I've just asked gog to remove all my posts in this thread, but as any support request to GOG is by definition a howl in the dark, I can answer to this and check in a few more downvotes. Sorry for the copy/paste, but I've written up a lot of this before, and it's independent of "shirtgate", of which I've never heard before and only googled just now.

In short, I'm against it, which aligns me with no one.

In short, gawker published a vile callout piece that made itself the revenge instrument of the called out person's blackmailer. Brave new world and all that.

The only community I talked to about the gawker incident – in the context of gamergate – was very strongly against the publication. Not sure whom I supposedly have aligned with (no one, to my knowledge), but I found myself to be quite understood there. If Milo Yiannopoulos wants to spend his time barking at gawker, I have no problem with that, it keeps him from writing deeply harrassing three part callout/takedown pieces on private individuals.

But back to the whole issue that brought us there.

The internet has a massive problem with callout culture and harrassment. And it's particularly strong in geek culture, in franchises of comic, film, books, games. Why? Because the stories move us emotionally.

These are the things that we're facing and need to address generally, cross fandoms:

- Hyperbolic and highly emotional reaction to mere narrative
- Mere details are perceived as ‘ruining’ an entire work of art
- Criticism personally directed against creator/author (twitter etc.)
- Criticism centers on one central and possibly vulnerable person
- Insults and threats are common
- customers are asked to boycott companies/franchises

There are people who associate with feminism who do that, and people who associate with gamergate, and people who associate with neither and still do that. It has to stop, over and out.

Now, with this being the problem, I'd maybe call it social outrage culture. If people are outraged about the "censorship" and "freedom of speech" of any forum they'd like to force to host and therewith pay for their organized harrassment or if they're trying to terrorize websites into superficially reforming their ethics policies as a demonstration of power, then hello, gamergate is part of exactly that culture. The "feminists" who piled hate on Joss Whedon on twitter? Some of them were outspoken gamergate supporters as well. Yeah, ouch.

If you will, the gamergaters are their own SJW, there really is no difference here.

It doesn't stop there, unfortunately.

These are the things gamergate culture adds to the above problems

- narrow and distorting perspectives from the US political sphere applied to ancient literary motifs of cultural analogy, diversity and inclusion (also happens in sci-fi books right now)
- diversification of attacks not just on creators, but also on academia, journalists and other media critics
- conspiracy type theories as to an organized or planned shift in narrative ideology
- tendency to target women/ to dismiss and marginalize women’s interest and involvement in the media
- explicitly asking for a kind of objectivity in art and art critique that is entirely alien to it
- criticism of the medium is always seen as coming from outside forces ("fake gamer girl" etc.)

In short, with an academic background in literature, I have no side to chose. My convictions haven't changed, I have aligned with no one, I am a rock in the tide finding especially the stuff in the second enumeration very, very odd. My political convictions have changed a lot in the last 20 years; my convictions concerning narrative and video games, not at all.

Gamergate acts out all the problems of the internet culture across ideologies and fandoms AND THEN adds a pile of their own problematic ideologies. I roll my eyes over the shirtrage right now, and I certainly found the kaboom over the supposedly transphobic epitaph overblown.

In that context, I also don't think TotalBiscuit is transphobic. Unfortunately, he still is the serial harrasser he's been called, right from his first blog entry that expanded on the already baseless Zoe Quinn conspiracy theories. That blog entry sparked the organized harrassment that was deleted from reddit (according to e.g. knowyourmeme.com), and of course TotalBiscuit then condemned the censorship, resulting in more outrage and harrassment. I hold him responsible for that, of course I do. He embodies those problems, he embodies that culture.

Turning the neck 180° and looking in the other direction, I take a comparative look at e.g. Anita Sarkeesian's Tropes vs. Women videos and find:

- Almost emotionless lecture, detached from subject, more or less style of literary criticism
- Names of individual creator(s) seldom mentioned, no ad hominem attacks
- Devoid of insults, threats, "behind the scenes" conspiracy theory, call to arms
- clear statement in each video that the investigated tropes do not "ruin" the possible enjoyment of the entire work of art

I'm also not fond of Sarkeesian's weighing in on violence in games. Not because it isn't a worthy subject (compared to movies and books, games are overwhelmingly violent, and I do wonder why), but because I spent the last year teaching people how to view violence and sexism as two (almost!) entirely different problematic aspects of game culture. I'd rather Sarkeesian remained the sexism-only critic, because the topics profit a whole lot from being kept separate as much as possible. Ah well. Let's see how that positive female characters series keeps shaping up, because those two videos were quite interesting.

