Role playing games survived the satanic scare of the 80's.  Video games survived the video games lead to violence outrage in the 90's to 00's.  The two hobbies will out last the social justice warriors in the end.  We gamers have a track record of two things.  Being underdogs and eventually winning.  We are the fucking cock roaches and we won't go extinct.

Quote from: JRT;793705Ultimately, though, I can see them winning the battle but losing the war.  It's unclear what the goals are, and if that's the case, mainstream "civilians" will most likely see the group by its worst elements.

The goal of any insurgency is to repel the invaders, usually by grinding them down and wearing them out. "This is our land, and you don't belong here." You can see that this in the case by monitoring pro-GG conversations, live streams, videos, etc. because that is the language that their rhetoric takes.

QuoteIf you're talking about the boycotts, if they are successful, I see journalism in gaming actually becoming worse due to the following.

If they force media outlets to be less forthcoming with opinions, you end up with an organization that becomes fearful to do one thing journalists should do--challenge their audience, sometimes telling people what they don't want to hear.

It will force a division between commercial business and ethical journalism; you can't have both in the same place. There's a reason for why you see so much approval for the BBC, CBC, NPR, Pacifica, and other media outlets that are not run as commercial enterprises. (Some are tax-supported, some are listener-supported, but the insulation is the same.)

QuoteIf they get advertisers to pull based on pressure, you are actually increasing the possibility of corrupting the process further.  Because the biggest corruption complaints in the past were about advertisers pressuring people to give their games good reviews.  I can't fathom why people think doing this is going to help journalism.

Because what the gamer nation--and I use "nation" to as one for the "nation" part of "nation-state", in that it is a coherent population distinct to itself--wants is not opinions on things unrelated to its interests. TotalBiscuit has his dominant position in the nation because he does constrain himself so, when he is not railing about (a) others failing to do so or (b) others failing to meet the standards expected of them in the nation.

QuoteAnd the biggest concern I have is that people in gaming are going to start doing what too many people do nowadays--read only the news they like.  News that doesn't challenge them, opinions that are exactly the same with their worldviews.  I see a lot of attacking the messenger--everybody who doesn't agree with me is corrupt, biased, etc.  There's little self-awareness now--if 90% of people are negative towards an ideology--perhaps it's not everybody else, perhaps its you.  One thing I always did and still do is go to sites that are different or opposed from my political viewpoints--I remember reading a paper in the 90s with both liberal and conservative commentators.  And while I disagreed with the party opposite from mine about 80% of the time, 20% of the time I agreed or felt they were on the right track.  That kind of introspective analysis tends to be lacking today.  Right now, the SOP is to not just dislike alternate opinions, it's to demonize them and make them go away.  And I think we will all suffer if that type of thing increases.

No, what you're seeing is the expression of a distinction tribal identity in the face of external aggression. The fight over journalism, Social Justice wanker and the like are symbols and symptoms of what is really going on: invasion of already-occupied territory by a self-important imperialist institution after more for itself.

QuotePersonally, I hope there is movement to help improve the quality of games coverage...but I don't think this particular movement is the one that will accomplish it.

It will. The cost will be the drawing and enforcement of a border, culling a lot of folks who don't belong from the land. "Gamer" will become as distinct a subculture as "gun owner" in the near future.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;793719The goal of any insurgency is to repel the invaders, usually by grinding them down and wearing them out. "This is our land, and you don't belong here." You can see that this in the case by monitoring pro-GG conversations, live streams, videos, etc. because that is the language that their rhetoric takes.

It will force a division between commercial business and ethical journalism; you can't have both in the same place. There's a reason for why you see so much approval for the BBC, CBC, NPR, Pacifica, and other media outlets that are not run as commercial enterprises. (Some are tax-supported, some are listener-supported, but the insulation is the same.)

Because what the gamer nation--and I use "nation" to as one for the "nation" part of "nation-state", in that it is a coherent population distinct to itself--wants is not opinions on things unrelated to its interests. TotalBiscuit has his dominant position in the nation because he does constrain himself so, when he is not railing about (a) others failing to do so or (b) others failing to meet the standards expected of them in the nation.

No, what you're seeing is the expression of a distinction tribal identity in the face of external aggression. The fight over journalism, Social Justice wanker and the like are symbols and symptoms of what is really going on: invasion of already-occupied territory by a self-important imperialist institution after more for itself.

It will. The cost will be the drawing and enforcement of a border, culling a lot of folks who don't belong from the land. "Gamer" will become as distinct a subculture as "gun owner" in the near future.

I don't agree it's as line in the sand as that. I also don't think the average gamer is represented by the stereotypes being put on them.  Or that the interpretations of their motivations is accurate. I also doint think gamers are the only ones with chips on thier shoulders or grudges brought plainly to bear.

