|
OMG JC a Bomb! posted:Wow, I expected some pedantry, but that's just impressive. Since we're playing this game, let's look it up. Google says: So when you claimed that was a false flag were you lying or just stupid? What about the rest of the gamergaters saying that?
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:22 |
|
|
Ddraig posted:The only reason she was a darling was because she was attacked. It's a huge feedback loop. loving tell me about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
Dapper Dan posted:Like I said before, it is all about who the journalists like and who they don't. Sarkessian provoked them by being a darling to the gaming media. You've got this backwards, I think--the first mention I saw of Sarkeesian in the "press" was after the initial misogynist backlash to her kickstarter. EDIT-beaten
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
Pandemonium posted:Nice casual dismissal, bub. I'm not sure what else I should be saying to what was literally an appeal to youtube downvotes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:You've got this backwards, I think--the first mention I saw of Sarkeesian in the "press" was after the initial misogynist backlash to her kickstarter. Its so hard to keep all this dumb bullshit straight sometimes
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Are you really reading Pandemonium's posts and nodding and going, "Right on, dude"? Not really. This thread moves too fast to really look into posts that aren't directed at you. As for my "very, very weird" criticisms of her, I was just giving reasons why I didn't feel she was a good delegate for feminism and I couldn't support her as someone who cares about progressive politics in general. Apparently this painted me as some rabid pro-Gamergate strawman, and lead to an extended discussion about why I felt the way I did. I think games "journalism" is garbage and always will be. I think Sargon of Whatever and those Sarkeesian Effect people are dorks of the highest caliber. But at the same time, I think people like Wu and and Arthur Chu are hilarious human tire-fires, and enjoy reading about their antics--which is why I know so much about them. I guess it's like a larger, more chaotic Jerry Springer show airing 24/7. EDIT: Hahaha, oops. Looks like I triggered someone into opening their wallet. OMG JC a Bomb! fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:I'm not sure what else I should be saying to what was literally an appeal to youtube downvotes. You can see that and reach two conclusions: 1. Gamergate supporters are truly the silent majority, and random youtubers are stumbling across this video and voicing their disagreement by downvoting 2. The only people who watched that video were linked to it by /r/KotakuInAction/, gamergate twitter accounts and 8chan (all of whom described as a SJW HITPIECE) and were only there to downvote it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Aside from the few people who do have an understanding of Gamergate, this thread seems to be full of knee-jerk reactionary types who have flocked to this topic to opine about how terrible Gamergate is because these three women have been harassed. By who? By "Gamergate"? By outside trolls? Undoubtedly both. Have we touched on #notyourshield yet? And the reactions to that by people opposed to Gamergate that amounted to nothing more than calling PoCs who supported Gamergate house n*ggers. Anyway, the point is none of you have a clue what's been going on outside of what you read on Guardian or Slate or god forbid Jezebel, as you are constantly asking for citations and sources and whatnot about claims. I don't expect you to go through and educate yourselves on all of the ins and outs. But I don't have the free time to compile a list of sources to validate the things I've posted. If you've actually followed this drama-storm, you're familiar with this stuff. And I think it's telling that the people who have followed it are the ones who are a bit more nuanced in their approach to the topic. I mean, for god's sake, there are people posting in here that don't know that gaming websites have introduced disclaimers in the past year as a direct result of Gamergate. Yet they will happily grab the misogyny/harassment narrative and run with it. Also, Gamergate moved on from Zoe long long ago, Wu long ago, and Anita is still being talked about because she writes insane things about racism in Witcher 3, criticizes Doom 4 for being too violent (lol, are you kidding me?!), and has no idea about the games she criticizes (a thread right now in /r/KotakuInAction is highlighting this with Bayonetta and how Bayonetta's hair works--something Anita fails to grasp). Here's a freebie, though: Google "brianna wu never left her house" and go nuts. Here's just one link: https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2oya0p/did_wu_ever_leave_her_home/
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
Pandemonium posted:Aside from the few people who do have an understanding of Gamergate, this thread seems to be full of knee-jerk reactionary types who have flocked to this topic to opine about how terrible Gamergate is because these three women have been harassed. By who? By "Gamergate"? By outside trolls? Undoubtedly both. Have we touched on #notyourshield yet? And the reactions to that by people opposed to Gamergate that amounted to nothing more than calling PoCs who supported Gamergate house n*ggers. Why should anyone argue against your half-remembered thirdhand gossip accusations? Sorry that this isn't an echo chamber where everyone uncritically believes every dumb poo poo unsourced rumor out there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
