The Big Picture: Remembering the Real Jack Thompson

[Netrigan]

So... small potatoes really, compared to industry collusion and an attempt to call gamers dead for some ridiculous reason.

You stepped into my very devious trap, Comrade Moose.

I do have a certain something to say about the "collusion" surrounding the "Gamers Are Dead" articles.

So a quick google of the word "collusion"

secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

I have used a definition, so everything I say in this post is completely irrefutable by Laws Of Idiot Internet Debaters. See also any use off the word "cherry-picking"

About the only way it could possible fit the definition is through the use of the word "secret" and since two of the authors discussed said articles openly on Twitter prior to their publication, not even that.

Anywho, collusion is generally used to describe some ulterior motive that is not immediately self-evident. If Rush Limbaugh and a bunch of his pals launch an Election Eve Offensive to embarrass Democrats and get Republicans elected, this is not collusion, no matter how much they discussed the matter beforehand as they're very clearly trying to get Republicans elected.

If a bunch of newspapers got together to plan the timing of a Political Scandal to get Democrats elected, that would be collusion, because they claim to be impartial. They're running a secret op that runs counter to their stated goal.

So, for the sake of argument, all these authors got together to release the same basic editorial at the same time for the expressed purpose of trying to get publishers and devs to move beyond the traditional Gamer market... by writing a bunch of editorials urging them to move beyond the traditional Gamer market.

So exactly what it says on the tin.

If that's collusion, then GamerGate is, as there's a whole bunch of secret talks squirreled away in e-mails and Skype and private groups (like the one here) where like-minded people get together and discuss strategy, many of whom are doing journalistic style op-ed pieces on YouTube about ethics in Journalism.... and I'm not sure why we should cut them some slack because, as Total Biscuit says, they're not on a site. As I said last time, YouTubers are the Talk Radio of the Internet and they should be held to the same standards as their counterparts in the so-called proper journalistic fields.

And, clearly, they're not, because they're what they're planning and what they're saying are the same. They have a problem with Gawker and they plan behind the scenes on how to take down Gawker. Every Gater suddenly doing the same thing at the same time is just them doing exactly what they say they're doing, not evidence of unethical behavior.

The Gamers Are Dead articles are not Unethical Journalism. At worst, it's Stupid Journalism.

 

[Silvanus]

Ok which bits of evidence would you like. I mean I could dump the lot but it's near article length in itself if I got for all the parts.

I have or can get Links to Nathan Grayson's articles
I have or can get Links showing Nathan Grayson's name in Zoe's game since early on.
I Have definitely got a picture of the tweet mentioning Zoe's alternative twitter account the same tweet containing the Doxx of TFYC.
I have definitely got one image showing Zoe did DMCA someone, I have a second image suggesting she tried to DMCA another site and two images that imply similar may have happened.

Here are two of the articles ( I know there's a third somewhere but I'm having problems finding it I keep coming up on Partricia Hernandez's article instead)

Nathan Grayson singles depression quest and one other game out as games to look out for
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/01/08/admission-quest-valve-greenlights-50-more-games/

Nathan Grayson covering the Polaris Gamejam which resulted in Zoe creating Rebel jam as an objection to it.
http://tmi.kotaku.com/the-indie-game-reality-tv-show-that-went-to-hell-1555599284/+patriciahernandez

Nothing that provides anything substantial to support the idea that she slept with him for coverage, or that sleeping with him resulted in favourable coverage.

 

[Dakkagor]

Nathan Grayson singles depression quest and one other game out as games to look out for
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/01/08/admission-quest-valve-greenlights-50-more-games/

Nathan Grayson covering the Polaris Gamejam which resulted in Zoe creating Rebel jam as an objection to it.
http://tmi.kotaku.com/the-indie-game-reality-tv-show-that-went-to-hell-1555599284/+patriciahernandez

Thats. . . thats it? One brief mention alongside 50 other indy games, and quoted alongside a bunch of other indy devs when a gamejam went south because it was a corporate dew nightmare?

That's honestly what gamergate is flipping its shit about? This is the corruption?

If I had sex with a journalist for preferable coverage, and that was what I had got out of it, I would have wanted my semen back. Seriously, if that's the favourable coverage for sex, we shouldn't be up in arms that she slept with someone for favourable coverage, we should be up in arms that she got ripped off.

captcha: pond life. You're telling me captcha, you're telling me.

