Merged Continuation - Feminist Bullies Tearing the Video Game Industry Apart Part II

[TeapotCavalry]

@Kevin_Lowe

Should you ever feel like responding to stuff that's been actually said instead of the straw men you so eagerly construct, my question still stand.

 

[Meadmaker]

I don't know the reach of her written or videorecorded work....This thread wouldn't exist without the feminism drama angle. It's funny to see now posters here trying to change the subject, and only when it's gamergate supporters talking. I've never seen the argument being made against anti-GGers in this thread.

So, the really important thing is ethics in journalism, but no one is talking about that?

Do you see why some people might be a bit confused when it comes to what gamergate is really about?

And no one is preventing you or gamergaters from talking about anything. You can talk about whatever you want, and others can note what it is that you seem to want to talk about.

You're unwilling to read anything that is written? I get the sense you don't actually want to converse.

I don't know how to tell you this, but the first post in the chain above (the one with the ellipsis) was incoherent. I couldn't respond to it. Kevin parodied it fairly well.

I could take individual snippets out of it, and we could have quote/response wars and declare the biggest wall of text the winner. I do that sometimes, but this time I decided not to.

I will say this. People expressing opinions are in no way comparable to people "punching you in the face". Also, feminism, even in its most radical form, is not an ethics issue.

Since I got involved in this thread, I have discussed issues of ethics in game journalism, and I have discussed the critiques made by feminists about video games, and I'm willing to discuss those topics more. I find it oddly fascinating. One thing I admit that I don't have much interest in discussing is trying to resolve what is the true nature of gamergate. You and a few others on this forum are this forum's view into the movement that is gamergate. The issues you choose to discuss will create others' impressions of what gamergate really is.

 

[Dissolution]

Can you clarify what you mean by feminism not being an ethics issue please, Meadmaker?
Isn't that exactly what it is?

 

[TeapotCavalry]

I don't know how to tell you this, but the first post in the chain above (the one with the ellipsis) was incoherent.

What was not coherent? Is my English that bad?

I could take individual snippets out of it, and we could have quote/response wars and declare the biggest wall of text the winner. I do that sometimes, but this time I decided not to.

This is not my preferred method either, but when a post tries to convey many different points, this is sometimes inevitable. So excuse my quote-by-quote response here.

I have a hard time understanding what do you not understand.
How can you say "So, the really important thing is ethics in journalism, but no one is talking about that?" when this is evidently not true? Why drives you to say this? Have you actually looked what gamergaters have talked about and what they have discovered?

I will say this. People expressing opinions are in no way comparable to people "punching you in the face".

It's an analogy, it is not meant to be taken literally. I don't actually think gamergate is a guy building a house and there's someone punching him in the face. It's figurative speech. If you want to rebuild gaming journalism industry, detractors with megaphones are an obstacle that at least need to be addressed in some manner. If you advise gamergaters to ignore them, what's your reasoning behind it? I always support the idea that you must address the criticism you get.

Also, feminism, even in its most radical form, is not an ethics issue.

Who has said feminism is an ethical issue?

If that's from where I said "Feminism isn't. Radical feminism is.", it refers to them being relevant, not an ethical issue. I understand if that was a bit ambiguous.

Since I got involved in this thread, I have discussed issues of ethics in game journalism, and I have discussed the critiques made by feminists about video games, and I'm willing to discuss those topics more.

Good. So am I.

I find it oddly fascinating.

It's a guilty pleasure for me. On one hand it's a lot of e-celebrity drama and nonsense, on the other hand, it's legitimately harming the public image of gamers and gaming industry, which sucks big time. My own personal interest is skepticism - or more precisely - the lack of it, surrounding social justice and radical feminist issues in gaming.

One thing I admit that I don't have much interest in discussing is trying to resolve what is the true nature of gamergate. You and a few others on this forum are this forum's view into the movement that is gamergate.

I know. I'm not the best representation of what gamergate is, I don't think any one person is. It's tens of thousands of different people with different political and ethical leanings. I can only speak for myself. If you want a more overarching understanding of what GG is, KiA has been mentioned countless of times now. And I'm pretty sure we have linked to gamergate.me when you were around here. There's no excuse to not checking them out if you're genuinely interested. If you just want to score internet points and feel smug, then there's nothing I can do, but I know this isn't what you're actually here for.

The issues you choose to discuss will create others' impressions of what gamergate really is.