OMG JC a Bomb! posted:Not really. This thread moves too fast to really look into posts that aren't directed at you. Nobody called you a rabid pro-Gamergate strawman. You do seem like someone who is really bizarrely incensed by Sarkeesian, and who uses really dodgy attacks on her to vent your spleen at her. Her job at age 23, claiming she's 'scamming' people because she makes videos slowly--these are not actually reasonable criticisms. They seem like you're just throwing anything at her. Her feminism may be, to me, a bit insipid, but not in some way that's highly criticizable, and definitely not with the level of personal vituperation you put into it. You don't seem to get that saying "she's producing videos slowly" isn't going to make anyone go "oh yeah, that's a scam" when she actually communicates with her backers, when she expands many of the videos to be twice or three times as long as originally planned, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
GamerGate moved on from Zoe like how Southerners moved on from slavery.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
Pandemonium posted:this thread seems to be full of knee-jerk reactionary types thats not what 'reactionary' means
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
Pandemonium posted:Have we touched on #notyourshield yet? And the reactions to that by people opposed to Gamergate that amounted to nothing more than calling PoCs who supported Gamergate house n*ggers. This didn't happen. e: Also it's pretty  for somebody on the GG end of things to pull the "it's not my job to educate you!" card.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
OMG JC a Bomb! posted:Not really. This thread moves too fast to really look into posts that aren't directed at you. I like the cut of you jib. Apparently being somewhat fluent in the machinations and history of Gamergate is tantamount to being a financial backer of "The Sarkessian Effect" and a believer and supporter in everything Gamergate has done.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
Pandemonium posted:
Assuming what you say is 100% true this is the most petty list of poo poo to be upset over that I have ever read. Like your whole argument is "Lulz I don't hate women or anything but check out how these meaningless opinions about loving video games are worth devoting entire websites to. Again, its not that I hate women and look for any opportunity to harass them, its just that the opinions of this one particular woman has about video games marks her as deserving of targeting and harassment." Seriously dude.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
Here we have living proof of crank magnetism in full effect.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Why should anyone argue against your half-remembered thirdhand gossip accusations? Sorry that this isn't an echo chamber where everyone uncritically believes every dumb poo poo unsourced rumor out there. Did you type this before or after you googled "brianna wu never left house"? It's like you didn't even read my post. But it's okay. I understand if you don't have the time to familiarize yourself with the subject you have such a strong opinion of.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
Motto posted:This didn't happen. Naw, it totally happened.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I think the way people have responded to the sorry state of games journalism in general has been fine--I'm not talking about GGers, but ordinary people, who read reviews, filter for hype, listen to word of mouth, etc. Steam's new policy of allowing people to return games if they've only played a few hours of it and don't like it is probably more of a boon than any amount of games journalism could really be. "Journalism" is a broad brush that doesn't just involve starred/rated reviews, but actual long-form criticism, and that's a useful tool for moving forward with the medium. It'd also be helpful if you had people who could afford to stay in the games-review business for ten, twenty, thirty years, to help evolve its tools and language. Whatever you want to say about Roger Ebert or Pauline Kael as critics, they had an actual impact on the industry they were critiquing and that industry was the better for it. Obdicut posted:I do think you're right that they think that they want someone 'objective' to write about games, but there is no possible way to be objective about games, something inherently subjective. Even whether or not graphics look good is in the end a subjective stance. Right, that's one of the big problems: people online who say "objective" when what they want is "unbiased." There's a reason why, for example, every games magazine/website in the '90s/'00s who knew what they were doing would have a couple of guys on staff who were only there for sports games: they have a different audience and different goals, and a lot of your main writers are going to be big chunkety nerds who persist in calling it "sportsball." It's perfectly fine to want to have critics without strong bias. You don't want your RPG dork doing the primary review for a balls-out first-person twitch shooter. The problem with the Gamergate-era objection is that they arbitrarily decree certain areas of the game off-limits and label the discussion thereof as the product of "bias," which is the kind of thing you say when you don't know what the gently caress you're talking about. Sure, this