Categories
#gamergate 8chan antifeminism drama kings emotional abuse empathy deficit entitled babies evil SJWs irony alert mantrum men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny none dare call it conspiracy reddit sarkeesian! schadenfreude zoe quinn

The 13 Most Ridiculous Things #GamerGaters Have Said About Anita and Zoe’s UN Visit (Reddit Edition)

The sound you hear is a thousand #GamerGater heads exploding
The sound you hear is a thousand #GamerGater heads exploding

So a couple of days ago, as you probably have heard, Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn testified at the United Nations about online harassment of women. The two, along with a number of other victims of/experts on online harassment also paid a visit to Google Ideas to share their thoughts on the matter.

This is, in essence, what #GamerGate has achieved over the past year: By launching an unprecedented wave of organized harassment, mostly aimed at women, the Gators have brought about a new awareness of the seriousness of online harassment. And they’ve given the women whose lives and careers they’ve tried most energetically to destroy an influence they never would have had otherwise.

Naturally, Gators have been losing their shit over all this.

And so, as a public service of sorts, I would like to share with you the 13 most ridiculously hyperbolic pronouncements from Gators I have seen thus far in response to Sarkeesian and Quinn’s recent adventures. (On Reddit, anyway; I have not (yet) ventured into the wilds of 8chan or the Twitter hashtag to collect further examples, and I’m not sure I will.) Major props to the folks in the BestOfOutrageCulture subreddit, who have been energetically and hilariously documenting the man-steria, and who found a number of the examples below.

1) “We are literally fighting to save the world from an international alliance targeting the most fundamental human rights.

In a KotakuInAction post with more than 300 upvotes, someone called frankenmine declares:

Make no mistake, we are literally fighting to save the world from an international alliance targeting the most fundamental human rights. …

The problem is not the UN panel and report itself. The problem was not the Google Ideas meeting. The problem was not the Congressional hearing. …

The mere ability to get access to these platforms shows that McIntosh and his ilk is building up a progressively larger and more influential network fairly quickly. At the rate he’s going, he might be able to infiltrate actually influential organizations, at the corporate and/or governmental levels, fairly soon.

The McIntosh in question is Jonathan McIntosh, Sarkeesian’s video-making partner. Unable to believe that a mere woman could actually be in charge of her own life many GamerGater’s believe that McIntosh is the evil puppetmaster pulling Sarkeesian’s strings.

2) “Now GamerGate has to save the world from authoritarian, women-infantising control freaks?”

In another KotakuInAction post, this one with more than 1600 upvotes, _Mellex_ makes, well, basically the same assertion:

So now GamerGate is being mentioned in the same breath as the United Nations, and apparently KIA is at the forefront of stopping unnecessary government overhaul of internet protocol. What in the actual fuck? …

Ethics in games journalism: That’s what this was all about. And now GamerGate has to save the world from authoritarian, women-infantising control freaks?

These guys do an awful lot of world-saving for dudes whose greatest accomplishments basically consist of being belatedly banned on Twitter for harassing women.

3) “It’s amazing that it falls to gamers to play a key role in this pushback against authoritarianism.”

LEGALIZE-MARINARA gets a hundred upvotes for this comment, made in response to  _Mellex_’s post:

It’s amazing that it falls to gamers to play a key role in this pushback against authoritarianism.

Not big upping myself. I ain’t even a gamer, and I’m pretty late to this whole thing, and nor do I think it’s fair that so many politicians have abandoned their responsibilities in this manner. But that’s the reality we’re faced with.

So humble, these guys.

4) “If they win, if they get what they want, they kill free speech. For good. And the foregone conclusion is THX 1138 or Demolition Man.”

Ok, I cheated a little. This is evidently a rant from 8chan, which I found reposted on TheBestOfOutrageCulture subreddit. It’s a bit tl;dr, so I’ve edited a little and bolded the best bits.

Media is a tool. And corporations like to co-opt every single format for one purpose; to sell you sub par shit that you don’t need.

And the biggest threat to that is your ability to have just as big a soapbox to criticize their product as they do to push it.

That’s why they want to take away your ability to say mean things on the internet. It isn’t about poor little Anita. It’s about poor little Pfizer. Anita is a patsy. She’s a tool. Get everyone to rush to the defense of the damsel, take away the right to criticize and now you’ve got people going to jail for saying anything but “Coke is it! Coke is the best! Disney is the greatest! Nike totally doesn’t rely on third world child labor! Apple is an ethical company!” …

SJWs are useful idiots, savvy at narrative with their communications degrees, with social access to trend setting cliques. Those SJWs are the innoculation against those in the media who might break the narrative. They got Patton Oswalt. They got Sarah Silverman. They got Louis CK. They got the video games industry under lockdown. They have everyone in Hollywood except Eli Roth. …

The final result? Draconian control of THE most valuable social tool since Guttenberg. …

Gamers are the only thing holding the line right now, and I’m telling you, we can’t stop. Because if they win, if they get what they want, they kill free speech. For good. And the foregone conclusion is THX 1138 or Demolition Man. Then we all have to live in the subways, or live like them. And we ain’t got the cash to live in the good parts.

Well, someone’s got a vivid — if somewhat derivative — imagination.

5) “Not being a cuck is harassment.”

In a r/KiA comment with more than 900 upvotes, SinisterDexter83 sarcastically suggests that Sarkeesian and her allies are trying to declare everything and the kitchen sink to be a form of harassment.

Asking for evidence of harassment is harassment.

Questioning harassment is harassment.

Criticism is harassment.

Disagreeing with the harassing tactics of radical feminists is harassment.

Holding an opinion that contradicts the dogma of radical feminism is harassment.

Voicing an opinion that contradicts the dogma of radical feminism is harassment.

Holding an opinion that contradicts the dogma of radical feminism without voicing it is an especially sinister, underground form of harassment.

Continuing to have your own opinions after you have been informed of the official radical feminist dogma is harassment.

Not being a cuck is harassment.

He continues on for some time in this manner, but, really, what can beat “not being a cuck is harassment?” It’s Peak #GamerGate.

6) “Corporate enterprise is pushing this brand of feminism to isolate countries and decimate societies for profit.”

