Combating Recent, Ugly Incidents of Misogyny In Gamer Culture

Nobody has the right not to be offended. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-04 03:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

There's no such thing as politically correct. There's no such thing as a right not to be offended. Both of these run counter to freedom of speech.

Nobody's going to force me to "include" people that I don't agree with, period. If you don't like it, fuck off.

That being said, the asshole ex-boyfriend should be turned into a eunuch and ridiculed for being such a wuss for the rest of his life.

Re:Nobody has the right not to be offended. by cryptizard · 2014-09-04 03:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

What, do you think the outcome of this is that the police are going to start going around forcing you to make friends with women? You can be as much of an asshole as you want. But other people are equally free to call you out for it.
Re:Nobody has the right not to be offended. by ganjadude · 2014-09-04 03:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

because if people have a right not be be offended, then there is no freedom of speech

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Re:Nobody has the right not to be offended. by frank_adrian314159 · 2014-09-04 03:49 · Score: 2

Yes, but there is common sense, isn't there? If you like going around offending people just because you can, you will probably be seen as an asshole with all the rights and privileges that entails, freedom of speech notwithstanding.
Freedom of speech is a right, not a mandate. And that freedom doesn't mean your speech won't have consequences to you. For example, I can tell my hostess that her soup sucked. After that, I wouldn't expect to be invited back (sorry, Mom...).

--
That is all.
Re:Nobody has the right not to be offended. by serviscope_minor · 2014-09-04 04:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

There's no such thing as politically correct.
What's that got to do with this?
You certainly do have the right not to have threats of violence made against you.
You also have the right not to have slanderous and libellous claims made against you.
Even with the laws about freedom of speech none of those things are legal. This isn't about being offended, it's about being threatened and slandered.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:Nobody has the right not to be offended. by AmiMoJo · 2014-09-04 05:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

Nobody's going to force me to "include" people that I don't agree with, period.
Actually, that's exactly what will happen. There is not right not to be offended, but there is a right not to be harassed or threatened. People are starting to realize that all the "harmless" stuff is just building up to that, as it has done over and over again in the past. As such they are becoming less tolerant of it, and eventually people like you will be ostracised.
So, maybe no-one can force you to include people you don't like (unless it's a business or government setting, in which case anti-discrimination laws apply), but I have a feeling you will when you experience the isolation that comes with being a bigot.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Nobody has the right not to be offended. by cyberchondriac · 2014-09-04 05:20 · Score: 2

The way I look at it, (whatever the topic) they have a "right" to be offended all they want (it's their opinion), but they don't have the further right to act on that and shut anyone up/down, unless it's serious defamation or the like.
When people can shut others down simply because they become drama queens over something they find disagreeable, that's when the real problem happens. It shouldn't, but thanks to political correctness, that's how things have been rolling the past 20 years or so, and it keeps getting worse.

--

Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Re:Nobody has the right not to be offended. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-04 05:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

>tort law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell
as a public figure, she is open to criticism.

Who cares. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-04 03:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

I don't know anybody who has any idea who these people are, nor do they give one shit about any of this stuff. They just play games. I don't think these "cultures" and "communities" are nearly as big as people think they are. It's limited to a VERY small set of people commenting and participating in all this high-school drama. Of course, once it's on twitter and the internet in general, everyone thinks its way bigger than it actually is.

News flash -- It's not.

Re:Who cares. by war4peace · 2014-09-04 03:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

True. I play games and never heard of those people before.
HOWEVER.
I also walk on the street and never got mugged or shot at, it doesn't mean it's not happening somewhere else. The fact it's not important to everyone doesn't mean it's not important at all.
Laws are created based on events that might only have happened to a small number of people, and while the vast majority never heard of those laws, they still exist.

--
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)

One bad apple spoils the barrel by Frobnicator · 2014-09-04 03:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

It doesn't seem to be pervasive. We've all seen the recent stats on similar stories. Over half of all gamers are female. Less than 1/5 are under the age 18. The stereotypical teenage boy gamer is a small component of the "gamer" culture.

I doubt this is "Misogyny In Gamer Culture". I think instead this is just a few vocal idiots.

--
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement

Re:One bad apple spoils the barrel by rdwulfe · 2014-09-04 03:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

That's the problem though. When I was in high school, not everyone in the school abused me each day. No, the problem was the 10-20 kids who decided they had to punch someone so they could go home that day, and I was apparently an easy mark. Great fun, let me tell you.
It never requires a huge number of people to oppress an individual or group. It takes others who are willing to do so by force. Written word can be force, too.
Re:One bad apple spoils the barrel by qbast · 2014-09-04 03:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

I doubt this is "Misogyny In Gamer Culture". I think instead this is just a few vocal idiots.
Who are possibly outnumbered by professional victims and SJWs.
Re:One bad apple spoils the barrel by kruach+aum · 2014-09-04 03:18 · Score: 2

"A few "vocal" idiots, or, rather, those that act out, can really stain an entire group." is what racists and other idiots who judge groups based on small subsets of their members believe. It is not what grown-up adults with a proper grasp on logic and common sense should believe.
Re:One bad apple spoils the barrel by DerekLyons · 2014-09-04 03:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

It doesn't seem to be pervasive. We've all seen the recent stats on similar stories. Over half of all gamers are female.
About half of all humans are female... and misogyny is widely documented across history and across cultures. The presence or absence of misogyny is thus not correlated with the percentage of females in the population. Not to mention the multiple incidents that have come to light recently should provide further clue that there's far more than 'one bad apple'.
Re:One bad apple spoils the barrel by Moses48 · 2014-09-04 03:22 · Score: 2

I think this has less to do with Gamer culture than it has to do with Marketing culture. It is not unique to gaming. Beer companies and any other company that markets to men uses the same techniques. This story and many other use the response to topics involving Misogyny as a reflection of gaming culture. I'm not sold. There is no data on this that I am aware of. I imagine if they had done the same video and posts about a book or beer commercials you would have the same sort of response. People that have Misogynistic prejudices are drawn to the types of things that bring them out of the woodwork.
Let's see problems and fix them. Let's not construe things. Objectification of women in marketing is an issue. The same goes for art (books, games, tv, movies). We don't see shows like game of Thrones and say "Tv watchers have a culture of Misogyny".
Re:One bad apple spoils the barrel by geekoid · 2014-09-04 03:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

No, half of console players of female.
You are missing the point, and the fact that you think women need different types of games kind of make you misogynistic in your thinking.
This whole thing is about attitude and attacks women get.
Lets talk about slasher movies.
These movies, by and large, are horrible misogynistic, and well love by women.
When a woman points out that they are misogynistic, no one threatens to rape and kill her.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:One bad apple spoils the barrel by jedidiah · 2014-09-04 03:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

It gets even better. Marketing that panders to girls is no less misogynistic. It's actually even WORSE. Marketing for women is all about making women feel like sh*t, especially about their bodies. The stuff is more caustic then genuine porn.
This is just more of the "nerds bad" narrative that the media has been trying to feed us lately. In truth, "gamer culture" is no worse than anything else including the women's magazines that claims to be feminist.
Anything going on in video games is the tail end of the problem.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:One bad apple spoils the barrel by CanHasDIY · 2014-09-04 04:11 · Score: 2

I doubt this is "Misogyny In Gamer Culture". I think instead this is just a few vocal idiots.
... who have apparently figured out that they can make fat bank claiming misogyny is far more prevalent than it actually is.
Unless you were talking about some other group of vocal idiots.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:One bad apple spoils the barrel by CanHasDIY · 2014-09-04 04:17 · Score: 3, Informative

Most people probably didn't know know Portal was lead by a woman because it wasn't relevant to the game's success.
Most people probably don't know who the lead developer was on any video game, because that shit doesn't fucking matter to 99.99% of the goddamn population.
It's not because 'misogyny,' or a 'boys club' or '[insert BS label]' - it's because it doesn't matter. We (by which I mean most gamers) aren't buying games because of who made them, we're buying games because we want to play that game.
Now, was this rant misdirected? Perhaps. But I've got to say something, because I'm tired of narcissistic bitches* saying that I'm a bad person for no reason other than the fact that I have a dick and disagree with their philosophies.
* If you're sitting there assuming I am referring to all women as narcissistic bitches, you're exactly the narcissistic bitch I'm talking about. Get over yourself.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:One bad apple spoils the barrel by meta-monkey · 2014-09-04 04:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

Also, there is no incentive to solve the misogynistic trolling "problem" (assuming it even exists. There is ample evidence Zoe Quinn is a lying sociopath who made the whole thing up). The only thing that's ever done about situations like this is articles and calls to "raise awareness." But those articles are golden clickbait that drive ad revenues. And it's easy, easy writing because it's all been done before. Just open up the "gamers are hateful boys" folder and repost the same hand-wringing crap we wrote last year. Collect the money and wait for it to happen again.
It's all about the money. Quinn profits, the 2000 blogs that have written breathless articles about her plight profit. Nothing actually changes, assuming there was anything changeable to begin with. And now we wait for the next episode.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:One bad apple spoils the barrel by AmiMoJo · 2014-09-04 05:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

