Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

Cad_sl said:

Who has their facebook wall open to the public, much less posts political shit on facebook open to the public?

Click to expand...

It isn't even about political shit. +1 the wrong daily show piece and suddenly you hate/blindly support Israel or something.

I'll respond to your long post later (I'm handling some of those "important" problems in work). But what in thefuckis an LCW? From my skimming of that random petition you linked it seems like they were veering off into some conspiracy theory territory with what Anita's origins were, and what her goals are. I've already said, Idon'tbelieve Anita was a gamer before she started this. She is a media personality who saw a market (Video games) with an angle (Feminist critiques) she could work that was lacking said critique.I do NOT think that's a bad thing. Critical analysis from a source outside the bias within an industry is often a good thing. Some people find that disingenuous and want to talk about it; it's fine if they talk about it. I'm not afraid of a civil dialogue with them explaining why I think her status as a "gamer" doesn't matter. (And therein lies a key difference. Ignoring those people only makes them feel like they have some special knowledge. Engaging with them, and offering evidence, takes that away.)

Edit: Khalid is right, I've said many times in this thread, I don't mind what Anita is doing, and that I even think she, herself, is healthy for the market. My only problem is the media refuses to offer a critical lens toward herviews. You're being disingenuous by digging up so no name petition, with less than 1700 signatures, and even trying to link it to me given my fucking responses thus far.


Anyway though, Tan--lets stick with the meat of this debate. This all boils down to "Why is it bad to request the media refine their own objectivity by allows other viewpoints into the broader discussionandgiving those who are being criticized a chance to respond." You know, like the Journalistic ethics require? Seems to me like Gamers have been criticized heavily in the media; and it also seems like there are many community leaders--everyone from Totalbiscuit, to even Yahtzee who have nowbegged reportersto interview them, and get the other side of the story. Unfortunately they (Biscuit below) can't even get a SINGLE Journalist to sit down with ANYONE that has an opposing viewpoint. He came close; but when the email leak came, and some of them were implicated, they rounded the wagons again and refused to simply talk.



Now, Biscuit has millions of subscribers--he has a broader reach than some of the companies that are "refusing" to talk to him. So he's not fucking small potatoes; and this is clearly an interview which will open civil discourse with someone who is a "head" of the very community being accused and criticized by the media. So why not sit down? I once again, remind you, they are ethically compelled to do just this.

- Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.
- Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable. Give voice to the voiceless.
- Boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience. Seek sources whose voices we seldom hear.
- Explain ethical choices and processes to audiences. Encourage a civil dialogue with the public about journalistic practices, coverage and news content.
- Respond quickly to questions about accuracy, clarity and fairness.

And I think this one takes the fucking cake, it really does.

- Support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.

There is absolutely no excuse for shutting out of all other opinions, none. It violates the very ethics these "Journalists" supposedly abide by. Once more Ethics are good; but only when we decide. You can "say" that the story has been hijacked by sexist assholes Tan--but guess what? It's ENTIRELY possible for a Journalist to put out more than one story or narrative on a subject. I know, MIND BLOWN. That is why I was using the "Mind Blown" stuff on you a few posts ago--because you're being so obtuse about the "only one thing can be done at a time". For grown ups, Tan--problems are multi-faceted and complex, and often require an approach from many different angles. It's ENTIRELY possible to write a long piece on how sexist and terrible the trolls are, and THEN write a long piece on the problems Gamers face. The two things do NOT somehow cancel each other out.

khalid_sl said:

Fuck off, you disingenuous piece of shit. "Begging Lithose to confirm he isn't one of them?" Just fuck off, we aren't stupid. At least have the decency to admit that is what you were doing, instead of trying to treat me like I'm an idiot.

Click to expand...

Yeah; I can see why he's confused, because my stance has been so nebulous on the issue.

Lithose_sl said:

At the core of all this, I think "Social Justice" (More specifically, people like Anita and some opinion bloggers/Youtubers like her) is agoodthing for gaming. I maydisagreewith them, but they force people to at least consider another perspective; they create a discourse which does that. But in order for that growth to be healthy, the people forcing that new view must ALSO have their perspectives challenged (And the synthesis of these two views, I usually find, is superior.)--The problem is, the "antithesis" to these views is being silenced by the gaming media.

Click to expand...

Lithose_sl said:

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".

Click to expand...

