No, gamers and nerds are doing on their own well enough. You don't need to invent a group to falsely oppress you for that.
Listen, millions of people play video games, all races, creeds, gender and so on. But what those people don't do is generate their entire personality around those games. They lead normal lives outside of it, or at least put up a good facade.
But "gamers" have this weird inability to accept that some people only have a passing interest in the hobby, or have a desire to play things outside the norm. This upsets them for some reason, like their interests are under attack because others want things different to them. Or things like "Hey, maybe we can be grownups about characters and the women don't have to be half naked all the time, or used as cheap props." Tomb Raider would still be a good game if Lara found a jacket at some point.
Uh, no, I'm saying "gamers" and "nerds" might have been coherent social groups 20 years ago but today playing video games is tremendously mainstream. Being against "gamers" isn't a thing any more than being against "movie lovers" or "music listeners." The category of "gamers" as being a coherent group of people who could be discriminated against is entirely in your head.
It's like a 90s rock fan crying self-pity tears because everyone else likes Nirvana now too and it's no longer your own special club. And these news fans don't even like exactly the same things as you and now alternative rock is evolving in new directions, it's so unfair!
That's a fair assessment. I'm with you there. :thumbsup:
Not a big fan of the mockery of anyone in the autism spectrum... getting a little too close to home there. No details. (Though I'm sure the assumptions will really fly among the cyber-sisters!)
No, gamers and nerds are doing on their own well enough. You don't need to invent a group to falsely oppress you for that.
Listen, millions of people play video games, all races, creeds, gender and so on. But what those people don't do is generate their entire personality around those games. They lead normal lives outside of it, or at least put up a good facade.
But "gamers" have this weird inability to accept that some people only have a passing interest in the hobby, or have a desire to play things outside the norm. This upsets them for some reason, like their interests are under attack because others want things different to them. Or things like "Hey, maybe we can be grownups about characters and the women don't have to be half naked all the time, or used as cheap props." Tomb Raider would still be a good game if Lara found a jacket at some point.
Those are some mighty big assumptions put up by the anti-GG Sarkeesianites. I think I see what you're saying though... when I say "gamers" I'm thinking of your first example, people who genuinely DO have complete and full lives that encompass playing games as their hobby of choice (instead of watching sports, for example.) No facades necessary.
Whenever you see the word "gamer", you're assuming the worst - the hideous caricature easily mocked.
Even still, most of them STILL don't believe what Sarky assumes about women being nothing more than cheap props, etc. There's also never a point of satisfaction to the SJW crowd. Need more female protagonists, now make her less attractive, don't make her UNattractive, now make sure her clothing is as covering and bland as possible so I can't be jealous of her...
The end result is usually poor - a character so bland it wouldn't matter if it were male OR female, making that 100% irrelevant.
Really, I just see this as SJW's injecting an agenda into a world they have almost no interest in in the first place. In their desperate need to be at all relevant, they had to make sure there was a patriarchal enemy to fight. They figured those nerdy "gamers" would be a pretty easy target, like they were in middle-school. But the nerds dug in and fought back. GG and everything you see in this thread is what you get from both sides refusing to back down and accept the other. And why should nerds just accept what SJW's demand anyway? Especially if they're NOT the misogynists they're tarred as?
Uh, no, I'm saying "gamers" and "nerds" might have been coherent social groups 20 years ago but today playing video games is tremendously mainstream. Being against "gamers" isn't a thing any more than being against "movie lovers" or "music listeners." The category of "gamers" as being a coherent group of people who could be discriminated against is entirely in your head.
No. Your argument is a very basic logical fallacy. Just because gaming in general is more mainstream doesn't mean the specific social group "gamers" no longer exists. That makes about as much sense as saying "sci-fi fans" no longer exist because Star Wars is popular mainstream or "nerds" no longer exist because The Big Bang Theory is mainstream.
It's like a 90s rock fan crying self-pity tears because everyone else likes Nirvana now too and it's no longer your own special club. And these news fans don't even like exactly the same things as you and now alternative rock is evolving in new directions, it's so unfair!
This is a strawman fallacy. Gamergate has nothing to do with complaining about gaming being mainstream. Your analogy is completely irrelevant and nonsensical.
Your cult / pity party (gamergate) doesn't speak for gamers, or represent them, and people being against you for throwing tantrums about women getting treated less like shit aren't actually against video games.
Not a big fan of the mockery of anyone in the autism spectrum... getting a little too close to home there. No details. (Though I'm sure the assumptions will really fly among the cyber-sisters!)