Closing this ultra long post, I urge you to watch the six part "Why are you so angry" videos on youtube; although directed against gamergate certainly, they also have a way of making everyone on whatever side look in a mirror as to what they're possibly doing to others.

And now I'm off.

I could definitely agree with this. Back when contacting advertisers was the big thing GG was doing, it seemed like a good idea, but looking back it's not exactly something I'm filled with pride about. I'm just glad I was too lazy to engage in any of that myself; it seems incredibly petty in hindsight, though of course I can only speak of my own feelings on the matter.

Anyway, we could quibble about who's doing what and which contingent of each group best reflects that "side" as a whole until the sun explodes, but I don't think we're going to manage to agree on the accuracy of most of your characterizations. Still, thanks for writing out something so comprehensive. It's nice to have a more nuanced idea of where you stand on things, especially since some of your earlier posts led me to believe that you were a bit more extreme in your views (which is no doubt due to assumptions made on my part).

1.What exactly does hyperbolic reaction to narrative mean?
2.If they're just mere details; who bother changing them. The principle still applies that people should be allowed to express themselves however they wish as long as it doesn't encroach on the legally enforceable rights of others.
3.That is indeed a real problem worth discussing. But the answer r to that is not blocking people out on some blocklist or doxing them.
4.If someone said they believe something; they will be expected to weigh in as to why. When that person's opnion is of importance in making or breaking a product or career, they have a duty to validate their statements.
5.Duh unfortunately.
6.Hmm, I also am iffy on the contact advertisers and boycott stuff. I personally don't endorse boycott as said by GG but IMO people should limit to not clicking on articles of writers they find to be excessively lacking in journalistic integrity. But what do you want a consumer to do when all communication is locked down and there is no discussion between the alleged corrupt and the ones concerned about it? Twittter? Blocked. Comments, blocked. Forum discussions also heavy handedly moderated. I still visit MS gaming sites. I just refuse to give traffic to bad people because boycotting every journo is generalizing and does not promote competition among journos to be better than eachother.

7.Diversity is an ancient literary motif? From where? A single misdrawn hieroglyph among a sea of ones encouraging slavery?
8.Yeah, give me academic credentials of Anita S to be the only female voice doing feminist critique when she herself says she believes in her own version of feminism. Yeah; ''journalists''. Also PR company managers.
9.Conspiracy will always exist when something is trying to be hidden. Whether it deserves to be hidden or not, it will occur when information is withheld.
10.Who asked for objective critique as opposed to fair, balanced and unbiased critique?
11.Who would even say or want a fake gamer girl when we have Anita?

You weren't "refuting" anything. You just came back to troll and yell Roosh and Reaxxion again. Maybe you should actually read some of the articles on the site. Then you might see that the whole site is not filled with Roosh's political leanings. But don't let the truth get in the way of a good "narrative" right?

All you do is hate. Seriously, you are a worthless individual. I said before you paint people with broad strokes and shoot people by guilt by association. The side you associate are morons and so are you.

OK, I understand Anita's right tot speak her mind without harassment because not saying it means I don't; but just look at this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7FuEaiC-ms&list=WL&index=2

-She wants to create an environment where women cannot be harmed at all in games. Never mind artistic freedom, never mind equality and never mind if they're hurt for ulterior motives or for being female, she is saying that only men can and should ever be the ones killed.

-Her delusional approach is subjective to too great a degree to attribute ANY objective fact to. Killing a female character bitten by a warewolf is bad. Not obeying her last wish is bad. Not trying to find a solution within the game is itself because the devs aren't allowed kill females is part of damsel in distress.

-Killing females for the character progression or story progression is bad. That in itself is dangerously broad. What if you could've killed her indirectly as a result of a choice? Does it mean women can't be included in choices either? What if a woman who is your commander is ordering the killing of a base which has women in it? Should all enemies be men? If not, should you kill the base as ordered by the female commander or disobey and not kill?

