Quote from: TristramEvans;794609The truth is she's a nobody. She has no academic credentials, she's contributed nothing positive to society, she's basically the Paris Hilton of pseudointellectualism.

To be fair, feminist game theory is a fledgling field in 2014, just like feminist film theory was in the 1970's. Laura Mulvey was also a nobody before she published her famous article in 1975.

Quote from: CRKrueger;794616As this a good thing Will can get behind, he'll do anything here to obfuscate that point and ignore the collusion aspect of the story.

Your conspiracy theory is pathetic.

I DON'T CARE.

It's gaming journalism. This is like saying 'hey, North Korea stories of the Glorious Leader is inaccurate!'

No shit. Gaming journalism has been next to useless for... well, since it began. At least nowadays you can find random small bloggers that aren't suckling at big company teats.

The ONLY reason you guys are upset about it NOW is because feminists are involved.

That's the point.

Quote from: Will;794647It's gaming journalism. This is like saying 'hey, North Korea stories of the Glorious Leader is inaccurate!'

No shit. Gaming journalism has been next to useless for... well, since it began. At least nowadays you can find random small bloggers that aren't suckling at big company teats.

The ONLY reason you guys are upset about it NOW is because feminists are involved.

That's the point.

Actually, no.

As somebody who's come to side with #gamergate fairly late in the process, I will certainly agree that gaming journalism has been terrible for years. However, the reason that I've spoken up now, and sided with #gamergate, is because this is the first time there's been a consumer uprising that is *doing* anything about the sad state of ethics in game journalism. And, make no mistake, things are getting done. Some sites have made changes to their ethics policies, and I'll happily keep pushing until gaming journalists are using something approaching the SPJ standards of ethics. Gaming is a billion dollar industry. It deserves better.

Quote from: Will;794647Your conspiracy theory is pathetic.

I DON'T CARE.

As obviously evidenced by you having more posts in this thread then anyone else.

Quote from: Will;794647It's gaming journalism. This is like saying 'hey, North Korea stories of the Glorious Leader is inaccurate!'

No shit. Gaming journalism has been next to useless for... well, since it began. At least nowadays you can find random small bloggers that aren't suckling at big company teats.

That's the narrative, yes, good job.

Quote from: Will;794647The ONLY reason you guys are upset about it NOW is because feminists are involved.

That's the point.

So basically your argument is that people are upset because instead of gaming journalism being taken over by gaming companies (which we accepted in the past), now people are up in arms over gaming journalism being taken over by feminists, and because we're anti-feminists, we're speaking up.

So anyone reasonably sympathetic to GG is an anti-feminist.  Yeah, you've said that about a hundred times now, keep to the narrative, that's the point right?  

Or...people are getting sick of social engineering in their media and hobbies.
Or...people got a wake up call when a dozen or so gaming mags finally PROVED their editors speak with one voice.(it's one thing to suspect corruption, it's nearly assumed in american life at this point, it's another to have to boldly proven).

Keep to the playbook of "Silence all dissent with accusations of "isms"" all you want, people aren't buying it.

I don't care about 'collusion in gaming journalism.'

I also don't care about silencing dissent. That's more characteristic GG paranoia and tinfoil hattery.

I DO care about people terrorizing other people, and then slacktivists wringing their hands about how they are NOT WITH THOSE GUYS but happily riding on the shit-bags' coat-tails because actually going out and trying to drum up support under a different flag would be, like, hard and junk.

I also find tellingly stupid how much people like Krueger are eager to try to see conspiracy and vast motives in people rather than accepting 'hey, a bunch of people think you guys are assholes' because a bunch of people under your brand are assholes.

Quote from: JRT;794440Here's a link to what I feel is the best essay on the whole situation:

http://www.popehat.com/2014/10/26/ten-short-rants-about-gamergate/

Yup, best analysis I've seen yet.

Quote from: Herr Arnulfe;794640To be fair, feminist game theory is a fledgling field in 2014, just like feminist film theory was in the 1970's. Laura Mulvey was also a nobody before she published her famous article in 1975.

'Theory' is way too strong a word. At best it's conjecture (theorizing) without refutation (testing). Essay/critical/editorial/etc. -viewpoint is an accurate descriptor; 'theory' implies the imprimatur of scientific authority, which they definitely don't have.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;794630*I can understand anger at hypocritical, holier than thou, moralistic posers, but I think the inclusiveness demonstrated in the new D&D core books is a good thing. I don't want to assume anything, but your comment could easily be seized on by the turds to say: "see? They ALL don't want women, LGBT and minorities in their hobby!"

