to limit legitimate criticism of her work. She labels legitimate criticism of her work as persecution (I've been watching the LDS church do this one my entire life). She has hijacked a legitimate cause and made it all about her because she stands to gain significantly by convincing people that she's a victim.
"This honest, intrepid young woman who, out of the goodness of her heart, just wanted to address a major issue that is plaguing the video game industry. Look at the horrible backlash she received! That means everything she has said is true, and we should give her money!"
You can believe none of this is intentional on her part. That she's just a well-meaning, but slightly naive and misguided person. I believe she knows exactly what she's doing.
If I emulated her deplorable behavior, I would experience the same level of harassment that she has experienced (maybe exchange some of the female-centric insults with their equally offensive male-centric alternatives). See: Jack Thompson. You can't win this debate on the merits of your argument, so you lazily mutter "you're a white guy" and attempt to win by default. No dice.
Anita Sarkeesian herself, for starters. So... yes(?) to all of those questions.
The amount and quality of content she has produced is pitiful relative to the sum of money she was given to produce it. She has plagiarized the work of others. She has misrepresented several video games in ways that suggest she is being intentionally dishonest. Based on her own words and behavior in the past, there are significant reasons to believe she's not even really interested in video games. She attempts to limit legitimate criticism of her work. She labels legitimate criticism of her work as persecution (I've been watching the LDS church do this one my entire life). She has hijacked a legitimate cause and made it all about her because she stands to gain significantly by convincing people that she's a victim.
"This honest, intrepid young woman who, out of the goodness of her heart, just wanted to address a major issue that is plaguing the video game industry. Look at the horrible backlash she received! That means everything she has said is true, and we should give her money!"
You can believe none of this is intentional on her part. That she's just a well-meaning, but slightly naive and misguided person. I believe she knows exactly what she's doing.
Yea, no shit. How can you take herintentionallyabusing free-form areas of games to display misogynistic behavior in an effort to prove misogyny in video games as anything but dishonest journalism?
Having said that, I have never really been that big on anonymity online (see RP thread for examples of me giving zero fucks) because I believe the ultimate result of the information age will be that privacy will cease to exist, so why be anything other than your genuine self online? I firmly believe in the rights of people to say rude shit online free from punishment, but I also feel their identity should be known so that when a person embraces a morally or ethically repugnant stance that they are readily identifiable for such.
In short, feel free to say what you want, but all things have consequences.
Every time I read Facebook, it feels like I'm playing"Logical Fallacy / Hateful Screed / Ignorant Biased Retard"Minesweeper. Its only a matter of time before you read a comment that is the equivalent of hitting a mine.
I'm not misquoting or even taking you out of context--once more, there click the little button in the quote to go back to conversation where you were disregarding the more outlandish acts of Rad Fem. In one case, you tell us to acknowledge that a few bad apples should NOT predispose us to rejecting the message of a group. In this case, however, you say we must address the bad apples before we can be, as your article states "allowed to get up from the kid's table".
I'll tell you, Lith: I'm not at the kids' table. You're not at the kids' table. Gamers as a whole are not at the kids' table.
Cracked article_sl said:
There's a baffling disconnect where gamers want to be taken seriously, but they also want to be able to call Quinn (or Anita Sarkeesian, or Brianna Wu, or Jennifer Hepler, or the woman who just chainsawed them in half in Gears of War) insults that the average convicted sex offender would consider over the line. They want to have their asshole cake and eat it too.
Is that describing you? It sure as shit ain't describing me. It clearly describes sexist assholes, though.
From the same article:
Cracked article_sl said:
A minority of loud, male, and probably young gamers want to dictate what the rest of the gaming community talks about, because in their minds they know what's important and best for everyone.
See the part where he says "minority"? He's talking about sexist assholes here, not gamers as a whole. I thought this was pretty clear, but if you read an article with a "they're out to get me" mentality you might jump to the wrong conclusions. This also addresses your later point referencing the same "kids' table" comment.
The above thread may be contentious, Tan--but it's not some misgonyst, sexist attack on Zoe. So why is it being portrayed as such. Which makes you ask the question, WHO is actually illustrating the sexist, radical elements within the debate.