If you have ever been on XBOX Live in a game like Call of Duty or Battlefield with a female name you will very quickly realize that it is pervasive. Similar for comment threads on a number of prominent gaming web sites.
More over it definitely is a consistent and widespread problem in games. Almost all adult "open world" style games feature prostitutes, for example. Okay, they exist in real life so they are just being realistic, right? The reality is that they add them in as a cheap way to add "grit" and faux-realism, and then give them the same gameplay mechanics as other objects like vending machines and hotel rooms (usually restoring health in exchange for money). The player is encouraged to use them as disposable, generic tools to further their progress in the game. It's just lazy and unhelpful.
War movies could show realistic violence and the effects of weapons, but that would give half the audience PTSD so despite it being an easy way to make them real and edgy they tone it down. It's about using the medium responsibly.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:One bad apple spoils the barrel by hendrips · 2014-09-04 05:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

Interesting - the more people pick on a victim, the more it becomes the victim's fault? Quite the logic there.
Re:One bad apple spoils the barrel by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-04 05:31 · Score: 2, Informative

Are you angry at specific people, or a class of people? The people who abused you, was it a particular skin color, sex, age?
When is it OK to blame other people than the ones who did it, on account of such characteristics? Always, never, or sometimes? If sometimes, which characteristics are OK to generalize over, and which aren't?
Ps. Zoe's ex accused her of being horribly emotionally abusive, cheating on him with five guys in the gaming industry and gaslighting him to cover it up. He never said anyone traded sex for reviews, although it's obvious from his (heavily documented) accusations that all the men involved (as well as ZQ) broke a ton of professional ethical rules.
Ideonexus and the Slashdot editors are playing social justice telephone.
Re:One bad apple spoils the barrel by Asmodae · 2014-09-04 06:13 · Score: 2

I feel compelled to point out that having more female leads/characters doesn't change the array of game TYPES at all. An FPS with a female lead is still an FPS, NOT a different type of game. Carry on.
Re:One bad apple spoils the barrel by Ben+Hutchings · 2014-09-04 07:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

1. The allegations against Quinn are insinuations with no evidence behind them.
2. Sarkeesian has been loudly contradicted and claimed to be a con-woman by people that can't take criticism and are annoyed by the success of her Kickstarter.
3. This is being called "misogyny" in gaming because it is directed specifically at women.
4. The Social Justice Warriors have all supported these women because they oppose misogyny.
5. It's so cheap and easy to brand gamers basement dwelling vrigin men-children than it is to look at the facts. This is stereotyping, but it is nothing like the harrassment, online bullying, doxxing or death threats made by some gamers against feminist critics.
Fixed that for you.

More than the article states... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-04 03:02 · Score: 5, Informative

It wasn't just "false accusations" from her ex-boyfriend. It was accusations from many of her boyfriends and other people that she slept with coupled with her story not making any sense and having plenty of holes in it. Oh, and also no proof that any of it took place.

As for Anita Sarkeesian? Well, after seeing how lying about being a victim worked out so well for Zoe, it's not exactly a big stretch to say that maybe she did the same thing. I mean, all those tweets coming in, from only one user, faster than anyone could type them, and immediately after receiving them we're supposed to believe that Anita logged out of her account and just so happened to search for those exact tweets, then took a screenshot of them as proof that she was "stalked and driven from her home by a raid."

There's a few things that aren't adding up here.

Re:More than the article states... by AmiMoJo · 2014-09-04 05:21 · Score: 3, Interesting

Oh, and also no proof that any of it took place.
Exactly. We don't know what happened, but let's just assume she is a cheating whore in all discussions of her professional work.

As for Anita Sarkeesian? Well, after seeing how lying about being a victim worked out so well for Zoe, it's not exactly a big stretch to say that maybe she did the same thing.
So you think one woman might be bad, and thus other women who claim to be victims of a crime are probably just the same. I mean, all women are this one generic personality, right? It's not like there is any significant variation between them, so the (imagined) actions of one speak for them all.

we're supposed to believe that Anita logged out of her account and just so happened to search for those exact tweets, then took a screenshot of them as proof that she was "stalked and driven from her home by a raid."
a) She never claimed she made the screenshot, and could have multiple computers/tablets anyway.
b) She never claimed she was driven out by a "raid", only credible threads that included her home address.
Somehow these "facts" have become part of the legend now, repeated over and over until they become true in the minds of the not-really-oppressed.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:More than the article states... by Fallen+Kell · 2014-09-04 08:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

Well, unfortunately, I feel that in the case of Anita, some of it was brought on herself. Her videos she has been using to show how games are portraying women in bad ways were in most cases taken completely out of context and twisted to fit her preconceived opinions. In one case using a section of Hitman which took place in an adult entertainment club, and saying that the women in the level are there only to be beaten/killed and used as distractions, when in fact, that is absolutely not the case. You LOSE points for beating on them. You are meant to AVOID them, just like most other people in Hitman, as they are not your target, you are not to kill people who are not your target, and yet, she makes a video of her own play-through where she intentionally kills them, and then says that is the only purpose for them being there.... Its like saying TV's are bad because you can bash someone over the head with a TV and demonstrating that you can do that fact, when in reality, the only behavior that is bad is doing that specific behavior.

And when she gets called out on that fact, she doesn't want to hear it, and disables comments so that it isn't shown what a load of crap she is spewing forth.

--
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Re:More than the article states... by geekoid · 2014-09-04 09:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

setting your interesting take on thing aside, if true, none of it means anyone has a right to threaten to beat, rape and kill her.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Re:"Death to Gamers and Long Live Videogames" by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-04 03:06 · Score: 5, Informative

Sad thing is that there's so much truth to the allegations against Zoe that has been drowned out by the idiots and trolls who want to offend or think that their way works. She even admitted flat out on twitter to having sex for publicity, and yet not a single time has the issue journalistic integrity of video game reporting been raised. There exist obvious and blatant conflicts of interest in several of her endeavors and the media that actually cares to report this ignores this fact. That slashdot plays along is not surprising, this website has a long reputation of pandering to that crowd and backing down on real facts cases like these. It's much easier to just play along right?

Consider also that Zoe Quinn was outright accused of sexually harrassing a fellow dev at a wedding, whereupon she immediately began the process of what they call "victim blaming" and riled her army of fans/supporters to berate and verbally assault him. There is a huge double standard for the controversy surrounding zoe quinn, and everything she's done wrong is being swept under the carpet because "omg internet bullies".

I don't care if she had sex with fucking 10,000 guys; that's not the issue at heart here. The 'allegations' are actually facts, and what I care about is that she slept with those people for publicity she did not deserve, that was taken from more deserving games. AAA devs don't care because money, but for indie devs this is extremely important because if it becomes a good ol' boy system in video game journalism then good games that deserve the spotlight will miss out even more than they do. And, also, bad games that don't deserve shit will continue to flood steam and make the front page. Stop supporting videogame-political machines.

Re:I predict by Z80a · 2014-09-04 03:07 · Score: 3, Informative

Given the fact this is a quite heavily biased story not looking at the actual complaints of the other side, pretty much made by "the ones that arrived first", i don't think it will last even seconds before the shitstorm begins.

Re:I predict by Squiddie · 2014-09-04 03:08 · Score: 5, Informative

That's ridiculous, and you're a troll. The reason people hate Anita Sarkeezian is not because she is a woman, but because she purposefully misrepresents facts in games and posed as someone that enjoys games when there is video evidence of the contrary. She lied to the people that financed her videos and then did not even deliver, not to mention that it's such poorly made crap that a high school student could have done better. Zoe Quinn got backlash because she is a morally bankrupt scumbag that slept with other people in her industry and journalists that promoted her game. She also made up the Wizardchan incident and basically got a bunch of lonely virgins to take the heat for something they did not do. In both cases the hate they received is due to their actions and character, not because they are women. Oh, by the way check out that list of "developers" most of them aren't developers themselves and are only tangentially connected to those companies. These people are actively trying to ruin gaming as a hobby. They politicize everything and try to make an issue over the smallest things. They deserve all the hate they get.

Accusations by Whorhay · 2014-09-04 03:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

So TFS says that the accusations regarding Zoe Quinn were false. I hadn't heard this bit yet, is the article linked to actually confirmation of that? Sorry, I'd read the articles for myself but work filters are a PITA. The last I had heard was that the guy who writes for RPS and Kotaku had confirmed their sexual relationship.

I honestly don't care about her sex life or lack there of. The only thing of interest to me is a "journalist" possibly sleeping with a person with whom he should have a more professional relation ship with, and not disclosing that fact when making mention of her work, whether positive or negative.

Re:Accusations by serviscope_minor · 2014-09-04 05:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

Besides the fact Zoe herself admitted to being a whore publicly
Really? I don't remember reading anything about her admitting to taking payment for sex.
Or do you mean that she merely has a lot of sex? In which case take your sexist (I'll recant that accusation if you've ever levelled similar insults at man who has done comparable things), puritanical attitudes somewhere where you might find fellow people who are jealous of others sex lives.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:Accusations by AmiMoJo · 2014-09-04 05:24 · Score: 4, Informative

TFA points out that the journalist in question never actually wrote a review of Depression Quest. If you can find one send them a link so they can add a correction to their article. Google doesn't turn up anything.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

Re:Astroturfing for Hillary Clinton by gstoddart · 2014-09-04 03:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

First articles here, then a new policy on Fark, and now yet another story about misogyny. It's a constant, subtle pressure in the background for Millenials that women are oppressed

Or, you know, there's a lot of men who are childish assholes and misogynists.

Because, really, death threats? Threats to rape her? The crap I've seen in the coverage about this pretty much means this isn't hand-wringing and moralizing ... this is a sign of some pretty terrible (if not criminal) behavior.

Some people get online and become complete and utter sociopaths. Others don't seem to need to be online.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.