Lithose_sl said:

It's a mix, just like any youtube critic. She has legitimate views, somewhat biased views and then completely out of context, purposely biased views. I'd be committing the same BS as her if I grouped ALL of her messages as garbage, just because of a fewegregiousanecdotes--she haslegitimateideas/views too and plenty oflegitimatelygood examples of male bias. It's not different from what most male Youtube commentators do. My main gripe isn't her, actually. It's the spin she is allowed to put on her stuffbeyondthe strength of her argument due solely to her association with "girl power" in gaming. Because of that association, her mistakes are not censured, her poor opinions not critiqued and her censorship of any feedback is supported (Where other authors would be taken to task.) In addition, improper negative feed back, as well as her "good" points, are "signal boosted" (Which is my biggest pet peeve). The problem, really, is with the (male) journalists who are using her for click bait; or because they really are slaves to some obtuse chauvinistic ideological position (I can't tell). I only had half my tongue-in-cheek when I said Anita is the personification of her Damsel/Woman-background trope within the media. It's so ironic it'salmosthilarious. .

Click to expand...

There are more, especially from the other threads, but fuck it.

You all realize Tardnoomba would go away if you would just quit engaging her, right? She craves attention and you guys keep giving it to her.

She didn't say the game encouraged you to kill and drag around sexualized women. She said "the male participant cannot help but treat these virtual women as objects" She portrays that as being the object of the game. Those are lies. Trying to portray that video as "I see things one way and you see things another way" is laughable.

Sweet, Kotaku! I can't wait to click on their links and read the articles after the Breibart emails!

No, see. No. You made a post about how people see things one way and other people see things another way and that you don't care about motivations. This isn't about relativism. In the Hitman video she lied and she misrepresented the game and what it was about. What she did was no different than when Night Trap was portrayed as a murder simulator. It's not. Her reasons for doing what she did actually do matter and they should matter to you.

Tanoomba_sl said:

A "legitimate criticism warrior". I was tired of how lazily "SJW" gets thrown around these days (Edit: See above), I thought it needed a counter-group.




It's not bad to demand more from mainstream media, Lith, I never said it was. But I'm sure you know as well as (if not better than) anyone that if there's anything we know about mainstream media it's that it will not necessarily cover all sides of any given story, regardless of what their mission statement is. When Jeff Gerstmann was fired for a bad review, that was pretty telling of how flawed gaming journalism can be. But even that story didn't get a fraction of the attention that either Sarkeesian or Quinn got, despite neither of their stories being anywhere near as significant as a journalist being fired for giving an honest critique. So why NOW are all of these LCWs coming out of the woodwork? Because Sarkeesian misrepresented a video game in her feminist video? Because Quinn cheated on her boyfriend? Give me a fucking break. It's because a bunch of sexist assholes got a chance to create a bogeyman and they're gonna milk all they can out of it. That's literally the only reason we are even talking about this right now. If it wasn't for them, Sarkeesian and Quinn would not have gotten a fraction of the attention they did, and mainstream media would have been more than comfortable talking about how some of Sarkeesian's points are flawed.

Sure, but it happens all the time. All the fucking time. I ask you again to consider why these particular cases are getting so much attention. Heck, maybe after everyone gets sick of talking about how shitty sexist assholes are, mainstream media will engage in constructive criticism about Sarkeesian's videos.

Click to expand...

1.) You keep saying the mainstream media doesn't cover all sides, Tan. And that's true, of INDIVIDUAL sources within the media. But luckily, broader media is composed (In the U.S.) of at least 6 different conglomerates; and dozens of subsidiaries that are often purposely made antagonistic to each other so said companies can appeal to broader markets. (For example, some conglomerates own both Conservative and Liberal papers--because they want the whole market). The point is, size in the "main stream" media often denotes that "another side" will get made up; even if a story really doesn't have one. (Benghazi. Obama's Birth Place ect). The "main stream" media has entertained and investigated crazy "counter angles".

I will accuse the mainstream media of a lot--but one thing they are pretty decent about is not having a combined narrative. If you don't believe me, just look at the radically different takes on the Israeli situation; and then look at how people judge the media of it. (Half of them say the Media is Zionist controlled propaganda; while the other half say it's liberal rags protecting genocidal maniacs that want to exterminate jews.)...So I'm nto sure where you get this absurd notion that this is prevalent in broader media. The reality is that BECAUSE the gaming media is a VERY tiny sector compared to other media markets--it has the flaw of being incredibly incestuous and prone to peer group pressure.

2.) The fact that Quinn Cheated on her boyfriend OR the fact that there are people commenting about Anita being disingenuous with her origins--once more, does not give the media a blank check to avoid criticism. Again, I don't know what makes you think that is relevant. IF those fringe elements are enough for the media to notice, and then "plan" a course of action--then they obviously have enough experience on the subject to ALSO know the legitimate criticisms; and there is no excuse to avoid those.

