pantsonhead
Member
Just found the series today, already on episode 4 and loving it.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
"Why Are You So Angry?: A 6-Part Series On Angry Gamers"
- Thread starter BUNTING1243
- Start date
I just finished watching all six episodes, and I think your post sums up a key point nicely.
Great series. Highly recommended.
pantsonhead
Member
Just finished it all, fucking perfection, this dude deserves more views and a shitzillion more likes than he's getting.
D
Deleted member 126221
Unconfirmed Member
Wow, this is really, really good. Great analysis that goes way beyond the usual "good vs bad" framing.
HawksWinStanley
Member
Interesting videos. I wasn't aware of the whole gamergate thing. I saw the term thrown around on here but never really investigated further.
Have to admit I laughed at the Angry Jack "Eat a dick, man!" in Part 6.
Have to admit I laughed at the Angry Jack "Eat a dick, man!" in Part 6.
7DollarHagane
Banned
This made me realize: Sonic the hedgehog is truly the origin of all the problems with the game industry.
But seriously yes the 90s extreme young male marketing focus of a lot of things was bad for a whole generation.
sono
Member
I will listen to these when I have some more time, it sounds interesting.
No need to get angry and shout about your mistake.
No need to get angry and shout about your mistake.
This series says everything that I've wanted to say but couldn't quite organize eloquently. The progression makes logic proceed in steps instead of leaps, and the focus on, well, removing the focus on right and wrong, is quite refreshing from the normal "this is why the other group are assholes" rhetoric.
And it's important, as well. Because while the creator has stepped back from the issue of addressing Angry Jack when it comes to Gamergate for fairly valid reasons, it's an important mindset to have.
I am a privileged person. I am a white cismale from a middle class family (albeit on the lowest rung of the middle class) living in a socially-progressive country. While I face challenges not being straight, it helps me see and understand both sides of the issue.
Sometimes, when discussing sexuality (and other topics relevant to my individual social disadvantages) with Angry Jack types, I can lose my patience. BADLY. And I see women, transgender people, the impoverished and non-Caucasian people in that same position when their own version of Angry Jack is in their radar. They lash out in unproductive ways, because they don't see enough people coming to their aid regularly and feel they have to shoulder the burden of the discussion with them alone.
As people who share their views but not the direct effects or disadvantages they face, it is the purpose as an ally - not the ideal, not the good idea, the PURPOSE - to have that rational conversation in their place, so the anger from those who don't have the patience to be civil anymore can be removed from the conversation. Being an ally means being of genuine help in unharmful ways, not just making yourself feel better that you want the world to be a less harmful place.
It's an important message.
EdibleKnife
Member
That was an absolutely brilliant video series.
Road of Ease
Member
Great series. Made my head hurt, but in a good way! I intend to rewatch it many times.
jack_package_200
Banned
Hits the nail on the head.
WrenchNinja
Member
Watched this earlier today. Especially like part 2.
https://youtu.be/c6TrKkkVEhs?t=727
This is why the ethics policy change certain sites made in response to gamergate were so harmful. That and it legitimized the movement so well that it had to take Zoe Quinn posting the irc chatroom to turn it back around.
This is why the ethics policy change certain sites made in response to gamergate were so harmful. That and it legitimized the movement so well that it had to take Zoe Quinn posting the irc chatroom to turn it back around.
jack_package_200
Banned
So I posted this on a less prestigious gaming forum than GAF and to zero surprise have been called an SJW for posting a series of strawman videos and that none of the death and rape threats are just people joking around or at worst that "the angry women of the world are worse than the angry men".
So many Angry Jacks.
So many Angry Jacks.
In general the slow and pissweak response from the industry was (and still is) really harmful.
Well-made videos, if a bit condescending (the atheist part was rather insulting). Few things are ever monocausal, and trying to categorize and explain the motivation of an entire group of people the way he does is overly simplistic and basically stereotyped thinking. Some good points, though.