Re:I predict by StikyPad · 2014-09-04 03:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

The hypocrisy of third wave feminism should, at the very least, be pointed out, and it's a straw man to call doing that misogynistic.

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere

Re:"Death to Gamers and Long Live Videogames" by dugancent · 2014-09-04 03:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

The accuser produces the evidence.

--
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me

Re:Astroturfing for Hillary Clinton by ganjadude · 2014-09-04 03:21 · Score: 2

the media would have you believe there are millions of people out there raping women and whatnot, thats the issue with the non stop coverage. Sure there is a problem with a sub culture of a sub culture, but the way the media is ramming it down everyones throats you would think every last women who picks up a controller will be raped by a gamer. its journalistic dishonesty.

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same

Re:"Death to Gamers and Long Live Videogames" by Khyber · 2014-09-04 03:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

"She even admitted flat out on twitter to having sex for publicity, and yet not a single time has the issue journalistic integrity of video game reporting been raised. "

You can thank Reddit for that. They deliberately censored everything they could on the subject no matter what, even conversations on the integrity of gaming journalism.

Don't like it? You'd better speak up. Oh, wait, you're an AC, you have no balls to do so.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.

Re:I predict by cryptizard · 2014-09-04 03:23 · Score: 5, Funny

How can there be video evidence that she doesn't enjoy games? Does it show a video game killing her parents?

Re:"Death to Gamers and Long Live Videogames" by Khyber · 2014-09-04 03:24 · Score: 4, Informative

"Reference-less accusations seem to prove the article's point."

What, have you had your head buried in the sand this entire time? Plenty of references down to the one being accused admitting it publicly.

Imbecile.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.

Slashdot is Dead by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-04 03:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

I knew it was going downhill for a long time, now it's dead, because it's been taken over by the Social Justice Warriors.

False accusations? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-04 03:27 · Score: 5, Interesting

That's pretty laughable given the amount of evidence. Her ex-boyfriend didn't post false accusations. Among the things that were posted were Zoe's own words, tweets, facebook message, ok cupid posts, etc. Is Slashdot also ran by SJW's that refuse to see things for what they really are?

The author of the Vice article also has connections to Zoe Quinn, Anita, and the other white knight/SJW "journalists." Did you not even bother doing research on this before making a crap slashdot post?

That's the beauty of facts. They still remain facts even if you disagree with them.

Re:False accusations? by Aardpig · 2014-09-04 03:35 · Score: 5, Informative

Mod parent up big time. Her boyfriend has posted significant amounts of evidence supporting his claims, and Zoe has not refuted them.

--
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Re:False accusations? by julesh · 2014-09-04 13:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

Stop moving the goalposts. The accusations by here boyfriend are here:
http://thezoepost.wordpress.co...
Tell me, which one of these accusations is false?
Those aren't the false accusations referred to by the article. The false accusations are the ones that suggest that she slept with Nathan Grayson in order to persuade him to write a positive review of one of her games. These accusations were quite widespread (e.g. 1, 2, 3), and appear to be completely false because nobody has pointed out a review written by Grayson of any of Quinn's games which was published after the date she's accused of sleeping with him.
Honestly, I'm not sure why anyone who doesn't know her personally would care what men she chooses to sleep with. It's not like it's actually any of our business, really. The one important accusation, that she used sex to get positive reviews for her game, turns out to be false. So let's just forget about the rest, OK?

Re:Astroturfing for Hillary Clinton by bluefoxlucid · 2014-09-04 03:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

She somehow noticed the threats without being logged in, and captured the twitter feed within 13 seconds of the final post. The whole affair was a rapid-fire set of shifting crazy-talk across three minutes. It looks like manufactured evidence, and all explanations to the contrary are wild stretches.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.

Re:"Death to Gamers and Long Live Videogames" by Kielistic · 2014-09-04 03:31 · Score: 2

You mean like all the great references from the article? Hey let's ask the people that are trying to downplay this situation what their take on the whole thing is?

But here you go: reference. He didn't review it. He just gave it title spot and listed it as a stand out.

I found this by actually following one of the references from the article.

Re:"Death to Gamers and Long Live Videogames" by rasmusbr · 2014-09-04 03:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

The inability to go look for yourself means you're the kind of person who doesn't care at all about the facts. The facts are all over the place. Stop being lazy.

Making potentially defamatory claims without evidence is not just lazy, but possibly also illegal depending on where you live. Show your work.

Re:I predict by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-04 03:34 · Score: 4, Informative

That's the problem. Both women lied about events, they created their own hate campaign and claimed it was against them. You'll notice there are no police complaints for any of the things they claim. The massive conflict of interest between these two women and having sex with a number of prominent people in the gaming "review" industry is never addressed by the rags, just the fake stuff these women created. They're playing the industry to make their millions. They've openly discussed it, clearly thinking twitter to individuals is private.

The problem is many people think they're white knights and go all out to protect these fair damsels. Personally, I'd hope someone reports the death threats to the police, they perform an investigation and once the truth comes out, we'll never hear from these two again, or their champions.

Re:I predict by i+kan+reed · 2014-09-04 03:35 · Score: 2

One "side" didn't threaten to murder and rape people over youtube videos.

Re:"Death to Gamers and Long Live Videogames" by bluefoxlucid · 2014-09-04 03:35 · Score: 2, Informative

Well, here's some evidence about Anita.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.

Re:"Death to Gamers and Long Live Videogames" by bluefoxlucid · 2014-09-04 03:36 · Score: 2, Informative

Evidence.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.

Zoe Quinn vs. Internet by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-04 03:37 · Score: 3, Informative

Instead of saying that those accusations were false, Zoe Quinn and co. proceeded to delete everything, ban everybody from gaming zine-s who talked about it. Zoe Quinn herself never said that those accusations are false.

Attack against her was not because shes a woman, or that she sleeps around. She sleeped around with people who worked in gaming news sites that hyped her game. That`s why.
In every thread or site or blog dissing here, there is zero hate because shes a woman, nobody cares about her gender. Gender is not the issue, it never was.

Other things about her have also surfaced. Like she harassed thefineyoungcapitalists, who were women devs BTW. Same women who gaming news sites want to protect, but refused to publish their side of the story because "You don`t talk about Zoe Quinn`s bad behavior". Or how she sexually harassed someone in her wedding.

So much spin... by kick6 · 2014-09-04 03:38 · Score: 2

They're going to create a BS tornado...

Re:"Death to Gamers and Long Live Videogames" by Kielistic · 2014-09-04 03:39 · Score: 2

That was written by one of the people she slept with. The one that the article said claimed never wrote a favourable review of her game.

Personally I would count "There are thousands of these games and this one stands out the most" to be a pretty favourable review.

Re:Again?! by Aardpig · 2014-09-04 03:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

Are we talking about the same Zoe Quinn? The Zoe Quinn who shut down a gamejam specifically targetted at helping women coders, because she perceived it as in competition with her own fundraising efforts?

--
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.

Catchup for those outside of the circle by Karganeth · 2014-09-04 03:39 · Score: 4, Informative

A YouTuber by the name of InternetAristocrat has 3 videos on this matter. It's worth watching these to fully understand the details of this situation. Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

Re:"Death to Gamers and Long Live Videogames" by MightyMartian · 2014-09-04 03:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

None of which seems to prove the claim that the woman in question was having sex with lots of people.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

Re:I predict by Squiddie · 2014-09-04 03:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

http://youtu.be/gqJCCnued6c?li...

I'm not a fan of video games.

B-but she never said that! She did. She doesn't like games, and she isn't a gamer. It must be nice to be such a deluded idiot.

Re:Astroturfing for Hillary Clinton by LWATCDR · 2014-09-04 03:41 · Score: 2

"Or, you know, there's a lot of men who are childish assholes and misogynists."
A lot or a small percentage? That is the question. The internet is big and and even 1000 men acting like that is a very small number when you look at the total but if you have a thousand jerks posting that they want to rape and or kill you it seems like the whole world. That does not make it okay but the simple truth is that the internet allows idiots of all genders and orientation to seem like a large group when if fact they are a tiny group.
As to threats I have actually gotten death threats and even a rape threat on Slashdot. I am a 49 year old straight male programmer with a beard. Maybe they where into that kind of thing but I am not interested.
The simple truth is that bad people will do bad things. If you want to restrict that kind of speech you will have to use legal or social pressure and that will require some identity tied to the posts.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.

Re:I predict by 91degrees · 2014-09-04 03:42 · Score: 2

Zoe Quinn got backlash because she is a morally bankrupt scumbag that slept with other people in her industry and journalists that promoted her game

Why does Zoe get called out here, but the people she slept with get ignored? If anyone did anything wrong, they're the ones who breached journalistic integrity.

Re:So, where is ... by Kohlrabi82 · 2014-09-04 03:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

So you argue that some men in shining white armor should come to the aid of the damsels in distress? Isn't it ironic how the harassed women are now used as a damsel-in-distress plot device in some gamer misogyny story?

Not a lot, just a lot of trolls. by SuperKendall · 2014-09-04 03:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

Why do you think there are a LOT of men that are misogynists?

I don't often encounter them in real life. Sure there are some out there, but it's a huge stretch to claim that there are a lot of men that dislike women.

Some people get online and become complete and utter sociopaths.

This is in fact what people are missing - a lot of online trolls are not truly misogynists. Or that is to say, they will screw with everyone equally or whoever they can get the biggest rise out of.

