Support NeoGAF

[kittens]

Just saw this on Twitter and lol'd hard.

https://twitter.com/Tormny_Pickeals/status/507225083945820160

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

I would call it misogyny. But misogyny is too broad a term to be useful in most contexts. The "misogyny" that fuels gamergate trolls is very different than the "misogyny" that motivates Pat Robertson to tell wives to be subservient to their husbands.

My post was a thesis on the underlying motivation, conscious or unconscious, of these trolls. That necessarily humanizes them. Attack my thesis all you want, but arguing that I mean to "establish an equal sense of victimization for the unloved inhabitants of 4chan" or "sympathize with and validate their actions" is a strawman.

Ok, so we understand. Now what? Are you trying to say that these "outspoken women" need to change their behavior to avoid making the "lonely young men" change into a wrathful misogynist?

 

[BobbyRobby]

This is the closest I've ever seen someone come to the heart of the issue at hand as I identify it, though I find your view that "sexual entitlement" as the source for all this vitriol to lack nuance. Not to say that it isn't correct (it is), but it's missing the comprehensive assessment necessary to make total sense of online misogyny and online harassment toward women.

I think part of the reason why this (and I'll get to exactly what "this" is soon) goes completely unaddressed is because - and I must stress that I say this as a feminist - women cannot empathize with the emotional fuel that drives these trolls to do what they do.

It is a fact, one barely acknowledged, that there exists a sizable portion of the young adult heterosexual male population who go perennially or perpetually without sexual intimacy. They are involuntarily celibate. They receive no positive attention from the opposite sex. Their life is without dating and sex, when they are told that these activities are not only normal, but expected, to people of their age. They are lonely, they are miserable, and they are hurt. I'm sure everyone reading this post can think of a few men in their lives who fit this description, if they don't themselves. I disagree that their state of mind can be properly described as "sexually entitled." I would argue that such a description is insulting.

4chan's /v/ has a community much like any other gaming forum; its populated by the same type of guy who would describe himself as a "gamer." What makes /v/ unique - and all of 4chan for that matter - is that every user is by default protected under the auspices of anonymity, and that nothing he ever says can be linked to his identity or the reputation thereof. There you can easily find posts from anonymous users lamenting the paucity or absence of a romantic or sex life.

But these young men have video games. It is a male space. It is medication from the pain that consumes their lives. It is one of the few things they have that is curtailed specially toward them, something that makes them feel empowered and in control. (And I think that this is a very, very bad thing.) So when someone like Anita Sarkeesian comes along, the results should be obvious. She says that feminine tropes in video games are shameful, when these men use these same video games to escape their own shame. She says that men are privileged in society, when these men feel anything but the sort. She says that women are troublingly represented in video games, when these men feel like video games are one of, if not the only, things in life they truly own.

They see an encroachment in what is supposed to be a safe space by the very entity that brings them unrelenting pain. And so they lash out. They lash out with misogynistic, hyper-sexualized vitriol. They lash out with an intense hatred only capable of a tormented and broken psyche.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the male suicide rate has quadrupled since the advent of the sexual revolution. I don't think it's a coincidence that the incidence of mass shootings has steadily increased over the same period, nor that virtually all of them are perpetrated by lonely young men. And I don't think it's a coincidence that outspoken women, and especially feminists, experience a greater deluge of online harassment than people of any other hot button issue.

At least people seem to be aware of this last point. They recognize that feminist rhetoric riles up the internet hate machine like nothing else. But this is where the understanding stops. Their conclusion is "these men hate women," and don't go any further. Chalking it up plainly to "misogyny" is selling the issue very dangerously short.

I agree with a lot of this. I think some lonely men begin to resent women because they see them as the gatekeepers to the sex and romance they desire. That said, I do not think video games cause misogyny. In fact, I think it is more likely they act as an outlet for their frustrations.

For some men, it's a form of power pornography.

Whereas pornography is a reliever of sexual tension, video games can also act as an outlet for men to feel powerful and aggressive. Some men use games to escape to a world where they are powerful and sexually desired.

Despite initial claims that pornography would inspire men to rape, there is actually a correlation between access to porn and a decrease in sexual assaults.(source - https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...SyQ6_-HBSDuPaDJEA&sig2=7omO11FkpvUVB9zw0nN4ww)
It seems likely to me that video games may do the same, saitiating frustrated men, making them less likely to lash out.

I don't think it is wise to rob them of either outlet.

Edit: source article I added also claims a decrease in violent crime when violent movies release.

 

[City of Dis]

Ok, so we understand. Now what? Are you trying to say that these "outspoken feminists" need to change their behavior to avoid making the "lonely young men" change into a wrathful misogynist?

Of course not. I don't believe there is a solution. There is no "now what?" My original post is the full extent of what I have to say on the matter.

 

[Ropaire]

I didn't really read it that way at all. I think it's important to identify the root causes of this particular brand of misogyny. Doing that isn't excusing the behavior.

