Threedog's #Gamergate News Radio Ep 9
Oliver Campbell live now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KT6kTMyCkqQ
Oliver Campbell live now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KT6kTMyCkqQ
Republicans have little to gain from GG. Most left-leaning GG supporters would still rather gouge their own eyes out than pull the lever for the GOP.
Lefty GGers (which is most of us) feel like Left media is more interested in spinning our grievances into their overarching "War On Women" threat narrative. Along with the threat narrative they feed to Blacks, Hispanics, LGBTQ and every other special interest group they need to keep in their voting bloc in order to stay relevant. That's how they go about their cat-herding. If they ever actually solved the problems they promise to, they'd become irrelevant.
Just like... Oh, here comes the "F" word... Feminism. It's served most of its original purpose here in the first world, and now all it does is try to keep women in a constant state of existential angst.
I'm not sure I understand. Do you believe the stigma of gamers is justified?
Its funny seeing someone like you parrot a rightwing cause and claim to be on the left
It's not right or left. I see it as an authoritarian vs. libertarian issue along with almost every other GGer.
I'll support women and LGBT however I see fit. I'm bisexual myself. I can marry a man in my state if I choose to; I want everyone on that spectrum to have those rights. As far as feminism goes, I remember when it was about knocking down traditional gender roles. Now it wants them back. I'm not going to support a dogma that goes out of its way to teach young women to be thin skinned and feel oppressed all the time.
I'm still on the left. I smell a foul stench wafting up from the basement is all.
OK, I tried, but I can't convince myself that ANY of this shit matters at all. Screw gamergate. This whole shit is lame as hell.
I'm not sure I understand. Do you believe the stigma of gamers is justified?
I think that the subsection of gamers that is coming out in this gamergate nonsense absolutely deserves their stigma. I think that because their behavior is so ridiculous and they are so loud, their actions unfairly tar lots of other people who enjoy video games but who aren't, well, nuts.
I do. If they act like a fucking putz, they deserve to be shoved into a goddamn locker. GG supporters all act like children, and so they get treated that way until they grow up.
Yes, I understand that is what is happening. My question is do you believe it is justified.
When say dumb things, you can call them out no matter what group they are apart of. In this case, you have people saying and threatening horrible things. The question I am asking, is do you believe games in any meaningful way cause this behaviour, or is it just that those people happen to be gamers?
The issue that many including myself have, is that gaming is being blamed for actions with out a justification for the link. So when you say you feel embarrassed for admitting you play a game, are you doing so because you are doing something that corrupts, or because of a stigma that is not valid.
I really doubt Intel would have pulled adds and risk being viewed as supporting those horrible GG'ers if it were simply about a bunch of D-Bags yelling in the internet.
Playing games doesn't make you act like a shithead. Being a shithead does.
That being said, I don't really accept where you're trying to go with this. To take it to an admittedly absurd level, does having a swastika tattoo make you a racist? Of course not, the tattoo doesn't do anything by itself. A whole lot of the people who have them are racists though. Is that stigma not valid?
To bring it back out of the realm of hyperbole, that's the sort of point I was getting at. The games themselves don't do anything, but when vocal minorities do shitty things people start to associate the two and I don't really blame them.
Intel has resumed advertising on Gamasutra. How does that fit with your narrative?
When you decline to create or to curate a culture in your spaces, you’re responsible for what spawns in the vacuum. That’s what’s been happening to games.
When a women sleeps around, thats her business. When a women sleeps around to get good reviews and move up in the gaming media, thats a problem. Ill grant you that its a small problem, and the world has much bigger issues to deal with. But when you have media sites calling gamers horrible things that is a bigger problem.
Accusing someone of not knowing much about GG and then pulling out the same discredited story as validation of your indignation doesn't make you look like you know what's going on. Nathan Grayson never reviewed Depression Quest; nobody that Zoe Quinn potentially slept with did. And Zoe's ex-boyfriend backed off the accusations months ago, saying there were no sexual favors in exchange for coverage. And if your complaint is about journalistic integrity, why are you targeting the developer and not the reviewer? Developers aren't beholden to a journalistic code of ethics, and it's laughably obtuse to think they are. You shouldn't be mad at the woman who is alleged to be sleeping around for good press, you should be mad at the men who have agreed to give her that press in exchange for favors (even though none of that actually happened). That's the whole point of journalistic integrity; it means we expect journalists to be above taking bribes from the people they're reporting on.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/224400/Gamers_dont_have_to_be_your_audience_Gamers_are_over.php
Read that article. It sure seems offensive to me. When you say an entire group is responsible for a very very small group, you are dumb.