In real life they may well not be misogynists at all, as you say some people get online and they turn into something different and almost inhuman in the resolve to cause pain and distress. The kind of trolls that went after Robin William's daughter after his death - that's not being a misogynist, that's being an asshole.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Not a lot, just a lot of trolls. by frank_adrian314159 · 2014-09-04 05:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

Asshole or misogynist, it doesn't matter. The behavior should be viewed as unacceptable. Fuck, do you go around telling people on the street that you're going to kill or rape them? And trying to shade the issue because someone used one negative term rather than the other, when no one will know what the actual motivation was, just gives cover for this obnoxious behavior. You just shouldn't fucking do that shit, mmmkay?
Plus, idiots like these are driving us towards the day when anonymity on the internet goes away. Do you want that? Because that's what it's coming to, boys and girls. So either act like adults and figure out a way to police yourselves in a reasonable way, or get locked down - the internet is now too important to the "normal" function of our society to allow a bunch of misogynists, assholes, or whatever to disrupt it. And the powers that be certainly won't let that happen. Defense of anyone who acts like this for any reason only makes things worse.

--
That is all.
Re:Not a lot, just a lot of trolls. by AmiMoJo · 2014-09-04 06:01 · Score: 2

If you watch Sarkeesian's videos she points out that much of the sexism isn't men hating women, it's just lazyness. Hero needs a motivation, so let's throw in a helpless princess. Game world needs some grit, let's throw in a pimp beating up some prostitutes. Let's throw in a few sexy women as background decoration, to sell a few more copies. It's not malice, it's just crap writing and the designers probably don't even realize they are doing it.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Not a lot, just a lot of trolls. by mjwx · 2014-09-04 13:34 · Score: 2

I dont often agree with SuperKendall but...

Why do you think there are a LOT of men that are misogynists?
I don't often encounter them in real life. Sure there are some out there, but it's a huge stretch to claim that there are a lot of men that dislike women.
This.

Misogynists (and misandrists) are out there but are very small in number these days, especially amongst the younger generations that grew up without wide spread misogyny or misandry.

That being said, mysogynists and misandrists tend to be extremely vocal in order to make it seem like their POV is more popular than it really is. Its the same with any extremist viewpoint, racism, xenophobia, fundamentalism. The louder they shout, the more afraid they are of being ignored into oblivion. The misogynists and misandrists feed off each other unfortunately, trying to drag more rational people into an "us vs them" conflict. Like most people, I dont really have the patience for that kind of bollocks.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.

Zoe Quinn, wait what? by LordLimecat · 2014-09-04 03:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

I generally dont keep up on this stuff, but the post by Zoe's ex was filled with actual proof that she is apparently unbelievably manipulative. I didnt see any rebuttals, either-- just complaints that he crossed a line by posting private conversations. That can be argued, but noone seems to deny the accusations.

I didnt get to the parts about accusing her of trading sex for reviews or anything, but shes not the shining champion of feminist rights that you want.

Re:Zoe Quinn, wait what? by i+kan+reed · 2014-09-04 04:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

No one thinks she is. But unless she's committing murder, this reaction is overblown. We think the people attacking her are scum for making something that would be a small deal for any male in a similar position into one of the biggest conspiracies ever.
And that their actions reinforce the notion that misogynistic beliefs have become endemic to the "culture" of gaming, inasmuch as it has one.
And that actually ties back to Sarkeesian's work, because science has shown that objectified media leads to this kind of hostility and discrimination against women.
People are objecting not because Quinn and Sarkeesian are angels, on a pedestal and beyond reproach, but because there are elements of culture that are causing this problem and standing up against it is the only thing that's going to see change.
Re:Zoe Quinn, wait what? by Kielistic · 2014-09-04 04:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

People are objecting not because Quinn and Sarkeesian are angels,
No, you are standing up for them because they are women. Women that, as you have admitted, have done bad things. But it's everyone else that are the sexists.
Re:Zoe Quinn, wait what? by i+kan+reed · 2014-09-04 05:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

I've done "bad things". You've done "bad things". That objections is stupid and you knew it when you typed it.
What they haven't done is anything justifying this gigantic shitpile of hate and threats. Which exists because of misogyny. And you have to know you're lying if you claim otherwise.
Take your just world hypothesis bullshit and shove it. If they did something illegal, let the courts handle it. (spoiler, they didn't)
Re:Zoe Quinn, wait what? by LordLimecat · 2014-09-04 05:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

Nonsense. My exposure to this issue has been entirely through articles like this one attempting to demonize the ex-boyfriend, who by all accounts was treated in a way that would have been absolutely blasted if it had been towards a woman. She was cheating on him with the people who were supposed to be reviewing her work, all the while manipulating him into thinking he was crazy for suspecting that she was cheating. She claimed that it would be "rape" to have an intimate relationship with someone while cheating behind their back, and then did exactly that. And shes apparently a chronic liar.
The "huge conspiracy" I simply havent seen; I literally had not heard of this issue until I saw an article on ArsTechnica on what a scumbag guys are for demonizing Zoe Quinn (What? Who?). Apparently shes so notorious that the most white knighting article on Ars and Slashdot cannot have her looking good at the end; theres just too much dirt out there for even the most heavily spun article to hide.
Re:Zoe Quinn, wait what? by i+kan+reed · 2014-09-04 08:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm frankly exhausted with dealing with people like you, but you at least seem to be trying to frame this in an honest way, so I'll do my best to not be angry about this.
1. It doesn't matter. You might think the details of what she did wrong matter. They don't matter. Because they're small fries to everything about the video game journalism industry. And over a free twine game. It's not that big deal. However big a deal the personal infractions might seem, they're not that big a deal. That might sound like personal opinion, but it's not. This is a case of proportionality, and the effect sex and sexism have upon the perceived severity of crimes among certain misogynistic subsets of the population.
No one bats an eye when IGN gives for profit game companies who put ads on their site a decent review. And that is so much bigger than a link on a blogpost. Whatever crimes have happened here, they had almost nothing to do with the level and nature of the reaction.
2. It really does matter that the nature of the "crime" was sexual. And that they originated out of a lover's dispute. That's important because, nominally, that's private. You can tell your friends. You can even complain to strangers. But when strangers start getting emotionally invested and involved, it's a symptom of something very wrong. I know, I know, you think that's not you. You're only involved because of "nepotism". Except, see point #1. It's not that big a deal, and the activities involved do not deserve any sort of defense.
3. Gaming culture is broken. Do you really think it's okay that people get called "nigger faggots" on online games? That it's normal? The "It's just a game" excuse doesn't hold up, because that shit doesn't crop up in other types of non-video games. We've let the escapism(which is healthy in moderation) of the system capture the way we treat it each other(which isn't). Heaven help you if you happen to actually reveal yourself as female. Just ask any lady who games, that's not an understatement at all.
And the problem with people like you isn't 1,2 or 3, it's that you're not aware of how bad it is. You don't notice the absolutely detestable levels of shittiness that permeate the behaviors. Threats on your life aren't normal. I make all sorts of strongly opinionated posts on the internet. And no one has ever threatened my life over them. Not even once. I do expect it eventually, but to normalize and dismiss it is completely unreasonable, especially with the severity and focus the threats receive.
These kids(who lets be honest, many are probably are only children mentally) doing abhorrent behavior, they need to see an environment where they don't get an implicit endorsement of their behavior, where people will point out whatever small crime they're fixated on, when they've already done worse themselves.
Re:Zoe Quinn, wait what? by LordLimecat · 2014-09-04 16:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

You are MAKING this about sex and sexism. Zoes boyfriend was (understandably) upset, and had an actual important grievance to air: that Zoe had a non-neutral relationship with the people supposed to be reviewing her games.
It should have ended there: many such stories do, with the person violating the professional code (ie, "dont sleep with your reviewers and then pretend its unbiased") being discredited and everyone ceasing to care.
But in this case I've seen two stories defending Zoe, and not on factual grounds, but on some bizarre allegation of rampant sexism by untold misogynist males. And then there are posts from people like you, alleging that I, too, am part of the problem because I find her behavior unacceptable (along with the implication that I somehow support men who do the same sorts of things). The entire thing was created out of air; there is no reason to be defending Zoe, and frankly noone outside of some tiny niches cared until ArsTechnica and Slashdot ran these stupid stories accusing everyone with a Y chromosome of being an immoral bastard.
Im really not sure on what grounds youre leveling the accusations that you have been leveling, particularly at me; I've seen you on slashdot, but Im quite certain I dont generally get involved on these cesspool comment threads because theyre utterly ridiculous and usually I have the good sense to let the trolls troll. Maybe the lesson here is to just log out of slashdot and let you and everyone else who cares yell at each other until the end of time. But for your sake I'd recommend you not run around in life accusing random strangers of hating women just because they think there should be standards of journalistic integrity.
Re:Zoe Quinn, wait what? by i+kan+reed · 2014-09-05 01:54 · Score: 2

She should care because they threatened her life, and attempted to bankrupt her through a paypal exploit.

Re:"Death to Gamers and Long Live Videogames" by Kielistic · 2014-09-04 03:48 · Score: 2

How the hell do you demonstrate that? Do I need to find her on video stating she was purposefully sleeping with people? She slept with this guy and "coincidentally" her game floated to the top of his list. At the very least it is a conflict of interest.

The only people focusing on Zoe is the gaming media. Most of the gaming community is trying to focus on the gaming media. People are saying the media is being dishonest. Dishonest like giving their close personal relationships very favourable reviews. Funny how that never seems to get addressed. Just endless repetition of how everyone is attacking this woman. Also focusing solely on her personal sexual relationships is all the gaming media involved in the scandal will cover. None of the other things the gaming community has been accusing her of. Almost like they're trying to spin a narrative.