I'm not pointing fingers, but asking you to clarify if you're for or against making these spaces more diverse.

I don't care if WotC include more artwork showing women and variety in ethnicity. If it's good art, it's good art.

What gets up my nose is the people who count these things looking for some kind of real-world ratios, or they're going to start smearing WotC as misogynist, racist, backwards, etc. As I've said before, I don't see SJWs complaining that RPG books don't represent seniors in anything close to their real-world numbers. Or obese people. Or that PCs are better-looking, on average, than real people.

And it's fine if the player-base of RPGs is becoming more diverse. But I don't for a minute think that the 'natural' makeup of the D&D market is anything close to 50/50 male/female. And I don't believe that makeup can be explained by misogyny. On average, men and women tend to find different things appealing. There's entertainment and cultural content that appeals largely (though not exclusively) to men, and content that appeals largely (though not exclusively) to women. Scrap-booking as a hobby is considerably bigger than tabletop RPGs, and it's something like 98 per cent female. Book club participants are 95 per cent female. I went into Michael's (a big-box craft store) the other night to pick up some stuff and I was the only male in the store. And that's not the first time that happened.

So the issue I have is that anything that is largely male-oriented these days is being targeted for reform and inclusiveness (and explained as the result of misogyny), while nobody says a word about all the female-oriented hobbies and entertainment options. The radical academic left are wrong when they assert that these sort of gender-aligned preferences are all social constructs. And they're hypocritical for only condemning the male-oriented preferences.

Quote from: Will;794650I don't care about 'collusion in gaming journalism.'

I also don't care about silencing dissent. That's more characteristic GG paranoia and tinfoil hattery.

I DO care about people terrorizing other people, and then slacktivists wringing their hands about how they are NOT WITH THOSE GUYS but happily riding on the shit-bags' coat-tails because actually going out and trying to drum up support under a different flag would be, like, hard and junk.

I also find tellingly stupid how much people like Krueger are eager to try to see conspiracy and vast motives in people rather than accepting 'hey, a bunch of people think you guys are assholes' because a bunch of people under your brand are assholes.

Will you did see this in the popehat article I just relinked to, right? Hint, he isn't talking about #gamergate, click on the links in the original and it's all about SJW.

Quote from: popehat4. Live by the Sword, Die By The Sword.

If you encourage a cultural trend involving calling out behavior, you may not like the way it is used by others. This seems obvious, but apparently it's not.

If you encourage the overuse of the term "bully" until it means nothing, you can expect the term to be co-opted and aimed at you sooner or later.

If you cultivate a culture in which people react disproportionately to stupid or offensive jokes, sooner or later someone else is going to be freaking out — sincerely or cynically — over someone "on your side" telling a stupid joke.

If you cultivate a culture in which the internet lands on someone like a ton of bricks for being an asshole, sooner or later some segment of the internet is going to decide that you are the asshole, and pile on you.

If you cultivate a culture that likes to boycott media or its advertisers for content you don't like, sooner or later somebody's gonna boycott media over something you agree with.

Stretching words like "bullying" for political purposes, calling out people for stupid jokes, participating in gleeful pile-ons, and organizing boycotts are all classic free speech. They are a more-speech response to speech you don't like, a good alternative to government censorship, and an example of social consequences for speech. I'm not telling you to stop. I'm not saying all speech we decide to condemn is morally equivalent. I'm not telling you that such techniques are morally wrong. I can't, credibly, because I have participated in all of them. I'm reminding you that all speech has consequences, and all modes of speech have consequences. The consequence of gleefully piling onto some douchebag is that you normalize and model gleefully piling on someone you find offensive. The consequence of abandoning proportionality is that someday some segment of the internet may wig out and lose all proportionality about you or someone you care about. Recognize cultural cause and effect.

You're going to say "but the people I was piling on/freaking out about/boycotting are totally distinguishable from the people being victimized now by piling on/freaking out/boycotting." How nice for you. Explain that distinction to them and let me know how it works out.

(Clark has been making this point for quite some time.)

5. Your Insult-Parsing Is Bullshit.

Critics of gaming culture assert that demeaning people based on attributes like gender, ethnicity, race, and sexuality is wrong. I agree.5

But too many critics of #GamerGate seem to view it as a fine opportunity to demean both groups and individuals based on attributes like weight, appearance, social isolation, and non-neurotypical status. People (including, occasionally, me) employ "fat, smelly, basement-dwelling Aspie neckbeard" rhetoric to talk about misogyny or harassment in gaming.

If you engage in that rhetoric, many people will think that your objections to demeaning language about women is contrived and tribal rather than sincere.

