Quote from: Spinachcat;792273In some ways, I am actually surprised Anita's not trying to martyr herself. For her cause, she's actually worth more dead than alive. The dead are the most marvelous props for any cause. Heck, she'd almost be worth as much even if the shooter missed.

...

Hmm, someone actually wrote this, so I'll ask: What do you believe her cause IS?

Seriously. Is it to desexualize games? Is it to force female characters into every game? Is it to destroy the gamer 'culture'? Is it to personally profit from controversy? What exactly is she trying to do besides analyze games in a somewhat academic and patronizing way? My bet it it's the 'patronizing' part that's got everybody up in arms.

Quote from: apparition13;792274Which is awesome, if there is public property. Where is the public property on the internet?

You don't own your IP address either, often only rent your server, and I've been telling people this for years. And to make matters worse people aren't 'linking' to the things they're criticizing anymore either, because they don't want to 'give them a voice'. Well guess what? If you're talking about them YOU'RE GIVING THEM A VOICE (also, Google is smart enough to see what you're doing anyway).

There is no free speech on the internet as we know it. It's a brave new world where what you say can be remixed to mean anything anybody wants, and bad faith assumptions are the rule of the day. Hell, people don't even worry about being anonymous before they say terrible things anymore, because they figured out there's no repercussions for the harm they cause.

...FUCK!

Quote from: Daztur;792305Yeah, people are flipping out because what, the video game press mostly functions as a PR conduit?

That is part of it.
http://www.fastcompany.com/3021008/why-video-games-succeed-where-the-movie-and-music-industries-fail

QuoteThe video-game industry is projected to grow from $67 billion in 2013 to $82 billion in 2017. At the same time, global movie revenue, both DVD and ticket sales, hit an estimated $94 billion in 2010, down 17% after inflation from 2001.

It is possible to find critics of film, that will pan a terrible (yet hyped) movie (Transformers franchise, I'm looking at you!).

Shadows of Mordor, supposedly a very good game on it's own merits, only had advance copies sent to reviewers that signed contracts not only promising favorable reviews, but for the reviewers to actively shill the game too.

(and was this story broke by Games Journalists? nope. It was broke by TotalBiscuit, a fellow internet critic. Just like GameGaters broke the story that 40,000 EA accounts had been hacked, a story the Journalists were actively suppressing, to curry favor with EA.)

The payola has gotten laughable; the days of a free game before release are long gone. Reporters get sent to lavish hotels, free alienware laptops, and paid "consulting" gigs. Which is still kind of funny, as it's obviously a payoff, yet they spend how many millions on the game, and Games Journalists take about $500 to bribe.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/10/GameJournoPros-joking-about-paid-reviews-and-mocking-Phil-Fish

In the end, if you have sexual, financial, or familial ties to a subject of a story you're reporting on, disclose it! Or better yet, recuse yourself from the story!
Is simple ethics really such a terrible burden to bear?!?

Quote from: Daztur;792305Yeah, people are flipping out because what, the video game press mostly functions as a PR conduit? They are surprised by this? They care? I'm just totally mystified. It's like people being shocked to discover gambling in Vegas.

I think it's more that the gaming press seems to actively hate their readers and apparently buy all the negative stereotypes about "gamers" repeatedly calling gamers neck beards, basement dwellers, misogynists, virgins, etc...

Which if I read gaming websites or gave a shit I could see would be irksome.

But overall I'm too old and busy to give a shit about a bunch of people getting their panties in a twist about stupid bullshit and behaving badly.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;792310...

Hmm, someone actually wrote this, so I'll ask: What do you believe her cause IS?

Seriously. Is it to desexualize games? Is it to force female characters into every game? Is it to destroy the gamer 'culture'? Is it to personally profit from controversy? What exactly is she trying to do besides analyze games in a somewhat academic and patronizing way? My bet it it's the 'patronizing' part that's got everybody up in arms.

The cause is money. Her work is questionable, and uses other people's gameplay in videos with shoddy reasoning and in some cases outright falshoods.

For which she got a lot of money.

Quote from: Will;792288Referring to the MRA douchebag who killed a bunch of people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings

I've heard it lofted that Sarkeeviboo (or whatever the hell her name is) is being a hysterical nitwit making a bunch of noise about something that's clearly just hot air.

But, you know, both sides pales when one side has people metastisizing into killers and one side doesn't. (Though feel free to point out the rash of pro-feminist killers, if I missed them)

Conflating pro-GG folks with a mentally disturbed man who went on a shooting spree? Maybe I'm misreading you, but if not? Jesus, you are a fuckwit.

