Gamergate reached 1.8 million

[Tempest]

I felt the video was kinda derogatory and viewed what happens to some women to what happens to all women. It turns me as a female gamer into a victim, and I feel it also views men as benefiting from this somehow. As if men don’t have to deal with double standards in the gaming culture that some of us female gamers take for granted. Like not being told we are lesbian if we suck at a game, or otherwise sometimes getting free stuff simply because of our gender. It’s this weird Male = perpetrator/Women = Victim mentality, and it kinda hurts both sexes. It’s a very extremist viewpoint and it does not benefit women or men to exalt men as this godly pinnacle free from negative effects due to double standards. This form of separatist behavior is far from inclusionary.

So this woman who posted this response didn't even notice that one of the things that women gamers don't face is actually misogynistic in it's very nature.

That would be the part where she gallantly points out that men who aren't good at gaming have been/are called lesbians.

 

[Snow Queen]

So this woman who posted this response didn't even notice that one of the things that women gamers don't face is actually misogynistic in it's very nature.

That would be the part where she gallantly points out that men who aren't good at gaming have been/are called lesbians.

I think she meant that they're called gay, and that female gamers generally aren't called lesbians with the same intent.

 

[Tempest]

I think she meant that they're called gay, and that female gamers generally aren't called lesbians with the same intent.

Being told that you are doing anything like a girl is meant to be an insult. It means you're doing it wrong, or poorly.

It is terrible that men are bullied in gaming. And it needs to be discussed.

But I'm not going to pretend that sexism in games, or in the gaming community, doesn't exist.

I'm more than pleased that there are so many women who haven't been harassed for being female, or bullied because of their gender.

 

[Snow Queen]

Being told that you are doing anything like a girl is meant to be an insult. It means you're doing it wrong, or poorly.

It is terrible that men are bullied in gaming. And it needs to be discussed.

But I'm not going to pretend that sexism in games, or in the gaming community, doesn't exist.

I'm more than pleased that there are so many women who haven't been harassed for being female, or bullied because of their gender.

I'm aware, I just think the intent was what I said.

I never said you should pretend it doesn't exist. I've agreed with about everything you and The Question have said, just haven't bothered adding any thoughts since there's just no point.

 

[Sawyer]

So I see this thread is still a thing that exists.

 

[Tempest]

So I see this thread is still a thing that exists.

Hi, Sawyer!

 

[The End]

Huh

Jennifer D'aww ‏@GMShivers
Congrats on blocking a semi-successful female dev for not being the right kind of woman.Blocklists are swell!

Ethics!

 

[The End]

GamerGate has cost Gawker millions in lost advertising revenue

 

[The End]

Fascinating discussion hosted by Al Jazeera's America Tonight.

Arthur Chu
David Auerbach
Fredrick Brennan (Hotwheels, owner of 8chan)
Deanna Zandt
Brooke #818

http://branch.com/b/gamergate-debate-video-games-free-speech-misogyny

There's quite a lot that's covered.

To me, it seems that Arthur Chu is threatened by boards that offer people the ability to post anonymously, and to say and post whatever they want as long as it is not illegal.

Whereas Fredrick believes having spaces like this is a fundamental free speech issue.

Also the reason Fredrick's Patreon is under attack is that among 8chan's boards other than GamerGate are chans for Neo-Nazis (speaking literally not hyperbolically, it's called "National Socialism"), for sharing kiddie porn (as long as it's not made with real children so it's legal, of course), for encouraging suicidal people on the Internet to commit suicide, etc.

This is all okay with Fredrick because to him actively providing hosting and bandwidth for everything no matter how vile is an issue of "free speech". That's part of what GamerGate is about.

Arthur, are you threatened by National Socialists discussing their opinions online? If they are wrong, I wonder why.

Back in the days of Usenet, Ken McVay was constantly seeing Holocaust-denial postings going around the various newsgroups. Rather than censor them, he created the Nizkor Project, a site that debunks many Holocaust denial theories. You can find his project here: nizkor.org

Silencing people means you fear what they might say. McVay didn't fear what National Socialists had to say because he knew it was false.
Holocaust Educational Resource nizkor.org

I have to agree. Fredrick has chosen to make 8chan a haven for free speech, why does Arthur feel that attacks on Fredrick are then justified? What is it about the concept of a board of free speech that Arthur finds threatening?