SolicitorPirate
Member
Yeah, cause those are totally worse than a mobilized harassment group that has driven multiple people out of their homes and the industry. Get some fucking perspective, man.
jack_package_200
Banned
Considering that there was zero backpedaling or "we don't agree with those posting death threats" on forums or twitter accounts, I am not exactly sympathetic to those who feel that they are being lumped in with the crazies
I almost fell over in the GG video when he talked about how the GG's group identity is based on being oppressed and thus GG'ers always has to find the next villain. It's a never ending cycle. A feminist supporter just said that with a straight face. I wonder if he thinks feminism will ever end, or will it always need another villain to feed the group's identity?
This video series has been interesting so far. I would serve as supporting evidence of his Angry Jack position. I felt defensive originally of Anita's videos. Since that time it has led to some interesting thoughts about how the capitalist system operates if the wealthy are/were sexist/racist/wtfever. So I did find some interesting thoughts due to Anita's videos, but those thoughts were really outside of realm of the content of her videos that I saw.
All that being said I feel like looking at a object or situation from a different lens can lead to insight, but the problem is when one uses only that lens for insight.
So there is an example, to clarify my meaning, that if someone only looked at a pyramid from underneath they would see the pyramid as a square. If another person only saw a pyramid from the side it would only look like a triangle. We only get a full & complete understanding of the pyramid when it's viewed from all angles. I feel like much of the feminism work I have been in contact with has only used the single lenses for insight and tried to say that their perspective is the one that matters, and if you disagree you a supporter of patriarchy.
EDIT: I haven't finished this 6 part series. I only made it about half way through the third video so far.
This video series has been interesting so far. I would serve as supporting evidence of his Angry Jack position. I felt defensive originally of Anita's videos. Since that time it has led to some interesting thoughts about how the capitalist system operates if the wealthy are/were sexist/racist/wtfever. So I did find some interesting thoughts due to Anita's videos, but those thoughts were really outside of realm of the content of her videos that I saw.
All that being said I feel like looking at a object or situation from a different lens can lead to insight, but the problem is when one uses only that lens for insight.
So there is an example, to clarify my meaning, that if someone only looked at a pyramid from underneath they would see the pyramid as a square. If another person only saw a pyramid from the side it would only look like a triangle. We only get a full & complete understanding of the pyramid when it's viewed from all angles. I feel like much of the feminism work I have been in contact with has only used the single lenses for insight and tried to say that their perspective is the one that matters, and if you disagree you a supporter of patriarchy.
EDIT: I haven't finished this 6 part series. I only made it about half way through the third video so far.
What always surprises me is the call for moderation mentioned gamergate topics, the 'I can see both sides point" or "I feel it's a bit grayer than either side is making it out to be". It's even happening in this thread. In most topics, this is a reasonable statement. But in terms of Gamergate, even this is a often a veil for trying to derail the discourse. I think this is one of the very rare times where being an extremist is the correct course of action.
Gamergate as a movement is wrong, head to toe. The death and rape threat and harassment are wrong. Not that there are so many of them. There is no acceptable death threat and rape threat level that isn't zero. Gamergate is wrong to hack her accounts, gamergate is wrong to try to silence her. Gamergate is wrong for the accusations and insults it's hurled. Gamergate is wrong for trying to discredit feminism and Gamergate is wrong for trying to deny the sexism present in the industry. Gamergate is wrong for the bomb threat they made.Gamergate is wrong for trying to downvote any video that talks about feminism or depicts accurately how disgusting they are. I wouldn't call gamergate evil, but I wouldn't disagree with someone who does.
Anita's video's aren't perfect and her arguments could be improved in various ways. That's about as much of a good point that Gamergaters have, and they pretty much never address what ways her arguments could be improved because they aren't attacking the arguments, they're attacking her and feminism. People who are supporters of her have done more to address her actual arguments than the vast majority, if not the entirety, of gamergaters. Her fans want to hear the best arguments possible. Gamergaters just want the arguments to stop with her silence.
In all my time following the event, I've yet to hear of any good argument they've put forth that justifies any single thing that has been done to Anita Sarkesian and all the other women who have been caught in the crossfire. It's not even about being a big fan of hers. I'm certainly not. My philosophy of feminism disagrees with her significantly. But supposing Gamergate might be, even slightly, in the right is the justification of all the disgusting actions they have taken to destroy livelihoods.