More conspiracy-mongering from this r/KiA comment. Sarkeesian and Quinn are puppets of an evil corporate plot to “decimate the public” because apparently decimating customers is a great way to make money?

Google Ideas, a think tank in NY, allowed the harassment to get high profile…

Google changes their monetization and wants more profit…

A new narrative (which is old to us) is put before the UN to spread worldwide.

What people should realize is that we’re seeing the rise of the corporate feminist which is a different type of feminism. This thing was okayed by a think tank to influence rates of growth for corporate enterprise. …

People are focused on fighting SJWs, they missed the bigger story and the article… Corporate enterprise is pushing this brand of feminism to isolate countries and decimate societies for profit. They mislabel gaming to justify cultural imperialism (we’re telling you what to make for our sake) and enact corporate friendly laws that decimate the public.

I’m not quite sure how the evil folks at Google secretly convinced a battalion of angry gamers to send multiple death threats to Anita Sarkeesian over the course of several years, but I’m sure there’s some perfectly reasonable explanation for it.

7) “This is only the beginning. … If this … spirals out of control from here I could see a full blown revolution down the road.”

A comment in KotakuInAction, with more than two dozen upvotes, suggests that if Gamergate and other “free speech” movements like it don’t succeed, the masses might ultimately have to resort to revolution:

More and more it’s becoming evident that movements like Gamergate are necessary. If no one fought for the rights these people are trying to take away we probably would have lost them long ago.

I’m gonna make this prediction, so mark my words.

This is only the beginning. Between the authoritarian right and authoritarian left and whatever group has an agenda to push we’re going to start seeing more and more attacks on our rights.

Privacy and free speech are going to be constantly attacked and they’ll use whatever excuse they can to try and legitimize their cause. Harassment, terrorism, sexism, bigotry, criticism, you name it and they’ll use it to try and take away your rights.

Gamergate will just have been the precursor, eventually I think there’ll be more movements based around fighting for freedom of speech ethics. If this only spirals out of control from here I could see a full blown revolution down the road.

Well, of course you can. Because you clearly have no understanding of history and only a tenuous connection with reality.

8) “When the lunatic horde comes knocking, we stand up, stand strong, arms linked and spirits high, voices joined in harmony, millions of different pitches mingling into a rising crescendo of unity and strength.”

In an r/KiA comment with more than a dozen upvotes, Ferlion123 gets all inspirational:

Where do we go from here?

We go to our families and we go to our friends. We go on with our jobs and our lives. And when the lunatic horde comes knocking, we stand up, stand strong, arms linked and spirits high, voices joined in harmony, millions of different pitches mingling into a rising crescendo of unity and strength.

We will go on with our lives until the call comes, and when it does we will stand before the tide upon our shores and before our fires will they disperse. We will stand before any rush and we will not break or fall.

What we do is EXACTLY what we’ve been doing. We stand on our own legs, allies at our side, and we finish this fight.

Is this plagiarized from somewhere? I have no idea, but I’m pretty sure Ferlion123 means it all quite sincerely. 

9) “Now we are the only things that stand between them and world domination.”

In an r/KiA comment with 70 upvotes, Neo_Techni seems to have a hard time telling the difference between anime and reality.

It started with censorship, and the censors won. It was inevitable that they’d get drunk on that power and try to censor the world. Now we are the only things that stand between them and world domination.

It’d make a great anime so long as funimation doesn’t get to touch 1984 it up

No, I’m not quite sure just what that last, er, “sentence” is supposed to mean either.

10) “I can imagine SJWs one day coming up with a reason to defend diseases from being cured.”

In response to a comment in which someone called deathonwingz suggests, at least half seriously, that “I get the feeling this won’t be over until we’ve cured cancer, stopped world hunger, colonized mars and done many other things,” commenter FiveThou writes

Now you say that, but I can imagine SJWs one day coming up with a reason to defend diseases from being cured. “Viruses are living things that share our planet. How dare you be so cruel to them.” “Don’t go to see the doctor – he’s only going to AIDS-shame you.”

11) “You weren’t necessarily sent to the gulags for criticizing Brezhnev, but you never worked again.”

Tigers_ suggests that the power of Sarkeesian et al is comparable to that of the Soviet authorities in the era of Brezhnev. I suppose we should give him half a point for not going with a full-blown Stalin comparison.

I’ve been wanting to find a way to address these issues in an entertaining and accessible fashion for a few years now. Real life issues hold me back, but there’s also the incessant fear of something like that destroying any hopes I have at a career of my chosing for engaging. It’s not like there isn’t a massive risk. You weren’t necessarily sent to the gulags for criticizing Brezhnev, but you never worked again.

12) “Think feminism doesn’t kill people? Fucking yes it does, Srebrinca was possible because of feminist mindset.”

Xyluz85, meanwhile, gets no points for reining in rhetorical excess with this comment, not specifically referencing Sarkeesian but made in the wake of her UN visit.

It’s not about the fear that they can win this, it’s more about how big the damage will be when the time comes feminism goes away. And it get’s more horrifing by the day. I learn more and more about this mindset, and what it does to people. Think feminism doesn’t kill people? Fucking yes it does, Srebrinca was possible because of feminist mindset, Haiti women-only food pretty sure killed some people, lynchmobs killing innocent people surley happend.

I think I’ll just end this post here.

Oh, wait, I almost forgot TREASON.

13) “Don’t listen to the leftist lies: both Zoe and Anita (assuming she is a citizen of the United States) have committed a felony by explicitly and directly lobbying foreign governments for the abolition of Net Neutrality and the “licensing” of internet content providers.

HonorableJudgeHolden provided “evidence” for this assertion in the form of a meme-enhanced “info”graphic.

This is the only Reddit comment or post I’ve quoted here, in this Gamer’s Dozen, that #GamerGaters considered too ridiculous to upvote.

If you want to see what Sarkeesian and Quinn actually said at the UN, here’s a video of their testimony, courtesy of Laughing Witch.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

232 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

Could you please try to read me a little more charitably?