Also, Arthur thinks disclosure in games journalism (as in, disclosing a friendship or working relationship when you write coverage for a game for example) is crap.

I have to disagree.

http://nichegamer.net/2014/12/adria...-saying-enough-is-enough/#xrXDspJaJPed4Elz.99

(Game developer Adrian Chmielarz)

NG: Is there a reason for concern with gaming publications? Is the lack of ethics a real problem?

AC: Yes, it’s a real problem. It’s not like it’s all bad; on the contrary, I think that gaming websites mostly do a fantastic job. Yes, even the ones that Gamergate dislikes, like Polygon or Kotaku. I’ve read tons of amazing material on both.

However, and I can’t believe I am quoting Spider-Man here, with great power comes great responsibility. And I don’t feel that all powerful gaming publications behave in a responsible way. We saw examples of some of them literally destroying human lives with their articles. We saw examples of pushing the agenda so hard it’s actually suicidal. We saw examples of promoting friends without disclosure, what ultimately was completely unnecessary and only resulted in a severe backfire and ****storm.
So, one more time, yes, it’s a real problem.

More on journo ethics

Also discovered this gem

 

[The End]

25 benefits of being a female while gaming

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6d6nRUBKdB4

[YT]6d6nRUBKdB4[/YT]

My favourites are -

5
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
24
25

25 is a supreme elbow drop from the top rope.

 

[Tempest]

25 benefits of being a female while gaming

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6d6nRUBKdB4

[YT]6d6nRUBKdB4[/YT]

My favourites are -

5
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
24
25

25 is a supreme elbow drop from the top rope.

I don't know how else to explain to any of these people the issue. Ok, so there are some very loud females who are kind of annoying who push through some of their ideas.

That doesn't mean that the original conversation that started this entire thing was 1. untrue or that 2. that misogyny doesn't exist in gaming.

Great! There are women who don't have to deal with, don't care, or are unaware of misogyny in gaming.

Guess what? It doesn't mean that other people haven't faced that problem, or that the problem suddenly doesn't exist.

At least one of Anita's videos, maybe more, even states flat-out that she is aware that there are many games where there aren't any problems. Those aren't the problem, so she doesn't feel the need to discuss them. She wants to talk about the areas in video gaming culture that are a problem.


People who act like her videos are so horrible and mean because they point out flaws and areas of improvement in video gaming culture are exactly like people who say things. "Look, we have a black president! Racism is over!"

Things are better. That's wonderful. But just because things are better doesn't mean that we should pretend that everything is wonderful and good.

 

[The End]

The game Hatred has been removed from Steam Greenlight

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I see the myopia continues unabated in here. This is all insanely gut busting when it's not generally sad as hell.

 

[Tempest]

The game Hatred has been removed from Steam Greenlight

This might have had something to do with it:

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--5880SNWV--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/ckfej8g8fo6gwziuqoti.png

 

[Victarion]

You can't go find the game elsewhere?

 

[Tempest]

You can't go find the game elsewhere?

I can't believe so many people want to play it. It's terrible looking.

 

[The Question]

The game Hatred has been removed from Steam Greenlight

And what does that have to do with the first amendment? The first amendment has nothing to do with what Steam chooses to make available or not.

 

[The End]

Question, do you see the Steam logo on the image?

That image was once posted to the Steam home page, after a Supreme Court decision struck down a Californian law that would have made it illegal to sell violent games to children.

I posted it for irony reasons. Clearly Steam believed/believe in the spirit of the image.

Holy ******* ****, how stupid are you if you need me to walk you through that.

 

[The Question]

Question, do you see the Steam logo on the image?

That image was once posted to the Steam home page, after a Supreme Court decision struck down a Californian law that would have made it illegal to sell violent games to children.

I posted it for irony reasons. Clearly Steam believed/believe in the spirit of the image.

Holy ******* ****, how stupid are you if you need me to walk you through that.

I assumed it was a photoshop whipped up to mock Steam. I hardly think that makes me stupid.

And anyway, I don't see the irony. Believing in freedom of speech does not make you obligated to sell a product you don't want to sell. I believe that everyone has the right to say whatever they want, but that doesn't mean that I, as a private citizen, am obligated to give a microphone to anyone.

 

[The End]

The point I was making was obvious and you didn't need me to walk you through it. You were wrong to assume that, and you ought to have at least checked on google first.