I think you're treading thin ice when you caution not to use the word "misogyny" itself as though it's no longer capable of encapsulating the words and deeds of the harassers.

Whether it's an accurate summation of their perspective or not (and of course, I take issue with the assertion that women are incapable of empathizing with romantic or sexual loneliness, which is an extremely 4chan thing to say), the problem isn't that we have to solve the disenfranchisement of a bunch of sexually frustrated adolescent boys, it's that we have a patriarchal society which teaches them unconsciously that women are objects they can threaten, punish, and silence with impunity.

And while City of Dis points to games as a male space for the unloved, Anita Sarkeesian and others have been attesting to games as a media structure which communicates this idea that it's acceptable to treat people this way. And we're watching the effects of that now.

 

[flatearthpandas]

I found the Slate article to be quite good. His remarks about the increasing lack of need for traditional gaming media and the growing dislike between them and their audience seen on point to me, as well as his criticism of other journalists decision to shotgun blast their entire audience because of their trouble with a minority of that audience. Worth noting, Auerbach wrote another article particularly about the Quinn incident that, while I didn't agree with as much, still had a lot going for it, not the least of which being the balls to actually write an article about it at all when most of the rest of the internet, Neogaf included, were doing their absolute damnedest to kill the discussion as if it were possible for them to make it go away.

I was unmoved overall by L. Rhodes' article but I can't say strongly enough how much I appreciated that the blog was written after conversation with some of the proponents. However, in order to grant the benefit of the doubt, which is good, the blog espouses some conspiracy level assumptions, which I find troubling for two reasons. 1) The possibility that they believe it. 2) If they don't, they are patronizing the audience

If there is a collection of individuals actively working to play gamers and journalists off of each other in order to create chaos and promote bigotry, then they deserve their victory. I don't see organization or conspiracy in this though. I do see an anonymous battlefield whose tools (hashtags) can be used by literally anyone. I see a community that does harbor elements of outspoken bigotry because it cannot help but to because it is a global community that cannot be moderated. And those elements will remain whatever you call the community or whatever hashtags are used.

Earlier, in the boogie thread, people claimed that all they wanted was for gamers to stand up when they saw people in the community acting inappropriately. Report them in-game, tell them that behavior is not okay, argue with them on message boards and Twitter, etc. At this point we drop into anecdotes for lack of any kind of evidence. For my part, I've never seen a nasty YouTube comment or Tweet that didn't come with some impotent white knight defender. I've never seen that defense make a difference. Certainly not one so demonstrable as to justify the articles I've seen lately, if their intent truly was just to get the non-bigots whom they'd just insulted to sign up for the army and protect gamingdom from Twitter vitriol and 4chan's vocabulary. Returning to anecdotes, I have seen people tell people who are being demonstrably bigoted to get lost. This has worked in two ways. The person either apologized and tried to be better or didn't and was kicked from the group/guild and blocked/reported. This is indeed a good thing to encourage people to do. Insulting gamers is not a good way to encourage them to do this.

Positivity is what we need.
We cannot excise the unpleasant elements from the community at large and so this "war" has no achievable goal and no practical value in existing. If people are being bullied on Twitter, let them know you don't think that is okay (even if you don't like the content--if any--they create). If you know someone who is sending death threats, tell them to stop. Report them to the police. Introduce actual repercussions to the behavior when possible. Be inclusive when possible and exclusive when necessary. You don't need to have an internet flame war to create private guilds, chat channels, parties, friends lists, etc. where people can feel welcome even when the ungovernable community at large may have some bigots and casual use of slurs. If you think someone may be willing to change their behavior to be more accommodating, re. casual slurs, then ask them to nicely even if you are angry. See what happens and then work with them/block them/report them as necessary.

In short, fight battles that can be won. As these types of communities increase in number, gaming as a whole will probably look a bit more welcoming. You don't need to insult or fight anybody to accomplish this.

As far as the expressed desire for ethics and higher standards of writing in the gaming media, L. Rhodes touched on that fairly well. There is an achievable goal line down that road somewhere, in my opinion. If Twitter is the best avenue to pursue, and recent reports and behavior from the gaming press seems to show it may be, think about how to distance reporting from the inevitable hellstorm that can adopt your hashtags. Maybe don't use them. Or, get the attention of the writers who are actually capable of addressing the issues responsibly and write for sites that may actually have ethics codes. People like Erik Kain at Forbes and David Auerbach at Slate.

 

[Lost Fragment]

.

I don't know how much I agree with the second-to-last paragraph, as society has changed in a lot of other ways too in the same timeframe. I don't doubt that it might at least contribute, but it's a pretty bold claim without evidence (that I might just not know about), is all. Otherwise, a pretty great post.

I've always felt that the "She's not gonna fuck you for defending her, you know!" stuff that you always hear from MRA-types is projection. They say that because they themselves are miserable enough to try similar kinds of things in the hopes of getting love out of it. They genuinely can't understand why "SJWs" would hold the views they do, and the idea that people would mischaracterize their true views to that extent out of desperation seems logical when viewed from that lens.