is the kind of thing that can be misused. I want to say it was Bayonetta 2 on Polygon, where the reviewer raved about the combat, graphics, systems, and level design, and then knocked it down a few points because Bayonetta is a blatant sex bomb of a character. It's a reasonable thing to criticize, sure, but is it the difference between a C and an A+? Still, the point is to actually have that conversation. Uncle Wemus posted:Independent of what? What would a fully independent critical body like this look like? Do you mean not advertising for games they review? Or just critique on the actual business and labor side of games? One of the big problems for games media in the 2000s and forward has been that it's nearly impossible to monetize your publication without selling advertising to the same companies you're critiquing, and those companies can be difficult to deal with if you've been going after their products. It was rare to see such blatant passive-aggressive behavior as, say, Eidos getting Jeff Gerstmann fired, but I ran into more than one PR person who would be more than happy to remind you just who was in a position to squeeze whose balls. What would be useful, both for consumers and for the industry, would be a review organ built around complete independence, both from the games industry and from other similar networks. Right now, I think the industry's in need of a Pauline Kael or an Ebert, and that's the only way you get one of those: an uncompromising, largely shielded voice. In the past, you'd get that from newspapers, and now, you're probably only going to get that from crowd-funding.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
Pandemonium posted:Did you type this before or after you googled "brianna wu never left house"? Even if we're assuming this to be true, so what? Is part of fleeing your house that you have to render it uninhabitable, so that no living thing may step foot inside it, forever tainted it is with the association of the time you felt really unsafe being in there so decided to go somewhere you felt safer?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:There's also Peter Coffin, a man who is most famous for kicking himself in the testicles. GamerGate managed to reveal that in addition to this amazing trick he was also married to a real doll and was trying to pass her off as a real woman. Allegedly. Hes done it twice before, he confirm owns a real doll. /cow/ ended up getting a PI. He is single, not married and living with a couple and he babysits the kid when they're at work. Then he gets the doll out and photoshops pictures. If you're claiming he is infact married people may have to get in touch with the IRS. Have some links to the most famous time he tried to pull off this shtick. When I see a spade I call it a spade. When I see a conartist loner I call it Peter Coffin. http://www.villagevoice.com/news/internet-comedian-peter-coffins-fake-asian-girlfriend-outed-in-blogger-feud-with-xiaxue-6659458 http://gawker.com/5785593/the-greatest-fake-girlfriend-story-ever-told http://xiaxue.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/peter-coffin-is-loser.html?m=1 He's been well known around the internet prior to this poo poo. Fluo fucked around with this message at 06:12 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
Motto posted:This didn't happen. Just google "not your shield criticism" or "not your shield internalized racism". For Christ's sake, it's like you're not even trying.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
Pandemonium posted:Just google "not your shield criticism" or "not your shield internalized racism". For Christ's sake, it's like you're not even trying. It's too fun to watch you post the Gamergate equivalent of "jet fuel can't melt steel beams".
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:The only reason she was a darling was because she was attacked. It's a huge feedback loop. Exactly. That's the central irony of Gamergate: without the initial, out-of-proportion reactions to Sarkeesian that would eventually become a Gamergate trademark, the best-case scenario for her was a regular column at the Escapist or something. She'd have been Jim Sterling in hoop earrings. Now she's a media icon. They created what they were hoping to prevent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
Prester John posted:Assuming what you say is 100% true this is the most petty list of poo poo to be upset over that I have ever read. Like your whole argument is "Lulz I don't hate women or anything but check out how these meaningless opinions about loving video games are worth devoting entire websites to. Again, its not that I hate women and look for any opportunity to harass them, its just that the opinions of this one particular woman has about video games marks her as deserving of targeting and harassment." Seriously dude. Did I say they were worth devoting websites to? I am in this for the giggles. Again, criticizing Anita is not the same as harassing her, so please don't conflate people who do the former with the latter into one big group of hate or whatever it is you are trying to do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
Pandemonium posted:Did you type this before or after you googled "brianna wu never left house"? You seem to sincerely believe that the minutiae of the stalking of GG targets is completely common knowledge and fully accepted as fact, and that if I just google it I will be enlightened. Have you considered that perhaps you are a delusional weirdo who is so deep in this poo poo that he believes the sky has always been brown?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