 

[Silverspetz]

Oy... WHAT? I am a man, raised in a far less progressive about women rights society than your own and we are STILL taught that violence is terrible and never solves anything. And that was decades ago.

What idea of masculinity do you think our society is pushing forward today?

And I suppose you see yourself as representative of all that men are thought today? We are thought that violence never solves anything, except when it does, when we have to fight for our lives, or our country, or "our" women. There is one HELL of a difference between what we are thought at a conscious level and what we are thought on an unconscious level.

Except negative sterotypes are slowly dying in the collective unconsciousness over time. What makes you think ANYTHING besides human aversion to changing its mind has anything to do with it still being alive?

Look, you are a gamer (assumption, based on the site and subject matter). You fancy yourself someone who looks at women like normal human beings (another assumption, based on conversation).

When you play a game where women are treated poorly, does it make you look at women worse, or does it make you look at the game worse? When you play a game where women are treated well, do you suddenly have a stronger opinion of women? Do you suddenly start to believe they are MORE human? Or does your opinion stay the same?

Now imagine random gamer X who thinks women are objects and exist only to serve. When he looks at a game where women are like normal human beings, do you think it's gonna change his mind? Or just make him dislike the game? When he plays a game where a woman is an object, does it make him look at her as more an object? Does it make him want to hit her? Or does his opinion merely stay the same?

Your preconceived notions affect how you look at games. Games do not affect your preconceived notions.

Um, yes they do. That is what all forms of art DOES. We already talked about this remember? What you seem to be confused about is that you apparently think "affecting" someone preconceived notions is the same as forcibly changing them through some form of brainwashing. If I see a game (or a book, or a movie, or any form of media/art)where it is suggested, directly or through tropes, that IT IS SOMEHOW OK to treat women poorly (I enlarged that part for you because it is another one of those things that you guys can't seem to get right. FEMISISTS ARE NOT OPPSED TO WOMEN EVER GOING THROUGH BAD STUFF OR BEING TREATED POORLY IN MEDIA, ONLY HOW IT HAS BEEN TURNED INTO TIRED TROPES THAT HAVE BECOME THE "NORMAL"), then that game is CHALLENGING my preconceived notions about women's rights, which in turn might change my views on it if I find the argument compelling. It wouldn't, because any argument to be made FOR treating women poorly is stupid at best, but others may not be so convinced. Or they are simply not engaged enough in gender issues that they pick up on the subtext at all, and in that case the point being made is simply added to the ever-growing pile of cases that make up what is "normal" to them. THIS IS A PROBLEM BECAUSE SEEING WOMEN BEING TREATED POORLY SHOULD NOT BE "NORMAL" TO ANYONE.

No one said we shouldn't be talking about gender issues. Just like no one said we shouldn't talk about violence. It's when you draw a causality line (games are harmful to society) that I have to laugh at you.

Which no one has done, so you are basically just laughing to yourself.

Oh no, don't tell me you're going to say the media is HELPING...

Oh my god, you ARE.

You really think that nice female characters are what made people change their minds... How adorable.

It's not. It's time. That's it.

The only thing that is "adorable" here is your little attempt at being condescending. I never said that better representation in media was the ONLY facto to making things better, especially not if we are talking about gender-issues in ALL of society, but we are talking about THE MEDIA and GAMES in particular. In these fields, better representation inspiring new artist to create even MORE diversity is DEFINITELY a major factor in making things better. Then again, you have already made it abundantly clear that you don't think art or media has any ability to influence people's thinking. Which makes we question why I'm even arguing with you. Clearly your position renders the whole point rather moot as we are not even on the same page when it comes to the very basics for even having this discussion.

Okay, that's an over simplification. Part of it is technology. Sexual dimorphism was a big part of why women were considered the lesser sex for so, so, SO many years. But once industrial revolution hit sexual dimorphism became irrelevant to the discussion. From that point on it has just been people holding on to old habits because people like to hold on to old habits. It's sad, but true.

While a lot of intelligent people made strong and powerful arguments, and convinced law makers to make real changes, all of that would have been for naught with those two factors. And yes, WWII was a huge boon as well, but in the end it sped up an inevitable conclusion.