That's actually quite unreasonable. I'm also an atheist and a liberal. Does my choice of topics in this thread reflects what atheists or liberals like to talk about? Let it be known here that I do not post here on the behalf of Gamergate, nor do I speak here as its representative.
The thread is what dictates what the discussion is about. Like I said to banquetbear, you should start a new thread that exclusively discusses ethics in gaming journalism, if the feminism angle is bothering you. And as I also said, I personally am more interested in the media war and slanted coverage. Ethics violations are pretty clear cut and not that interesting when you have no-one actually willing to address or defend them.

 

[Meadmaker]

Can you clarify what you mean by feminism not being an ethics issue please, Meadmaker?
Isn't that exactly what it is?

My first reaction to your question was........huh?

But I think I figured out a way to make sense out of your question. Tell me if I get it right. Feminism is an ideology that makes assertions about what is and is not ethical. Therefore, it is an ethical issue.

Is that what you are asking about? If so, then it is an ethical issue.

What I meant, though, is that it is neither ethical nor unethical to be a feminist, nor a radical feminist. Even more specifically, a feminist commentator (let's call her "Anita") is not behaving unethically when she expresses her opinion. Moreover, even if there was something unethical about her behavior, it still wouldn't be an issue of journalistic ethics, because she isn't a journalist.


And anyone who manages to twist those words around and say that they mean something to reach a conclusion that it is unethical to be a writer of radical feminist opinions is guilty of equivocation.

 

[jimbob]

I am always suspicious when people invoke the pretty mythical "Social Justice Warriors" or "SJWs" as the group that they are against.

Often I find that the so-called SJWs are arguing against pretty blatant examples of discrimination.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

I am always suspicious when people invoke the pretty mythical "Social Justice Warriors" or "SJWs" as the group that they are against.

Often I find that the so-called SJWs are arguing against pretty blatant examples of discrimination.

So the so called SJWs are that mythical after all, if you find them arguing?

 

[Meadmaker]

Is it my imagination, or do threads that go on as long as this one inevitably consist of people mostly saying, "I didn't really say that."

Well I don't want to misquote anyone else, so at least with this post, I'll just say some things that I, myself, have said. I'm not sure which ones are on topic and which ones are off topic, because I'm not sure what the topic is.

Anita Sarkeesian is a person with an opinion. There's nothing wrong with that, but there is also no particular need to pay much attention to her.

A lot of video games contain sexualized violence. I don't like it. I don't like it even if it's in the middle of a lot of other violence that isn't sexualized. In fact, that makes it even more distasteful to me.

Zoe Quinn's sex life is none of your business. Regardless of who you are.


When it comes to ethics in journalism, it doesn't make sense to hold a blogger to the same standard as a network news anchor. Most of the people talked about as journalists in these pages are only kinda sorta journalists in the first place. Stephen Colbert lumped them in the same category as the "jounalists" on "Entertainment Tonight", and he was correct to do so.

On a related note, when Stephen Colbert "agrees" with your position, your position is probably wrong.

When it comes to advertising supported media, do not be surprised to learn that advertisers influence content. Depending on exactly how that's handled, that might be unethical, but these are businesses. Their customers are advertisers. The first obligation of a business is to serve its customers, so that they remain customers and the business remains a business. In the case of media, that can be a tightrope, because the customers and the consumers are not the same people, and both have to be kept happy, and that isn't always easy to do. Sometimes, people fail at the task.


Anyway, I came to this thread after my dinner companion brought up harassment of women in the video games industry. She didn't use the term "gamergate" but I knew that somehow it was related to the harassment of Zoe Quinn. I now feel like I have a pretty good handle on the set of issues surrounding that phenomenon.

 

[jimbob]

So the so called SJWs are that mythical after all, if you find them arguing?

That was unclear - I was on a phone.

Often the people being referred to as SJWs are arguing against blatant discrimination.

I'm sure that isn't always the case, but often it is.

 

[colander]

That was unclear - I was on a phone.

Often the people being referred to as SJWs are arguing against blatant discrimination.

I'm sure that isn't always the case, but often it is.

There really are people who take the feminism thing too far, though. These people believe we should value the feelings of women more than we value ethics and science. Recently, they have been using their bilious ideas of female superiority to try and influence the way astrophysicists classify planets.

 

[Stout]

There really are people who take the feminism thing too far, though. These people believe we should value the feelings of women more than we value ethics and science. Recently, they have been using their bilious ideas of female superiority to try and influence the way astrophysicists classify planets.

Wait...what?

Venus is a man now ? I tell ya, the solar systems never been the same ever since Pluto came out as trans*

 

[colander]

Those of us who've chosen not to nosh on the perfidious SJW's Cultural Marxberry-filled hamentaschen know there is quite a large difference between named after a woman and being a woman. Take Marie Curie, for instance. Named after a woman, but became one of France's most celebrated scientists!

 

[TeapotCavalry]

That was unclear - I was on a phone.