I don’t know about the others, but I tend to read you uncharitably because of your history of starting nitpicky arguments about Anita’s work in the middle of threads about the very worst of the harassment. Which is a complete red herring; she could be everything the #Gits claim she is, a magical man-hating con artist bending the universe to her supervillian will, and she still wouldn’t deserve the rape threats, death threats, bomb threats and mass shooting threats.

Of course, you’re not doing that here, so props for that – but you’re still freeze peaching for some fuck-knows reason. You know we mock that shit with relish.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

(As for why I harp on some people who’ve said dumb shit in the past but forgive and laugh about it with others – sincere apologies and a willingness to learn from mistakes.)

spacelawn
5 years ago

Goddamn, to think a video series created by a women about how video games can be sexist made all these wankers their number one enemy. The scale of it all is crazy to think really. They are OBSESSED alright.

Gamergate…. Somebody should write a book or make a movie about this fuckfest.

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

Gamergate…. Somebody should write a book or make a movie about this fuckfest.

I have an idea. If people crowdfund me, I’ll make a documentary about it. We’ll interview loads of #Gaters and sample some pieces from youtube. I’ve got a director lined up already; he’s really fast and knows all the keyboard shortcuts.

As a working title, how does “The Sarkeesian Effect” sound?

Subtract Hominem, the Renegade Misandroid
Subtract Hominem, the Renegade Misandroid
5 years ago

Harassment, terrorism, sexism, bigotry, criticism, you name it and they’ll use it to try and take away your rights.

Gamergate will just have been the precursor

Quotemined for improved accuracy.

Mike
Mike
5 years ago

Somebody should write a book or make a movie about this fuckfest.

Oh, there’s a book all right:
https://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/12/08/a-dramatic-reading-of-that-terrible-terrible-4changamergate-crowdsourced-book/

Moggie
Moggie
5 years ago

magnesium:

I really can’t figure out how anyone could describe Anita Sarkeesian as a “radical” feminist. Even using the incorrect definition that anti-feminists like to throw around (they seem to think it means “extremist”). How does someone decide that mild criticism of video games is extreme? I guess if you can be tricked into believe that “good” feminists are women like CH Sommers who make whole careers out of telling women to shush up and obey their male superiors…

Here, let me splain feminism at you:

Radical feminist: any woman who believes some things ought to change.

Regular feminist: any woman who is content with the rights already won for women – provided she isn’t too uppity about it.

Binjabreel
Binjabreel
5 years ago

The most ironic part about all this is that I saw Liana K getting serious harassment and abuse… From gamergate.

I mean, fucking Milo alone was responsible for some atrocious shit against her. But that’s what happens when you have a movement made entirely of trolls, the over entitled, and literal Nazis.

Orion
5 years ago

I am a liberal socialist, or rather a Liberal socialist; I am pretty comfortable aligning myself with JS Mill and his descendants.

Mill believed that humans, overall, are happiest in a free society. A free society is basically one in which citizens are able to choose from a variety of lifestyles (or create one) that suits their values and their temperament. A free society requires free and open discourse, or a “marketplace of ideas.” This means that people have both the right and opportunity to communicate their ideas to the public. They need the right because if you’re not free to talk about being (gay/kinky/Jewish) you’re not actually free to be (gay/kinky/Jewish). They need the opportunity because the more ideas people are exposed to the more likely they are to find happiness in a lifestyle that suits them.

Democracy is necessary but not sufficient for a free society to exist. States that are not democratic are more likely to take away freedom by force or calculated neglect. Giving everyone a voice in government makes it more likely that the government will permit a diversity of lifestyles. However, the mere lack of state coercion does not make a society free. People aren’t free to choose lives which leave them unable to feed, clothe, and medicate themselves. This means that if (gay/black/unmarried) people are iced out of work and housing, then society is not really free. This also means that welfare states are more free than nations without welfare.

My liberalism is not just a political theory, it’s a moral philosophy; I believe that all else being equal, it is moral to make society more free and immoral to make it less free. Moral duties are negative (don’t fear and shun people different from us) and positive (make an effort to hear and consider new perspectives and make them accessible to the public). I tend to use “liberal” and “democratic” interchangeably, because democracy is just a system for enacting liberalism. (I couldn’t fit this in anywhere, but I think that it takes more than counting votes to have a democracy; voters need to the opportunity to educate themselves on the issues; trying to suppress access to accurate reporting is undemocratic)

—————————————————————————————————————–

What does that mean in practice? Well, for governments the answer is pretty simple: governments can’t be trusted to use censorship wisely, have no property rights, and have no personal happiness to consider, so we have an absolute prohibition on state censorship. For private actors, it’s more complicated. It’s still a moral duty to encourage free and open discussions, but that means depends on a lot of factors. It’s too complicated to make a simple rule, so these duties can’t be legislated; we rely on the goodwill of citizens to figure out and do the right things.

Different people and groups have different amounts of resources for disseminating speech. The more bandwidth you have, the more diversity you’re morally obligated to publish. If you create your own content, you needn’t publish any views but your own; if you simply transmit other people’s content, you should be very liberal in what you allow. If you endorse, curate, or package other people’s content, then you fall somewhere in the middle. Agreement and disagreement aren’t the only criteria; there’s also importance and relevance. Dedicating one space to one topic allows conversations that otherwise couldn’t happen. Ideas that have been repeatedly debunked or rejected shouldn’t take up space that could be used for new thoughts.

So when I say that a site like Twitter should be democratic, I don’t mean that it should be *managed* by popular vote. I mean that it should take actions that make it easier and not harder for voters to be informed on the issues and for people of minority opinions to network and self-promote.

It’s kind of baffling to me that any feminist would disagree with this. I am not an expert on feminist history, but my understanding is that universities have always been a major “home base” for feminism. These days it’s because many or most academics are pro-feminist, but that can’t have been true at the beginning. Feminists were teaching, speaking, and publishing at universities long before they were popular there. They were able to do that because the academic ethos demands that they disseminate unpopular opinions.

None of this means that Twitter and Reddit shouldn’t censor the worse parts of #GG would be wrong. Actually, they’re morally obligated to. Hosting hate mobs isn’t democratic, it’s undemocratic, because it chills discourse.