All very good points, if we were talking about the history of gender issues at large, which we aren't.

And don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with wanting to speed up the process. If we could get that done yesterday, that'd be awesome. But the media isn't a part of this.

And again, this position is just baffling to me since it essentially denies the very foundation for why art and literature is appreciated as anything more than recreation. I can't think of a mindset more detrimental to the discussion of social issues in our culture.

People create media to be popular. People consume media they enjoy, and people enjoy things they AGREE WITH IT. "Man bites dog." They like things simple and safe. That's why the media will by and large REFLECT the social unconsciousness, not challenge it. Changes to the social unconsciousness will lead to changes in the media. Changes in the media will do nothing.

I stand corrected. You are basically taking the most cynical position in believing that all media is created with popularity in mind. Because it's not like a certain director, author or designer could POSSIBLY have something to say with their work. That would just be silly.

You want to point at games and go "see? Some people still think this is okay." then we have a conversation. You want to point at games and go "See? This hurts our society!" then you are diluding yourself.

Because it is always one or the other with you people isn't it? It never occurred to you that what we are REALLY saying is more in line with: "See, some people still think this is ok, and they will CONTINUE to think it is ok unless we show them different ways. THIS is what is harming our society".

That went on longer than I thought, but you get the point.

By closed and homogenous you mean "about 50% female and including 65% of the world population" then sure.

Did you somehow miss the "for so long"-part? Things are different now, but the idea of gaming as something made for boys still lingers. Just look at some of the arguments made against the studies showing that almost half of all gamers are women.

The threats are gendered because that's what hurts her. She's a self proclaimed feminist. It's pretty obvious that she dislikes gendered insults, and thus they are chosen.

And HOW is that not sexist? If they are deliberately choosing insults based on gender in order to hurt her then that still takes some pretty damn sexist thinking.

Anyway, I'm done with this. You've made it perfectly clear that you don't consider art or media to be a noteworthy influence on society and cultural norms, which makes it pretty damn pointless to even have a discussion about whether or not there is a difference between Jack Thombsson (who claimed that videogames could warp someone's mind) and Anita Saarkeesian (who is saying that tropes based on outdated cultural norms will help those norm linger unless more is done to counteract them). You've already written off ALL media as irrelevant in any capacity other than entertainment.

 

[sexy=sexist]

The threats are gendered because that's what hurts her. She's a self proclaimed feminist. It's pretty obvious that she dislikes gendered insults, and thus they are chosen.

And HOW is that not sexist? If they are deliberately choosing insults based on gender in order to hurt her then that still takes some pretty damn sexist thinking.

Anyway, I'm done with this. You've made it perfectly clear that you don't consider art or media to be a noteworthy influence on society and cultural norms, which makes it pretty damn pointless to even have a discussion about whether or not there is a difference between Jack Thombsson (who claimed that videogames could warp someone's mind) and Anita Saarkeesian (who is saying that tropes based on outdated cultural norms will help those norm linger unless more is done to counteract them). You've already written off ALL media as irrelevant in any capacity other than entertainment.

It is sexist, it is also a cheap shot, and inevitable. However I find calling women Fighting F*** Toy's to be pretty sexist. Some of the tweets my wife has gotten on twitter from anti gamergate people to be sexist. The ignoring of minority and female dissent and accusation that they are really just sock puppets of white male gamers is pretty racist and sexist.

I do think art and media has a big effect on how people see the world. However this is a delicate nuanced topic with lots of point of views worthy of lots of discussion... and criticism

Anita who claimed that videogames could warp someone mind is just like Jack who was saying that games based on violent media will help reinforce violent ideas unless more is done to counteract them.
I don't think this would be a misscharacterization of anyone's argument.

 

[Silvanus]

For an indie developer being singled out of a list of 50 games as one to watch out for is still damn more positive coverage than most get.

A single mention, from long before they began a romantic relationship. You have nothing to support the notion that this was untoward.

The objection however is mainly to the absolute lack of disclosure in this. This then lead to people looking into other journalists and finding lots and lots of more serious cases

You want disclosure about sexual relationships, even if there's no compelling reason to believe they've had an impact on business?

As I said, prurient speculation.