Might want to go see what karen straughan, an actual MRA had to say on the subject.

Here's a good comment about gamergate from rpgcodex that i agree with.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/worst-thread-ever-general-gaming-sjw-dumping-ground-currently-airing-gamergate.90469/page-367#post-3542787

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;792310Hmm, someone actually wrote this, so I'll ask: What do you believe her cause IS?

I assume her goal is very close to what she said in her KS for "Tropes vs Women": she wants to create a video series, that can be shown in academic settings, on the issues of sexism.

QuoteSeriously. Is it to desexualize games? Is it to force female characters into every game? Is it to destroy the gamer 'culture'? Is it to personally profit from controversy? What exactly is she trying to do besides analyze games in a somewhat academic and patronizing way? My bet it it's the 'patronizing' part that's got everybody up in arms.

Well...
Objectively we can say she has profited nicely from Tropes vs Women; it generated over $158,922, for 6 videos over the last 18 months. Roughly $30,000 a video, or $1000 a minute of content, currently. Plus paid speaking engagements, when people aren't being asshats.

Now whether that was money well spent, or was another $55,492 potato salad KS (link), is for people to judge on their own.

The "patronizing manner" seems to be a hallmark of 3rd Wave Feminism, which I'll freely admit I do not like. It's a personal bias, to be sure, but 3rd Wave Feminism seems to benchmark itself on "Victimization to the Patriarchy" rather than "Empowerment of Women". For me it's the same mindset of "Rise to Excellence", rather than "Lower Expectations of Greatness". But that's a personal preference.

I will however, take great umbrage to the claim that her video's meet any sort of "academic rigor". They are poorly sourced (often linking to paid speaking engagements of other 3rd Wave Feminists), poorly researched (using studies that have: limited respondents, poorly sourced respondents, loaded data, and cherry-picked conclusions), and no rigorous peer review.

She can feel free to claim it's her critique, or paid analysis, of sexism in gaming. But to claim it's "academic" or should be shown in schools...well, I guess right after they show the Young Earth Creationists video, they can play hers too. They're both equally junk science.

**edit*  you know what, fuck it.  Not worth pointing out the blatant irony yet again like it would somehow change things.

Quote from: Bastetson;792321Here's a good comment about gamergate from rpgcodex that i agree with.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/worst-thread-ever-general-gaming-sjw-dumping-ground-currently-airing-gamergate.90469/page-367#post-3542787

Hmmm, don't think I'd call it the most neutral article/post I've seen (It's definitely pro-GG), but it does match up a lot to my own observations.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;792320Conflating pro-GG folks with a mentally disturbed man who went on a shooting spree? Maybe I'm misreading you, but if not? Jesus, you are a fuckwit.

Might want to go see what karen straughan, an actual MRA had to say on the subject.

I have to agree with you Warboss.  That is fuck up logic that Will used.

How can anyone say the few are responsible of the actions of the many?  I mean I don't even think all gaming journalists are corrupt pieces of shits.  I just view those that are own by Gwaker and follow in line with the shitty social justice warrior side as corrupt pieces of shits.  Mainly for their lack of honesty, double standards, and how they treat their customers.

Hell it is like that guy that threaten to do a mass shooting unless Anita Sarkeensian leaves the university.  Some pro-gamergate guy had posted that he would give a 3,000 dollar reward to anyone that catches the son of a bitch.  Should we lump that guy with the sick fuck that went out to give out mass shooting threat because both may have supported gamergate?  No!  All massive leaderless groups have their fair share of shits and there are also a fair share of saints too.  I just don't see the anti-gamergate guys getting rid of their trash that make them look bad.  I see the pro-gamergate people posting reward money despite the fact it helps a person they do not like.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;792310Hmm, someone actually wrote this, so I'll ask: What do you believe her cause IS?

I don't know.

I haven't studied her work enough to be able discern what her actual cause may be, beyond what we have seen with her "Tropes vs. Women" project.

I don't see evidence of academic rigor, but the History Channel is still dares to call itself the History Channel so when you are selling to an echo chamber all you need is truthiness.

I can't honestly have a major problem with her making money, even if her final product is crap. 68 million people eat at McDonalds every day.

As for her dying as martyr, I may seem callous, but I am fascinated by fucked up aspects of mankind and history records a litany of martyrs for causes that make you go WTF? when you read how petty some of these squabbles appear given time and distance, but must have been incredibly emotionally overcharged at the moment.