Pandemonium posted:I am in this for the giggles. Noticing a bit of a trend here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
Pandemonium posted:Did I say they were worth devoting websites to? I am in this for the giggles. Again, criticizing Anita is not the same as harassing her, so please don't conflate people who do the former with the latter into one big group of hate or whatever it is you are trying to do. I'm sorry, but I find it impossible to imagine giving a poo poo about the incorrect opinions of someone who writes about something that interests me. I don't get this upset when people write positive articles about Accelerated Christian Education, let alone having the energy to be upset that someone doesn't know how a fictional characters hair works in a video game. Okay, let's say she is wrong, what possible enjoyment could you be deriving from studying her every word so that you can root out all these incorrect opinions? How is that level of dedication just for "giggles"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Even if we're assuming this to be true, so what? Is part of fleeing your house that you have to render it uninhabitable, so that no living thing may step foot inside it, forever tainted it is with the association of the time you felt really unsafe being in there so decided to go somewhere you felt safer? No, it means not lying on social media about leaving your house for those pity bucks and then being stupid enough to do a video interview in your house that you claimed to have left. Who is moving the goal posts now? I can and will laugh my head of at that amount of stupidity--and then shake my head in disgust at the level of duplicity and its success in getting her attention and money.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:You seem to sincerely believe that the minutiae of the stalking of GG targets is completely common knowledge and fully accepted as fact, and that if I just google it I will be enlightened. I'm confused. You're posting a bunch in a Gamergate thread and yet you have no idea what has happened aside from whatever article you read in Slate or Guardian? You really have no leg to stand on here, I'm afraid. I'm not saying these are facts. I'm saying these are things Gamergaters have dragged out. I'd love to know if they are true or not, but to be honest I'd rather trust some people who did their homework than a lovely outrage-seeking journalist for the Guardian who writes a hit piece on Gamergate every few months. By the way, if you ever followed Gamergate you'd see these MSM pieces get torn apart for the lying sacks of poo poo they are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
Pandemonium posted:She made herself a target for pity money and publicity. It's not that hard to understand, really. Why do you insist on advocating for such terrible human beings? Here's an analogy: Your brother occasionally smokes pot. Whenever you catch him, you beat him with a stick and send him to hospital. When people get angry about you beating him with a stick, you say 'Why would you defend a drugged up criminal? HE'S A CRIMINAL!' It's not defending his actions, it's criticising your response. In Brianna's case, people are criticising Gamergate's reaction to her - it doesn't matter if she was a poo poo person, the response has been utterly disproportionate. *Even if it is the case that it was all her harassing herself, the harassment of others like her is real. If that harassment did not exist, Wu would just be another crazy, however Gamergate had already set the mood / theme / environment for her harassment to be believable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
Pandemonium posted:No, it means not lying on social media about leaving your house for those pity bucks and then being stupid enough to do a video interview in your house that you claimed to have left. Who is moving the goal posts now? I can and will laugh my head of at that amount of stupidity--and then shake my head in disgust at the level of duplicity and its success in getting her attention and money. Maybe she left her place because she was scared and came back later to do an interview because it was convenient? Or maybe a friend moved in for a while and she felt safer? There are a lot of sensible reasons for her to go back after having left.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
Pandemonium posted:Did you type this before or after you googled "brianna wu never left house"? You can't really blame anyone for not reading your giant and badly written posts given that they have very little if anything to do with Gamergate, the topic of this thread, or games journalism, and instead are about your obsessive focus on the sex lives of women you've never met. You claim to be in this for simple amusment, but I suspect you're working through some sexual hangups. That's the only logical reason why you or others claim to care about video games while being able to name who and when Zoe Quinn allegedly cheated on her boyfriend, another person you've never met. What does Zoe Quinn have to do with Gamergate, again?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
Pandemonium posted:
Man, the tone of this post is pretty much exactly the same as when 9-11 Truthers used to get all indignant whenever yet another debunking of Loose Change premiered. "lovely MSM lies about everything and if you *REALLY* did your homework you would know that every debunking of Loose Change gets torn to pieces."