 

[Andrey Sirotin]

Snip

I'm sorry to butt in, but I wanted to comment on your last paragraph. Art can be making statement, but mainstream gaming is always going to be more about the entertainment than the statement because they are all about making a profit. What I find rather amusing about people like Sarkeesian is their idea that gaming has to push for a specific philosophy, when no other art form universally does. Tropes she finds negative will never stop existing because there are only so many strong motivations you can give to the main character(love, greed, revenge, etc...). Art does not influence or dissuades people from our biases because normal people compartmentalize fiction and non-fiction. Your basic beliefs come from your family and friends, not from art.

 

[cleric of the order]

She should be ignored but I wouldn't dismiss every criticism of her as hate stiffies. Their is criticism and then there is banging a drum with your hate stiffy. Guess which camp GamerGate falls into? Here's a clue: Banging a drum with a hate stiffy means being loud and repeating over and over? Be my guest criticize her, point out her ignorance and then fucking let it go.

Dude what?
I haven't.
I just?
No.
Dude, we really don't care about her.
Not as a group at least.
I just no.
Just no.

*cough* *cough* Yeah, Gamergate has a lot of problems with "SJWs" and feminist frequency. All it takes to be a part of this leaderless angry mob is a hashtag.

I...no.
To being with that's just sargon, that how he and his friends operate they are not the whole of gamergate they are not the leader and this is not the entire it of what they talk about.
I'm with total biscuit and Drizzle on this, the Sjws really don't matter, they're cats paws to deflect from the issue. I understand that sargon and his friends love ot make fun of SJWs that's their thing but corruption comes first any whacked out shit will be for the birds.
[edit] it's also good to knwo that those people, half of them left to do their own thing nd those guys where nuts. people say that rogue star did a lot but he's a crazy fucker. AI wants to go back to making fun of tumblr and king of pol the craziest of the group left because of harassment. I'll admit a number of ours are also reactionaries to the SJWs that have a appeared him gaming, points to a certain site incriminated in this scandal, a lot of them actually had those sort of sentiment but hell even on h8chan those are mostly /pol/ people and shills fro what I've seen. Everyone has a understand that we need to drive out corruption and that's it.
But at this point I'm digging my whole deeper.
Believe what you want, just remember to question everything. That's all anyone can expect of you.[edit]

 

[Netrigan]

She should be ignored but I wouldn't dismiss every criticism of her as hate stiffies. Their is criticism and then there is banging a drum with your hate stiffy. Guess which camp GamerGate falls into? Here's a clue: Banging a drum with a hate stiffy means being loud and repeating over and over? Be my guest criticize her, point out her ignorance and then fucking let it go.

Dude what?
I haven't.
I just?
No.
Dude, we really don't care about her.
Not as a group at least.
I just no.
Just no.

*cough* *cough* Yeah, Gamergate has a lot of problems with "SJWs" and feminist frequency. All it takes to be a part of this leaderless angry mob is a hashtag.

I...no.
To being with that's just sargon, that how he and his friends operate they are not the whole of gamergate they are not the leader and this is not the entire it of what they talk about.
I'm with total biscuit and Drizzle on this, the Sjws really don't matter, they're cats paws to deflect from the issue. I understand that sargon and his friends love ot make fun of SJWs that's their thing but corruption comes first any whacked out shit will be for the birds.
[edit] it's also good to knwo that those people, half of them left to do their own thing nd those guys where nuts. people say that rogue star did a lot but he's a crazy fucker. AI wants to go back to making fun of tumblr and king of pol the craziest of the group left because of harassment. I'll admit a number of ours are also reactionaries to the SJWs that have a appeared him gaming, points to a certain site incriminated in this scandal, a lot of them actually had those sort of sentiment but hell even on h8chan those are mostly /pol/ people and shills fro what I've seen. Everyone has a understand that we need to drive out corruption and that's it.
But at this point I'm digging my whole deeper.
Believe what you want, just remember to question everything. That's all anyone can expect of you.[edit]

Okay, I had to laugh at one thing. I clicked to around the five minute mark and they were talking about how these arrogant people say all sorts of stupid stuff like they're not leaving behind a trial. First example is how this one reviewer pads scores because she wants devs to get their bonuses.

Wait, I thought that's what GamerGate wanted. I could swear I was having exactly this discussion with three or four Gaters where they were the ones arguing for high scores for exactly this reason.