Re:I predict by qbast · 2014-09-04 03:49 · Score: 3, Informative

You mean this ? So far we only have accusations from professional victim.

Re:I predict by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-04 03:50 · Score: 2, Informative

Hey, look this lie again.

She never said it. Ever.

http://youtu.be/Afgtd8ZsXzI

At 0:13 "I'm not a fan of video games"

Literally took all of 5 seconds to look up.

Re:I predict by Squiddie · 2014-09-04 03:51 · Score: 2

They are equally culpable, and they've been called out. The problem is that the media keeps focusing on her to make it seem like some fedora crusade, when in reality it's calling out all the gaming press and Quinn at the same time. Let's face it, gaming journalists have been in bed with devs and publishers for a long time, it just has gotten so out of hand that now we have journalists and devs literally in bed with each other. This would never fly in any other industry, so why do we let it occur here?

Re:I predict by flayzernax · 2014-09-04 03:55 · Score: 2

After reading the article, seeing the discussion here, being a gamer myself, and also experiencing the effects of this objectification myself.

I would say, regardless of her 'moral character' (tbh what she does in her own time).

She is damn right about the gaming industry.

TBH games are fairly weak and lacking in any substance that adds anything to humanity overall. But it is worse if you take them apart piece by piece out of context.

I would be the first to argue that some as a whole are not all that bad. But her argument is that the overwhelming majority of games suffer from the curse of objectification.

And in that she is absolutely right.

Recent? by Lumpy · 2014-09-04 03:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm guessing the article was written by someone that was just born. It has existed forever in gaming. My wife is a gamer chick and back in the 80's she had to deal with this crap.

It's not only video games. she used to play MTG in tournaments 8 years ago (She has a 4 digit DCI number), last time she played she was harassed several times by the low IQ morons that are prevalent in society to the point that she refuses to play it ever again.

This crap is not new, what is needed is people finding these scumbags that pull this crap on girls/women and beating the shit out of them.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

Why "SJW"? by Daetrin · 2014-09-04 04:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Question, why do you (generally speaking) feel the need to lump all the people who disagree with you together into one group, give that group a sarcastic name, and then abbreviate that name into an acronym which you can then use as a accusatory label whenever the subject comes up for discussion?

It sounds like the kind of thing my old paranoid-schizophrenic girlfriend would do when talking about "them", but i presume you are not mentally ill, so there must be some other reason for it. Is it some kind of bonding thing between people who feel threatened by others? Or do you believe that by creating the appearance of some kind of organized opposition that you will sway "neutral" parties toward your side? It just sounds dumb to me, but maybe i'm not the intended audience?

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank

Re:Why "SJW"? by kruach+aum · 2014-09-04 04:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

Let me answer your question with a question: why do you feel the need to psychoanalyze someone you know nothing about other than his use of the abbreviation "SJW"? Surely YOU would not engage in thinking all people who use those three letters in a sequence are the same, would you?
Re:Why "SJW"? by Daetrin · 2014-09-04 04:26 · Score: 2

Well as i said, my initial presumption would be that people who always resort to blaming things on groups with three letter acronym names are just crazy. However i am trying not to fall prey to the simple "well those people are just crazy" impulse, so i'm trying to understand instead. Why do you feel that's appropriate? Do you not realize it sounds... strange to people who aren't versed in your sub-culture? Or do you not care? Do you believe you're trying to educate the rest of us about what "those people" are really like?

Even though i do mentally categorize everyone who thinks rape and death threats are cool into the same group (and just to be clear, as far as i know that is not the exact same group as the people who like to use the term "SJW") i don't feel the need to give them a name any more specific than "misogynist assholes." I don't understand the appeal of coming up with some fancy name with a three letter acronym and bandying it about all over the place. Honestly i'd think that anyone who felt compelled to do so would sound... well, a little crazy. So what's the appeal? (I'd think the people who keep going on about "MRA"s are crazy, except i had the impression the "MRA"s gave that name/acronym to themselves, which again, i don't understand the appeal.)

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Re:Why "SJW"? by i+kan+reed · 2014-09-04 04:52 · Score: 2

All men are rapists
Is that a straw feminist in the closet?
I don't know why you guys need to fall back on fictional stereotypes to criticize people who are pointing out sexism. There's no world in which that doesn't prove their point.
Re:Why "SJW"? by i+kan+reed · 2014-09-04 05:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

And yet a google search on the term accross several pages of results reveals exactly zero people using that phrase to do anything other than describe strawfeminists, either like you're doing, unironically and stupidly, or ironically and mockingly like the comic.
So, good job. You have no real points.
Re:Why "SJW"? by GameboyRMH · 2014-09-04 05:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

I love when people use the acronym "SJW," it's even more efficient than "misandry." It says "I am unapologetically backwards as fuck on a wide variety of issues, to the point that I am upset at the existence of people who are opposed to my backwardness."

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Why "SJW"? by Daetrin · 2014-09-04 05:46 · Score: 2

Hmm,

#1: I never said that i've seen anyone on /. or any other forum say that rape or death threats are cool. I have seen people make such threats elsewhere, and perhaps it is a bit of jump to assume that the people who made those threats think that they are cool, but i think it's reasonable to believe so until proven otherwise. If you wish to debate the point however for the moment i will settle for "i mentally categorize everyone who makes rape or death threats into the same group."

#2: You specifically left out the bit immediately following the part you quoted, in which i clarified that i was not accusing anyone here "(and just to be clear, as far as i know that is not the exact same group as the people who like to use the term "SJW")".

#3: The part where you say that you do not take conversations on slashdot seriously (or at least that's my interpretation of your statement) and post here "only for fun": http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

So nice job troll, thanks for playing?

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Re:Why "SJW"? by Kielistic · 2014-09-04 06:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

Fictional stereotypes? This is a story about feminists labeling an entire group of people misogynists. They clearly don't have a problem with using the paint brush set to "wide".
Additionally there have been and still are feminists that claim that all heterosexual sex is rape. Which would make pretty much all men rapist. So again, not fictional.
Re:Why "SJW"? by AmiMoJo · 2014-09-04 09:21 · Score: 3, Informative

This is a story about feminists labeling an entire group of people misogynists.

Can you point out exactly where that was said? I have read quite a few of these articles and watch many of the videos, and I didn't see anywhere that labelled gamers are a whole misogynists. In fact, Sarkeesian's videos are at pains to avoid labelling the developers as misogynists, pointing out that most of the problems are not malicious but simply due to poor design or writing and a lack of awareness.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

Re:Astroturfing for Hillary Clinton by CanHasDIY · 2014-09-04 04:08 · Score: 2

It looks like manufactured evidence, and all explanations to the contrary are wild stretches.

I haven't actually seen any "explanations to the contrary" myself.

All I've seen are people like I kan reed going full retard, foaming at the mouth with hatred as they scream how you're some sort of woman-murdering monster because you won't just take her word for it.

Which, besides being hilariously ironic, doesn't really do anything to dispel people's suspicions.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Re:Astroturfing for Hillary Clinton by entrigant · 2014-09-04 04:13 · Score: 5, Informative

No, but just about "every last women who picks up a controller" will be threatened with violence or rape by a gamer.

http://fatuglyorslutty.com/category/death-threats/

That ^^ ... is a fucking problem. I sure as shit don't have to deal with crap like that when I'm online.

Even if not a single person ever followed through on their threats, it creates an incredibly hostile atmosphere that few would want to endure therefore creating a cultural divide and effectively excluding women from the activity.

And, somehow, even if that was deemed acceptable, even if we all said "ok fine gaming is to be a sausage fest for all time", do you really think the attitudes given voice by these in game messages somehow vanish once the sender puts down the controller and joins the rest of us in the real world?

Re:I predict by buchner.johannes · 2014-09-04 04:27 · Score: 2

It sounds like that was said in the context of comparing to other fan-doms. Such as someone might be a Twilight fan and write some fan-fiction. She is saying, in response to something before the cut which is not shown, that her case is slightly different. She is not a fan.
To me that could even mean "I'm not a fan. I am a gamer."
In any case, I don't think it follows automatically that she does not like video games. That can only be said if the context in which she spoke is ignored, and her words taken to the letter. "Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre." applies here.
That she had to learn a lot about video games also does not mean anything, because there are many genres and games out there. Nobody has an overview without some systematic digging.

I think we can agree that she played games at some point (and thus at least was a gamer), so she can talk on the subject.

Even if she had literally said "I do not like video games" she could have been a prolific gamer, become disappointed with the industry, and stop actively playing. In that case "I do not like video games" would be a true present statement, yet she still has all right to talk on the subject of video games.

--
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.

Re:"Death to Gamers and Long Live Videogames" by westlake · 2014-09-04 04:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

That slashdot plays along is not surprising, this website has a long reputation of pandering to that crowd and backing down on real facts cases like these. It's much easier to just play along right?

I first heard about Slashdot when I was still dependent on AOL, a dial-up modem and an affordable toll-free regional calling plan.

Then and now when the geek speaks about women, I can't escape the feeling that I have been teleported back to the high school locker rooms of 1964. The only pandering on this site is to the geek's own adolescent sense of manhood,

Re:I predict by tylikcat · 2014-09-04 04:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

Thank you for fighting the good fight.