-Killing women when being killed is part of their mission is not allowed? So women can't be asked to risk their lives for a mission?

Seriously. If that loon's words are taken to task, no games will have any female characters owing simply to the twistable nature of her claims and the twisted nature of herself to complain about everything as a sign of somehow having credibility. Anyone believing this bigot on ''sexism in games'' is far too radical to function in modern art or society.

More attention = more opportunities to get money from the dumb asses who support her is probably what she is thinking. If not, then she is so insane, she makes the people standing on street corners screaming about the end of the world, look sane.

Hypocrisy. I love it.
>be a shitbag all over the forums
>contribute nothing of any value to any part of it
>get butthurt when people react similarly.

Do you even have enough self-awareness to realize the irony in the things that you post?

Appreciate u took the trouble to respond; will make a virtual post-it of sorts, and check if this be the plausible Fish.

And this "Suck my dick; choke on it" business - would you go as far as to state this is representative sort of communication from the man? Just profanities, just like that?

Or just a tag-line that portrays him the way you should like to see him? :-)

Lest you bully a Tourette sufferer, and all that!

Look at your, post pray.

Anita S. is not a commercial critic - uplifting that sort into a professional integrity and independent journalistic standards is the purported "reason-to-be" of GG. She is a researcher / academic / media critic.

For you to even bring this person up as somehow relevant in relation with GG is for sure factually incorrect; and I do suspect, intellectual dishonest.

Let us take a hypothetical example of Luis Pasteur.

Is it not nice that he could elaborate germ theory of disease leading into breakthrough in vaccinations, pasteurisation etc - without excessive censure cum harassment? Down the line we have penicillin, antibiotics etc.

Mind u - during those times, it would have been religious types to censure freedom of thought and analyses and academia - but they did not have internet thankfully!

You might not agree with Ms Sarkeesian's views, but why should she be less entitled to hers than you to yours? Let's face it: you plausibly get uprep, and she gets anonymous unkindness up to death threats.


Reporters without borders, how about that?

http://en.rsf.org/


In case you want to bring any links that you think stand scrutiny, go forth, pray! That's the point, not just having some, u know. ;-)

This is a friendly reminder to everyone: don't engage TStael for the sake of everyone's sanity.

If any of you need a reason why, take the time they justified lashing out at someone who agreed with them by claiming that something said afterward incited that behavior. You know, despite it not having been posted yet when they lashed out, and the person they attacked not even being the one who said it (which I know because it was me who said it). This actually happened. Either we're dealing with a wizard free from the clutches of spacetime, or they're simply hanging around to frustrate people they disagree with by dishonestly twisting things around to justify their position. Trust me, you won't get an honest conversation out of them. Many have tried, even in this thread. I once politely explained some terminology to them, only to have them turn around shortly afterward and pretend that they had never heard of said terminology. They're blatantly disingenuous like that at every opportunity and the last thing this thread needs is more people getting frustrated.

Personally; I see people who defend kickstarter failures as people who where so eager to get what was advertised that they jut couldn't accept that they donated to a shill and got conned. Its the same kind of fanboyism that makes people defend Ubisoft and WB after they screwed them over with their deceptive marketing. You gotta pity the mental condition that makes them feel so clearly that they can never be wrong that drives them to defend these shills.

Either way, if someone can say kickstarter is not a means of profit and hence the products created as a result cannot be critiqued just because they're not for profit, they're just dumb on two levels. I mean, maybe we should have TB nailed to a cross for critiquing War for The Overworld or even better we should dox Superbunnyhop for having the audacity to review Wasteland 2.
Strange how someone says a non paid opinion shouldn't be critiqued. How can an $JW live then? Who is paying the racists of the world? Aren't they just expressing their opinion without taking money and hence everyone should accept them and not rape them by pointing out mistakes in their delusion? But hey; delusion is bliss. We can obviously see that.

Ethics beam? lol

It is me again reporting on the rep case. Again someone is exploiting the reputation system. Every single post in the previous page is low rated.
Whoever is doind that deserves its account (as well as all the smurf ones it is using) permanently banned from the forum.

Here's a system idea: limit forum downvotes/day