And, sorry, I'm not going to listen to all of this. I would actually like to have time to play games instead of spending all my time listening to the endless stream of people in love with the sound of their own voice, arrogantly complaining about other people being arrogant. Seriously, we have King of Pols casting stones at people for saying stupid shit on-line. He's currently the King Of Saying Stupid Shit On The Internet.

 

[cleric of the order]

snip

I think i stopped watching thunderfoot before the whole femnist shit started which makes me happier. I stopped watching him because he seemed to show that he had a "god complex" of sorts. He also seemed like kind of an arse. Thats wherer i'm pretty much going to end this. I'm against corruption but i don't see the leaderless angry mob GamerGate as against corruption esspecially when its members wish to censor a polygon review for giving bayonetta 2 a 7.5....

You are going to have to explain this.
Like in full.
How are we censoring that shit site?
I've never liked ThunderFoot but he brings up good points, he's an academic and peer review is important.
Also why do you keep calling us an angry I mean I understand you like to bang that drum (every post you send out repeats that.)
An angry mob doesn't last this long anger is a slow burning, it comes in fast and leaves people empty.
GamerGate should have ended it was just simple anger, I assume, I've never been able to be angry then more then 20 min at a time, I don't know how long NTs can remain angry from but I'd hazard I'd drop off.
Also I don't understand hwy leaderless needs to be thrown in, we need no figure heads we are gamers and we are not going to take it.
No we ain't going to take it.
We aren't going to take it anymore.
We're here to raise a little hell raise a little hell raise a little hell
because we don't like what we saw and decided to fit it.
Our world was all screwed up so we rearranged it.
I also have to ask dude.
I haven't contributed much to fighting corruption in journalism, I'm an annalist more then anything else and while I sit here so one this thing blows over I could compare notes with the other sides to understand the greater picture and watch.
What have you done, or what alternative do you have.
It's great to say this is bad but there needs to be a second option, understand that if you default to GG breaking into this alternate GG that's some how more about corruption in the media then old GG then you;d be leading into what the opposition wants.
Now there's two ways of looking at this firstly they can claim that GG was wrong and new GG is wrong by default, it's like when you settle out of court that breaks the public image more then anything else. Which the Anti GGers have been asking for a bit actually, this sort of thing allows them full control of the narrative.
Secondarily it's splitting the vote it's what keeps the PC party in power here, they defame the figures from the NDP and the Liberal party so as to split the vote. Oddly enough the liberal and the NDP out number the PC party if I'm not mistakes and create s more confusion as more sides begin comflicting.
In that conflict it becomes hard to actually catch shills which Denton from gawker admitted to and the Tone policing that he also paided to create.
Once you have that the whole movement is co-oped and run out through moderation and nothing changes.
I may not be built for subterfuge but I can grasph a bit from the large legal fight my family's had for ages the other side being just like the game Journos with little legs to stand on (lets be clear here there is evidence of collusion to the determent of the consumer). and they used tatics like this to stall, create falsehoods and just make it impossible for the judges.
That being said as the DoW force commander says those who stand with me will be my brother. We will work together to fix our culture no matter who they are and what they say. I would not censor them because I in turn would not liked to be censored but I will not take responsibility for their actions and they for mine but we can work to make the world better.

 

[cleric of the order]

Okay, I had to laugh at one thing. I clicked to around the five minute mark and they were talking about how these arrogant people say all sorts of stupid stuff like they're not leaving behind a trial. First example is how this one reviewer pads scores because she wants devs to get their bonuses.

Wait, I thought that's what GamerGate wanted. I could swear I was having exactly this discussion with three or four Gaters where they were the ones arguing for high scores for exactly this reason.

And, sorry, I'm not going to listen to all of this. I would actually like to have time to play games instead of spending all my time listening to the endless stream of people in love with the sound of their own voice, arrogantly complaining about other people being arrogant. Seriously, we have King of Pols casting stones at people for saying stupid shit on-line. He's currently the King Of Saying Stupid Shit On The Internet.