I almost didn't even look at the comments here, especially since I'd burnt through the last of my mod points last night, and especially the first wave of really offensive shit that gets posted any time the treatment of women in geek culture comes up just depresses the hell out of me. (I'm trying to stick to the optimistic version opined by another friend, wherein there's a really grim whiny ass first wave, which mostly gets modded down over time. Over course, the friend wrote to me a couple of days back to tell me he'd decided that no, he took it back, anything involving women was getting a fair bit worse.)

The creepiest bit is that half of my social circle, roughly, are male geeks* and they generally seem like a decent bunch, individually and in groups. My students are an amiable bunch, even in those final crunch days as they're trying to wrap up an experiment or get a paper in. Is the first wave of /. comments overwhelmingly from bitter seventeen year olds? Are these some other geeks who I have managed to distance myself from over the years.** Is it possible that some of the entertaining, amiable geeks that I spar with, party with, code with and blow things up with turn feral and run in packs when I'm not around? Eesh.

* Well, okay, that assumes that the martial artists are predominantly geeks, which might get into some kind of definitional argument. *Many* clearly are.

Slashdot enjoying the clickbait... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-04 04:40 · Score: 5, Interesting

Posting anon because I enjoy my job.

For some reason, slashdot has mostly ignored this topic for the past couple weeks, and now we get an article that revels in moralistic naysaying while ignoring what keeps this going.

The recent "ugliness" is not just a product of sexism and misogyny. To be fair, women have been harassed. To be even more fair, not all women who have been harassed have been harassed by "gamers".

The fiasco that has now grown into "Gamergate" (not my term) is not easy to relate in few words, but I will summarize that it is a reaction by enthusiast gamers against a clique of prominent video games journalists, writers, and indie developers who have been using their personal connections to promote each other's works and political ideology, as well as exclude those who do not toe the line.

It began when the ex-boyfriend of indie developer Zoe Quinn made a blog post detailing with evidence how Ms Quinn cheated on him with at least five other people, as well as perceived attempts by her to emotionally manipulate him. (http://thezoepost.wordpress.com/) Among individuals named in the post were Nathan Grayson (a writer for Gawker Media's Kotaku and former writer at Rock, Paper, Shotgun) and Robin Arnott (a judge at the Indiecade independent games competition that later went on to give Ms Quinn's game an award). Initially, this post was ignored by games journalists, and was circulated in online gaming forums. However, many forums deleted any and all topics concerning the matter, including the largest reddit thread deletion in history (with over 20K comments deleted; http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/2dz0gs/totalbiscuit_discusses_the_state_of_games/) concerning youtube commentator TotalBiscuit's response to Ms Quinn allegedly using a false DMCA request to take down one of the first videos discussing the subject (http://themundanematt.tumblr.com/post/95428752119/dmca-notice-and-removal).

Investigation by redditors and members of various boards on 4chan soon uncovered that Ms Quinn allegedly pointed her twitter followers to critique a new game charity designed to help female game designers have their ideas actualized because she felt the charity's profit-motivated goals and its policy towards transwomen (biological males who identify as women) were oppressive (http://static.fjcdn.com/large/pictures/60/24/6024fb_5271447.jpg). When the creator of the charity attempted to seek promotion from major gaming journalist sites, he was told that since Ms Quinn had issues with the charity, no promotion would be possible (knowyourmeme.com/photos/814183-quinnspiracy).

While specific written pieces promoting Ms Quinn's work were actually short in supply, further investigations showed that the relationships of other journalists to their subjects were less tenuous. Patricia Hernandez of Kotaku was shown through previous twitter conversations to have lived with and possibly had a romantic relationship with Anne Anthropy, an indie developer she directly promoted in several articles. Ben Kuchera of Polygon, among others, was shown to be a supporter of Ms Quinn on Patreon, a site designed to crowd-fund stipends to content-creators. In response to these issues, the two above mentioned games journalism sites posted clarifications and/or updates to their positions on conflicts of interest, noting that they would attempt more honest journalism in the future, as well as in the case of Kotaku disallowing writers to contribute to subjects' Patreon accounts.

This is when hell started breaking loose. Prominent games journalists and indie developers cried out on twitter that Kotaku and Polygon

Feminism by NotSanguine · 2014-09-04 04:45 · Score: 3, Informative

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Feminism (n)
: the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities

--
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr

Re:Feminism by Iamthecheese · 2014-09-04 06:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

When they're abusing statistics with the goal of spreading hate, when many mainstream feminists have rabidly man-hating quotes strung behind them, and when they don't collectively struggle for equal responsibility that definition sounds pretty damn hollow.

--
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
Re:Feminism by Vintermann · 2014-09-04 06:17 · Score: 2

That would be the motte in the motte-and-bailey doctrine. If you define feminism like that, it's extremely defensible.
But as soon as you're going out to do any actual good work in the name of feminism, you're going to need a broader definition, one that opens it up for criticism.
Retreating to the defensible but useless definition whenever your ideas are criticized, is dishonest.

--
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
Re:Feminism by NotSanguine · 2014-09-04 06:39 · Score: 2

That would be the motte in the motte-and-bailey doctrine. If you define feminism like that, it's extremely defensible.
But as soon as you're going out to do any actual good work in the name of feminism, you're going to need a broader definition, one that opens it up for criticism.
Retreating to the defensible but useless definition whenever your ideas are criticized, is dishonest.
My Ideas? WTF are you talking about? I am a feminist in exactly the sense of the definition posted. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything else is just you projecting.

--
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Re:Feminism by NotSanguine · 2014-09-04 08:15 · Score: 2

I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Feminism (n)
: the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities
Actually, you can throw that word out. Ask 10 feminists what a feminist is and you'll get 10 different ideological answers. However, the end result is basically the same - not equality of the sexes but female superiority of the sexes.
Says you. I'm a feminist and that's how I define feminism (along with Merriam-Webster, of course). Now get over yourself. I guess you're an insecure male, huh? Well, I'm a secure, middle-aged male and feel strongly that women have been treated unfairly for far too long. You're certainly entitled to your point of view, but don't try to tell me what I believe.

--
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Re:Feminism by diamondmagic · 2014-09-04 08:33 · Score: 2, Informative

No, it's called individual rights when you think that everyone should have equal rights regardless of sex, race, physical traits, or anything besides the mere fact you're human.
It's called feminism when you believe women should have the same rights as men, and not necessarily the other way around - an obsolete position at best, an appalling contradiction at worst.

--
Wonder what the public key field is for?
Re:Feminism by NotSanguine · 2014-09-04 08:40 · Score: 2

No, it's called individual rights when you think that everyone should have equal rights regardless of sex, race, physical traits, or anything besides the mere fact you're human.
It's called feminism when you believe women should have the same rights as men, and not necessarily the other way around - an obsolete position at best, an appalling contradiction at worst.
An interesting construction. Yes, I believe in equal rights for all. However, women have been (and in many places, still are) treated as second-class people and even property. That, IMNSHO, needs to change. Which is why I also believe that it's reasonable to give that particular area of human rights its own -ism. Feel free to disagree. I'm not so insecure that I need your (or anyone else's) validation.

--
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Re:Feminism by mjm1231 · 2014-09-04 09:12 · Score: 2

But you still live in a world where a woman is very much more likely to be denied the rights which a man has easy access to than the other way around. For the most part, the differentiation you are insisting on is only applicable in a fantasy world which does not, as yet, exist.

--
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.

Re:Astroturfing for Hillary Clinton by Asmodae · 2014-09-04 04:45 · Score: 2

This is not limited to gaming. Here's a breakdown of the statistics as they are known right now. Based on this: Wiki-link rape statistics 1/6 women have been raped in the US. Out of 150 million women in the US, that is around 25 million women estimated which have been raped. I think it takes millions of rapists (mostly men natch) to reach that number. So YES, millions of people (mostly men) ARE in fact out there raping people. No media bias needed, just knowing some real numbers.

One Angry Gamer by Guy+From+V · 2014-09-04 04:46 · Score: 2

These search results on the One Angry Gamer website about The Fine Young Capitalists game dev team (who also happen to be women, some might remember them as the team who wrote the game Depression Quest), who got blackballed by unscrupulous writers for a handful of well-known gaming and tech review outfits because of the second-rate "escapades" of one Zoe Quinn and her "relations" with several of them. Ironically, it was 4chan who stepped up to raise $5,000 to fund them when the rest of the community dropped them like a sack of shit because of Ms. Quinn and her "conspirators' " favoritism. PS quotes=sexual escapades and pillow talk railroading.

Re:I predict by Squiddie · 2014-09-04 04:48 · Score: 3, Informative

Oh, please. If she liked video games she wouldn't actively lie and misrepresent video games and bitch and moan about every little thing, some of which are of her own invention. Take the Hitman video she did. She went on about how the game rewards you by killing the dancers at some club, when anyone who has played the game knows that you actually get punished for it, due to their deaths being unnecessary. She's a dishonest cunt, and you should stop trying to invent situations that we know don't exist. Her actions reflect that she does not like video games and she never has.

Re:"Death to Gamers and Long Live Videogames" by bluefoxlucid · 2014-09-04 04:50 · Score: 2

It shows the account was specifically created for this, posted everything in 3 minutes, and was discovered and screencapped 12 seconds later without being logged in or doing a search. In other words: whosoever took the screencap knew about this the moment it was done.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.

Too much by kelemvor4 · 2014-09-04 04:54 · Score: 2

What is going on with slashdot lately? "Politically Correct" is a different type of PC.