No, there is no justification in that. There is no grey. There is nothing good or right about that, not even a little. I will continue to listen to propositions, because the forum must always be open to counter arguments. But since this whole thing started, I have never heard one that justified any of this, and there likely will never be one. Gamergate is black and white, 100% without any room for ambiguity wrong for having done the things it did.
And if anyone thinks otherwise, I invite them to speak up, and explain to me in detail why they condone, in any manner, the ruination of people's lives for the act of speaking up to ask to be treated with respect.
Gamergate as a movement is wrong, head to toe. The death and rape threat and harassment are wrong. Not that there are so many of them. There is no acceptable death threat and rape threat level that isn't zero. Gamergate is wrong to hack her accounts, gamergate is wrong to try to silence her. Gamergate is wrong for the accusations and insults it's hurled. Gamergate is wrong for trying to discredit feminism and Gamergate is wrong for trying to deny the sexism present in the industry. Gamergate is wrong for the bomb threat they made.Gamergate is wrong for trying to downvote any video that talks about feminism or depicts accurately how disgusting they are. I wouldn't call gamergate evil, but I wouldn't disagree with someone who does.
Anita's video's aren't perfect and her arguments could be improved in various ways. That's about as much of a good point that Gamergaters have, and they pretty much never address what ways her arguments could be improved because they aren't attacking the arguments, they're attacking her and feminism. People who are supporters of her have done more to address her actual arguments than the vast majority, if not the entirety, of gamergaters. Her fans want to hear the best arguments possible. Gamergaters just want the arguments to stop with her silence.
In all my time following the event, I've yet to hear of any good argument they've put forth that justifies any single thing that has been done to Anita Sarkesian and all the other women who have been caught in the crossfire. It's not even about being a big fan of hers. I'm certainly not. My philosophy of feminism disagrees with her significantly. But supposing Gamergate might be, even slightly, in the right is the justification of all the disgusting actions they have taken to destroy livelihoods.
No, there is no justification in that. There is no grey. There is nothing good or right about that, not even a little. I will continue to listen to propositions, because the forum must always be open to counter arguments. But since this whole thing started, I have never heard one that justified any of this, and there likely will never be one. Gamergate is black and white, 100% without any room for ambiguity wrong for having done the things it did.
And if anyone thinks otherwise, I invite them to speak up, and explain to me in detail why they condone, in any manner, the ruination of people's lives for the act of speaking up to ask to be treated with respect.
Metal Gear?!
Member
Is feminism a group identity based on being oppressed?
Has GG as a group been victimized by feminism?
Is the purpose of GG as a group to oppose feminism?
SolicitorPirate
Member
Feminism will end when people of all genders and sexual orientation are able to fully enjoy their lives without societal double standards.
But please, continue to dismiss an uphill battle against societal mechanisms that have been reinforced over thousands of years of human civilization as something always needing another villain.
you're not serious, right?
Brawndo Addict
Banned
*My post isn't about how this applies to GamerGate, it's just about the issue/idea that he's raising in the second video.*
I think he's completely missing some very importance issues regarding identity politics and value judgments. Declining something is not the same thing as expressing your identity and it's disingenuous to act as if someone doing that is completely innocent or not instigating anything on a political level (not that it's necessarily a bad thing, but you're not doing 'nothing'). Your answer and the reasoning for your answer are two very different things, but people act as if an expression of identity/reasoning is somehow undistinguished and default neutral when compared to the decision itself.
My friend says they are hungry and I offer them a bite of my sandwich. They could say "No thank you" or they could say "I'm a vegan". The former applies regardless of your reasoning, it is just an expression of your decision. The latter is not a pure expression of a decision, it is an expression of your rationale/identity. You're not responding to the question so much as you're stating your identity in a passive-aggressive way that puts the burden on me to work through what your identity means and how it applies in the context of my question and what conclusion that should lead me to reach about what your response is. That is not apolitical and neutral.