"nazi space jews" ~ king of pol.
Yep.
That's pol and "pol's always right".
We can still love our crazy uncle pol.
Personally while I can sympathize with the padding (I've read from tales the trenches) I think that there is still we need to fix our game media shit. Indie game/journo hugboxs, collusive blacklisting, bribery and the indie cad nonsense. Also Geoff Kelim, we need to fix him, I don't know how but it might require unflavored lays chips and nice mineral water, I just hope he isn't too far gone in his dependence, he might have a lethal form of that thing addicts get when they quit the habit.

 

[The Deadpool]

The null position is the default, unless there is evidence for the positive claim. Some has been given. The null hypothesis doesn't just retain its blessed position until proof is found.

Unless there is SUFFICIENT evidence.

I mean a group of people who want to find a connection between advertisement and behavior come up "MAY have an effect" and we call this proof now?

Sure sounds inconclusive to me.

Right. I'm not presenting an argument of my own. It seemed to me when you said that, that you were assuming you knew an unspoken argument of mine, but I may have been wrong. Maybe I was jumping at shadows.

That's fair actually. Arguments tend towards extremism, this leads to uneeded defensiveness and miss communications. For my part I may have been... unnecessarily testy about repeating myself.

Once again, for perhaps the fourth or fifth time, arguing influence is not arguing causality. If you keep referring to causality, when she's not arguing it, then you're simply not discussing this in good faith.

Now you are arguing semantics.

To influence: the capacity or power of persons or things to be a compelling force on or produce effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of others
the action or process of producing effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of another or others:


To cause: a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect:

Also, the notion that there are similarities is a step-back you've taken. You were originally saying they were "the same".

Ahem:

Only if you reduce their positions to that premise. They were advocating wildly different approaches to handling the media.

Who cares WHAT they are advocating? If the basic premise is wrong, how they want to react to that premise is irrelevant.

From the very beginning. The premise (violence in games leads to violence in life/gender treatment in game leads to gender treatment in life) is the same. Their preferred reaction to it (censorship/throw more money at me) is irrelevant.

A cause is not necessarily synonymous with a contributory factor, or influence. If a dozen different sources influence somebody, and they eventually make a decision, each one of the dozen cannot really be said to "cause" the decision.

Again, the semantics is irrelevant. Call it a cause, a contributing factor, an influence, Eleanor Rooselvelt in a go-cart for all I care...

In the end result, the hypothesis would predict that you'd find a higher density of misogyny within the gamer community, increasing depending on time spent playing and involvement in the community... And, unfortunately, that's not what we find.

 

[The Deadpool]

And I suppose you see yourself as representative of all that men are thought today?

And you are?

Who is? Did you ask them?

It's an easy claim to make, but a lot harder to demonstrate...

Um, yes they do.

Nu huh? That's it?

So why aren't you misogynistic, what with all the misogynistic games, and TV, and ads, and music, and society in general...

It wouldn't, because any argument to be made FOR treating women poorly is stupid at best,

Wait wait wait... So you have judged ANY argument that goes against your already held belief to be "stupid at best" before any of it was proposed? Then that means the media, regardless of what it proposes, will never have any effect on your preconceived notions.

Most people think like that about most things they believe. I mean it's 2014 and we still hear that the bumblebee can't fly, homeopathy works, the equinox makes eggs stand up, we only use 10% of our brains...

If actual true arguments can't dissuade people from deeply held beliefs, why the FUCK would you assume a game who isn't even trying is going to?

Or they are simply not engaged enough in gender issues that they pick up on the subtext at all,

Oh, I see, it's a simple case of "I'm just better than the John Q Public."

That's a common line of thought. It's unfounded and unreasonable, but common.

Which no one has done, so you are basically just laughing to yourself.

I don't normally do this, but it's kinda funny so...

Damsels 1 [http://www.feministfrequency.com/2013/03/damsel-in-distress-part-1/]: This brings us to one of the core reasons why the trope is so problematic and pernicious for women?s representations.

Damsels 2 [http://www.feministfrequency.com/2013/05/damsel-in-distress-part-2-tropes-vs-women/]:"One of the really insidious things about systemic & institutional sexism is that most often regressive attitudes and harmful gender stereotypes are perpetuated"
Consequently violent revenge based narratives, repeated ad nauseum, can also be harmful to men

Damsels 3 [http://www.feministfrequency.com/2013/08/damsel-in-distress-part-3-tropes-vs-women/]: acts of altruism are repeatedly presented in heavily gendered ways that are bound up in harmful myths.