A gamer is a subset of geek. Geeks, on the average, in my experience, are the most accepting and inclusive social group around. They know what it like to be freaks, and that bonds them together (IRL, not in games). And yes they can also be pedantic, socially obtuse, and juvenile, but most of them are not only accepting but more than willing to accept any who share thier interests as one of thier own. The SJW group, from my experiences online, are largely saying "we want to be a part of youur group, but your group needs to deal with our issues first and if what you like isnt what I like, or makes me unfomfortable, then it is badwrong and you must change your evil ways". I don't think the experiences of women who a) put themselves in the spotlight and b) approach geeks like they're hostile natives who need the Lord in their lives are typical in gaming. Its not been the experience of any girl Ive gamed with, and Ive gamed with many. About 30% of the gamers over 6 states and 3 countries I've lived in that I've interacted with.

And , perhaps most importantly, while I do believe there are games that include sexist elements that dont need to be there, I don't think its been overwhelming since 2 decades ago, and I don't think that its causing social harm. Frankly I just dont believe portrayals in fiction/media have the psychological impact ascribed to them.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;793703This is what I'm talking about when I explained that the anti-GG side doesn't get that they're in an insurgency, and don't see that they're not playing the same game. This concept of narrative warfare is not how the pro-GG side wages war.

And this what I'm talking about when I say Gamergate's message is as muddy as shit.  I'm telling you that the only thing I know is that I'm not anti-GG, because I know what that is.  I can't tell you I'm pro-GG because I don't know where its goals coincide with mine.  And when say that, I get some bullshit about insurgency and narrative warfare, which again, as far as I can tell, is stuff that you think, but tells me nothing about GG.

Quote from: Iosue;793723And this what I'm talking about when I say Gamergate's message is as muddy as shit.  I'm telling you that the only thing I know is that I'm not anti-GG, because I know what that is.  I can't tell you I'm pro-GG because I don't know where its goals coincide with mine.  And when say that, I get some bullshit about insurgency and narrative warfare, which again, as far as I can tell, is stuff that you think, but tells me nothing about GG.

The message is this simple: "You are not One Of Us. This is our land. You don't belong here; you are trespassing. We define who is and is not of our kind, not you. We define what we will and will not accept, not you. We are a nation to ourselves, and not your subjects. Get out before we throw you out."

Your talk of media messaging is irrelevant; the pro-GG side already has its own internal channels of communication, because the pro-GG side rightly focuses on its own kind and cares not for foreigners. That's how these insurgencies work.

Quote from: TristramEvans;793722I don't agree it's as line in the sand as that. I also don't think the average gamer is represented by the stereotypes being put on them.  Or that the interpretations of their motivations is accurate. I also don't think gamers are the only ones with chips on their shoulders or grudges brought plainly to bear.

You're right about the chips and grudges; when the chaos of insurgency breaks loose, third parties exploit it to settle their own disputes and advance their own agenda- often using one side or the other as cover.

QuoteA gamer is a subset of geek. Geeks, on the average, in my experience, are the most accepting and inclusive social group around. They know what it like to be freaks, and that bonds them together (IRL, not in games). And yes they can also be pedantic, socially obtuse, and juvenile, but most of them are not only accepting but more than willing to accept any who share thier interests as one of thier own. The SJW group, from my experiences online, are largely saying "we want to be a part of your group, but your group needs to deal with our issues first and if what you like isnt what I like, or makes me uncomfortable, then it is badwrong and you must change your evil ways". I don't think the experiences of women who a) put themselves in the spotlight and b) approach geeks like they're hostile natives who need the Lord in their lives are typical in gaming. Its not been the experience of any girl Ive gamed with, and Ive gamed with many. About 30% of the gamers over 6 states and 3 countries I've lived in that I've interacted with.

The problem--and the reason I call this imperial invasion--is that gaining acceptance by a native population requires that the outsider assimilate into the tribe- and the tribe defines what is and is not acceptable, not the outsider. Sure, gamers will welcome many, but they have to become part of the tribe first. This is the big "if" point that so many SJWs fail to grok: they are the outsiders, so they don't get a say in definitions or actions of the inside group.

Coupled to this is the failure to accept rejection by the tribe on the part of the outsiders. It's not their space--not their property--so they don't get to act as if they have property rights (which is what the demands of accommodation are- assertion of rights of ownership that don't exist). If you are not wanted there, then you either leave or you're picking a fight; why this is not comprehended by the anti-GG/SJW crowd (in this and related stuff) boggles me.

QuoteAnd, perhaps most importantly, while I do believe there are games that include sexist elements that don't need to be there, I don't think its been overwhelming since 2 decades ago, and I don't think that its causing social harm. Frankly I just don't believe portrayals in fiction/media have the psychological impact ascribed to them.