 

[City of Dis]

It is, as a recipient of racism this crap that is occurring to gamer's is exact same thing. if gamer's were a race this would out right racism what City of Dis wrote. Lets see "medication from the pain that consumes their lives" + "when these men use these same video games to escape their own shame" + "They lash out with an intense hatred only capable of a tormented and broken psyche". Replace gamers with skin colour of your choice.

Of course I wasn't talking about everyone who plays video games.

Only the ones who drove Anita Sarkeesian from her home.

 

[Brakke]

Someone promote Dis to proper member.

I think many people understand why they're aggressive. The thing is it isn't relevant. Women don't have any responsibility for the frustration of straight male gamers, it's on them. Their sexuality is their own responsibility and nobody else's. And I think the comment about women not understanding it is ridiculous. Any rational person isn't going to be able to empathise with a person that both reduces them to an object and hates them for simply existing at the same time.

Well I think the broader nuance is that all of that is relevant, just maybe not relevant today. None of how these people got to this point excuses their behavior. But, we do live in a world where this class of violent loner is prevalent. And it's because we've built up all these structures around ridiculing male virgins and exalting playboys, it's because we make games and comics and more that depict and reinforce ownership of or entitlement to women's bodies, it's because we didn't have lunch with that weirdo in our sixth grade class.

So condemn the harassment today--because it's absolutely unacceptable--but tomorrow also give a thought to the ongoing, quiet harassment and marginalization that drove these people to become such total jerks in the first place.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

Of course not. I don't believe there is a solution. There is no "now what?" My original post is the full extent of what I have to say on the matter.

Why wouldn't the solution be to encourage these lonely young men not to attack a woman on the internet just because some other woman won't have sex with them?

 

[jgminto]

Someone promote Dis to proper member.



Well I think the broader nuance is that all of that is relevant, just maybe not relevant today. None of how these people got to this point excuses their behavior. But, we do live in a world where this class of violent loner is prevalent. And it's because we've built up all these structures around ridiculing male virgins and exalting playboys, it's because we make games and comics and more that depict and reinforce ownership of or entitlement to women's bodies, it's because we didn't have lunch with that weirdo in our sixth grade class.

So condemn the harassment today--because it's absolutely unacceptable--but tomorrow also give a thought to the ongoing, quiet harassment and marginalization that drove these people to become such total jerks in the first place.

Sure, that's very true.

 

[theSlacker]

I think many people understand why they're aggressive. The thing is it isn't relevant. Women don't have any responsibility for the frustration of straight male gamers, it's on them. Their sexuality is their own responsibility and nobody else's. And I think the comment about women not understanding it is ridiculous. Any rational person isn't going to be able to empathise with a person that both reduces them to an object and hates them for simply existing at the same time.

I don't think he would claim that it is anyone's responsibility except their own, and that he isn't defending whatever actions they take. I don't really want to put words into his mouth though, it is just the impression that I got was that he was offering an explanation. An explanation is indeed irrelevant to anyone that doesn't care to understand/empathize with said group of people and that is also not a bad or "incorrect" stance to take either.

Like I mentioned in my last post, I think the biggest problem is that nothing he said can really offer a solution or way forward, and is just a possible explanation behind a damaged worldview.

 

[Green Card]

So condemn the harassment today--because it's absolutely unacceptable--but tomorrow also give a thought to the ongoing, quiet harassment and marginalization that drove these people to become such total jerks in the first place.

I agree but I wouldn't really call it quiet harrassment. A few posts above some put loney young men in quotes and that type of attitude is quite common.

 

[SocksForWoks]

Taking a deep look into this, I am going to side with David Auerbach.

Professional Gaming Journalism is becoming very obscure and often they are reaching for deeper meaning such as social/culture aspects in games. This is not going well as video games were never meant to be a medium for that. They try to latch onto indie games for social justification such as Gone Home but thats hardly effective as its an indie developer just making games their own way and not truly expecting to produce a huge AAA hit.

I have not read a professional game review since the early 360/PS3/Wii era. At this time, forums have grown large enough that just discussion with fellow forum members was enough to decide a game if I even listened at all and just went with my own decision. It used to be hilarious to mock highly anticipated games that 'flop' or 'bomba', having flame wars with fanboys. Sometimes that still happens but for the most part no one really trolls to heart. The only thing that genuinely stirs the community are valid situations of sketchiness, such as DNF being such a turd despite 10 years of devtime or GearBox swindling Sega's money towards Borderlands 2 and leaving Aliens: Colonel Marines on the backburner.

Also with amatuer game reviewers and their media channels, we truly get to see an unbiased look at the video games that we get hyped about. For me its far more effective than even renting a game.