I think 3 videos is enough. And that's just CTRL + F. I'm too lazy to catch all the insinuated ones.

All very good points, if we were talking about the history of gender issues at large, which we aren't.

Aren't we? You claimed one "source" of how sexism is being fixed. I presented you with the history of what has caused it thus far. Spoiler: Not the same thing.

And again, this position is just baffling to me since it essentially denies the very foundation for why art and literature is appreciated as anything more than recreation. I can't think of a mindset more detrimental to the discussion of social issues in our culture.

Man, Ebert did a number on you guys. You are so caught up in this "games must be art, and art must influence hearts and minds!"

Does the Mona Lisa affect your views in life, gender relations, politics, religion, or any subject ever? IS IT NOT ART?

I stand corrected. You are basically taking the most cynical position in believing that all media is created with popularity in mind.

You keep trying to counter big picture (trends of a population of millions over the course of generations) with the act of an individual. Which is odd, since you're defending Anita, a person whose ENTIRE argument is based on the same premise (the problem isn't the individual, but the shared collective).

IF media is influencial in any way, it will be the most popular. The one that is consumed the furthest and most often will have the strongest effect. And the one that does that is the most popular. And the one that does THAT is not the one that challenge's the audience's preconceived notions, it is the one that reaffirms is.

Are you more likely to watch an Anita video or a Thunderf00t video? Multiply that by 8 billion and you now understand how the world thinks. Hooray!

Because it is always one or the other with you people isn't it?

People are reacting to HER argument. As I have shown you up above.

I don't blame you for missing it though. She goes really out of her way to keep as few clear points as possible to people can make their own arguments to agree or disagree with. That's what keeps these conversations going for so long, and her popularity rising.

Hate her or love her, you gotta give her credit for manipulation. She's good.

It never occurred to you that what we are REALLY saying is more in line with: "See, some people still think this is ok, and they will CONTINUE to think it is ok unless we show them different ways.

Why? No matter how many books, ads, videos, movies, games, songs I play for you that say "Women ain't nothing but bitches and hos" will EVER change your mind. Why would the opposite change anybody else's?

And HOW is that not sexist? If they are deliberately choosing insults based on gender in order to hurt her then that still takes some pretty damn sexist thinking.

They are deliberately choosing insults based on what hurts HER. Those just happen to be gender based insults because of who she is.

Were she an older man it'd be about virility. Were she a mother it'd be her children.

I never said they were good people. I'm just saying, it isn't about her gender. It's about HER.

Well, I'm sure there are some misogynists in that group because there are some in every group. But remember, we are looking at the whole group as a whole, not individuals.

 

[tyriless]

Was it Sexual ? No
Was it clear they were friends ? Yes pretty clear
was it clear there should have been a disclosure that the the article may be unbiased as it's about a friend ? YES

She didn't sleep with the guy, but you can't have her be completely blameless for the horrible garbage she has to endure. Thus you look for a link between the two. You find a link. "OMG, she get's mentioned in the coding!" or something, whatever, (if you have to highlight two words in block of text it's pretty tenuous) and you go "They were in cohoots the whole time."

It goes back to what exactly? A single line that mentions, "Hey, this game that someone gave an award to got Green-Lit." that's buried in article and not even the only subject of that article.

Face it: it was wrong to jump on her case. She did nothing but make a game, has an opinion you dislike, and it was enough for you (and many others)to try to smear her name. You may of thought she was some kind of horrible slut-bag that handed out blow-jobs for reviews, but that isn't case and it never was. Because of this dogged pursuit regardless of what she actually has done, I highly suspect you got an issue with her gender or her opinions, or both.

Move on, because every time you bring this up, you are looking more like the side of GamerGate that everyone in GamerGate PRETENDS doesn't exist. I thought you guys weren't supposed be bringing up Zoe Quinn anyway. For a group that's supposed to be moving on, you are doing a really poor job representing it.

 

[bobdole1979]

Taken from the source code of Depression quest's website

Check yourself it's from March 2013
https://web.archive.org/web/20130328034916/http://www.depressionquest.com/dqfinal.html

Long before Nathan Grayson's article.
https://twitter.com/OneMrBean/status/347504703287984130

How about if your work requires you to talk about said developer do you not think it's in the public interest to know you might not be unbiased and might have ulterior motives to promoting someone else's work rather than informing consumers ?