3.) Engagement>Silence. Once more, the ETHICS these Journalists adhere promote open and civil discussion. YOU, and even I, may believe Anita's origin is completely irrelevant to the conversation. But that does NOT mean there should be silence on the subject. Critics should WRITE why they feel that way, they should expose the flaws in that thinking. COMBINED with that, they should ALSO delve into other areas of criticism. Understand, Tan? The existence of ONE variable does not preclude the commentary on all variables. Also, even if that variable is something you find "repugnant"; it STILL should be addressed. Do you not feel the general readership of a magazine/paper is mature enough to read about the critiques of Antia's motivation, listen to the authors arguments, and then make up their own mind? A magazines job is to present the truth as they see it NOT hide the truth they feel is "bad".

Edit: Fucking board ate my post.

4.) The reason why this is "happening now" is because women in the industry, in positions of critique, observation and development/production ARE NEW. Less than 2% of the people in the industry are women, Tan. Think of all the youtube commenter with more than a quarter million viewers? NONE of them are women except for Anita. So THAT is why this is "happening now" because women are literally a new development. We've had, on this board, multiple threads where companies like EA have been criticized, vehemently, for their corruption of various journalists. Over on 4chan, stuff like that gets posted ALL the time. And guess what? Where there are legitimate problems? The gaming media has been good about calling each other out; and reporting on it. THAT is what's different about this. ALSO, the gaming media didn't stop criticizing companies like EA, or Sony of MS because their CEO's, developers and other workers were being harassed or because hackers brought down their service. The gaming media, actually, you know, decided to write articles exposing the "hackers" as bad peopleANDthen went on to continue to expose legitimate criticisms of the companies AND the people working within them.

Listen, Tan--Just as the gamers must learn to accommodate, accept and work with women in positions of authority and criticism; so to must journalists. This is a new area for BOTH parties. And the "gaming media" must realize that. The flaws of Anita can't be treated differently than the flaws of anything else in the gaming sphere--sorry, that's not how it works. But because this is a NEW development, there are problems with that--and that's why you're seeing this "now".

Tanoomba_sl said:

In the meantime, anybody who gives even a bit of a shit has incredibly easy access to such criticism elsewhere. And if they don't care enough to look, their opinions don't matter.

Click to expand...

The irony here is that gaming journalism itself spawned from the blogopshere in part because of sentiment like this, where major companies refused to cover new culture or other things because it was "beneath" them. It's hilarious watching the same knife that struck the first blow against standard press journalism now be fumbled right into the belly of online journalism. Anyway, this is kind of an aside; but I just wanted to point out why your stance (And indeed, the media's) is so ironic to me.

Tanoomba_sl said:

Everybody wins. Again, I'm not chastising you for demanding more from mainstream, but I am chastising you for using "sexism" as the reason why mainstream media is doing exactly what mainstream media has always done and will always do. We are lucky enough to live in an age where the mainstream does not dictate what we choose to expose ourselves to, which is more than we could say pre-internet (when mainstream media was just as shitty). You're just choosing (for reasons unknown to me that I will not speculate about) to somehow see what's going on as evidence of sexism protecting women. As a gamer with an interest in both media and gender issues, I just don't see it. Nobody's made a decent case for it yet. What can I tell you?

Click to expand...

How about because major editors have LITERALLY said it? Fuck Tan, if I got an editor to sit down and tell you "it's because X" would you still find a reason to argue?






And if you say "bu bu bu he said harassment! Not against women" I once more, refer to you to Smedley, Brad Mcquaid or once more Jack Thompson.



Again, Tan. It's not an illogical leap. They've admitted their coverage is biased due to harassment; they've admitted to NOT entertaining or investigating coverage due to harassment. We ALSO have evidence that they don't treat harassment of males the same. The part that blows my mind with you is that you are SO quick to attribute the harassment itself to sexism; infarct, you will not even entertain the idea that it could be just due to blind idiocy of the trolls; which is universal between men and women (Remember, I did admit it COULD be sexism)....But you COMPLETELY dismiss, regardless of evidence, any chance the media could be biased by gender.

It's astounding; HOW can you contain that level of cognitive dissonance? (But I think the HUGE irony here is that you watch Anita's videos on Damsels. I illustrate with multiple examples the difference in coverage based on the gender of the harassment victim--and you completely write off any sexism inherent in the coverage. LOL; come on Tan. Come on...Why are you applying these beliefs differently based on the product of their application?)