All in all, I think professional gaming journalism is going the way of that old gaming channel, G4. They started to rely on skits and gimmicks when it wasn't E3 and gamers were getting bored of wathing game coverage when websites were getting the news faster. G4 died so fast because it was a cable network channel. Professional Gaming Journalism, when its not time for E3, is similarly relying on drama that gamers don't care about. 4chan, tumblr, twitter, etc aren't influential in the slightest unless its something that actually affects people like a police injustice/civil war coverage, and the like.

Anyway, I wrote this as I was switching between League of Legends, Pokemon Y, and Mario Kart 8.

The take away is that nonsense like #GamerGate shouldn't be preventing from playing the games you enjoy.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

I agree but I wouldn't really call it quiet harrassment. A few posts above some put loney young men in quotes and that type of attitude is quite common.

My post? What do you mean?

 

[City of Dis]

I think you're treading thin ice when you caution not to use the word "misogyny" itself as though it's no longer capable of encapsulating the words and deeds of the harassers.

Whether it's an accurate summation of their perspective or not (and of course, I take issue with the assertion that women are incapable of empathizing with romantic or sexual loneliness, which is an extremely 4chan thing to say), the problem isn't that we have to solve the disenfranchisement of a bunch of sexually frustrated adolescent boys, it's that we have a patriarchal society which teaches them unconsciously that women are objects they can threaten, punish, and silence with impunity.

And while City of Dis points to games as a male space for the unloved, Anita Sarkeesian and others have been attesting to games as a media structure which communicates this idea that it's acceptable to treat people this way. And we're watching the effects of that now.

That is my contention. I think you could take out every iota of patriarchal influence in today's culture, eliminate entirely the issues Anita Sarkeesian points out, and you would still have the trolling and the vitriol.

 

[Ropaire]

Well I think the broader nuance is that all of that is relevant, just maybe not relevant today. None of how these people got to this point excuses their behavior. But, we do live in a world where this class of violent loner is prevalent. And it's because we've built up all these structures around ridiculing male virgins and exalting playboys, it's because we make games and comics and more that depict and reinforce ownership of or entitlement to women's bodies, it's because we didn't have lunch with that weirdo in our sixth grade class.

So condemn the harassment today--because it's absolutely unacceptable--but tomorrow also give a thought to the ongoing, quiet harassment and marginalization that drove these people to become such total jerks in the first place.

See, this is the problem with City of Dis' post. Confusing being a troubled white male who isn't having enough sex with actual discrimination and oppression is a tremendously misguided road to endeavor upon, and while we may say that today's harassment is unacceptable, attempting to paint it as a byproduct of genuine of marginalization as opposed to the obscene use of force by the privileged is an insult to the people who are truly being marginalized in this situation.

That is my contention. I think you could take out every iota of patriarchal influence in today's culture, eliminate entirely the issues Anita Sarkeesian points out, and you would still have the trolling and the vitriol.

By saying so, you are excusing the patriarchy for its role in their sexual entitlement. These men would not be allowed to act in such a hostile way if it weren't for the privilege afforded to males in our culture. I used the term "disenfranchised" facetiously in my last post, but it seems like you believe that they actually are so. I'm sorry, but while they may be privately suffering, these heterosexual men are by their very actions exercising the power that they have. You couldn't eliminate the systematically codified sexism in games and other media about which Anita Sarkeesian is trying to educate in a vacuum and still expect that "boys will be boys" and we would see this phenomenon regardless.

 

[City of Dis]

Why wouldn't the solution be to encourage these lonely young men not to attack a woman on the internet just because some other woman won't have sex with them?

In case you haven't noticed, everyone's already tried that. They keep coming no matter what you say to them, and they will continue to do so.

 

[Myggen]

It is, as a recipient of racism this crap that is occurring to gamer's is exact same thing. if gamer's were a race this would out right racism what City of Dis wrote. Lets see "medication from the pain that consumes their lives" + "when these men use these same video games to escape their own shame" + "They lash out with an intense hatred only capable of a tormented and broken psyche". Replace gamers with skin colour of your choice.

But gamers aren't a race...

I don't understand how you can't separate this. Sure, calling gamers nerds is dumb, but it can't be compared to real bigotry. Calling people names because of their hobby isn't the same as calling people names because of the color of their skin or their gender.

 

[Interficium]

The Auerbach article is basically "Ether" with the enthusiast press standing in for Jay-Z. Absolutely brutal.

 

[twobear]

I'm honestly not completely convinced that misogyny is even the motivator. I think some people just derive a lot of enjoyment from annoying and upsetting other people, and one of the best ways of annoying and upsetting people is to do and say things that they think is ethically questionable.

 

[Myggen]

The Auerbach article is basically "Ether" with the enthusiast press standing in for Jay-Z. Absolutely brutal.

There's absolutely nothing new there. The big gaming journalism sites have been on the decline for years now and everyone knows it, and it's partly because of the faceless nature of those sites compared to Youtube/Twitch. It's just Slate repackaging that common knowledge in a clickbait headline that's very typical for that shitty publication. Games journalism will probably evolve into more personality-driven stuff, like Gamespot is trying to do now. That Slate article doesn't really add anything to the conversation that we didn't already know long before this shitstorm broke out.