Now many people are just thinking ahead and assuming that the next question from the person will be "Why don't you want my sandwich?" or some other kind of aggressive political interrogation; they're just trying to shut that down before it happens: "I just want to decline a sandwich without having to make it political". But this is the same kind of problematic thinking that we're castigating the question asker for: "I just want to offer a sandwich to my friend without it becoming political". The difference is that the respondent is the one interjecting politics directly in a flawed attempt to circumvent it, and then complaining that the other party responded to that latent expression of values in a normal way.
If you're going to skip a step in the conversational process and assume that it's going to get political, then there's no reason to be surprised that people's responses will similarly skip a step.
I think he's completely missing some very importance issues regarding identity politics and value judgments. Declining something is not the same thing as expressing your identity and it's disingenuous to act as if someone doing that is completely innocent or not instigating anything on a political level (not that it's necessarily a bad thing, but you're not doing 'nothing'). Your answer and the reasoning for your answer are two very different things, but people act as if an expression of identity/reasoning is somehow undistinguished and default neutral when compared to the decision itself.
My friend says they are hungry and I offer them a bite of my sandwich. They could say "No thank you" or they could say "I'm a vegan". The former applies regardless of your reasoning, it is just an expression of your decision. The latter is not a pure expression of a decision, it is an expression of your rationale/identity. You're not responding to the question so much as you're stating your identity in a passive-aggressive way that puts the burden on me to work through what your identity means and how it applies in the context of my question and what conclusion that should lead me to reach about what your response is. That is not apolitical and neutral.
Now many people are just thinking ahead and assuming that the next question from the person will be "Why don't you want my sandwich?" or some other kind of aggressive political interrogation; they're just trying to shut that down before it happens: "I just want to decline a sandwich without having to make it political". But this is the same kind of problematic thinking that we're castigating the question asker for: "I just want to offer a sandwich to my friend without it becoming political". The difference is that the respondent is the one interjecting politics directly in a flawed attempt to circumvent it, and then complaining that the other party responded to that latent expression of values in a normal way.
If you're going to skip a step in the conversational process and assume that it's going to get political, then there's no reason to be surprised that people's responses will similarly skip a step.
jim-jam bongs
Member
The only reason you don't see it as being apolitical is because of your feelings towards the explanation given for why they don't want the sandwich, there is nothing inherently political about someone's personal choices. That's like, the entire point of that episode.
I mean, if someone says "oh no thanks, I'm on a diet at the moment" do you immediately assume they're calling you a fatass?
Brawndo Addict
Banned
The personal is political, that's the entire point I'm making. Do you consider it apolitical whether someone wants to serve gay or black customers? Plus your response is ignoring the entire nuance my post was exploring about the difference between a decision versus an explanation.
"Do you want to come to my Christmas party?" "I'm an atheist" "So is that a yes or a no?"
You being an atheist tells me nothing in of itself about whether you want to attend my Christmas party or not. Only if it carries latent values associated with it can it even be understood as a response to my question, "Oh, I guess atheists disapprove of holidays with religious history or overtones, therefore, you probably don't want to attend my party which will be Christmas themed. On the other hand, Christmas is culturally non-religious and arguably consumer focused if nothing else; it's unlikely that atheists refuse to attend a party whose theme is associated with the secular branding of Christmas. I guess I don't know what you being an atheist means about attending my party." Saying no or yes is not the same thing as stating your identity.
Baron von Loathsome
Member
That particular one is a bad example, Christmas is arguably a secular holiday at this point, but the rest work to his point.
Well, from my experience, if you don't refuse a drink and tell people you don't drink, they'll offer you a different alcoholic drink - because that's the polite thing to do. They are trying to give me something I'll enjoy, I appreciate the gesture, but I need to politely tell them I don't drink. Whoever thinks there's anything political about such situation is in the wrong, IMO.
Just finished it. I thought it was awesome, really made me think about how people think about things, especially in western society. Though I feel like he pigeonholed "Angry Jack," a bit too much, like in his analysis of GamerGate, I agree that there are two groups, group 1 and 2 and that the existence of GG relied on their coexistence, and I thought he hit group 1 spot on (i.e. harassers, doxxers, etc. from 4Chan), but I feel like group 2 was really just anyone group 1 managed to convince, which included people like Angry Jack but also a much wider range of people in general.