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
Prester John posted:I'm sorry, but I find it impossible to imagine giving a poo poo about the incorrect opinions of someone who writes about something that interests me. I don't get this upset when people write positive articles about Accelerated Christian Education, let alone having the energy to be upset that someone doesn't know how a fictional characters hair works in a video game. Okay, let's say she is wrong, what possible enjoyment could you be deriving from studying her every word so that you can root out all these incorrect opinions? How is that level of dedication just for "giggles"? Because I don't care enough to post day in and day out about this stuff... I've only just started posting in this thread today, and I likely won't continue because it's clearly full of people who made up their minds about Gamergate after reading a Guardian article or something. It's important because Anita has been toted by MSM and big news sources as an important figure in video games, yet she hasn't the first clue about the games she is critiquing, not to mention her draconian, sex-negative views of the female body, her ridiculous anti-violence stance (with echoes of that 90s lawyer), etc. etc. I think it's hilarious that this type of lazy criticism is held up as worthwhile. Basically it's a kind of schadenfreude to laugh at people who actually know what they are talking about rip apart her criticism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:"Journalism" is a broad brush that doesn't just involve starred/rated reviews, but actual long-form criticism, and that's a useful tool for moving forward with the medium. It'd also be helpful if you had people who could afford to stay in the games-review business for ten, twenty, thirty years, to help evolve its tools and language. Whatever you want to say about Roger Ebert or Pauline Kael as critics, they had an actual impact on the industry they were critiquing and that industry was the better for it. Idk isn't "have that conversation" by that method kinda like how PETA wants to "have that conversation" by calling pets slaves? Also PR people sound like the mafia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
Pandemonium posted:Because I don't care enough to post day in and day out about this stuff... I've only just started posting in this thread today, and I likely won't continue because it's clearly full of people who made up their minds about Gamergate after reading a Guardian article or something. You know way too many tiny details and canned rebuttals for anyone to take you seriously when you claim not to care. I think you care a whole lot, perhaps more than anyone else who posts in this thread. It's a common theme among gamergaters I've noticed, to claim not to care while having a practically itemized schedule and bill of characters, being able to immediately recall obscure tweets from months back. I think that this claim not to care in fact is an emotional defensive mechanism, related to knowing that gamergate itself is a shameful and embarrassing harassment campaign that has very little if anything to do with ethics in video games journalism. Schadenfreude isn't the word you're looking for. Persecution complex is more appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
Prester John posted:Man, the tone of this post is pretty much exactly the same as when 9-11 Truthers used to get all indignant whenever yet another debunking of Loose Change premiered. "lovely MSM lies about everything and if you *REALLY* did your homework you would know that every debunking of Loose Change gets torn to pieces." Except it's not. Please don't bring specious comparisons into the mix. I think it's quite clear that MSM cares about Gamergate because we are currently in a culture of outrage, and they can make fat stacks off that outrage by highlighting the <1% of Gamergate tweets that could be identified as harassment and concluding that Gamergate is movement aimed at harassing women. It's a simple issue of economics. There's no conspiracy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
Pandemonium posted:Except it's not. Please don't bring specious comparisons into the mix. I think it's quite clear that MSM cares about Gamergate because we are currently in a culture of outrage, and they can make fat stacks off that outrage by highlighting the <1% of Gamergate tweets that could be identified as harassment and concluding that Gamergate is movement aimed at harassing women. It's a simple issue of economics. There's no conspiracy. Isn't it equally possible that gamergate itself is manufactured outrage meant to drain the pockets of people who are intensely sensitive to women who have slightly negative things to say about video games? They seem like an enormously motivated and militant group, ripe for manipulation. And they are extremely outraged.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:22 |
|
|
Pandemonium posted:I'm confused. You're posting a bunch in a Gamergate thread and yet you have no idea what has happened aside from whatever article you read in Slate or Guardian? You really have no leg to stand on here, I'm afraid. You know what happened with gamergate while simultaneously not knowing if any of it is true? It's pretty clear you are somewhat divorced from reality. Remember how just a little while you made a claim with no basis in factual history? Pandemonium posted:Do people forget that Zoe released her game (or made it free or something) in the wake of Robin Williams' suicide? That's a true scumbag move. Are you just relying on an oral history of gamergate provided by 8chan or something? Because I'm pretty sure you have no idea what happened aside from hearsay. Some of us have friends in the industry and actually have been following this from the beginning, and never talked about "WU NEVER LEFT THE HOUSE!!!!" because no one cares about Wu except weirdos like you who won't stop tweeting at her. Every thing you have cited is either a weird myth, a hilariously wrong half-remembered rumor, or important only to creepy stalkers who are obsessed with their own personal Sonichu named Briana Wu. EDIT: I just noticed that he has thrown out "WELL YOU MUST BE READING THE GUARDIAN!" three separate times on this page, which leads me to believe he probably reads the Guardian a lot more than anyone else here. Slanderer fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:46
|
|