I'm honestly not completely convinced that misogyny is even the motivator. I think some people just derive a lot of enjoyment from annoying and upsetting other people, and one of the best ways of annoying and upsetting people is to do and say things that they think is ethically questionable.

It is for a lot of the people who's abusing others online right now.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

In case you haven't noticed, everyone's already tried that. They keep coming no matter what you say to them, and they will continue to do so.

Yeah, the more I think about it the more issues I think I have with your post. Out of all the changes to society to focus on this "marginalization of virgins" exacerbated by the sexual revolution just strikes me as attempting to blame feminism for misogyny. Yes you explicitly said that's not what you intended to do, but your original post can still be read that way, I think. Gotta go to bed though.

 

[Noaloha]

I disagree on all those points, general sweeping assumptions made on stereotypes that no way reflect whom gamer's are. Just as bad as misogyny and bigotry in gaming.

I'd argue there's some kneejerk reaction on your part there when you just assume the poster is referring to --problem term-- 'gamers' in the general sense. This is furthermore an assumption that has, is, very likely will continue to, propagate this shitshow's flames.

In contrast to how you appear to have taken the post, the author's \v\ example makes a specific point of singling out the problematic individuals from within the larger community as "the same type of guy who would describe himself as a "gamer."" This is not the same as 'gamers' in the general sense, right? That isn't the largest circle on the Venn Diagram of this hobby's consumers. I don't think there's anything in the post that doesn't reasonably (enough to merit consideration) describe the social circumstances of a subset of the group of people who enjoy playing video games, whether or not you accept the subsequent suggestion of motive.

If (as I hope) we accept that the really nasty shit in this debacle stems from some motivated minority of the community, the post (as I take it) is making a case for what kind of underlying circumstances might (might!) lead to such vitriol; it's about empathising with a possible mindset, without exculpating the observed bullshittery.

 

[sploatee]

It's really difficult for me to pick this 'movement' apart because there's such a glut of information and commentary on this and this thread is my first real contact with it.

My incoherent thoughts are as follows:

1. I have never felt there to be a huge problem with games journalism. Gamers are one of the most socially-networked and internet-vocal demographics and it's not very difficult to find out what a publisher would rather you didn't. I also feel there's already a plethora of voices and it's a good thing. I like reading Leigh Alexander as much as I like reading IGN. They all help me form my own view of this hobby and make informed decisions as to whom I give my money to.

2. The terms "SJW" and even the Boogie2988 petition seem so incredibly adolescent to me. I feel that this debate is just taking place in a greenhouse of increasing hot air. The anonymity and distance of social media encourage people to act stupidly. Combine that with a disenfranchised group and/or raging hormones and you don't really have a recipe for intelligent discussion.

3. Ultimately, I'm actually kind of ashamed by the whole debate. To use an analogy it seems like 'we' are still arguing over imprisoning homosexuals while the rest of culture (at least in the West - yes I know it's not a great analogy) is discussing gay marriage. Or like 'we' are still discussing whether slavery is a good thing or not while the rest of culture discusses economic enfranchisement and participation in capitalism. I hope I'm making my point; so much of the discussion feels like the banging of a caveman's fist against a wall while outside there's a city.


I'm sorry if there are nuances and facts that I've missed out. It's just my gut feeling and I wanted to get it off my chest before I started work.

 

[Brakke]

I agree but I wouldn't really call it quiet harrassment. A few posts above some put loney young men in quotes and that type of attitude is quite common.

Yes, "quiet" maybe isn't the best word. I'm trying to capture an idea of... "permissibility" maybe? Every class in my elementary school had a "that kid" who shook down to the bottom of the pecking order early on and then got stuck there since nobody else wanted to be "the kid that hangs out with that kid". So every class engaged in this total isolation of a few kids. Some of them moved schools or broke out of it in middle school or something, but some of them just got left behind. That kind of harassment is "quiet" because no one person is so shockingly guilty of it any one day enough for someone to notice and push back.

Professional Gaming Journalism is becoming very obscure and often they are reaching for deeper meaning such as social/culture aspects in games. This is not going well as video games were never meant to be a medium for that.

This is kind of a broken premise. The author has been dead for decades. What *some* creators might intend about how their games should be interpreted doesn't have any bearing on the actual experience people have with the text as presented.

See, this is the problem with City of Dis' post. Confusing being a troubled white male who isn't having enough sex with actual discrimination and oppression is a tremendously misguided road to endeavor upon, and while we may say that today's harassment is unacceptable, attempting to paint it as a byproduct of genuine of marginalization as opposed to the obscene use of force by the privileged is an insult to the people who are truly being marginalized in this situation.