Brawndo Addict
Banned
I just want to try to distinguish the point I'm trying to make here. I'm arguing that yes, the personal is political, and personal choices, actions, and even speech carries latent values associated with them. I'm not trying to argue that this is necessarily a bad thing or something that we don't want to occur. I'm just taking issue with an argument that proceeds from "This action has no subtext associated with it" when it clearly does (in my opinion anyway).
If I offer you a sandwich and you say "I'm a vegan" instead of "yes or no", you're inherently making the issue political (the degree or severity to which you do so is obviously minor in the grand scheme of the spectrum). That doesn't mean that saying you're a vegan is a 'bad' or 'wrong' response, but it's certainly not a 'neutral' response. A neutral response is simply "no". Take his car/environmentalist example. I offer my friend a ride in my car, he says "I'm an environmentalist". That can't tell me anything about his decision unless the context is supplying a negative relationship between environmentalists and the use of cars. Else I could simply ask "Do you as an environmentalist want a ride in my car?" and he might say yes, after all, perhaps he only strongly limits, not entirely excludes, the use of cars in his life.
There's a spectrum of political behavior with that of the individual on one hand and that of governments on the other.
Infinite_Respawn
Member
This was a really useful series to gain some kind of insight into what GamerGate was and where it came from. Honestly, until I joined GAF a month or so ago, my hobby has been fairly solitary. Though I played games with my friends when I was young or occasionally with my ex, most of my gaming time has been playing alone. In addition to not participating online in forums for the longest time, my view of the gaming community was as an outsider, so when GamerGate erupted I was mostly confused as to why everyone was so upset. This series helped me gain appreciation for how complicated things were and why it didn't blow over as quickly as I expected it would.
Not to mention it helped to show me just how close I was to becoming "Angry Jack" at one point or another earlier in my life...makes you think.
Not to mention it helped to show me just how close I was to becoming "Angry Jack" at one point or another earlier in my life...makes you think.
TakeItSlowDude
Member
I would say he betrays the idea that any of these positions are apolitical in the first part with his loaded description of getting coffee. Heck the implicit premise throughout the second video is that the default position is taken without thought and that the opposition to alternates positions can simply be explained by guilt or cognitive dissonance.
I think you're reading too much into this. "I'm a vegan" could equally mean, "Yes, I'm hungry but for <reasons> I don't want your sandwich". Those reasons could be due to personal preference rather than personal politics.
Everyone has their own biases, on any subject you want to name - that's where politics originates from. GGers have their own biases, as do those who oppose them, and that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if it is patently, empirically wrong.
Inflicting those biases on others, or acting on those biases to the detriment of others, especially in harmful or illegal ways, is where the huge NOPE sign should appear in a conscious person's mind, but it sadly rarely does, because we all believe ourselves to be innately righteous and good. Yes, even people who hate themselves (and/or everyone else) believe they're right to think so. It's the only way some people can even get through life without going mad or committing suicide.
I hope that, one day in the distant future, we can all evolve beyond such narrow self-centeredness.
(I haven't watched the videos yet, btw - I just wanted to reply to this specific point.)
Or it could just mean "I'd rather not eat your sandwhich". I don't know how complicated your life is, but when my friend refuses a sandwhich I offered him by reminding me he's vegetarian, I just say "okay" and move on.
In the grand scheme of things, yes, sure, the statements we make and why we make certain choices are political. But that's beside the point of the videos. We're not talking about analyzing every day decisions. We're talking about a standard scenario, a simple occurrence that could happen any day. People don't fret on every political sentiment out there. And when they do, it's usually in the form that was described in the video, when people take a neutral statement and turn it into a political action against themselves regardless of intent.
Is someone saying "I don't drink" or "I'm a recovering alcoholic" to your offer of a drink going to make you considering the political ramifications and their stances on prohibition because saying "recovering alcoholic" doesn't necessarily tell you exactly their stipulation on alcohol (maybe they're weening, or only certain alcohols, or whatever)? I'd assume not, so unless you're offering the drink at an AA meeting, it's okay to not have to consider every single political ramification of a solitary statement that might not necessarily be intended.