Re:Astroturfing for Hillary Clinton by bluefoxlucid · 2014-09-04 04:56 · Score: 2

I was given the explanation that Anita must have a friend who looks out for this, and saw it, and told her; and that Anita probably uses an application, rather than logging into Twitter, or uses two accounts and is often logged out while switching; and so Anita would have found out about this through her friend, immediately, and gone, not logged in because she's never logged in, and screen capped.

That still relies on said friend discovering this immediately, and then relaying quickly. It also puts in a whole lot of wild conjecture about how the screen capturing person became logged out.

It's driving me nuts, because everyone has taken the word of a sham as gospel, and now we're seeing a big flurry of activity around this shit. I believe the appropriate punishment for con artists who knowingly lie and manipulate others to benefit themselves is crucifixion.

Currently, there's an ionized water seller trying to sell people a $3000 machine at the market here, talking about how their ionized water has an alkaline balance and changes the pH of your body to boost your immune system and remove toxins--all of which has been debunked by science decades ago. There was also a person explaining how the hydrogen ions in a $30 wrist band he was selling create magnetic vibrations that boost the energy levels and power of your body.

Nail these people to a tree.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.

Re:"Death to Gamers and Long Live Videogames" by stdarg · 2014-09-04 04:58 · Score: 5, Informative

In this thread, the "accusation" is that the accusations against Zoe have truth to them. The accusation takes the form of a comment, not an article in its own right. Your "[citation needed]" post is out of place.

If you're curious about it, look it up. If you dispute it, dispute it. This is a website where people comment about the article, and often about things completely unrelated to the article. Some work on your part is required, the comment thread isn't a place for you to whine about not being spoon-fed. For your [citation needed] comment to be taken at all seriously, you have to at least add that you searched for it and couldn't find it, so you don't believe it's true without more work on OP's part, thus [citation needed].

As it turns out I was curious about the accusation as well so I searched for some more information. Took me about 10 seconds to find some interesting things:

http://www.escapistmagazine.co...
http://thezoepost.wordpress.co...
http://imgur.com/a/4VOcx
http://pastebin.com/Ph22THkJ

Re:I predict by eepok · 2014-09-04 05:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm a male gamer and I agree with the assertion that video games with women typically find methods of objectifying the female form... but it's not as though video games or gamer culture is unique in this way. The gaming industry objectifies women. As does Hollywood. And print media.

One of the best selling products in history is the female form and it sells well. Sex sells well. What do you do in a capitalist society when there is a seemingly unlimited demand for a product of which you have a nearly unlimited supply? Well, you sell it.

We can even take it a step further an confidently assert that there will always be a sufficient supply of the female form to meet or exceed demand due to psychological imperative with which most Western girls grow up that suggests that if they cannot receive validation of self through other actions or deeds, then there's always the option to resort to sexuality. One could even assert that this persistent and potentially indoctrinated psychological rationale may be one of the roots of reproduction for humanity.

And it's even easier to supply the female form in games because you don't even need a female. You just need artistic skills and an imagination!

So we've defined the multifaceted problem (biologically-enforced demand and an unlimited supply). We've also based the discussion on the issues that such objectification is becoming more and more of a nuisance to the comfort of more and more people (social evolution).

So what is to be done?

Stop all games that singularly sexualize the female form? What if both the male and female forms are equally sexualized? All good?
Do the same for video and print media?
Do we affect demand?
Are we to shame males and lesbians for appreciating the female form in game, video, and print media?

And this is where I always get stuck. If we want to change the frequency or the visibility of the objectification of the female form, we have to affect supply, demand, or both-- but doing so by shaming or legislation seems to infringe not only upon the social contract but upon biological imperatives thus making such an effort pointless.

So what is to be done?

Re:I predict by Creepy · 2014-09-04 05:15 · Score: 3, Informative

Misogyny isn't the right word, but objectification probably is. The entertainment industry is really shallow that way, and I'm saying that as someone that has worked professionally in both music and game programming/game music (I've also done game art and 2d and 3d modeling, but I probably couldn't cut it there in modern games - it didn't take as much talent in the 1990s). I lobbied to have female characters in one of the games I worked on and was mocked and told by the owner that there was no market for that (and all I really asked for was ONE female character NAME in that game, which was a driving game - incidentally, someone modded them in later). I also have a friend in TV and that industry isn't much better, and he is probably the best example of that (for years behind his back my friends joked of him as our male slut friend, but he finally settled down with a long term girlfriend and even moved in with her and sold his bachelor pad, which he refused to do with the other two fairly long relationships he had).

We were already on the path to inclusion by sstamps · 2014-09-04 05:16 · Score: 2

Games and gamer culture were already well on their way to inclusion of females in various contexts long before the Anitas and Zoes were out of diapers, and will likely continue unabated despite them and their detractors. From players to developers, to games specifically gender-neutral or targeted towards women, it's already happening. That a small percentage of games cater to a certain male-dominated demographic (which has been around since the dawn of gaming), or contain certain representations which some females find offensive for whatever reason, shouldn't paint the rest of the industry as non-inclusive. Personally, even as a male, I don't care for those games; I find them base and puerile, but I deal with it simply by not buying or playing them. I certainly don't care if they are made or if anyone else plays them or not.

The vast majority of gamers either don't know about this crap or don't care -- they just want to be left alone to enjoy their hobby without a bunch of culture warrior idiots and douchebags telling them "you're over" and screwing with the games they are harmlessly enjoying. That is what I think tends to infuriate gamers which would otherwise have no issues whatsoever with the smooth transition of games and gamer culture from being nearly completely male-dominated for decades to one of gender balance which represents everyone fairly, if not equally.

In short, everyone needs to step back and take a god damned breather, put all this bullshit into perspective, and move on into the future. Trust me, it's going to be just fine for everyone involved with respect to games.

--
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."

Re:"Death to Gamers and Long Live Videogames" by rasmusbr · 2014-09-04 05:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

It shows the account was specifically created for this, posted everything in 3 minutes, and was discovered and screencapped 12 seconds later without being logged in or doing a search. In other words: whosoever took the screencap knew about this the moment it was done.

Or maybe Anita Sarkeesian saw the first tweet from that account in her mentions, navigated to the tweeter's Twitter stream, decided to take a screencap, copied the URL, opened up a private tab and took the screen cap. She would have had 3 minutes to do that, and it only takes a few seconds to do.

(The reason why one should always take screen caps in private tabs or private windows is that it minimizes the risk that your screencap will inadvertently reveal any personal information about you.)

offensive != offended by khasim · 2014-09-04 05:26 · Score: 2

a. Being offensive is not the same as being offended.

b. Rights are not the sole consideration. There is also politeness.

The first question would be whether the person being offensive would say the same things on a public street corner. People who are offensive tend to be a lot more insistent upon their claimed "Rights" when they have anonimity.

The next question would be whether they'd say it alone on a public street corner. The people from Westboro Baptist Church seem to be focused on being offensive. Which is why they "protest" in groups.

If you cannot pass both those tests then you are being "offensive" and your goal is to offend someone else. So do not try the "no freedom of speech" argument.

The guy standing on the street corner telling the world about how the government is tracking him through his dental fillings is doing more for "freedom of speech" than the guy screaming "fucking jew whore" when his character is shot in a video game.

Re:"Death to Gamers and Long Live Videogames" by Bob9113 · 2014-09-04 05:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

Then and now when the geek speaks about women, I can't escape the feeling that I have been teleported back to the high school locker rooms of 1964. The only pandering on this site is to the geek's own adolescent sense of manhood,

I am a geek, and I am not a misogynist. It is wrong for you to engage in prejudicial stereotyping.

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance

Re:promoting violence against women? by AmiMoJo · 2014-09-04 05:33 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's more to do with the way women die in these games. Male characters usually have, well, a character, a personality and some role in the story. Their deaths have meaning and relate to them, and are at least somewhat realistic.

Female characters tend to be so 2D they often don't even have a name. Their deaths are typically a cheap plot device to provide motivation for a male character, or show just how evil the bad guy is. When they die they are often wearing skimpy outfits or end up in suggestive poses. Hitman was actually advertised with female cadavers in sexy underwear posed suggestively on a bed, with a little neat bullet hole in the head so as not to spoil your fapping.

In Mario games Peach is almost always kidnapped at the start, and then Mario and Bowser fight over her. She isn't a player in the game, she is the ball. Why not maker her playable along side Mario, like Luigi is? She is a prop, utterly generic in every way (pink clothes, lipstick, high heels, eyelashes, utterly helpless) and only there to provide a smooch of victory at the end.

Your simplistic "body count" mentality is part of the problem.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

Re:I predict by AmiMoJo · 2014-09-04 05:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

She didn't say she doesn't like games, she said that she wasn't a "fan", i.e. just a casual player. I wouldn't say I'm a fan of modern games because I haven't played many, but that doesn't mean if someone invites me to try one I won't enjoy it.

Instead of making ad-hominem attacks why not address the points she makes in her videos directly? Can you point to specific examples of where her research and conclusions were incorrect and undermine her wider argument?

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

Re:I predict by Blakey+Rat · 2014-09-04 05:58 · Score: 3, Interesting

The reason people hate Anita Sarkeezian is not because she is a woman, but because she purposefully misrepresents facts in games

Example?

and posed as someone that enjoys games when there is video evidence of the contrary.

Why does this matter? You don't have to be an artist to criticize art. Roger Ebert seems to have become pretty well-respected considering his only film credit was Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.

She lied to the people that financed her videos and then did not even deliver,

Example?

not to mention that it's such poorly made crap that a high school student could have done better.