Yeah absolutely, the one doesn't excuse the other in any way, and they're absolutely not on the same level. That's why I think the outright assaults deserve "condemnation" and the other "quieter" un-inclusivity

Spoiler

(what a catastrophe of a word I've just created)

undercurrent that runs under our society (especially around sexuality) deserves "a thought".

I dunno, I'm thinking back to being eight and being one of the "cool kids" and of the emotional damage I now know that I inflicted on the "weird kids". Like, straight up, I was once upon a time a little terrorist in jean shorts and Sketchers. Most every classes at my school had a kid or two who didn't have the privilege of being able to strike up a conversation with someone without getting sneered at.

The obscene use of force we've seen here breaks my heart, no question. It's horrific and intolerable and we shouldn't stand for it. I guess it also breaks my heart that people exist who think it's appropriate or acceptable (or don't care that it isn't) to use force in these ways. I figure a penal system should accomplish both removing the offender from the opportunity to offend, and also working to rehabilitate them so they don't offend again.

 

[TaroYamada]

Did anybody mention the forbes article? I haven't followed this thread so sorry if it's a repost.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Why wouldn't the solution be to encourage these lonely young men not to attack a woman on the internet just because some other woman won't have sex with them?

How? How do you communicate with them? They're as reachable as some forgotten tribe in the wilderness. They need friends and therapists and time to grow up, not instruction from people on the internet. This is one of the reasons I've found the broadside criticisms of "gamer culture" to be so off-base: there are people in this debate genuinely unmotivated by misogyny, and there are people in this debate motivated by the sort of run of the mill conservative-ish white guy misogyny you might find anywhere men congregate in this country. That's "gamer culture." And then there are the people sending death threats and devoting their lives to stalking and attacking Zoë Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian and the rest. I agree with City of Dis's description of it, and it's a different beast entirely.

 

[Brakke]

That is my contention. I think you could take out every iota of patriarchal influence in today's culture, eliminate entirely the issues Anita Sarkeesian points out, and you would still have the trolling and the vitriol.

Well, I think that depends on how deep you're willing to follow the patriarchy rabbit hole. Are "involuntarily celibate" men driven to vitriol because they are in their secret, true hearts angry at women for not having sex with them, or are they driven to vitriol because they experience that celibacy as shame because we've taught ourselves that celibacy is shameful?

In a nature/nurture, I'll almost always maintain that both hold sway but that the nurture probably has a bigger influence on behavior. If we

Spoiler

(could)

smash the patriarchy, down to the foundation, I choose to believe we'd see less trolling and vitriol, if not none. And that's worth working toward.

 

[ExFalsoQuodlibet]

That is my contention. I think you could take out every iota of patriarchal influence in today's culture, eliminate entirely the issues Anita Sarkeesian points out, and you would still have the trolling and the vitriol.

I agree with your other posts, but this is a very hard prediction to make: the way we, as humans, act is of course related to our biology, but humans' evolution gave them biological structures that are influenced by memory and culture, so human behavior is much more complex than that behavior of, to say, a chicken. Sex drive is not going anywhere, like males' instinct of dominance, but still our culture, history, media, education, play a major role in the way we act, in fact actions exclusively driven by instincts are usually considered bad and are mostly punished by law. The trolling and the vitriol would probably still be there, but in a very small proportion, and their propagators would likely be rapidly punished and ostracized by the rest of the society: there would be no "factions" in this matter, but truly a few idiots that are perfectly conscious of their wrongdoing, completely bashed by any possible media outlet as serial killers or blatant racists are.

 

[tkscz]

Going to have to agree more with David Auerbach's article over Leigh Alexander's.

There is starting an article with harsh truths, and then there is starting an article with insults, Leigh Alexander does the latter. My main problem with it is she makes a blatant stereotype of gamers, the anti-social basement dweller who only talks about games and memes that wants to keep gaming exclusive to gamers and not include anyone else, while ignoring the broad diversity of gamers out there. I understand that a few bad apples really can spoil the bunch can that a loud minority and trump a quiet majority, however, only using them as a reference for those who claim themselves gamers doesn't help her argument. That's like calling all feminist man-haters because a small majority of woman call themselves feminist, but rather than wanting gender equality, they want gender superiority. I mean, you can use google and find that nearly 50% of gamers are women. Gaf is proof that a majority of gamers are not basement dwelling, anti-social wo/man-children. By ignoring those factions, and enforcing the negative ones, she just made the article come off extremely bias. This is just my take from the read.

 

[Exploding8]

This particular article is very, very good. The author went out and actually spoke to many people who were tweeting with the #gamergate hashtag, and asked them various questions. Please, if you do nothing else before participating in this thread, read this piece.

That was a good read. My favorite part was about how people responded when asked how they would achieve their goals. I feel like people like to whine about things and yell "I want thing to be better"... and then never offer up any ideas for how to actually feasibly fix a problem, which to me says that there probably isn't a realistic, feasible fix that anyone is going to bother to make. And if you aren't invested enough into something to try to make changes yourself, why should anyone else care enough to do it for you?