DICKS AHOY
Banned
I think this is a pretty good write up of the entire shit show, which is ironic since you can pretty easily see my posts in the "I Am Phil Fish" thread where I wasn't a big fan of that video. Especially with the 'moderate' line; I have friends who were/are into GG, and while I would hope anybody reading that would have the common sense to believe I wouldn't be friends with people I know are harassing people, it's annoying as shit getting sent 'moderate' examples of GG because they know Brietbart/8chan/KotakuInAction/EncyclopediaDramatica are dumb sources to use all things considered, but they don't question things as much if it's still roughly the same argument (SJW's are killing gaming, but presented less childishly naturally) presented in a far less volatile, aggressive tone.
Only thing I can really say is, especially if this series is meant to try and explain things to people who aren't just trying to shit-stir who knowingly or not get grouped in a larger toxic group, the earlier videos still seem to push Anita as inherently 'right' rather than focusing more on where she's coming from and the disconnect between 'this is just some person with a youtube channel, not this person taking away what you like just because she didn't like it'. It's hard to explain that point without it seeming like I'm trying to pull a 'both sides are wrong' ass-pull, but given who this series is aimed towards in part I don't think you're going to have as many people going "Oh, I didn't see things this way" and just get hung up on the smaller stuff like explaining social issue concepts like 'privilege' or hell even using terms like 'cis'.
Only thing I can really say is, especially if this series is meant to try and explain things to people who aren't just trying to shit-stir who knowingly or not get grouped in a larger toxic group, the earlier videos still seem to push Anita as inherently 'right' rather than focusing more on where she's coming from and the disconnect between 'this is just some person with a youtube channel, not this person taking away what you like just because she didn't like it'. It's hard to explain that point without it seeming like I'm trying to pull a 'both sides are wrong' ass-pull, but given who this series is aimed towards in part I don't think you're going to have as many people going "Oh, I didn't see things this way" and just get hung up on the smaller stuff like explaining social issue concepts like 'privilege' or hell even using terms like 'cis'.
travisbickle
Member
You're an angry Joe. The normal response to finding out facts about other people's lives is "oh, I did not know that."
Messofanego
Banned
That was excellent. The environment matters, and if I wasnt on NeoGAF since 2011, then I probably wouldnt see the perspective of feminism, as before I would not have contact with the problems in our world so why do these other people care so much about this which was a non-issue to me as a hetero dude. It sounds silly but sometimes you feel all the same stuff you care about should and only that stuff be universally cared about, otherwise it's "outrage culture amirite".
The most salient point because of how defensive people can get is whether you and me are a good person when their and my privilege is checked. When we feel we're judged just by the presence of someone who doesn't fit the norms (vegan, environmentalist, doesnt drink, etc). I remember threads on here about someone who didn't want to drink at parties and was then considered a no fun dude automatically. "Live a little" and the rest of familiar phrasing you'll be familiar with. As someone who doesnt drink, this kind of logic hurted my brain. People had bought into the philosophy throughout their lives that drinking was essential to be social because apparently everyone has debilitating anxiety so it is required.
Thanks to places like here, I've come to accept all kinds of different people and their lifestyles. But if I exclusively hanged around 4chan or certain Reddit communities, I'd probably end up a reactionary bigot who's part of the problem (proving why feminism should continue fighting).
The scariest thing that comes out of this is how old the people are. They're not just unemployed angry jack teens with lots of free time. They're angry jack 30+ year olds. There are angry jack husbands. Angry jack dads. People you wouldn't expect to spew hatred cause you'd think they dont have time for this nonsense.
The most salient point because of how defensive people can get is whether you and me are a good person when their and my privilege is checked. When we feel we're judged just by the presence of someone who doesn't fit the norms (vegan, environmentalist, doesnt drink, etc). I remember threads on here about someone who didn't want to drink at parties and was then considered a no fun dude automatically. "Live a little" and the rest of familiar phrasing you'll be familiar with. As someone who doesnt drink, this kind of logic hurted my brain. People had bought into the philosophy throughout their lives that drinking was essential to be social because apparently everyone has debilitating anxiety so it is required.