Often the people being referred to as SJWs are arguing against blatant discrimination.

I'm sure that isn't always the case, but often it is.

I made a typo, what I meant was: "So the so called SJWs aren't that mythical after all, if you find them arguing?"

From what I've seen, people legitimately fighting against discrimination are rarely called SJWs.

 

[Wildy]

When it comes to ethics in journalism, it doesn't make sense to hold a blogger to the same standard as a network news anchor. Most of the people talked about as journalists in these pages are only kinda sorta journalists in the first place. Stephen Colbert lumped them in the same category as the "jounalists" on "Entertainment Tonight", and he was correct to do so.

So because they're "sorta" journalists they're allowed to get away with unethical behaviour? Hell even the FTC, for example, requires disclosure of affiliate links and paid content from bloggers and youtubers.

When it comes to advertising supported media, do not be surprised to learn that advertisers influence content. Depending on exactly how that's handled, that might be unethical, but these are businesses. Their customers are advertisers. The first obligation of a business is to serve its customers, so that they remain customers and the business remains a business. In the case of media, that can be a tightrope, because the customers and the consumers are not the same people, and both have to be kept happy, and that isn't always easy to do. Sometimes, people fail at the task.

And we're back to the pro-corruption viewpoint. I think the thing you fail to recognise is that gaming sites that provide review content are supposed to be consumer advocates, and that requires an editorial independence that we aren't seeing from games websites.

There really are people who take the feminism thing too far, though. These people believe we should value the feelings of women more than we value ethics and science. Recently, they have been using their bilious ideas of female superiority to try and influence the way astrophysicists classify planets.

I really don't know if you're being serious or joking here.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

What was not coherent? Is my English that bad?

Your posts don't present a rational argument that engages with other people's words. You just repeat the same gamergate talking points over and over again, and those talking points are not coherent.

For example, you have claimed very recently that Zoe Quinn traded sex for a good review, despite it having been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, including to you specifically, that this would have involved time travel. You have claimed that she "fabricated the wizardchan harassment", despite having to admit that there is absolutely zero evidence of any such thing. That's just in the last page.

Is there really any point in telling you these things again? Has anything changed since last time, so that this time you will actually take these facts on board and update your views?

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Your posts don't present a rational argument that engages with other people's words. You just repeat the same gamergate talking points over and over again, and those talking points are not coherent.

The trend I see here is that you do not engage with any arguments that are actually being presented. You're addressing arguments that you pull out of thin air. That's the real problem.

For example, you have claimed very recently that Zoe Quinn traded sex for a good review,

That's a great example of said behavior. Please point out the place I have said so, otherwise I'm forced to conclude you're lying.

I know I haven't said this, this has never been my argument. Maybe aliens stole my memory, so if you could point me to that paragraph where I say this, I'd appreciate it.


ETA:

You have claimed that she "fabricated the wizardchan harassment", despite having to admit that there is absolutely zero evidence of any such thing. That's just in the last page.

What's your problem here? That I corrected myself that I don't necessarily think she made the forum posts/phone call to herself? You seem to be against honest and open discussion when people adding nuance to their arguments and correcting themselves is bad.

 

[Meadmaker]

And we're back to the pro-corruption viewpoint.

I prefer "corruption apologist".

I think the thing you fail to recognise is that gaming sites that provide review content are supposed to be ....

Don't you think it's a bit presumptuous to tell businesses what they are "supposed to be"?


Do they provide useful information and/or entertainment to you? Then keep reading them. Do they not? Ignore them. Do they appear to provide good, consumer-oriented coverage, while actually being industry shills? Help educate the uninformed about the reality of the situation. Gamergate has done a marginally good job revealing that many web sites that cover the game industry are not completely independent. To that extent, it has done some good consumer education. I say "marginally good" because all of the stupidity that surrounds gamergate has obscured that message.

And if none of the sites are any good at providing information to consumers, you can always start one that is independent and trustworthy. Surely consumers would flock to a site that is not plagued by all of this alleged corruption, wouldn't they?

 

[quadraginta]

I made a typo, what I meant was: "So the so called SJWs aren't that mythical after all, if you find them arguing?"

From what I've seen, people legitimately fighting against discrimination are rarely called SJWs.

So true.

And people who were legitimately fighting for civil rights in the 60s were rarely called "****** lovers".

Oh ... wait.

 

[colander]

I really don't know if you're being serious or joking here.

Listen to your heart.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

So true.

And people who were legitimately fighting for civil rights in the 60s were rarely called "****** lovers".

Oh ... wait.

Proof by analogy?

"You can't prove anything from an analogy, only hope to improve informal understanding."