 

[disastermouse]

Why wouldn't the solution be to encourage these lonely young men not to attack a woman on the internet just because some other woman won't have sex with them?

Because it likely wouldn't work.

Nearly anyone I've ever seen who makes an attack feels justified in the attack. If they didn't feel justified, they wouldn't attack. Most people who attack also do so because they feel threatened. Predicting just what might make a person feel threatened can be hard to do even with fairly good knowledge of the person. Have you ever accidentally touched a raw nerve with a romantic partner where the response was well beyond the visible perceived slight?

The normal methods of shaming a person into civilized behavior are unavailable in a culture of anonymity, so most of the normative shortcuts to enforcing civility are also out of reach.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

(Did City of Dis's post kill Gaf for a second or was that just my internet?)

 

[Marsyas]

There's absolutely nothing new there. The big gaming journalism sites have been on the decline for years now and everyone knows it, and it's partly because of the faceless nature of those sites compared to Youtube/Twitch. It's just Slate repackaging that common knowledge in a clickbait headline that's very typical for that shitty publication. Games journalism will probably evolve into more personality-driven stuff, like Gamespot is trying to do now. That Slate article doesn't really add anything to the conversation that we didn't already know long before this shitstorm broke out.

David Auerbach actually does add something. He calls out the narcissistic, pseudo-analytical articles that fueled gamergate and how other journalists willingly cited them without reflection of how bad they are. Some of these articles (like the one by Dan Golding or Leigh Alexander) are somehow sacrosanct within game journalism, yet there’s no reason why they should be.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

David Auerbach actually does add something. He calls out the narcissistic, pseudo-analytical articles that fueled gamergate and how other journalists willingly cited them without reflection of how bad they are. Some of these articles (like the one by Dan Golding or Leigh Alexander) are somehow sacrosanct within game journalism, yet there’s no reason why they should be.

I've said this before, but it's extremely telling that the most valuable articles to come out of this mess are from columnists at Forbes and Slate and this guy on Medium, and that the mainstream gaming press has responded with inanity or tone-deaf shitstirring.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

(Did City of Dis's post kill Gaf for a second or was that just my internet?)

My GAF died for a second just now too.

 

[disastermouse]

There's absolutely nothing new there. The big gaming journalism sites have been on the decline for years now and everyone knows it, and it's partly because of the faceless nature of those sites compared to Youtube/Twitch. It's just Slate repackaging that common knowledge in a clickbait headline that's very typical for that shitty publication. Games journalism will probably evolve into more personality-driven stuff, like Gamespot is trying to do now. That Slate article doesn't really add anything to the conversation that we didn't already know long before this shitstorm broke out.



It is for a lot of the people who's abusing others online right now.

The Slate article wasn't for 'you' - the Slate article was an explaination to a different and likely less-engaged audience about just how antagonistic the games media and the games consumers often are to one another. Mostly because there aren't nearly as many examples of it outside of gaming.

 

[TaroYamada]

David Auerbach actually does add something. He calls out the narcissistic, pseudo-analytical articles that fueled gamergate and how other journalists willingly cited them without reflection of how bad they are. Some of these articles (like the one by Dan Golding or Leigh Alexander) are somehow sacrosanct within game journalism, yet there’s no reason why they should be.

I'll have to read that one, I've not gotten around to it. The forbes article does call out how left-leaning and politicized games media has become though, which I was happy about because it seems to me I've seen some flat out deny their political soap boxing and act as though their positions are centrist.

 

[JackDT]

>L. Rhodes's article "To fair-minded proponents of #GamerGate": https://medium.com/@upstreamism/to-f...e-7f3ce77301bb

That's a good one.

Also noticed:

https://twitter.com/leighalexander/status/507673109705797633

regretful if my tone alienated non-neurotypical ppl. i had a lot of challenges re social norms as a child & games were my safe place, too <3

 

[GoodCoffeeJoey]

#notyourshield

 

[disastermouse]

>L. Rhodes's article "To fair-minded proponents of #GamerGate": https://medium.com/@upstreamism/to-f...e-7f3ce77301bb

That's a good one.

Also noticed:

https://twitter.com/leighalexander/status/507673109705797633

'Non-neurotypical'?

I have ADHD and Borderline Personality Disorder and even I find that term offensively PC.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

>L. Rhodes's article "To fair-minded proponents of #GamerGate": https://medium.com/@upstreamism/to-f...e-7f3ce77301bb

That's a good one.

Also noticed:

https://twitter.com/leighalexander/status/507673109705797633

Hahaha, yeah, sorry she sneered at you for being "young men in plush mushroom hats" who "don't know how to dress or behave." Class act.

#notyourshield

This is too fucking good.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

#notyourshield

No way. This has to be a fake. This is far too good to be true

 

[polychron]

Taking a deep look into this, I am going to side with David Auerbach.