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
5 years ago

“Of course, you’re not doing that here, so props for that – but you’re still freeze peaching for some fuck-knows reason. You know we mock that shit with relish.”

Frozen peaches with relish sounds disgusting.

That’s all really, nothing on topic to add, just needed to get that out of my head.

Moocow
Moocow
5 years ago

@EJ

Sounds like a documentary that will go down in the anals of history!

spacelawn
5 years ago

@Mike

Well damn, that was something alright.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Orion,
I don’t at all disagree that it’s great that social media has given marginalized groups a platform they wouldn’t otherwise have. I think it’s great.

But an argument that speech should always be given a platform doesn’t tend to benefit the marginalized. It benefits the people who will harass them in order to maintain the status quo. If David didn’t ban trolls for being tedious assholes or for using bigoted language, this place would be overrun with misogynist trolls and women and our allies would never be able to have a productive conversation.

It’s kind hard for me to assume good faith on your part here because you seem to always manage to suggest that Sarkeesian has it coming somehow without coming out and saying it. There’s always a harassment is bad but …

Orion
5 years ago

“GamerGate… take a reasonable issue and float it out of context to justify something both unrelated and reprehensible.”

“GGers don’t actually support “1st amendment principles,””

“I do not believe that hosting your content is a good use of my resources; either (a), your speech is not an attempt to participate in discussion but actually an attempt to chill it, (b) your ideas have already been considered and set aside in this forum,”

“Banned for tweeting death threats … Not oppression.”

“trying to suppress access to accurate reporting is undemocratic”

“Ideas that have been repeatedly debunked or rejected shouldn’t take up space”

“None of this means that Twitter and Reddit shouldn’t censor the worse parts of #GG would be wrong. Actually, they’re morally obligated to.”

I honestly don’t understand what more I could say.

Orion
5 years ago

If David didn’t ban trolls for being tedious assholes or for using bigoted language, this place would be overrun with misogynist trolls and women and our allies would never be able to have a productive conversation.

“I do not believe that hosting [troll] content is a good use of my resources; either (a), your speech is not an attempt to participate in discussion but actually an attempt to chill it, (b) your ideas have already been considered and set aside in this forum, (c) I am using my site to promote and showcase other ideas which I consider more valuable, (d) this website is less like an electronic town hall, newspaper, or public square, and more like an electronic cocktail party, or (e) all of the above.””

Orion
5 years ago

Damn, meant to replace all instances of “I” with “David”

booburry
5 years ago

Orion, I guess I just don’t know why this argument is even happening. Pretty sure nobody said Twitter should ban people willy nilly, but that people who harass others and act like assholes have no right to that platform. Period. I don’t really see how that goes against your many paragraphs.

saitonexus
5 years ago

@NickNameNick – yeah, I pretty much agree with you on MGS. I’m really not a big fan of the series as a whole, partly for the reasons you cite. The first 3 numbered titles are the only ones I’ve played through; 3 was definitely the best, having the most compelling story and characters and using its setting very well. 1 was certainly loaded with its share of serious flaws, but was still a pretty decent game. 2 was a hot mess with few redeeming features.

Anyway, MGS tangent aside…

The point is: some content is optional, and it demands a different critical approach than content in other media does.

Why? In what way does the simple fact of being optional demand a different critical approach? I don’t see how it’s worth more than a simple acknowledgement – “this is a part of the game that’s entirely optional, you won’t even see it unless you explore these ruins in this side quest.” Then you move on to discuss whatever it is you want to discuss about the content i.e. if it’s sexist or racist or maybe you’re just here to analyze the content’s storyline, etc… the point is, regardless of what you are saying about the content, that it’s optional changes little. The main (and really, only truly significant) thing that it being optional accomplishes, in terms of mitigating a piece of gross or objectionable content, is that an individual player can choose not to see it – though, it’s worth nothing, that’s IF AND ONLY IF that player either misses the optional content by chance, or has been warned ahead of time that if they explore the ruins fully, they’re going to see it. If they don’t know, and they are just a player who likes to explore thoroughly in games, they could just stumble on it, rendering the mitigation moot. Which is part of my point: that’s the ONLY way in which it’s mitigated, is that chance that an informed player can choose to intentionally skip it, or a less-thorough player might not see it. Which, granted, is a good thing if the content is objectionable, since it does at least allow for some people who would find it abhorrent or perhaps even be triggered by it, depending on what the content was, to avoid it.

But that really has zero impact on a critical analysis of the content itself.

Re: the question of “should Twitter be democratic” – I honestly don’t completely understand where the distinction is in your position between “they should be democratic” and “they should still ban nasty people.”

In this context, isn’t it similar to what we are saying the government should not do? How is saying that Twitter should be “democratic” (especially if you are saying that being banned from Twitter could, in any circumstance, seriously be called oppression) different than saying that it should, in fact, be beholden to the same standards of free speech and hands-off moderation as the government? Consider that there are PLENTY of tweets and forum posts and what have you – on Twitter, on Reddit, right here on this site if it weren’t for the fact that David exercises his “not the government” right to shut gross or abusive people up and ban them – that would NOT qualify as legally actionable by the government. Not hate speech in the legal sense, not harassment in the legal sense. Untouchable by the government, no matter how abhorrent, but able to be squelched or banned by Twitter or here. A LOT of the online abuse that gets brought up whenever we discuss anti-feminists or GamerGate falls into that middle area. Saying that Twitter should be held to the standards of free speech and democracy, yet can and should ban such middle area speech, seems contradictory to me.

pkayden
pkayden
5 years ago

Good on Sarkeesian and Quinn for speaking out in the face of threats of violence and ridicule.

I looked up Eli Roth to see why one of those commenters liked him. Turns out he’s anti-SJWs and made a racist film about Indigenous people. No wonder Redditors and Gamergaters love him.