Thanks to places like here, I've come to accept all kinds of different people and their lifestyles. But if I exclusively hanged around 4chan or certain Reddit communities, I'd probably end up a reactionary bigot who's part of the problem (proving why feminism should continue fighting).
The scariest thing that comes out of this is how old the people are. They're not just unemployed angry jack teens with lots of free time. They're angry jack 30+ year olds. There are angry jack husbands. Angry jack dads. People you wouldn't expect to spew hatred cause you'd think they dont have time for this nonsense.
Easton Dark
Member
After all of it, the phrase that repeats in my mind is actually from his This is Phil Fish video.
"Sometimes the perceived offense is having any opinion at all".
Everyone harassed by GamerGate has a friend in me.
"Sometimes the perceived offense is having any opinion at all".
Everyone harassed by GamerGate has a friend in me.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
These videos are so calm and reasonable but the people in the comments are so...angry
Also reminder that we're coming up on the anniversary of Gamergate and the nearly total lack of action from the gaming industry at large
Also reminder that we're coming up on the anniversary of Gamergate and the nearly total lack of action from the gaming industry at large
DICKS AHOY
Banned
I wouldn't even say I care that much about feminism in gaming in the sense that social critique and other non-gameplay focused write ups are hard for me to really get into on a personal level and I have mixed feelings about Anita's views on a variety of topics, though the overall arguments in her videos were on TVTropes for a decade without the idiotic outrage. I don't think you have to come from a social-minded background to know GamerGate was way more about social-politics than actual games journalism. Hell, I openly dislike Polygon at this point but I don't feel it's due to dumb conspiracy shit or /pol/ style 'ironic' rants about progressives; I just feel it's sensationalist and any interesting articles are drowned out by more ones I dislike. Still knew GG was bullshit by the time the IRC chatlogs and screencaps of the original /v/ and /pol/ threads got spread more, and before then I wouldn't have said I was 'pro' so much as "I have no clue what the fuck is going on here and everybody gives a completely different account of events".
David Jaffe's a pretty good example of not needing that background to sniff out BS, plus it's interesting to note the reaction towards him was quite a bit more mild despite him openly calling them fucking idiots and thinking what happened to Anita was tragic. Probably a combination of him being too big an icon to go after even after months of trying to convince him to little effect, and there being nothing particularly big drama-wise to hook onto afterwards to discredit him, unlike Schafer who they wasted no time on latching onto that Space Base clusterfuck or the drama around Broken Age being split into two games.
In an alternate universe GG ignores all that because Schafer supports them, trumps up him and Double-Fine being gaming icons and instead goes after that horrible SJW anti-GG'r developer Mark Kern for Firefall's development drama. I can't entirely blame developers, especially smaller ones wanting to stay far away from talking about this one way or the other because no matter what you're somewhat fucked.
Messofanego
Banned
Yeah. It matters who the talk comes from, like Ian Danskin says in part 6 of this series. Similar in real life, if it comes from people you're familiar with (like Tim Schafer or David Jaffe or many videogame developers on Twitter), then you're more likely to hear them out and reflect.
This series is the best kind of navel gazing.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Really good videos, and very sad about the next Gamergate being over the horizon somewhere
This.
Gamergate, though over blown over God knows what, was an isolated incident that no one will care about a year from now, let alone by the end of the year. People are angry, and most of the time, rightfully so, over questionable, poor or downright anti consumer business practices.
SolicitorPirate
Member
Tell that to the people who got doxxed. Or the people who got chased out of the industry. Or the people who have faced years of anti feminist harassment before gamergate even had a name. How are you so fucking broken that you think something like on disc dlc or broken releases are anywhere close to that?
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Then why did they go largely ignored previously, and even while GG was in full swing? Gaters continued to ignore large and egregious actions done by their favorite AAA devs while continuing to focus on indie devs and journalists.
It's also unfortunately not an isolated incident or over