Professional Gaming Journalism is becoming very obscure and often they are reaching for deeper meaning such as social/culture aspects in games. This is not going well as video games were never meant to be a medium for that. They try to latch onto indie games for social justification such as Gone Home but thats hardly effective as its an indie developer just making games their own way and not truly expecting to produce a huge AAA hit.

That's a claim I really can't agree with. Games are a medium as much as movies are (hell some developers seem to wish they WERE making movies). Just because early games were about triangles shooting asteroids or a circle with a mouth eating dots, it doesn't mean that they can't trancend their beginnings and deal with cultural and social issues. The earliest films were just of things like trains coming towards camera, and documentary videos of events, but no one would deny that movies are both able to deal with social issues and to be criticised for them. It's a fallacy to claim that because a the first items to be in a category were one thing then that category was ONLY ever intended to be for that things. Things evolve over time.

Also with amatuer game reviewers and their media channels, we truly get to see an unbiased look at the video games that we get hyped about. For me its far more effective than even renting a game.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-07-16-blurred-lines-are-youtubers-breaking-the-law

Eurogamer did a really great piece on why YouTubers, usually not having had the background in best journalistic practices, not only often have a lack of clarity on their biases but even go as far as breaking laws governing disclosure on when they're doing an ad piece. Not to say that there aren't honest youtubers out there, but I've never understood why some people seem to treat all journalists as being corrupt while YouTube is the home of Wunderkinds.

 

[TaroYamada]

Eurogamer did a really great piece on why YouTubers, usually not having had the background in best journalistic practices, not only often have a lack of clarity on their biases but even go as far as breaking laws governing disclosure on when they're doing an ad piece. Not to say that there aren't honest youtubers out there, but I've never understood why some people seem to treat all journalists as being corrupt while YouTube is the home of Wunderkinds.

I guess because they don't claim to be journalists a lot of the time, I feel like I'm watching an enthusiast who's just documenting their opinions or feelings on a game. When you claim you're a journalist that's a higher standard to adhere to in my eyes and many others.

It's also easy to find a gamer on youtube who reminds you of yourself, my favorite is Mark from Classic Game Room, I like that he almost always looks for the positive in a game. I don't feel like he's necessarily trying to be critical but rather look for redeeming qualities of content from an enthusiast's perspective. I actually probably do trust his "reviews" more than anybody else's on youtube or on a specific site.

 

[Widge]

Are you looking forward to the next James Bond movies? What if someone came in and tried to change most things you enjoy about those movies to make them "more inclusive", to the point you wouldn't care about watching them anymore, would you be ok with that?

"As I said above, instead of trying to find and develop a new space, they rile against current games."

Would you say the series has evolved over time, or just remained happy with any sexist and racist themes?

 

[V_Arnold]

I have been contemplating about writing about this, not necessarily as an article, but as a blog post, but to be frank, I am afraid

It seems to me that those behind GamerGate who want "professional journalism" to not let feminists into their bed are in for a painful awakening when they realize that the big publishers and the PR folks of those big publishers were already in those bed for decades.

How else do you expect gaming media to hype up fucking Season passes, announcements of annoucnements? The big publisher's backdoor attempts at control has pretty much shaped up a generation of game reviewers who will mostly pass up on more interesting/mechanically demanding games because they are unable to enjoy them the same way they can enjoy/measure 3rd person shooters, fps games and streamlined experiences.

The only way you could free up your journalists/reveiwers/professional game "writers" is to completely free them up from their advertisers, as in: pay a subscription fee. If a group with its own ideals decide to finance a site where there are no ads, the game reviews come from bought games instead of being given in advance with the usual cavaets, THAT is when true ideologic freedom starts.

 

[Chû Totoro]

Imo the #Gamergate's origin and the past years breakup between gamers, gaming industry and gaming journalism is due to the fact that our beloved hobby became something run mostly by people who are business people. They're not as passionate as us, we used to have great leaders in the industry... now it's quite rare.

Of course the main goal of a company is to make the most profits but it used to be by trying to make good products. Now everything is decided by financials so lots of doors are closed.

Lack of innovation, lack of creativity, standardization of the market is the bad sign of an industry becoming more tied to profits than anything else. EA, Ubi and Activision could almost sell soft drinks or diapers...

 

[squidyj]

That was a good read. My favorite part was about how people responded when asked how they would achieve their goals. I feel like people like to whine about things and yell "I want thing to be better"... and then never offer up any ideas for how to actually feasibly fix a problem, which to me says that there probably isn't a realistic, feasible fix that anyone is going to bother to make. And if you aren't invested enough into something to try to make changes yourself, why should anyone else care enough to do it for you?

I also think it's unreasonable to put people on the spot and expect a ten point plan for fixing a broken system. Unfortunately I feel like gamergate is a lot of noise and not the productive discussion that would lead to any such forward action, and I get the distinct impression from the article that L Rhodes is more than happy with that and would love to see it all just go away. Abandon the hashtag, disperse into the ether and then figure out how to do a half dozen impossible things? cmon.