I'm sure you can construct an excellent argument about how demeaning language against women occurs in a historical context and in connection with a power structure and patriarchal vertices and thus-and-such, and that it is simply different than making fun of people for being fat or unattractive or autistic. That's swell. It would get you a solid A- in your sophomore seminar at Brown. But most of the real world thinks it is an unconvincing rationalization.

Insulting people can be fun. A well-crafted insult is a pleasure. A stinging mockery can be very expressive. It's unflattering, but it's true. But speech has consequences. The consequence of indulging yourself by mocking people for being fat/unattractive/socially awkward/non-neurotypical/etc. is that people aren't going to take your indignation about gendered or racial insults particularly seriously. You may think that's unfair, but it's how people are. Govern yourself accordingly.

Handwringing because someone is turning the tools you've helped normalize against you?  C'mon.

Quote from: Will;794650I DO care about people terrorizing other people, and then slacktivists wringing their hands about how they are NOT WITH THOSE GUYS but happily riding on the shit-bags' coat-tails because actually going out and trying to drum up support under a different flag would be, like, hard and junk.

OH MY GOD YOU FUCKING NO WIT!  I literally shown you evidence in the past of this very thread of a man who supports gamergate and is willing to give out a three thousand dollar reward to anyone that can get the mass shooting threat messenger to be lock up behind bars.  That is not the only time gamergate had told trolls to go fuck themselves, or try to bring down trolls.  In fact the vast majority of gamergate are doing every thing they can to get rid of the fuck up trolls of their side.

You know what fuck it.  I just block you since you cannot get your head out of your ass.  Just know this while gamergate is fixing its wrongful members the anti-gamergate people are not doing a damn thing to fix their wrongful members.  No one on their side does any thing when they say white men should all die, or tell minorities that they don't know what is good for them.  THE REAL BIGOTS ARE ON YOUR SIDE WILL.

Quote from: apparition13;794652'Theory' is way too strong a word. At best it's conjecture (theorizing) without refutation (testing). Essay/critical/editorial/etc. -viewpoint is an accurate descriptor; 'theory' implies the imprimatur of scientific authority, which they definitely don't have.

Agreed, if Sarkeesian wants to be taken seriously as a theorist she'll have to publish. Her videos are just qualitative media analysis and editorial journalism. Granted, a lot of film theory is also based in purely qualitative analysis. Sarkeesian might have the seeds of a publishable theory if she can manage to pull in some psychology and/or sociology.

Then go peer review.  Seriously more work from anyone should go through peer review.  Hell there was a college student that found out that the austerity is good was actually missing data thus was not fit to be evidence.  The people that made that lost their work within a mere day.

Quote from: CRKrueger;794649As obviously evidenced by you having more posts in this thread then anyone else.

Keep to the playbook of "Silence all dissent with accusations of "isms"" all you want, people aren't buying it.

Best thing I've done this morning is add the troll to my ignore list. Quality of the conversation just improved about 90%. I don't believe in hiding one's head from opposing views, but I also don't like broken records. Repeating something over and over without evidence doesn't make it true and it's just noise.

Quote from: Snowman0147;794658Then go peer review.  Seriously more work from anyone should go through peer review.  Hell there was a college student that found out that the austerity is good was actually missing data thus was not fit to be evidence.  The people that made that lost their work within a mere day.

Right, by "publish" I meant an academic, peer-reviewed journal. No reason why she shouldn't also make videos while working on her thesis (if indeed that's what she's doing) - she just has to accept that her videos will be "peer-reviewed" in the Comments section of YouTube by people who've never encountered feminist media criticism before.

Quote from: Haffrung;794653So the issue I have is that anything that is largely male-oriented these days is being targeted for reform and inclusiveness (and explained as the result of misogyny), while nobody says a word about all the female-oriented hobbies and entertainment options. The radical academic left are wrong when they assert that these sort of gender-aligned preferences are all social constructs. And they're hypocritical for only condemning the male-oriented preferences.

I agree with you on the condemnation. I don't think that male preferences need to disappear. Things that appeal to a wide variety of people should be able to coexist.

I think it would be good to see some companies at least experiment with their product lines, even if it's just a few sourcebooks at first, to adapt them to the exact guidelines these critics want. Then let's see the market react.

If it's successful, then maybe they do have a point in that the hobby needs to move in a certain direction. Why not, and there's no reason we can't have, within the same hobby, things that appeal to guys and things that appeal to women if it's sustainable.

Given what I've seen happen to women in countless ways and fields and areas, I think assuming things are the way they are due to natural preference and tendencies is a lot of self-serving privileged crap.