Oh, I agree the trolls are a problem; but again, context matters. When Jack Thompson had his street address posted and a mod for a video game outlining his death appear (Much like Anita)--Kotaku edited out the address but allowed the death thread and mod to remain within their own article, on their site. With Anita, even mundane criticism is disregarded for fear it could be construed as sexist.
Things get more or less attention as societal shifts occur. What happened with Jack Thompson was a problem. Now, what's happening with Sarkeesian and Quinn is a problem that's in everyone's faces. It's a problem that's come to the forefront of both gaming and how ideas are expressed on the internet. It's a loaded topic, more now than ever before, and the mainstream sites who's job is not to piss people off are taking extra steps to try to keep things civil. Again, I don't feel I need to remind you that if it weren't for the near-guarantee that an unmoderated comments section would be filled to the brim with comments from sexist assholes, these sites would feel no need to moderate them.
Why isn't it okay that we ask these media sites to acknowledge that these trolls have harassed men--and they themselves, such as with Kotaku's refusal to remove death threats against Thompson, or their publications on the attacks against Semd---acknowledge that such things occur and occur in context of a "fringe" group; yet when it comes to women, not men are not allowed to criticize until it ends. Should we stop criticism of male game devs, too Tan? Should Kotaku go and pull down it's critical articles of Thompson because detailed threats were made against him? No? If so, why?
Again, who's "not allowed" to do what? Everybody's allowed to make valid criticism. Everybody. Now, there are things that mainstream media sites will restrict discussion on because they know it's too loaded an issue and there is NO WAY a rational discussion can occur without being poisoned by sexist assholes. This isn't because women are precious snowflakes who need the media to protect them, it's because right now women are the favorite target of sexist assholes, who I repeat are the ones responsible for pretty much every complaint you have.
However, articles from the main stream media continually try to frame the debate (And get posted here) as a sexist conspiracy with no merit because of random sexist tweets and board post they dig up.
I don't see it, sorry. I see a nasty villain that has popped up his head (sexist assholes) and made enough of a stink to get a LOT of media attention. I don't see legitimate issues being "framed" as sexist. I DO see a lack of attention being given to other issues, but to be fair I saw this same lack of attention well before harassment campaigns became such a big deal. The only difference now is that people want to blame Sarkeesian and Quinn for it.
Maybe, just maybe, you can dig through my posts and find where I've been sexist (Since I'm citing the ones you've done which I feel make my argument)--and then illuminate me about how I am focusing on Zoe Quin, and what I need to "change" in order to "be the change"? Because, again, I've never made a sexist remark about her. I've also heavily criticized and condemend that fringe element.
You misunderstand. I didn't say you were sexist or that you were focusing on Quinn. I'm saying that instead on focusing on the issue of flaws in the online gaming journalism industry, you're focusing on how the media is showcasing trolls. Whether you like it or not, the media has legitimate reasons to focus on these trolls. If you want more discussion about what you consider to be "real" issues, talk about them and stop whining about how the trolls are getting all the attention.
they've gotten a lot of articles trying to frame the debate about sexism and saying that we're not allowed to talk about the problem in game journalism until we can get up from the kid's table by silencing said fringe group.
Again, not seeing it. I don't think anything except the explicitly sexist comments of sexist assholes is being "framed" as sexist. I think we're all "allowed" to talk about whatever we want, including mainstream media, but since mainstream media has to make a profit and since they can only do so by not pissing off their readers, they will pick and choose what to focus their attention on accordingly. I also think you completely misunderstood the "kids' table" comment, as well as the tone of the entire article.
It's an impossible standard, especially considering, as said above, many men have been the target of these trolls too--and we've gone to great lengths to try and squelch them because they aren't good for anyone.
Yes, men have been the target of assholes too. But not sexist assholes, who are the current bad guys at large. The reason why this isn't constantly being brought up is twofold:
a) It's not proportional.
b) A lot of the time the people saying "This happens to men too!" happen to be the same sexist assholes poisoning every discussion they are part of.