Saiyo
5 years ago

I’m watching this cultural war from the outside, i think both sides have positives and negatives (and they are kinda alike like Michael Koretsky said)

After reading the article i draw two conclusions trying to see the positive side of Gamergate and its similitude with AGG:

1) they have good intentions (we can agree/disagree with them but its clear that they think they are doing the right thing) same with the so-called “SJW”

2)They are against left or right extremism, or saying it in another way, they aren’t part of the right or the left extremists. I read some post from Yiannopoulos and most replies from GG identified with the left (obviously non-radical left). They posted Bill Maher and Jon Stewart vids and memes showing they like those guys. I have the impression SJW tend to be more loaded to radical left progressive ideology but i’m sure most part of both sides share a political spectrum (moderate left).

3)They are more pro-ethics/against censorship than against Sarkeesian et al.

I’m against dehumanization. That’s my ideology, and i think in both sides people have good intentions. Maybe they should discuss more. I think the SPJ panel was a missed oportunity from the AGG side. C’mon people should be able to discuss openly and with respect. Also it gave strenght to the GG idea of AGG supporting the censorship/not free flow of discussion/ideas.

Sorry bad english!

sbel
sbel
5 years ago

@saitonexus

I don’t think that’s the kind of optional that Orion meant.

I think they’re talking about games that offer you explicit ‘good’ and ‘evil’ options in game. In the Fallout games for example, you can murder almost any NPC in the game. It’s an option, and you don’t need be warned that murdering a good NPC will result in you seeing a good NPC being murdered. Some of the quests can be completed by murdering the correct good NPCs. Some of the quests allow you to join the villains and kill and/or enslave people. No-one is tricked or forced into seeing or doing it, but the options do exist. Should the game be criticized the same way as movies (or games) that force the objectionable content on you?

Saiyo
5 years ago

i want to add that polite discussion will decrease radicals from both sides. I think both sides tend to dehumanize the other. We are all humanity at the end, i believe in love as a changing force for good an dehumanization as the “sin” that made people on the past to abuse another like Nazi Germany.

Peace!

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

pkayden,
I’m a big horror fan, but have never been an Eli Roth fan. Cabin Fever was the only movie of his I liked and even that hasn’t held up as well as I would have thought when I first saw it. Contracted, Starry Eyes, and various Cronenberg movies are far better examples of body horror.

That ggers like Roth only makes me feel more vindicated in my dislike.

katz
5 years ago

I think they’re talking about games that offer you explicit ‘good’ and ‘evil’ options in game. In the Fallout games for example, you can murder almost any NPC in the game. It’s an option, and you don’t need be warned that murdering a good NPC will result in you seeing a good NPC being murdered. Some of the quests can be completed by murdering the correct good NPCs. Some of the quests allow you to join the villains and kill and/or enslave people. No-one is tricked or forced into seeing or doing it, but the options do exist. Should the game be criticized the same way as movies (or games) that force the objectionable content on you?

Yes, they should be critiqued the same way: By looking at the way the game treats it and the context within which it occurs, the same way you would with any other media. Lots of books and movies have the protagonists do morally questionable things, just as games do. We evaluate them by how those actions are treated (see also: the Lolita discussion).

If it’s optional, but then you get an achievement (eg, tying a woman to the tracks in Red Dead Redemption)? That’s gross and creepy, and it’s not less gross and creepy because you don’t have to do it. Meanwhile, something in the main narrative that’s morally questionable but treated appropriately (eg, other characters are horrified by what you did) might not be a problem at all.

“Optional” is just a total smokescreen. If a book had something really gross in an appendix or a movie had a really gross stinger, would they be less responsible because some people don’t read/watch that stuff? Of course not; it’s still part of the text. Same with games: Any programmed content in the game is part of the text and should be evaluated as such.

NickNameNick
NickNameNick
5 years ago

yeah, I pretty much agree with you on MGS. I’m really not a big fan of the series as a whole, partly for the reasons you cite. The first 3 numbered titles are the only ones I’ve played through; 3 was definitely the best, having the most compelling story and characters and using its setting very well. 1 was certainly loaded with its share of serious flaws, but was still a pretty decent game. 2 was a hot mess with few redeeming features.

Another good thing about MGS3? It has the best James Bond theme song ever! 😀

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPNtpsaZD1o&w=420&h=315%5D

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
5 years ago

Yeah, VtM:B has plenty such options, using the pen and paper game’s Humaniity system… but if you make a habit of doing things like killing innocent people (even accidentally, a thing that is explicitly noted since you’re a vampire), the game get harder to manage to play, and I’m pretty sure you can manage to flat out get a game over. Yes, a final nope, start over, or at least use an ooooooold save point, cuz your character is irredeemable.

Now, the game is by no means feminist, considering some of the “body armor” is a skimpy police costume for precinct 69, I think it’s damned far from feminist, but a point is explicitly made that giving into the evil lure of being a vampire will cost you. There’s plenty wrong with the game, but it does that right.

Granted, it did inherit that system from the P&P game, where letting the players be assholes is a good way to make no one want to play your game. No one wants to story-tell(DM) that guy after all.

sbel
sbel
5 years ago

Yeah, that’s a good point katz. That’s probably why I don’t usually have a problem with games with ‘evil’ options. They generally acknowledge that you’re playing as a bad character doing bad things, and the NPCs don’t treat it like it’s normal or ok.

saitonexus
5 years ago

Others have covered the answer to the whole “this type of optional vs. that type of optional” tangent more than adequately while I was away from my computer, but yes: perhaps my wording was (unintentionally) focused on the idea of “an optional sidequest”. I just chose that as a general example or shorthand to use to make my point, and didn’t realize that the result read as if I was talking specifically ABOUT that kind of optional content.

That vs. the stuff in Fallout or GTA or… whatever else, ANY kind of content that can be classified as “optional”, really, doesn’t change the point at all. The experience for the player can change in a number of ways if a piece of content is optional or not, and as I did mention before, this can have a benefit to someone who would prefer not to see the content in question. But you still evaluate the content for what it is. It doesn’t matter that it’s optional or that ALL players might not see it: if it’s in the game, then it’s PART of the game. And it also means that developers who put gross, oppressive, dehumanizing or otherwise just plain Not Okay content in their games, can’t get off the hook by citing that “well, it’s optional”. Nor should they. If you CHOOSE to put something in your game, we get to analyze it and critique it on its own merits, the same as any other content.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

2)They are against left or right extremism, or saying it in another way, they aren’t part of the right or the left extremists. I read some post from Yiannopoulos and most replies from GG identified with the left (obviously non-radical left). They posted Bill Maher and Jon Stewart vids and memes showing they like those guys. I have the impression SJW tend to be more loaded to radical left progressive ideology but i’m sure most part of both sides share a political spectrum (moderate left).

