So you think pro-GG is everyone who does agree that opinions and criticisms should be allowed to be expressed without fear of retribution? Is that just a grammatical trip up, because I thought you felt the opposite?
edit: seems clarified by post immediately above, which I largely agree with.
LMN8R
3142
Whenever someone mentions the “good ol’ days” of gaming magazines, all I can think of are the countless episodes of 1UP podcasts, Giant Bombcast, and other podcasts with people who used to write for magazines talking about how utterly awful most magazines were back then.
Not outright corrupt, but back in the “good ol’ days” of magazines is when ethics were actually a problem. Gifts, trips, and all sorts of other goodies which tainted coverage. Reviewers who genuinely didn’t play the games they reviewed. Previews that were thoroughly glowing and never remotely thought to point out problems.
Things today are so much better. Far more disclosure of gifts and situations in which games were previewed/reviewed, previews that are actually critical, and a lot more transparency around how much of a game someone actually played before reviewing a game (including the ability to simply look at achievements and other such services to verify stated claims)
So…it’s pretty obvious why people who have developed games for decades would be reminiscing of the days of old.
Probably because you’re a nutcase who belligerently rants at everyone; manufactures dissent even among people of similar values out of some vainglorious martyr complex; distorts and fictionalizes the behavior of others to rationalize defamatory vilification; launches hyperbolic tirades when your hypocrisy is highlighted; baldly lies constantly to troll for attention; and your act is transparent and wearisome.
Now you have me trying to parse my own sentence… but even though it is awkward and typed in haste I think it is basically correct. The “who doesn’t agree” refers to not agreeing with the pro-GG stance, AND also anti-gg “think opinions and criticism should be allowed to be expressed without fear of retribution”. Could have been clearer.
Look, I think GG was already badly tarnished by it’s genesis. The attempt to cloak itself in respectability as a consumer revolt against corrupt journalists came after the fact and is belied by the fact they have mostly hit targets that were neither journalists nor corrupt. The close association with MRA and openly misogynist individuals and the deep and unending obsession with Anita Sarkeesian, their love of false-flag “operations” and weaving of conspiracy theories has just shoved the whole movement ever more into “unseemly” territory.
Few would argue that there are no problems with ethics in games journalism. But probably fewer would agree that the ethics problem lies with small time internet publications and bloggers and the indie developers they happen to know, and fewer still would blame the whole thing on academic third wave feminism.
The TL;DR version is:
“It’s not the issues Virgil, it’s just that nobody wants to be seen to be with you until you calm down.”
Meanwhile, 35 years ago Calvin & Hobbes already understood why people are so cynical and annoyed by today’s internet holy warriors and professional victims like Virgil’s ilk:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B79N4VOIcAAGWa_.jpg:large
Mmmm. I read that as the standard reaction the GamerGate people had to criticism to videogames… the “sistematically working to destroy everything you hold dear” part seems to imply a defense of the status quo, not the questioning of it. While I agree the problem comes both ways, there’s nothing about professional victims in this specific strip. It’s about confrontation, not victimization…
LOL are we adding outside agitator to my race treason resume? My goodness, I’m a busy little blackhearted boy.
I can’t be surprised after Aesop’s Fables, but that comic strip could just as easily be shitting on the right wing direct mail fundraising system. You’re the one who fears enemies who are conspiring to take away your cherished hobby with… politely worded requests for a black skin texture and some tweets about an ugly shirt. I think. Again, you literally refuse to provide examples of the actual things you’re about, and you mostly seem furious that you’re being asked.
I think Thomas Frank called that a “Plen-T-Plaint”.
You’re responding to a post where Desslock was so furious he wrote a paragraph-sized sentence of personal attacks against me with like 8 semicolons in it(but no actual examples, of course).
I love this strip, but do you not see that it perfectly describes GamerGate?
The fact that you are willfully ignoring or are ignorant that every one of your posts is an actual example of the behaviors cited is why you have exasperated virtually everyone here. It’s difficult to believe that’s not your sole intention, which is also why you keep being called out for trolling.
For sure they have their share of internet holy warriors - I wasn’t excluding them. They don’t seem to be trying to financially profit off it though.
It’s entirely about disingenuously financially profiting by being a professional victim!!
By you. Called out by you. It’s weird how you get to guess at my intentions but I can’t paraphrase your posts without getting accused of distortions.
It’s part of a bigger thing, of course. Just like people agitating for a white James Bond aren’t activists, angry defenses of the status quo don’t count as really angry. It’s asymmetric at every level.
But also, Desslock, wait… so now it’s about professional victims again? So we’re backing away from politicized reviews, requests for features, anything about ethics… AS is the prime mover now? GamerGate is a backlash against how AS is conning feminists into bankrolling her videos or something, that’s the theory you’re debuting in January of 2015?
People like Milo, the people doing the so-called “documentary” the Sarkeesian Effect, and the guy who is running 8chan are all certainly doing so.
Fair enough.
They don’t seem to be trying to financially profit off it though.
That one you must explain.
Teiman
3156
If somebody is getting tortured in guantanamo by the USA army, a feminist will ask “is the prisoner a woman?” as if that matters.
Thats the wrong way to be a human being. The right thing to say is “Who person is responsible to Ok’ed that. How can we remove power to that person, and make him accountable for the crime that represent torture?”.
I don’t know. Let’s go on with your extreme comparison for a while.
We might ask (for example) are the majority of prisoners Arab? That’s a relevant question that can lead to figure out possible reasons for why the crime was tolerated so to avoid it happening again. Or not. But it’s a valid question. Removing power to a criminal and making people accountable is only par of the fix. Changing the conditions that led to the crime is another.
Or what’s the same: Asking “ïs the prisoner a woman?” indeed does not matter as you say. But asking “are the overall majority of prisoners women?” might be valid and relevant (or not, depending on the answer and the analysis, but it warrants attention).
Some feminists might be asking that first question (and that’s not very useful) but in my experience most are asking and analyzing the later.
Teiman
3158
You are not wrong. I think.
LMN8R
3159
That’s a pretty baseless straw man. Can you actually provide examples or data to back up your notion that the majority of and/or the most visible feminists would actually react in this way?
Seems like a perfect example of Sarkeesian’s “Straw Feminist” exploration: http://youtu.be/tnJxqRLg9x0
I’m sure plenty of people will dismiss that simply because it’s from Sarkeesian, but it sure resonated with me. The idea of the bitchy/evil/narcissistic feminist as portrayed in fictional media is so pervasive that it makes people believe that’s what most feminists are actually like in the real world, demonizing them without any real factual or statistical basis on which to place that antipathy.
The most popular and influential feminists in the world always argue to use feminism as a way to improve lives for everyone. Not just women.
Busbecq
3160
Don’t hang your hat on this claim. Everyone who ever strove for public influence claimed that their program would improve lives for everyone (maybe some of them played with the definition of ‘everyone’ but the point stands.) Deontology breaks down at this scale.
Let’s go with the first part of your post and look at specifics. Do you think Penis-in-Vagina intercourse is rape, no exceptions? Because Andrea Dworkin did, and she was the preeminent feminist of the 20th century. If that was a mainstream view, do you think your life would be improved? (cuckold fetishists/guys who haven’t been laid in 6 months and are trying to rationalize it, don’t answer)