Those are some mighty big assumptions put up by the anti-GG Sarkeesianites. I think I see what you're saying though... when I say "gamers" I'm thinking of your first example, people who genuinely DO have complete and full lives that encompass playing games as their hobby of choice (instead of watching sports, for example.) No facades necessary.
Whenever you see the word "gamer", you're assuming the worst - the hideous caricature easily mocked.
Even still, most of them STILL don't believe what Sarky assumes about women being nothing more than cheap props, etc. There's also never a point of satisfaction to the SJW crowd. Need more female protagonists, now make her less attractive, don't make her UNattractive, now make sure her clothing is as covering and bland as possible so I can't be jealous of her...
The end result is usually poor - a character so bland it wouldn't matter if it were male OR female, making that 100% irrelevant.
Really, I just see this as SJW's injecting an agenda into a world they have almost no interest in in the first place. In their desperate need to be at all relevant, they had to make sure there was a patriarchal enemy to fight. They figured those nerdy "gamers" would be a pretty easy target, like they were in middle-school. But the nerds dug in and fought back. GG and everything you see in this thread is what you get from both sides refusing to back down and accept the other. And why should nerds just accept what SJW's demand anyway? Especially if they're NOT the misogynists they're tarred as?
This is where I get confused on the point with her. The only people that give a shit what she thinks are the people that agree and the people that hate her enough to spew long long long videos about her. I've yet to see any data showing her approvals having any impact on sales of a game. Her disapproval sure aren't slowing sales down.
GG started because, on the whole, the gaming media is a rancid pile of shit. Quinn banging every reviewer she could wrap her legs around wasn't the reason, it was a symptom of the disease.
GG started because, on the whole, the gaming media is a rancid pile of shit. Quinn banging every reviewer she could wrap her legs around wasn't the reason, it was a symptom of the disease.
My local newspaper is pretty bad too, better go start a cult to harass women online because clearly that shoddy reporting somehow relates to me being a victim and women being evil
My local newspaper is pretty bad too, better go start a cult to harass women online because clearly that shoddy reporting somehow relates to me being a victim and women being evil
I just learned that entertainment magazines and websites give deferential coverage to TV shows and movies. I AM SHOCKED AND SCANDALIZED BY THIS. Strangely, even though I'm willing to bet the gamergate people watch plenty of TV and movies, they have yet to organize a movement to do anything to those magazines.
Hint to the gamergate guys: nobody believes you when you say it's about journalism.
GG started because, on the whole, the gaming media is a rancid pile of shit. Quinn banging every reviewer she could wrap her legs around wasn't the reason, it was a symptom of the disease.
Games Journalism has been very much a pile of shit long before some nerd had a tantrum and published his private correspondences with his ex-girlfriend and everyone went apeshit.
Where was the same outrage when the the reviewer of Kain and Lynch at Gamespot (who took a lot of advertising money from the publishers of that game) left that site not too long after his less then spectacular review of that game?
That was a situation that was every bit as, if not more, indicative of a problem with "games journalism"; yet there was no months long outrage and gnashing of teeth there... why not?
It wasn't until Sarkesian was putting out her tropes videos and some asshole decided to post a screed against against his ex-girlfriend that Gamergate blew up. Sorry, but if you can't see why some are wondering why it became an issue in the past year instead of years ago then there is a fundamental disconnect that probably cannot be bridged.
It seems to me that main difference between the Kain and Lynch reviewer and this current hullaballoo is that feminism is somehow intertwined in the gamergate discussion and barely (if at all) was an issue with the reviewer who left Gamespot soon after his Kain and Lynch review...
GG started because, on the whole, the gaming media is a rancid pile of shit. Quinn banging every reviewer she could wrap her legs around wasn't the reason, it was a symptom of the disease.
Quinn banged exactly the same number of people who reviewed her game as you did, so I'm guessing the disease you're referencing is "imaginary." No one's denying that gaming media has some serious issues, but GG latched onto a narrative that was blatantly false and ran a million miles in the wrong direction with it, which has subsequently made it impossible for anyone else to talk about ethics without being lumped in with a poorly-disguised misogynistic hate campaign against several specific women in the industry. Who gives a shit about Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian or Brianna Wu? Where's the outrage against pay-for-play, or requiring good reviews for access? Can't be bothered with that; there are SLUTS out there!