If anyone takes my comment for some hope that harm befalls her, this is quite mistaken. If anything, I fully defend her right to speak and her right to feel safe from death threats.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;792310There is no free speech on the internet as we know it. It's a brave new world where what you say can be remixed to mean anything anybody wants, and bad faith assumptions are the rule of the day.

I disagree with the first part. TheRPGsite offers us 99.99% free speech. I've been here for years and I have never felt that I needed to curtail anything I have wanted to say. I suspect there are other sites that offer that freedom as well.

As for your second part, you are correct. Everything (words, pics, audio) can be twisted for whatever use. As for bad faith assumptions, that's the nature of the medium. Human communication that isn't face to face loses too much necessary nuance.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;792320Conflating pro-GG folks with a mentally disturbed man who went on a shooting spree?

I think that was Will referring to my post. I was referencing why I support Anita asking for more security if the death threats were real. In light of how death threats can manifest into actual deaths, aka the UCSB killings, I don't blame any controversial speaker for being extra wary (whether or not I agreed with that speaker).

To claim that someone has made a death threat is to make an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to be taken as valid; such evidence must be independently verifiable in order for the standard of fallibility to be met. Not one death threat claim made to date achieves this goal, including the present one. Instead, we see theater made to manipulate the emotions of observers into mindless support of the drama-makers. That, folks, is fraud.

Quote from: SpinachcatI was referencing why I support Anita asking for more security if the death threats were real. In light of how death threats can manifest into actual deaths, aka the UCSB killings, I don't blame any controversial speaker for being extra wary (whether or not I agreed with that speaker).

It's also easy for us, who don't deal with it regularly, to be kind of blase about the threat. It's not so easy after a near-miss, or a particularly poignant threat. We're not the one in the cross-hairs.

The Cynic in me thinks she's pissed at Brianna Wu "getting her air time" (as Wu has made rounds at MSNMC, HuffPo, CNN, and CBS tomorrow, IIRC), but I'm really trying not to be so damn jaded I can't see the other side, too.

(Which those have been fun to watch, "Woe is me" Wu. Never ask her about the sockpuppet account she used to harass pro-GG; never ask about her attempt to use a picture of an austistic asian boy in the middle of a meltdown, as a Meme to diss pro-GG; never point out that the post that supposedly doxxed her appeared 2 minutes AFTER she tweeted she'd been doxxed (I suppose her attacker could have been nice, and sent her an e-mail first... :rolleyes: ))

Quote from: Will;792233Iosue: Basically, GG is a hate group, so you can't go 'yay GG!' there any more than you can say 'well, the Nazis aren't all bad, they had great ideas about train scheduling.'

In similar news, I saw a guy named Will make some hateful statements awhile back. It wasn't you, but since you're named Will it follows that you're responsible for literally every single person named "Will" on the internet.

Asshole.

Meanwhile, back in reality: Literally every single group in existence has shitty people in it. And in the era of mass social media, those shitty people are going to say shitty things that get broadcast to the world.

There were Democrats who tweeted death threats about George W. Bush. Does this make every single Democrat an asshole? Is every single Republican an asshole because of the idiotic things Republicans says on Twitter about Obama?

There have been death threats directed at Michael Bay because he makes shitty movies. Does this mean everyone who thinks Michael Bay makes shitty movies is part of an "anti-Michael Bay hate group"?

Of course it fucking doesn't.

And if it does, then the anti-GG group has some serious problems because, as others have pointed out (and cited in this thread), they included threats of violence and death.

Which is, of course, another reason you'd be an asshole in this fantasy version of reality. (As if being named "Will" wasn't enough.)

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;792335To claim that someone has made a death threat is to make an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to be taken as valid; such evidence must be independently verifiable in order for the standard of fallibility to be met. Not one death threat claim made to date achieves this goal, including the present one. Instead, we see theater made to manipulate the emotions of observers into mindless support of the drama-makers. That, folks, is fraud.

I'll back that up a little, though.
Anita's death threats have been investigated by the FBI.
At Utah, the University statement does say they talked with local and federal Law Enforcement.

I can't speak for Zoe or Brianna (though Brianna says she did file a report with Boston PD, which should be easily verifiable), but I do think legitimate death threats have been issued against Anita.

And death threats are one of those things you really don't want to be wrong about...

Quote from: Justin AlexanderAnd if it does, then the anti-GG group has some serious problems because, as others have pointed out (and cited in this thread), they included threats of violence and death.

That's one of the parts I don't get; anti-GG brings up anons and trash accounts, and accuses us of bad behavior off them; I show you bad behavior from mainstream people, supposedly professional journalists, and they get a free ride? WTF???