Was it Sexual ? No
Was it clear they were friends ? Yes pretty clear
was it clear there should have been a disclosure that the the article may be unbiased as it's about a friend ? YES

so the fuck what? What does it matter? Where you interested in Depression Quest? Did this review make you buy it only to find you didn't enjoy it?

Are you actually suggesting that every video game journilast puts up a list of everything that could influence their reviews before hand?

So you want to see a list that says
If he likes Indie Games
What indie games he likes
What AAA games he likes
What is his political affiliation
What are his sexual preferences
What type of games does he like
What type of games does he not like
What was his childhood like
What was the first game he played
What was the first console he owned
What was the first car he owned
Where did he lose his virginity
What song was playing when he lost his virginity
and so on

ALL OF THOSE THINGS LISTED CAN HAVE JUST AS MUCH INFLUENCE ON A GAME REVIEW AS BEING FRIENDS WITH THE DEVELOPER

Normal well adjusted adults realize that REVIEWS are nothing more then 1 persons OPINION and that OPINION can be affected by life experiences that person has had.

 

[Silvanus]

Except it can easily be shown they were good friends at least

Spoiler: Spoilered Image.

Taken from the source code of Depression quest's website

Check yourself it's from March 2013
https://web.archive.org/web/20130328034916/http://www.depressionquest.com/dqfinal.html

Long before Nathan Grayson's article.
https://twitter.com/OneMrBean/status/347504703287984130

How about if your work requires you to talk about said developer do you not think it's in the public interest to know you might not be unbiased and might have ulterior motives to promoting someone else's work rather than informing consumers ?

Was it Sexual ? No
Was it clear they were friends ? Yes pretty clear
was it clear there should have been a disclosure that the the article may be unbiased as it's about a friend ? YES

If you want somebody to disclose whether they've even met somebody, then fine. The fact remains that the sexual accusations-- which you were talking about specifically earlier-- are unsupported, prurient speculation.

Unless there is SUFFICIENT evidence.

I mean a group of people who want to find a connection between advertisement and behavior come up "MAY have an effect" and we call this proof now?

Sure sounds inconclusive to me.

I did not call it proof; I did not call it conclusive. I called it evidence. It is.

If you have reason to believe that all these studies started out with a pre-set conclusion, then provide it. Provide actual counter evidence. Don't just continue to say that it's not enough, when you've provided nothing. The null hypothesis only remains the default in the lack of any evidence to the contrary.

Now you are arguing semantics.

To influence: the capacity or power of persons or things to be a compelling force on or produce effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of others
the action or process of producing effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of another or others:


To cause: a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect:

That's not semantics. Those are noticeably different definitions.

Ahem:

Only if you reduce their positions to that premise. They were advocating wildly different approaches to handling the media.

Who cares WHAT they are advocating? If the basic premise is wrong, how they want to react to that premise is irrelevant.

From the very beginning. The premise (violence in games leads to violence in life/gender treatment in game leads to gender treatment in life) is the same. Their preferred reaction to it (censorship/throw more money at me) is irrelevant.

You said here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.864436-The-Big-Picture-Remembering-the-Real-Jack-Thompson?page=15#21590272] and here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.864436-The-Big-Picture-Remembering-the-Real-Jack-Thompson?page=11#21583841] that they were "the same argument". You then provided evidence that the premises were similar/the same.

Just because you've decided that a certain part of their argument-- what they argue we should do-- is irrelevant, doesn't make it so. It's still part of their argument.

Again, the semantics is irrelevant. Call it a cause, a contributing factor, an influence, Eleanor Rooselvelt in a go-cart for all I care...

In the end result, the hypothesis would predict that you'd find a higher density of misogyny within the gamer community, increasing depending on time spent playing and involvement in the community... And, unfortunately, that's not what we find.

Well, the hypothesis would only predict that if games had a uniformly negative influence, which I've already said I don't believe.

"Density of misogyny" would be impossible to quantify or measure statistically, of course.

 

[lord.jeff]

So feminists are now Jack Thompson I suppose that's more true then them being Nazis.