Again, I don't think they are. They're not a shield being used to deflect, they are a villain being exposed and heavily criticized. With good reason. Sexist assholes getting a lot of attention is NOT the same thing as not being allowed to criticize women.
Not asking for harassment, mind you. But she did choose an area of pop culture specifically because she could use the drama to make her critiques more influential--sure. I don't regard that as bad though, she's a smart cookie. And it's fine that it's working, many men have taken ridiculous stances to get noticed too. The problem is, again, with the Journalism surrounding her and how any criticisms are brushed aside under the shield of "because a few assholes harass her--no one can legtimately critique her". Again, lets face it, Tan--when men make spectacles of themselves and cause drama for drama sake, this same fringe group becomes pretty damn heinous. I refer you to any number of Devs than went full retard on our boards after their games began to crash.
But yes, Tan. Plenty of evidence she specifically chose this field, not because she is a "gamer" but because her critiques would cause drama (And again--I don't even regard that as bad. What I do regard as bad is that NO ONE in the main stream media is even willing to challenge her on her views.)
But on that note, yes, of course it's gamers fault when they step over bounds. Even Seb said that. So, not sure why you're combining the issues--again, you're, in my opinion, trying to paint him with the same brush you're using on them, to detract from his valid arguments.
If I emulated her deplorable behavior, I would experience the same level of harassment that she has experienced (maybe exchange some of the female-centric insults with their equally offensive male-centric alternatives). See: Jack Thompson. You can't win this debate on the merits of your argument, so you lazily mutter "you're a white guy" and attempt to win by default. No dice.
So your initial claim was, and I quote:
"There aremany peoplewho took and continue to take issue with the warranted criticism Sarkeesian received."
And the example you provide is Sarkeesian herself? Of course she takes issue with the criticism she received! Are you retarded? No dice.
But NOT relative to the sum of money she asked for. She received a LOT more, sure, mostly because people were disgusted with the sexist assholes. They gave their money willingly, they got what they wanted in return (more videos), and there wasn't a single resentful person involved in this exchange of money. Sarkeesian was under no obligation to return any money past the amount she asked for. According to Kickstarter rules, as long as she provides the service she was selling (she did), any amount of money she had left over was hers to do with what she wished. No scam, no swindle, no cheating anybody out of a single cent.
She has plagiarized the work of others. She has misrepresented several video games in ways that suggest she is being intentionally dishonest. Based on her own words and behavior in the past, there are significant reasons to believe she's not even really interested in video games. She attempts to limit legitimate criticism of her work. She labels legitimate criticism of her work as persecution (I've been watching the LDS church do this one my entire life). She has hijacked a legitimate cause and made it all about her because she stands to gain significantly by convincing people that she's a victim.
Even the points here that might have some merit are tenuous. A lot of the things people consider to be "smoking guns" are only that way because of how they are interpreted and not because of anything inherent in her actions. Yes, that includes the Hitman debacle and the video of her claiming to not really be into video games. But you know what? Even if all that were true, it still wouldn't warrant the way she's been treated. You can pretend she deserves to be the target of a harassment campaign, but that just makes you an asshole.
"This honest, intrepid young woman who, out of the goodness of her heart, just wanted to address a major issue that is plaguing the video game industry. Look at the horrible backlash she received! That means everything she has said is true, and we should give her money!"
Ha ha ha what? This is pathetic. Yes, the people who gave her money were disgusted at the backlash she received. No, that doesn't mean Sarkeesian is a flawless beacon of truth, and nobody ever said that, including the people who gave her money. You're misrepresenting people, which is a shitty thing to do if you want to be taken seriously.
You can believe none of this is intentional on her part. That she's just a well-meaning, but slightly naive and misguided person. I believe she knows exactly what she's doing.
We tell you to go kill yourself constantly. Head over to the Redpill thread and see the kind of hate being sent the way of Dumar and Ant. None of you are even famous.
Quick aside before I dive in, Tanoomba. You and Lithose need to get this quote splitting shit under control. It is an obnoxious habit, and you'd be straight-up infracted for it on similar forums.