Reworded: “Hey, this group comprised of literal neo-Nazis isn’t full of right-wing extremists, but this other group comprised of everyone who’s not a literal neo-Nazi – because that’s what “SJW” means – is full of left-wing extremists. Also, BSAB.”

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

I don’t think #GGers would recognise what an actual lefty looked like. I can’t exactly see them identifying with Billy Bragg.

max (@lemonsfutbal)
5 years ago

If someone is being abusive to you on a website all you do is block them.
As for the suggesting that somehow only gamergate supporters are abusive is comical
There is just as much abuse going on against ‘gamergate’ from the ‘other side’ if not more from my investigation.
I personally don’t play video games but I get why gamers are angry. The anger stems from the hypocrisy of authors like this and in the mainstream press.
The anger comes from an outside group trying to force their values on other adults and their hobby. At the end of the day these people are the paying customers and if anyone should have a say in a game it’s the paying customer like any other business if you want to be profitable.
.I am not a gamer but I do know that political correctness is the death of reason and common sense and if gamers stand up against such an obnoxious ideology then they have my support and sympathy.
If you are a gamergate supporter reading this then keep fighting for your rights and hobby. .

max (@lemonsfutbal)
5 years ago

waiting for moderation………You don’t want an adult discussion you want a hugbox.
Ok that’s your right but your opinion is valueless if you don’t allow it to be challenged by different points of view.

Luzbelitx
5 years ago

What’s with GamerGross and being disingenuous as fuck?

They aren’t reacting to anything outside, they are trying to push out of an “adult hobby” a fraction of equally valuable customers as themselves.

If you can’t (or won’t) accept this simple fact, your opinion has nothing to add to this site.

Also, no one cares.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Max,
If gamergaters as paying game customers have the right to play and buy games that reflect their wants, why don’t gamers who want more diversity and less misogyny have the same right? In fact, Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu are developers who are being harassed simply for making games ggers don’t like. Nobody is saying first person shooters should be outlawed.

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

Hoo boy. David, thanks for letting this one through.

::cracks knuckles::

If someone is being abusive to you on a website all you do is block them.

Yes, you can do that. However, if that person is being abusive to everyone, then they harm the website as a whole because they drive people away. Websites are a business – they sell eyeballs to advertisers – and therefore if a person drives too many people away they’re bad for business.

Interestingly, Twitter has been looking at banning people for future offences, minority report style. As someone who adores analytics, I would love to see their algorithms for this.

As for the suggesting that somehow only gamergate supporters are abusive is comical
There is just as much abuse going on against ‘gamergate’ from the ‘other side’ if not more from my investigation.

Your investigation? Awesome.

Post your results, please. I love me some data to crunch. We’ve suffered too long from needing to make conclusions based on supposition and anecdote. Now we can actually behave like scientists.

I assume you have proper data, rigorously collected with a good methodology? I mean, you wouldn’t make a statement like that based purely on anecdata, would you?

I personally don’t play video games but I get why gamers are angry.

I do play video games, as it happens, and I don’t get why I’m supposed to be angry. Could you splain to me, please?

anger stems from the hypocrisy of authors like this and in the mainstream press.

The mainstream press? Did they even cover it? I didn’t see coverage on BBC or The Guardian or New York Times or anything like that.

Inasmuch as there has been a response, it’s been sharply critical mostly because #GG has refused to deal with outsiders in a sensible fashion. A good example is Jimbo Wales: he initially reached out to #GG and suggested that they organise in a way that other pressure groups have found is effective. All he got for his trouble was a half-hearted and often self-sabotaged response, replete with people trolling him and trolling the people who were trying to engage with him. As a result, Wales stopped being so sympathetic.

On the other side of the fence, Sarkeesian, Quinn, Olsen and a bunch of others have been extremely polite to the outside world. Which one would you side with?

I get what you’re saying, though. Self-identified gamers grew up with an advertising-heavy enthusiast gaming press which catered directly to them. This wasn’t done out of love so much as out of capitalism: a niche audience usually responds well to marketing. When video games stopped being niche and started being a thing everyone did, the pandering to self-identified gamers stopped too.

Having pandering stop feels bad. I get that. I am sympathetic. But it was always fake, the lies of people telling you they loved you in order to get at your dollars. Now you get to breathe the free air of a man no longer being lied to. Isn’t that worth having?

Okay, enough speeches. Let’s get some cheap shots in:

The anger comes from an outside group trying to force their values on other adults and their hobby.

Yes, I agree. Valizadeh and Yiannopoulos shouldn’t be making commentary on games and certainly shouldn’t be forcing their values onto them. /cheapshot

At the end of the day these people are the paying customers and if anyone should have a say in a game it’s the paying customer like any other business if you want to be profitable.

Yes, I agree. The paying customers, however, tend to be “casuals” and non-core gamers. They should be the ones having a say. Remember that The Sims (beloved by SJW types) hugely outsold Hatred (beloved by #GG types.) We’re the real paying customers, not you. /cheapshot

Fun fact: For games aimed at self-identified core gamers, of every 10 PC games installed, 9 are pirated. It turns out that core gamers tend to overlap very heavily with pirates. (The numbers are lower on consoles because piracy there is much harder.)

Okay, enough cheap shots. Back to Paragon Path:

.I am not a gamer but I do know that political correctness is the death of reason and common sense and if gamers stand up against such an obnoxious ideology then they have my support and sympathy.

Firstly, I do play video games, so please don’t tell me how to feel. Thank you for your sympathy and support though.

Political correctness isn’t the death of reason. Emotion is the death of reason. When we feel very emotional as a result of feeling under attack, it’s harder to think clearly. This is why being sensitive to people – or “politically correct”, if you prefer – is a good idea: it helps them not feel under attack and therefore reason more clearly.