It doesn't take much effort to see the complete lack of logic that GG operates under. People hate Anita Sarkeesian's message, and get roiled into a frothing rage. We say, "why not just ignore her, she's not going to make a difference anyway?" They swear up and down that she's not going to rest until gaming is dead. A few months later, we get posts that casually mention that the games she's promoting aren't selling at all, which basically reaffirms the earlier contention that she has essentially no influence. But does it die there? Of course not! Why would it matter that she does not have the ability to influence gaming trends in any measurable way? That's not relevant; all that matters is she's WRONG!
But what would I know? I'm not part of GG (along with 7+ billion other people in the world), so I must be part of the grand SJW conspiracy that chooses to use "logic" and "facts" to back up arguments; who wants that? We're fueled by pure outrage here; thinking doesn't enter into it!
Where was the same outrage when the the reviewer of Kain and Lynch at Gamespot (who took a lot of advertising money from the publishers of that game) left that site not too long after his less then spectacular review of that game?
...
yet there was no months long outrage and gnashing of teeth there... why not?
What do you mean? There was most definitely an outrage over that event. There's one very big difference between the Gamespot event and this: there are two sides with high amounts of representation. I don't think I saw a single article or person coming out in defense of Gamespot and advertising collusion, which meant that the fervor eventually died down after the next big issue broke.
It wasn't until Sarkesian was putting out her tropes videos and some asshole decided to post a screed against against his ex-girlfriend that Gamergate blew up.
You know there was over a year between these two events, right?
"The first video in the Tropes vs Women in Video Games series was released on March 7, 2013." -Source
"In August 2014, Quinns former boyfriend, Eron Gjoni, published a 9,425 word blog post constructed out of personal chat logs, emails and text conversations and detailing what Zachary Jason, writing for Boston Magazine, called Gjonis obsession with Quinn." -Source
Yeah... pretty sure most of us that follow gaming news had already heard of Anita Sarkeesian before Zoe Quinn.
It seems to me that main difference between the Kain and Lynch reviewer and this current hullaballoo is that feminism is somehow intertwined in the gamergate discussion and barely (if at all) was an issue with the reviewer who left Gamespot soon after his Kain and Lynch review...
No, the issue is that you have two fervent sides where neither want to back down. Honestly, as someone that's on the outskirts wondering when this drama will end, I get the feeling that they're really just talking yelling past each other.
TotalBiscuit brought this up and it's a good point: GG is just a hashtag. There are no rules for membership or anything like that. If I put #GG or #GamerGate at the end of my tweet, I'm suddenly pro-GG. I bring this up because of your wording, "GG operates under." GG can't operate... it's just an amorphous group with no sense of leadership, which isn't surprising given that it's a hashtag. Amusingly enough, wasn't it Alec Baldwin that first used that hashtag, and he has nothing to do with it?
People hate Anita Sarkeesian's message, and get roiled into a frothing rage. We say, "why not just ignore her, she's not going to make a difference anyway?" They swear up and down that she's not going to rest until gaming is dead.
I think people bringing her back in to the limelight has actually caused her message to become stronger. For example, Blizzard specifically added a character to Overwatch because of the discussion over the representation of women in video games. Although, I think it's amusing because the woman is some weird, burly cross between Brienne of Tarth and Arnold Swarzenegger. I don't know how many women she represents. Anyway, my thought is that she would've just been a flash in the pan if people just ignored her.
Personally, my biggest question about Sarkeesians work is... are tropes bad? I can't help but infer that she's making that point in her video, but I can't agree with it. Tropes and cliches aren't inherently bad -- it's what you do with them that matters. For example, my favorite movie of 2013 was Rush (the F1 movie), and in that movie it has
two racers become rivals, and eventually gain respect for each other and form a sense of camaraderie.
I really like the movie, but honestly, that's a cliche. ...and I have no problem with it, because they did it right.
I think people bringing her back in to the limelight has actually caused her message to become stronger. For example, Blizzard specifically added a character to Overwatch because of the discussion over the representation of women in video games. Although, I think it's amusing because the woman is some weird, burly cross between Brienne of Tarth and Arnold Swarzenegger. I don't know how many women she represents. Anyway, my thought is that she would've just been a flash in the pan if people just ignored her.
Personally, my biggest question about Sarkeesians work is... are tropes bad? I can't help but infer that she's making that point in her video, but I can't agree with it. Tropes and cliches aren't inherently bad -- it's what you do with them that matters. For example, my favorite movie of 2013 was Rush (the F1 movie), and in that movie it has
two racers become rivals, and eventually gain respect for each other and form a sense of camaraderie.
I really like the movie, but honestly, that's a cliche. ...and I have no problem with it, because they did it right.
To be fair to Rush, the tropes that exist in that movie are all things that actually played out in real life.