You seriously don't see the irony in, on one hand, celebrating 'esthetic and moral judgments about art and literature... are for the individual to make', and then later removing Hatred from their site?

C'MOOON, Question.

When you say that Steam CAN do this, you are essentially just saying "they can because they can" which to me seems lazy, its an argument without content, only pointing out semantics. What's the REASONING for removing Hatred?

Time and time again studies show that video game violence does not adversely affect the real behaviours of people.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/violent-video-games-dont-lead-to-increases-in-viol/1100-6422421/
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/research-shows-no-link-between-video-game-violence/1100-6423385/

Are you going to take a position on whether or not it should have been removed and why, or are you going to argue semantics?

 

[Tempest]

Question, do you see the Steam logo on the image?

That image was once posted to the Steam home page, after a Supreme Court decision struck down a Californian law that would have made it illegal to sell violent games to children.

I posted it for irony reasons. Clearly Steam believed/believe in the spirit of the image.

Holy ******* ****, how stupid are you if you need me to walk you through that.

That was unnecessary rudeness.

 

[Tempest]

The point I was making was obvious and you didn't need me to walk you through it. You were wrong to assume that, and you ought to have at least checked on google first.

You seriously don't see the irony in, on one hand, celebrating 'esthetic and moral judgments about art and literature... are for the individual to make', and then later removing Hatred from their site?

C'MOOON, Question.

When you say that Steam CAN do this, you are essentially just saying "they can because they can" which to me seems lazy, its an argument without content, only pointing out semantics. What's the REASONING for removing Hatred?

Time and time again studies show that video game violence does not adversely affect the real behaviours of people.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/violent-video-games-dont-lead-to-increases-in-viol/1100-6422421/
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/research-shows-no-link-between-video-game-violence/1100-6423385/

Are you going to take a position on whether or not it should have been removed and why, or are you going to argue semantics?

I'm more interested to know if you're upset about this because this is a 'free speech' issue (who's free speech, btw? Because a company can choose to sell or not sell an item at a whim), or is it because you're really upset this crappy game isn't on the market at the moment?

 

[The Question]

You seriously don't see the irony in, on one hand, celebrating 'esthetic and moral judgments about art and literature… are for the individual to make', and then later removing Hatred from their site?

No, I don't. Steam has the right to not sell a product that they don't like. Everyone has that right. Stephanie Meyer has the right to say whatever she wants in her books, even though I hardly agree with any of it. However, if I own a bookstore, I'm probably not going to sell her books because I really do not like them. The people who do like them, or the people who don't care, can sell her books, that's fine.

When you say that Steam CAN do this, you are essentially just saying "they can because they can" which to me seems lazy, its an argument without content, only pointing out semantics. What's the REASONING for removing Hatred?

It's not lazy at all. My argument is that there is nothing morally questionable about refusing to sell a product that you don't like. We can argue the individual merits of a product, and wether or not the dislike is warranted, but it is in no way a violation of free speech.

What's the reasoning? I have no idea. I'm not them. Maybe they thought it was of poor quality. Maybe they thought that it wouldn't sell well. Maybe they had personal moral objections to some aspect of its content. And maybe they didn't, but they didn't want to put up with complaints from people who do. In the end, I don't think it matters.

Time and time again studies show that video game violence does not adversely affect the real behaviours of people.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/violent-video-games-dont-lead-to-increases-in-viol/1100-6422421/
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/research-shows-no-link-between-video-game-violence/1100-6423385/

Okay. So what? No one here is arguing that it does. There are people who object to the game who's objections have absolutely nothing to do with the notion that violent video games make people behave violently in real life.

Are you going to take a position on whether or not it should have been removed and why, or are you going to argue semantics?

Well, I was never arguing semantics. You're just saying I am because it makes me look foolish, but I was not arguing semantics by any reasonable understanding of the word.

And anyway, my position is that I don't really care. If Steam doesn't want to sell it, that's their prerogative. I don't think it really matters. No one's freedom of speech is being inhibited if private companies simply choose not to sell your art. If it was, then we'd have to argue that every publishing company that passes on a manuscript that they think just isn't good is committing a violation of first amendment rights.

 

[The End]

#FullMcIntosh is mad that Hatred is back on Steam

 

[The Question]

#FullMcIntosh is mad that Hatred is back on Steam

Why do you care?