This is why I’m being nice and gentle to you here. It helps to defuse the situation, to make you more comfortable with being reasonable in return.

waiting for moderation………You don’t want an adult discussion you want a hugbox.

(For those who are unaware, a hugbox is an ableist slur for a community which has norms of polite discourse.)

I’ve been on forums where people are trying to carry out projects. It is my experience that of those, the ones where 14-year olds were permitted to casually greet one another with rape jokes were the ones where less good work got done.

An adult discussion is not one where people use adult language. It is one where people agree ahead of time to act like adults; which includes obeying social norms.

Ok that’s your right but your opinion is valueless if you don’t allow it to be challenged by different points of view.

This is true. This is why I, for example, am a regular commentor at Chris Ladd’s blog, a Right wing American political blog. I am not on the Right by any means, but they’re polite and intelligent people who can make their case very well; and when we disagree we do so as adults, quoting Keynes and Friedman, rather than spamming goat porn. I also read far more than I write there, because I’m not there to agree but to check my ideas against an intelligently-stated opposing view; and because I respect the rights of the Right to control their own spaces.

We also keep it to that blog, because that’s where it belongs. I don’t dive into RedState or something that and post manifestos, because that would be impolite to them.

Tell me: which SJW blogs do you regularly read to test your ideas against? If you were into video games then I’d recommend Zen of Design as a good one; but you aren’t, so I won’t.

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

Curse it. I made it most of the way through and then got mammothed.

David, can the new design please have a “preview post” button, s’il vous plait?

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

If someone is being abusive to you on a website all you do is block them.

Blocking one account made by one person is easy. Blocking hundreds of people creating puppet accounts to harass you with is incredibly difficult, and requires exposure to hatred they are trying to force you to view.

Men and women both have found the abuse to be too much to handle and have sworn off their social media accounts. Do you really think every single one of them didn’t know where the block button was?

mockingbird
mockingbird
5 years ago

@max – I’m on my phone, so no point-by-point reply, but still:

I am a gamer (or at least am as much as having kids, etc will allow *grumble*grumble*adultresponsibilities*) and I love the FUCK out of lots of “problematic” games…no one’s trying to take those away or *gasp* impose censorship.

What *is* happening is that video games have become serious enough, pervasive enough art/media that they’re being analyzed and critiqued in the manner of *other* art and media.

Big fucking whoop.

Or it should be, but a bunch of time-rich assholes with persecution complexes dox and harass the hell out of anyone attempting to do so.

And, max – everyone’s stuck in moderation for their first few posts. You’re not a special snowflake.

mockingbird
mockingbird
5 years ago

It is humorous to me that my curse-laden post follows EJ’s eloquent defense of spaces reserved for civil discourse.

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

It is humorous to me that my curse-laden post follows EJ’s eloquent defense of spaces reserved for civil discourse.

It amuses me too. It amuses the fucking shit out of me.

Virtually Out of Touch
Virtually Out of Touch
5 years ago

“I actually think that there’s a case to be made that ‘censorship’ can come through unofficial channels. To put it in pre/non-internet terms: Imagine there was some guy writing – I don’t know – pro-Catholic editorials for the local paper, and a neighborhood group of staunch anti-Catholics decided to put an end to it. So, they break down this guy’s door, burn all his manuscripts and reference books, smash his typewriter, and tell him that if they ever see another pro-Catholic editorial around here, there will be some even-more-serious consequences. Now, this example doesn’t involve anything happening in any official capacity, but if it’s not ‘censorship,’ well, what is it? It could be referred to as ‘silencing,’ ‘intimidation,’ etc., but since it involves a group exercising its power to prevent someone from creating a type of media, ‘censorship’ feels like an accurate description. And then, there are also many real-world examples of powerful, non-govermental organizations exerting control over media (i.e. the MPAA) – maybe not technically ‘censorship,’ but it makes sense to view it through that particular lens.”

Didn’t something like this happen in India over a Wendy Doniger book published by Penguin? I remember reading about it in some scholarly publication.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

I personally don’t play video games but I get why gamers are angry. The anger stems from the hypocrisy of authors like this and in the mainstream press.

I’m sorry, but if you play games, you don’t get to say shit about the game industry and you don’t get to tell people how others should feel about GG, especially to other gamers.

Look here:

http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/239585618_Mrrqw/0/1050×10000/239585618_Mrrqw-1050×10000.jpg

That comic came out in 2008.

Game reviewers have been bribed to give reviews games for years before GamerGate. Some are able to take the high roads in this situation but many don’t. Many publications have been wrapped around game publisher’s fingers for years.

So why the hell isn’t GamerGate targeting EA, who bribed the shit out of many game reviewers over the years? Why aren’t they going after GameSpot or 1Up (1Up still exists, right?) so willing took these bribes to rate mediocre games 90/100s? Why didn’t GamerGate start earlier when such corruption was actually rampant in game reviewing circles?

Because GamerGate is actually a harassment campaign against women developer perpetrated by fuckheads who don’t want the endless flow of colorless, flat, FPSs where you mow down stereotypical foreign bad guys to end. They want the gaming industry to crumble under its feet just so it can cater to their wants and needs. They don’t want the now women majority of gamers (52%) to fucking play games at all. They just want their macho men fantasies with scanticlad trophies at the end.

That’s 90% of all fucking games ever made. But you wouldn’t know this because you’re a gamer.

So talk about something you actually know something about instead of just checking off talking points about things you don’t even participate in. Actually research things before you spew shit somewhere.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

*you’re not a gamer I mean damnit

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

If someone is being abusive to you on a website all you do is block them.

waiting for moderation………You don’t want an adult discussion you want a hugbox.

Is there any point in explaining just how useless blocking is, because you idiots either make a sockpuppet or ten and keep going or run back to your bubble to proclaim victory, when you immediately did the latter yourself? And you weren’t even blocked! Bloody hell, skin like an amoeba.

Paradoxical Intention
5 years ago

max (@lemonsfutbal) | September 30, 2015 at 7:33 am
If someone is being abusive to you on a website all you do is block them.

Blocking one person: quite easy.

Blocking hundreds of people who are all dead-set on harassing the fuck out of you: not easy.