Hunt and Lauda became friends specifically through their rivalry. Not unlike Bird and Magic, for example. It happens fairly regularly in sports, and it makes for a good story.
And I agree with you about Sarkeesian; I think all the negative attention has given her a far bigger platform than she otherwise would have enjoyed because the media can play up the martyr angle. But once that dies down, so does her exposure. It's like the Halloween episode of the Simpsons where all the billboards come to life; if you want to stop them, just stop paying attention. Anita Sarkeesian is back with another opinion we vehemently disagree with! Just don't look, just don't look....
GG started because, on the whole, the gaming media is a rancid pile of shit. Quinn banging every reviewer she could wrap her legs around wasn't the reason, it was a symptom of the disease.
Quinn banged exactly the same number of people who reviewed her game as you did, so I'm guessing the disease you're referencing is "imaginary." No one's denying that gaming media has some serious issues, but GG latched onto a narrative that was blatantly false and ran a million miles in the wrong direction with it, which has subsequently made it impossible for anyone else to talk about ethics without being lumped in with a poorly-disguised misogynistic hate campaign against several specific women in the industry. Who gives a shit about Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian or Brianna Wu? Where's the outrage against pay-for-play, or requiring good reviews for access? Can't be bothered with that; there are SLUTS out there!
They can fuck who they want, go sniff their panties to your heart's content, but that doesn't change that editors have given favorable treatment to shitty devs all because they're women. It's not the women at fault, either, it's the weak male pussies who let themselves be manipulated.
It doesn't take much effort to see the complete lack of logic that GG operates under. People hate Anita Sarkeesian's message, and get roiled into a frothing rage. We say, "why not just ignore her, she's not going to make a difference anyway?" They swear up and down that she's not going to rest until gaming is dead. A few months later, we get posts that casually mention that the games she's promoting aren't selling at all, which basically reaffirms the earlier contention that she has essentially no influence. But does it die there? Of course not! Why would it matter that she does not have the ability to influence gaming trends in any measurable way? That's not relevant; all that matters is she's WRONG!
You're right, she should be ignored, the women aren't the problem (Sarkeesian doesn't know shit about games anyway, despite how much money she's conned people out of to write her never-to-be finished series), it's the men who follow them (like that dipshit Arthur Chu) who are really to blame.
But what would I know? I'm not part of GG (along with 7+ billion other people in the world), so I must be part of the grand SJW conspiracy that chooses to use "logic" and "facts" to back up arguments; who wants that? We're fueled by pure outrage here; thinking doesn't enter into it!
Ignorance may be bliss, but apparently stupidity is miserable. You're so angry at... just nothing. Go outside. Have a Coke and a smile and shut the fuck up.
Make a statement/argument that proves me wrong. One. Just one?
Mockery is easy - you'll notice I've avoided it while that's about the only thing the femi-SJW's have done. Mocking with insults and silly pictures - that's it.
C'mon... I dare you to say something of substance. Anything.
I come to this thread for the humor, but FYI to everyone who hasn't seen it, Cherry 2000 is awesome, with a mix of great 80s craziness, awesomebadness sprinkled throughout, Melanie Griffith as a hot badass, and a genuinely good story. It's worth a watch.
I come to this thread for the humor, but FYI to everyone who hasn't seen it, Cherry 2000 is awesome, with a mix of great 80s craziness, awesomebadness sprinkled throughout, Melanie Griffith as a hot badass, and a genuinely good story. It's worth a watch.
Ignorance may be bliss, but apparently stupidity is miserable. You're so angry at... just nothing. Go outside. Have a Coke and a smile and shut the fuck up.
Exactly what I've come to expect from your type. First you act like a douchebag, then you become sanctimonious when someone else calls you on it. Eat shit and die.
Eat shit, SJW. There's no one in the whole fucking world more dishonest than you white knight bitches. Go crawl back under your masters' skirts.
They can fuck who they want, go sniff their panties to your heart's content, but that doesn't change that editors have given favorable treatment to shitty devs all because they're women. It's not the women at fault, either, it's the weak male pussies who let themselves be manipulated.
You're right, she should be ignored, the women aren't the problem (Sarkeesian doesn't know shit about games anyway, despite how much money she's conned people out of to write her never-to-be finished series), it's the men who follow them (like that dipshit Arthur Chu) who are really to blame.
Fuuuuck, SJWs? Feminists? Logic? AHAHAHAHA!!! Must be those superior gender studies degrees, right?
Exactly what I've come to expect from your type. First you act like a douchebag, then you become sanctimonious when someone else calls you on it. Eat shit and die.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.