This here is another annoying part of the opposing side. People who play games, and dont have any agenda other than to have a good time, are somehow responsible for those who are shitty people. As I worked out with Spy, games dont cause shitty people. So to say that gamers are responsible for others who play games is stupid. Its like saying that because I like soda, I am responsible for other soda drinkers.
I do believe there are some very shitty people in this world, and I admit some of those shitty people play games. What I dont get is the demeaning of a pastime that has nothing to do with the shitty people.
Also, I should note that the accusations were not disproved, only that the ex did not have proof that they had a relationship before the review. There was proof from the ex that the relationship with her boss was going on a few days after the review. Its quite possible, but there is not proof either way.
That article has a lot of nonsensical points, and the author seems to take a little too much pleasure in demeaning the gamer stereotype, sure. But a couple things:
First, that's an article intended for game developers discussing why expanding their audience beyond the group they've historically catered to is not a bad thing, and that's actually a reasonable assertion; publishers are always interested in expanding into new markets. The language is too vitriolic in places, and it hurts the overall thesis, but the central point is valid. It's not just a hit piece on gamers, so there is a justification for publishing it, regardless of the offense it may cause to certain groups.
Two, publishing an article that has an opinion you personally disagree with is NOT unethical. This can't be said too many times. Just because someone said something you don't agree with, it does not amount to a violation of journalistic ethics. The role of journalism is not to only publish opinions that confirm your personal beliefs. If you don't like what's being said, write a counter-point opinion and ask for it to be published; if the website refuses (and your counter-point meets their standards and is not just a bunch of profanity or whatever), then you might have a point about the journalistic integrity of that publication. Jumping to the "she's wrong and it's unethical to print her opinion" argument is pure, unadulterated bullshit.
As people have said on here before, freedom of speech (and of the press, for that matter) means you might hear things that offend you. You don't have the right to never be offended by something. Asking for censorship of ideas you disagree with is the antithesis of ethical journalism or journalistic integrity, and wrapping yourself in those terms to defend censorship is intellectually absurd.
There actually is proof, and it's this: there was no review. Never. Not one. Nathan Grayson has never reviewed Depression Quest. Period. Full stop. Stop repeating this easily disprovable lie.
When did I say that publishing an opinion article was unethical? Having an opinion writer is fine with me. Having said that, I deeply disagree with the article and the points made. I feel I have valid logical reasons for disagreeing.
Dont get things twisted. I am not for silencing those who have different views. I am a strong believer in arguments and the good that comes from them. I also believe that you should be able to call stupid comments stupid. When the writer says that games need to be made to shape society, I think they are wrong and I explain why.
I do not support those who use GG to attack others.
Good, we agree; I think that article was stupid too. It's just that proponents of GG have used that article as an example of unethical or irresponsible journalism and I disagree with that. I think you can be opposed to an author's viewpoint and still be in favor of their right to publish something, regardless of how wrong you may think they are.
The anti-GG side is calling for games to change society by creating games that promote ideals they believe in.
Why exactly is that a problem? If they want a game produced that appeals to them but not to you, how does that affect you? Just don't buy it. There's room enough in the market to support Call of Duty and Gone Home, and there's not a AAA publisher on Earth who is going to stop making games like Grand Theft Auto because someone on the internet wants a game with more pro-social morals. I don't see how calling for games supporting additional viewpoints is a problem, and if you think that someone like Anita Sarkeesian is going to get videogames banned, you're delusional and paranoid. Feminists took on Hollywood in the 60s and 70s, and it's not like all we're left with now is chick flicks.
If they were asking for games to be made in their taste, nothing. However, that is not what the anti-GG side is asking for. Zoe started a big backlash over the Fine Young Capitalist over creating a game that they wanted because it was not being done in the way Zoe wanted.
The problem I have, is the social justice warriors on the anti-GG side who try and shame people and publishers into creating games they want. If they simply voiced their opinion for games that they wanted, that would be fine. I would imagine if there was a market for such games, it would be gladly filled by publishers to make money. But when you get people like Anita Sarkeesian saying that men are taught to hate women through games, its reaches a level of stupidity that should be called out.
The feminist of the 60's and 70's seem very different that the ones today. Feminist used to be about equality, which I fully believe in. Feminist of today believe that they should never be offended or have their feelings hurt, no matter what the reason.