And therein lies the rub: this claim is constantly asserted not because it's true, but because it's a useful narrative warfare tactic to rally support from one's side and make them ready to do violence (literal, political, or some other means) to the Designated Enemy. It's downright propaganda- it's a fraud.

Quote from: JRT;793705And the biggest concern I have is that people in gaming are going to start doing what too many people do nowadays--read only the news they like.  News that doesn't challenge them, opinions that are exactly the same with their worldviews.  I see a lot of attacking the messenger--everybody who doesn't agree with me is corrupt, biased, etc.  There's little self-awareness now--if 90% of people are negative towards an ideology--perhaps it's not everybody else, perhaps its you.  One thing I always did and still do is go to sites that are different or opposed from my political viewpoints--I remember reading a paper in the 90s with both liberal and conservative commentators.  And while I disagreed with the party opposite from mine about 80% of the time, 20% of the time I agreed or felt they were on the right track.  That kind of introspective analysis tends to be lacking today.  Right now, the SOP is to not just dislike alternate opinions, it's to demonize them and make them go away.  And I think we will all suffer if that type of thing increases.

Personally, I hope there is movement to help improve the quality of games coverage...but I don't think this particular movement is the one that will accomplish it.

Dude, I don't know if you noticed (I only noticed on Aug. 28th), the gaming mags are already pretty much in lockstep (something like 12+ articles of the "Gamers are dead" variety, in 48 hours).

That's part of the problem, and we want it to stop. So many of these writers freelance write at 6 different publications at the same time, but the message is the same, and actively reinforced. At this point, having some of these publications die would free up bandwidth for a diversity of opinion, especially if we can get the Games Journalists to stop using shit like GamesJournosPros.

Quote from: TristramEvans;793714. But is still silly. Wayway wayyy to silly for the amount of anger its produced.

I can't argue with that sentiment.
I just wanted a fairly mild discussion about revising journalistic practices (I'm sorry, don't write about games you've financially invested in! NO!), not a screeching match about how "I hates the Womynz".
EDIT: I, for one, was pretty happy with how The Escapist changed their policies.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;793726The message is this simple: "You are not One Of Us. This is our land. You don't belong here; you are trespassing. We define who is and is not of our kind, not you. We define what we will and will not accept, not you. We are a nation to ourselves, and not your subjects. Get out before we throw you out."

So the same message the anti-gate side was pushing before it was even called that?

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;793672Something I noticed lately is that the frustration of the anti-GG side, as well as the continued opportunism exploiting both sides, reveals that what is going on is that GG has become an insurgency. The chaos created that allows people to play both sides for their own ends, the utter failure of the insurgents' enemies to comprehend the insurgency (and therefore doom their own side), and shows of asymmetric (social and political, rather than paramilitary) operations scoring successes in contravention to the narrative told- no, not Vietnam or Afghanistan or Iraq, but this thing we're talking about here and now.

Insurgencies arise when a population experiences a foreign invasion in force, sees that it lacks the means to confront it conventionally (or that is cannot do so and win), and instead switches to an entirely different mode of engagement contingent on destroy the foreigners' will to continue the adventure. Operations target alliances (reducing the invaders' ability to continue), as well as the ones seen to provide for or benefit from the adventure ("hearts & minds", reducing the support for the adventure).

This is how the pro-GG side operates; they're targeting advertisers and exposing links in how the enemy's operations actually work and revealing intentions that the anti-GG side wants concealed (for whatever reason). The anti-GG side operates as a typical formalized institution acting in an imperial manner, especially in its delusion that both sides are playing the same game, and if no one on that side wakes up and starts leading their side to an effective anti-insurgency strategy soon they will find that their defeat in inevitable. Soon they will find that their allies and support base will desert them to save their own skins or preserve ideological purity.

And yes, there are known ways to break an insurgency. The anti-GG side, at this time, is too ignorant and incompetent to properly employ them.

Interesting analysis, which ties into the 4th generation war theory I've read - in this case it's a virtual war. I agree that it is an insurgency against an established power structure. The pointing & sputtering from the anti-GG media & SJW, and their accusing the GGs of using the bullying tactics they routinely employ themselves, is amusing and ironic.
The SJW are not used to encountering a target that fights back, and this is causing them a lot of consternation. They are trained in Alinskyite tactics, which work great against bureaucratic organisations, but are not designed to work against the diffuse mass of the peasantry; Alinsky assumed the peasants were on his side, at least passively. One thing the SJW can do though is target companies like Intel, since these are formal bureaucratic structures - so the GG push for an advertising boycott by companies can be countered by SJW counter-attacks directed against those same companies, using the standard methodology.