Response to Lithose, spoilered for length:I'll tell you, Lith: I'm not at the kids' table. You're not at the kids' table. Gamers as a whole are not at the kids' table.Is that describing you? It sure as shit ain't describing me. It clearly describes sexist assholes, though.From the same article:See the part where he says "minority"? He's talking about sexist assholes here, not gamers as a whole. I thought this was pretty clear, but if you read an article with a "they're out to get me" mentality you might jump to the wrong conclusions. This also addresses your later point referencing the same "kids' table" comment. What "emails" are you referring to? Actually, my question is: Who is portraying it as such?It's not. Who's being disregarded and mocked? Actually, my question is: Who is portraying it as such?
He claims that male gamers, in general, can't talk until the minority is taken care of. He also, as I illustrated later, disregards the legitimate criticism as "clearly" not being the point, because it has to be sexism (Discussed below). As for thee mails: The large mess of emails that just got released illustrating collusion between editors of these sites? (This thread changed into the Gamergate thread).
But in general--who is displaying the debate as XYZ? Here is a quote from your article. *************After all, what's more likely? A minor controversy about an obscure woman (in an industry where a major publication once fired a reporter because a large developer and advertiser was unhappy with a review) has finally proven that the gaming media has problems that we need to speak out against?Or a bunch of sexually frustrated and generally terrible human beings saw the chance to insult and harass a woman without reprisal because they could do it under the guise of having a valid cause?*****************
I fall under the first category (Bolded)--but the article states that in actuality, in all likelihood, I'm a sexually frustrated and generally terrible human being. And no, Tan, he's not talking about "the minority"--he's clearly referring to gamers as a whole under this point. Also, in the last point, where he DID refer to the minority--he still said we bear responsibility because...
.....But I think that makes it all too easy for male gamers to dismiss this as a fringe issue.........So, we wring our hands and preach to the choir of non-assholes, but what do we actually do about it? Have you ever stood up for a woman you witnessed being harassed in a game? I haven't. Oh, I've seen it happen, but I didn't want the guy doing it to start insulting me instead. Say one word and you'll get accused of standing up for someone only because you're lonely and terrible with girls. I just wanted to shoot space aliens.
If you want Tan, I can spend an hour tomorrow when I have more time and dig up tons of quotes like this, about Gamersgate, labeling the whole movement in this fashion. You KNOW they are out there. Can YOU dig up some articles from major gaming sites that address any of the legitimate concerns--outside of Escapist (Which admitted to it)? If you can't, then I'm not sure how you believe the argument is not being "framed" under a specific narrative. And what's worse is that you admit that said narrative is from a MINORITY of gamers, you even highlighted how he said that in the article. So why are they receiving a lion's share of the exposure if the debate is NOT being framed this way?
Things get more or less attention as societal shifts occur. What happened with Jack Thompson was a problem. Now, what's happening with Sarkeesian and Quinn is a problem that's in everyone's faces. It's a problem that's come to the forefront of both gaming and how ideas are expressed on the internet. It's a loaded topic, more now than ever before, and the mainstream sites who's job is not to piss people off are taking extra steps to try to keep things civil. Again, I don't feel I need to remind you that if it weren't for the near-guarantee that an unmoderated comments section would be filled to the brim with comments from sexist assholes, these sites would feel no need to moderate them.
Again, who's "not allowed" to do what? Everybody's allowed to make valid criticism. Everybody. Now, there are things that mainstream media sites will restrict discussion on because they know it's too loaded an issue and there is NO WAY a rational discussion can occur without being poisoned by sexist assholes. This isn't because women are precious snowflakes who need the media to protect them, it's because right now women are the favorite target of sexist assholes, who I repeat are the ones responsible for pretty much every complaint you have.
Dude, the VERY website that sanitizes all posts about Anita; even mundane critiques, is the one that refused a legal request to take down actual death threats against Thompson. Please, address the disparity. Are you saying that in 6 years the "societal shift" has been so profound that the issue has dramatically changed? Come back down to earth, Tan--there is another variable that is a far simpler explanation that fits quite nicely into Occam's razor---it's the same principle Anita used to express why Damsal's in Distress works as a trope. That's also another mind blowing cognitive dissonance with you. On one hand, you agree with Anita's premise--but when Anita's premise is illustrated within the game media, it's no long valid.