Oh, well, that's certainly worth death threats. You've convinced me with this one!

--
Comment of the year

Re:"Death to Gamers and Long Live Videogames" by Bob9113 · 2014-09-04 06:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

Making potentially defamatory claims without evidence is not just lazy, but possibly also illegal depending on where you live. Show your work.

There is a fair bit of editorializing here, but also a lot of evidence: Quinnspiracy on KnowYourMeme

At a quick perusal, it seems like; a) she has been subject to some abuse by misogynists, b) she has been engaged in some conflict of interest regarding reviews of her games, and c) she has both benefitted from and promulgated the misogyny aspect of her story.

The misogyny part is obviously bad. But if Zoe is taking advantage of -- and thereby harming -- the movement to advance the equality of women in gaming and technology, then she is bad too. If that is the case, then we who seek equality should reject her as an icon. Backlash is a perilous thing to progressive movements.

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance

Zoe Quinn's Abuse of the DMCA by Jahoda · 2014-09-04 06:41 · Score: 2

Regardless of the he-said/she-said of this whole thing, the part that I think would be of most interest of slashdotter's is Zoe Quinn's use of the DMCA to quash discussion about this situation which she did not like. Regardless of the truth of the matter, the fact that she did this (to me) speaks volumes about her character. Total Biscuit can summarize this better than I can, and also has a very levelheaded take on the situation :

Total Biscuit TwitLonger "What the Hell Just Happened"

Re:Again?! by Aardpig · 2014-09-04 06:42 · Score: 2

https://i.imgur.com/NYEgyLe.pn...

--
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.

Re:Astroturfing for Hillary Clinton by radtea · 2014-09-04 07:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think it takes millions of rapists (mostly men natch) to reach that number.

And you would be wrong. At least, you would be wrong if you are implying anything other than the majority of rapes are committed by a small minority of predatory men.

How small?

75-80% of rapes are committed by 4-5% of men: http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=...

That's still seven or eight million men in absolute terms, of course, but far fewer than what is erroneously claimed by the old, failed, misandrist "rape is nothing less than a conscious conspiracy by all men against all women" model.

It is easy for us, as humans, to leap from "all rapists are men" to "all men are rapists". Even if the former proposition were true (it isn't) the latter is unrelated to it.

There is a population of sociopathic predators in our midst. Most of them are men. All of them are dangerous. Their victims are both men and women (we don't even know what the rate of male victimization in sexual assault is... all we know is that the reported rate is much lower than for women, but it would be, wouldn't it?)

Focusing on men vs women rather than citizens vs predators is exactly what the predators need to keep on preying on the innocent. It's time we stopped doing that.

--
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.

Not you too slashdot by Windwraith · 2014-09-04 07:20 · Score: 2

I mean come on, only one side of the story, as every other online publication. For shame.

Who knows if Slashdot is one of their allies. I can't trust this site now.

Re:Not you too slashdot by epyT-R · 2014-09-04 08:01 · Score: 4, Informative

Well, here's the other side..
zoe's then-boyfriend's account
http://thezoepost.wordpress.co...
wizardchan's experience with zoe
http://imgur.com/a/4VOcx
the birth of 4chan's 'vivian james' and zoe's attack on the fine young capitalists
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/...
david jaffe vs kotaku
http://kotaku.com/5883107/does...
https://soundcloud.com/ben-kuc...
anita sarkeesian is not a gamer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
anita sarkeesian misrepresents the subject material. 'thunderf00t's analysis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
This is an issue of journalistic integrity and quite possibly attempts at reculturing a community to conform to specific political values. The charge of 'misogyny' is just an attempt to muddy the waters and/or poison the well of any would-be critics.

Re:Get a life! by Windwraith · 2014-09-04 07:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

You don't get it, do you?
Zoe and Anita do not harm us in any way. People like Ben Kuchera, K.Thor Jensen and such, do.
You haven't paid attention in class. And as far as I know, Ben Kuchera is a guy, not a woman, so I am not misogynist for calling him on his insults and doxxing threats. Look them up.

Not to mention Phil Fish producing a massive internet meltdown calling everyone a rapist (including YOU) and telling aspiring developers to quit. I think Phil Fish is also not a woman. Also, he didn't do almost any work on Fez, look at the credits. He was just an idiot hogging fame from a team you'll never hear about.

I am a developer. I was attacked by the people claiming to be on my side for suggesting that bias shouldn't exist. For supporting equality. But you know what? They don't want equality. They want to be few and rare so they can maintain their "special" status.

Re:Get a life! by Tanuki64 · 2014-09-04 08:23 · Score: 2

Zoe and Anita do not harm us in any way.

You're sure? Not physically, sure. But I think they are firestarters, who deliberately pour oil into the fire for their own financial gains.

Re:Get a life! by Windwraith · 2014-09-04 08:39 · Score: 2

They were just a hint of something being wrong. The moment we saw what was really going on, they became irrelevant.

I supported Anita because I thought it was a good idea. I didn't think she'd be insulting everyone after getting the money.
It's true that some of the tropes she calls out are tired and very clichÃ© and boring. Her methods of doing it by stealing uncredited footage from LPers are pretty bad, but the idea is good and I can still support that despite the things she's said.

Zoe, herself, is a pretty nasty piece of work. Extremely rude individual even when this topic is not being discussed. Swears like a sailor. But what damage can she cause? It was the journalists who accepted sex or a romantic affair in return to favorable coverage (which, by the way, does exist. Despite people saying the contrary, even when the articles are still present at Kotaku and other sites, they didn't even bother deleting them). She just was laking in the moral department enough to exploit that loophole. She's got a terrible personality, but she's not the one causing damage. She's just another pawn.

It's people like Ben or Nathan who are doing damage by accepting such deals and furthering agendas. If you think about it, our enemy is pretty much all "cis white males", writers and editors in chief, and PR people. What makes the playing of the misogyny card extremely hypocritical once you look into things.

Don't give Zoe any attention she doesn't deserve. She's nothing in the whole scheme of things. Another cog in the system. Besides, she will play the victim card, so insulting her is an exercise in futility.

Re:I predict by AmiMoJo · 2014-09-04 09:44 · Score: 2

You are twisting what she said. Her point was that the player is rewarded with sexy corpses that they can pose and manipulate for their own enjoyment. To give some context the advertising for the game shows a number of scantily clad women in suggestive poses after being murdered. It's necrophilia, but they are hot so... it's okay?

It's a common problem in games. In Bioshock there is a section where you enter a strip club and there are murdered men and women all over the place. The men are dressed normally, but the women tend to be half undressed and posed so you can admire their rotting boobs and thighs. It's supposed to make the game edgy but it's really just lazy.

She repeatedly mentions in her videos that the games she talks about are not necessarily bad, and can be quite enjoyable. It's just a shame they have those aspects to them as well. In later videos she mentions a few examples of non-sexist games that she enjoys.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

Because SJWs are not Feminists/Progressives by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2014-09-04 10:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

Question, why do you (generally speaking) feel the need to lump all the people who disagree with you together into one group, give that group a sarcastic name,

I call the people involved in this scandal "Social Justice Warriors (SJWs)" principally because I refuse to insult the feminist or progressive movements by calling these people with feminists or progressives. Genuine second-wave feminists have publicly criticised their behaviour.

If you want to understand the difference, look up the #Gamergate and #NotYourShield hashtags on twitter. The Social Justice Warriors are hateful, disingenuous, at times sociopathic bigots. They are adult, internet-empowered versions of the bullies and tormentors which many gamers remember from secondary school.

Gamers are the victims here. The modus-operandi of the SJWs is to cast themselves in the cloth of underprivileged groups -- most SJWs are in fact white, upper middle class, college aged -- then proceed to level accusations of privilege, bigotry, and misogyny against just about anyone involved in gaming for even the slightest perceived infractions. A climate of fear has developed, first in the indie and later wider gaming industry as a result of the "social justice" witchhunts which these people regularly engage in. Worse, this has resulted in SJW-aligned developers and journalists rising to positions of power and being first in line for awards and increasingly development funding, with cronyism trumping competence.

For Gaming, so often a hobby of last resort for the excluded and isolated in society, this is an awful and tragic outcome. For gamers, male, female, straight, gay or trans, it is a frightening development. Their hobby, their refuge, is being taken over by bullies.

Because their rhetoric and especially actions come across as so farcically disingenuous, I don't believe for a second that SJWs actually believe in or support the causes of homosexuals or transgender people in video games. Their support for women is also largely forced, and disturbingly biased towards the conservative view of women as a weaker sex who must be protected/defended (A view consistently challenged by the games industry over the years).

My honest opinion of SJWs is that they are privileged Neo-liberals, who adopt a forced social justice persona both to project their own (increasingly obvious) bigotry onto others, and ultimately to benefit themselves socially and financially. They are disingenuous, extremist bullies, and the gaming community is under co-ordinated PR attack, and has been almost completely censored on gaming websites.

The Social Justice Warriors are right about one thing though; this is a historical moment. Whether they win or lose, the GamerGate scandal will be seen as a watershed moment in the history of online-communities, and who controls them. Two weeks ago, I would never have believed that a clique so small could all but take-over a community so large, but it is becoming clear that this is precisely what (almost?) happened to gaming. There are lessons to be learned here, unrelated to the immediate issues, and I only hope the right people will take note and heed them.

--
May the Maths Be with you!

Slashdot Mirror

Combating Recent, Ugly Incidents of Misogyny In Gamer Culture

132 of 1,134 comments (clear)