Quote from: Iosue;793685But aside from Breitbarts, which I always feel a little grimy after visiting, and David Auerbach's stuff on Slate, no news source that I've seen has given GamerGate any credit at all.  At best, lip service is paid to claims of concern for game journalism.

Holding the mainstream media outlets is the equivalent of holding the Green Zone in central Baghdad. It's hardly surprising that a dominant force can hold the central power structures; if it lost those it would no longer be dominant. What they can't do is hold the western deserts - they have no mechanism to put down the insurgency. They have no counter-narrative to offer the insurgent-sympathetic population. Telling them to FOAD was the strategic equivalent of disbanding the Iraqi army in 2003; it may not be recoverable.

Quote from: JRT;793705Ultimately, though, I can see them winning the battle but losing the war.  It's unclear what the goals are, and if that's the case, mainstream "civilians" will most likely see the group by its worst elements.  

But as Bradford said, what the anti-GG SJW don't get is that this time their ability to control the minds of many "mainstream civilians" will not actually defeat the insurgency. The shaming isn't working. The insurgency's primary goal is not to influence the mass media, which mass media controls the opinions of the general population. They only care about their own little world of video gaming, in which the usual SJW tactics simply don't work. And it is 'little' only compared to the general population; this is still millions and millions of people, billions of dollars.

From what I can see, the goal of GG is to repudiate the SJW-controlled 'gamer media' and to alter the corrupt relationship between games companies and games journalists. From what I can see, this is definitely working. The GG are saying "You don't speak for us, and there are millions of us"; and the anti-GG game media don't have an effective response to that - they effectively said so themselves when they all got together and said "Gamers are dead".

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;793719The goal of any insurgency is to repel the invaders, usually by grinding them down and wearing them out. "This is our land, and you don't belong here." You can see that this in the case by monitoring pro-GG conversations, live streams, videos, etc. because that is the language that their rhetoric takes.

Yeah - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR-fHoNQil4

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;793726The message is this simple: "You are not One Of Us. This is our land. You don't belong here; you are trespassing. We define who is and is not of our kind, not you. We define what we will and will not accept, not you. We are a nation to ourselves, and not your subjects. Get out before we throw you out."

Your talk of media messaging is irrelevant; the pro-GG side already has its own internal channels of communication, because the pro-GG side rightly focuses on its own kind and cares not for foreigners. That's how these insurgencies work.

A lot of people are just completely incapable of understanding this message, which is why occupation forces tend to lose. An anti-GamerGate General Petraeus could presumably turn things around and pacify the occupied population, at least for awhile. But successful counter-insurgency would require the anti-GG to at least partially step outside their own SJW narrative, and I can't see that happening.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;793727The problem--and the reason I call this imperial invasion--is that gaining acceptance by a native population requires that the outsider assimilate into the tribe- and the tribe defines what is and is not acceptable, not the outsider. Sure, gamers will welcome many, but they have to become part of the tribe first. This is the big "if" point that so many SJWs fail to grok: they are the outsiders, so they don't get a say in definitions or actions of the inside group.

Coupled to this is the failure to accept rejection by the tribe on the part of the outsiders. It's not their space--not their property--so they don't get to act as if they have property rights (which is what the demands of accommodation are- assertion of rights of ownership that don't exist). If you are not wanted there, then you either leave or you're picking a fight; why this is not comprehended by the anti-GG/SJW crowd (in this and related stuff) boggles me.

Refusal to recognise any property rights of the invaded/occupied population is pretty much a human universal. The colonists who took over America & Australia didn't recognise any property rights of the previous occupants, and that is entirely typical human behaviour. But the anti-GG SJW can't physically eliminate the Gamers they declared 'dead', so they have a big problem.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;793719It will force a division between commercial business and ethical journalism; you can't have both in the same place. There's a reason for why you see so much approval for the BBC, CBC, NPR, Pacifica, and other media outlets that are not run as commercial enterprises. (Some are tax-supported, some are listener-supported, but the insulation is the same.)

That's the key problem right now.  Gaming media is not that way because it is primarily a vehicle for promotion new games.  The equivalent right now is probably entertainment reporting coverage.  Virtually nothing in this sphere is serious civic business.  And the fact that most people aren't willing to pay directly for journalism kind of makes it harder for those alternatives to spring up.  

So I guess that's why I feel the so-called SJW stuff is overblown.  I mean, Anita a threat?  All she does is point out tropes that are a bit cliched and how gaming writers might be able to treat women better in the future.  This area is minor compared to the concerns about gaming and media--so why is GG so obsessed with this factor?   Or Brianna Wu.  I understand the concerns of Zoe and Depression Quest--but it seems more people are attacking her than the outlets, and also compared to people being fired over low scores and big money influence--you're going to focus on one indie game?  Again, that's why the message is so mixed.  For what the overall goal would need to be this is taking up too much of the message.