As for who is "not allowed" to make criticisms? Again, almostno mainstream site has reported any of the actual ethical breeches. And, also, the post was using our conversation as an example. I was, and most people in this thread and the other, were disucssing the topic of actual reporting failures. Yet when I tell you about that; you say I need to be "part of the change". When I ask you how would I change things If I've never made a sexist remark (And thus; why am I not allowed to talk about the stuff the media is NOT talking about.)....You produce this. What a straw man, Tan. No one is holding a gun to Gamers heads and saying they can't type--what people are saying is the various reporters refuse to give coverage to the story outside of the little narrative they desire. And while, yes, sometimes two sides of a story are not equal--in this case, one side, the ethical breaches, is the side with more people AND more evidence--yet it's getting far less coverage than the fringe posts by the small group of assholes. (And I say small group, because as you admitted from the article; it IS a minority.)
You misunderstand. I didn't say you were sexist or that you were focusing on Quinn. I'm saying that instead on focusing on the issue of flaws in the online gaming journalism industry, you're focusing on how the media is showcasing trolls. Whether you like it or not, the media has legitimate reasons to focus on these trolls. If you want more discussion about what you consider to be "real" issues, talk about them and stop whining about how the trolls are getting all the attention. Again, I don't think they are. They're not a shield being used to deflect, they are a villain being exposed and heavily criticized. With good reason. Sexist assholes getting a lot of attention is NOT the same thing as not being allowed to criticize women.
They WOULD have a legitimate issue IF this focus was PART of other focuses on other issues.It's not. They do not have a legitimate reason to ONLY adress a, as they themselves describe it, the concerns of a MINORITY of the community--while ignoring the concerns (Even substantiated with evidence) of the larger part of the community. If the media companies were offeringbalancedcoverage--your points would hold a lot of water. Then yes, absolutely, I'd agree that we should have plenty of articles on the trolls. However, the problem is that within the mainstream gaming sphere, you will pretty muchonly see articles that frame this as sexist trolling. Again, when YOU did research on this during our last convsersation, you were only able to find criticisms from blog and forum posts--none from mainstream sites. All the mainstream sites frame this as sexism run rampant--and THAT is the issue, Tan.
But don't take my word for it. Canyoulink me 5 articles that illustrate the concerns of Gamersgate; and theissues of Journalistic ethicsfrom major sites (Kotaku/Gawker, Neog ect--+1 Million hit sites). I can link 20-30 easily about the "sexist trolling and valiant fight of the feminists". In the end Tan, the proof is in the display made by the Journalists themselves. They aren't covering any side of the story, but this one--and that means this is a shield; not simply a highlight.
Quick aside before I dive in, Tanoomba. You and Lithose need to get this quote splitting shit under control. It is an obnoxious habit, and you'd be straight-up infracted for it on similar forums.
I did not quote split first. And to be fair, this whole conversation would be infracted on sites like EJ. In the end, Tan split my post up under 5 categories. I responded with one quote each. I almost always respond in blocks if I can, but if scissors are going to be used on the issue; I'll clean it up as much as possible, but I like the respond to everything (In the last post I reduced the replies by more than half; he split it over 11 times I believe .) So I believe I have it under control; by all means though, I'd prefer single or at most 2-3 block replies.
If she received a lot of money because people were disgusted with sexist assholes, why didn't she make videos about sexist assholes? I'm all in favor of doing that.
Even the points here that might have some merit are tenuous. A lot of the things people consider to be "smoking guns" are only that way because of how they are interpreted and not because of anything inherent in her actions. Yes, that includes the Hitman debacle and the video of her claiming to not really be into video games. But you know what? Even if all that were true, it still wouldn't warrant the way she's been treated. You can pretend she deserves to be the target of a harassment campaign, but that just makes you an asshole.
She doesn't deserve to be harassed. She does deserve to be criticized harshly. It is sad that she has been harassed, but not surprising. Since I can't do anything about other people harassing her, I'd rather focus on the issue of sexism.
.) So I believe I have it under control; by all means though, I'd prefer single or at most 2-3 block replies.