As for the suggesting that somehow only gamergate supporters are abusive is comical
There is just as much abuse going on against ‘gamergate’ from the ‘other side’ if not more from my investigation.

Ah yes, the old “I’m-Not-On-Either-Side-But-You’re-Both-Awful” tactic.

You seriously don’t think any of us buy this, do you? Though, I’m curious to see your evidence. I mean, if you truly did an “investigation”, then you must have quite a bit of screenshots, research, ect. all piled up, right? Because that’s how you science.

I personally don’t play video games but I get why gamers are angry.

So, you’re not a gamer, but you want to tell me, someone who is a gamer, that I’m “angry”? Okay then.

The anger stems from the hypocrisy of authors like this and in the mainstream press.

http://www.acc.umu.se/~ericj/junk/citation_needed.png

Zoe Quinn is GGs biggest gripe, so allow me to point out to you that Kotaku, or more specifically Nathon Grayson, the man Zoe was in a relationship with, never actually did a review of her game. At all. Ever.

GGers also love to whinge about Leah Alexander’s article ‘Gamers’ don’t have to be your audience. ‘Gamers’ are over., which they also forced her to leave Gamasutra over, because she dared to suggest that the idea of the “gamer” was a dead concept because so many people are gaming now, and that the audience for video games is no longer a niche.

GGers think they’ve somehow “forced” games journalists to disclose their allegiances, but in reality, most games journalists did that already, long before GG was even thought of.

On top of that, this isn’t a new problem. This shit has been around since gaming journalism was a thing, and it’s a common problem in many other types of journalism as well.

So what kicked off GG? The Zoe Post, written by a bitter ex boyfriend, who edited it to make it all seem like Zoe was a terrible person, and has done nothing to stop Zoe from being harassed, in fact, he, despite having a restraining order put up against him by Zoe, encouraged it on 4Chan repeatedly. Even though in public, he put on a face of “Oh, I didn’t know she’d be harassed!”, despite the fact she’d been targeted before.

The anger comes from an outside group trying to force their values on other adults and their hobby.

Motherfucker, I’ve been gaming since I was 4 and could figure out how a Game Boy worked. I had a NES and a bunch of games, I spent summers trying to beat levels of Super Mario while my siblings and cousins cheered me on. I’ve grown up on video games.

I am no “outside group”. This is my hobby.

And you and GG can try to deny that all you want, but the fact of the matter is, you cannot disqualify anyone who disagrees with you as “not a gamer”, simply because they disagree with you. “SJWs” have been gamers for a hell of a long time.

And while I’m at it, if GG is so opposed to “non-gamers” pushing their “agendas” on them, then why the fuck is GG siding with obvious non-gamers like CHS, Yiannopolous (mocked gamers and said they were “losers” before jumping on the GG gravy train), and Jack Thompson (campaigned for games to be banned and claims they make people violent)?

At the end of the day these people are the paying customers and if anyone should have a say in a game it’s the paying customer like any other business if you want to be profitable.

My 200+ games in my Steam library, my XBox 360, and my PS2 would like to have a word with you.

I am not a gamer but

Then why the fuck are you trying to speak for all of us actual gamers? Fuck off.

I do know that political correctness is the death of reason and common sense and if gamers stand up against such an obnoxious ideology then they have my support and sympathy.

We don’t want your “support and sympathy”, you gross bigot. Fuck off.

Oh, and “political correctness” isn’t shorthand for “People I don’t like saying things I don’t like”.

If you are a gamergate supporter reading this then keep fighting for your rights and hobby.

Gamergate supporters? On my openly-feminist website that mocks the very misogyny that GG is known for?

max (@lemonsfutbal) | September 30, 2015 at 7:38 am
waiting for moderation………You don’t want an adult discussion you want a hugbox.
Ok that’s your right but your opinion is valueless if you don’t allow it to be challenged by different points of view.

Everybody is moderated first go-round. You’re not special. That’s how the site works, Mr. RationalMaleTemperTantrum.

And you’re right, opinions are great when we can see the opposing viewpoint.

Too bad that your “opposing viewpoint” is lacking in all logic, reason, and evidence, shows that you actually don’t give a shit about people being harassed as long as they’re some kind of over-inflated ideological boogeyman, and throws other gamers under the bus to maintain the view that all gamers are vile bigots who hate anyone who isn’t a cishet white dudebro, and that cishet white dudebros are the only ones who should get attention.

Fuck off with your ‘splaining bullshit.

slurpee57
slurpee57
5 years ago

“This is why I’m being nice and gentle to you here. It helps to defuse the situation, to make you more comfortable with being reasonable in return.”

That’s nice of you, it’s a shame that other people just immediately jump down his throat and call him a bigot though.

chronically lurki
chronically lurki
5 years ago

The FUNimation reference is because they recently threw a GamerGate joke into one of their dubs and everybody is screaming ETHICS. Paraphrase:

Female character (pulling him close or something): “Do you have a stick up your ass or are you some kind of loser GamerGate creepazoid?”
Male character: “…you’re hot”

I mean it was about as lame as any other dub script but I found the reaction hilarious.

Random ravings (@rottenfruitx1)

What the fuck had the Srebrinca massacre to do with feminism? Im pretty damn sure milosevic and Ratko Mladić were not feminists

Orion
5 years ago

At the end of the day these people are the paying customers and if anyone should have a say in a game it’s the paying customer like any other business if you want to be profitable.

Is gaming a business, or is it an art? I mean, the answer is “yes.” It’s a business and an art all mixed together. All arts are entwined with business, and gaming more than most arts.

The thing is that art is not supposed to be about money. The archetypal artist is not trying to make the most money; they’re trying to make the best art. Real people will always care about money to some extent — the most devoted creators still need to eat, and it’s not wrong to aspire to some degree of luxury. But I tend to think that even the management of AAA studios cares about their artistic prestige as well as their bottom line. If game design ever became 100% mercenary, that would be a sad thing.

There’s evidence that feminists are a bigger game market than the big studios realize and that listening to cultural critics would be a good business move. But even if it turns out that feminism is a minority taste, and appealing to it meant losing profits, it would still be fair for feminists to ask companies to make better art. Because good art is its own reward.