The Gamergate: Girls have cooties and they are infecting Mega Man!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Gamergate: Girls have cooties and they are infecting Mega Man!

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

http://toucharcade.com/2015/06/25/apple-removes-confederate-flag/

# ¿ Jun 26, 2015 15:23

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 02:37

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Effectronica posted:

This is an image of Saint Mauritius, the patron saint of the city of Coburg in Bavaria, Germany. He has been the patron saint of Coburg since the middle ages. He was transformed from an Egyptian man to a black African man in depictions during that time, which happened because people were familiar with the features of black people, in Central Europe, in the Middle Ages, and so could depict them in artwork.

I'm not sure what you interpret this to mean, but it really just demonstrates that medieval racial attitudes were just radically different to modern racial attitudes - as well as being quite exceptional.

# ¿ Jun 26, 2015 17:48

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Effectronica posted:

I mean, the fact that people could depict black people accurately in Central Europe tells us that they were somewhat familiar with black people, which stands directly in contrast to the idea that black people were so rare it would be anti-historical to have them in a game set in the middle ages in Europe.

Well, it also demonstrates an inability to very adequately differentiate black and middle eastern people, and shows that the primary category for those people was religious. I think to claim that most medieval person knew what a black man looked like is an incredibly spurious claim. You also have to note that the depiction is, by modern standards, somewhat stereotypical at best and gollywoggish at worst. You're also dealing with a more cosmopolitan place in Coburg than, say, Poland.

It's also one example, which does not prove anything.

# ¿ Jun 26, 2015 17:55

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Effectronica posted:

Okay, the argument here, Disinterested, is over whether having black people in Medieval Europe would be contrary to history and make a game anti-historical. What is your opinion on this question?

Before the 1500's style era, I think it's not inconsistent historically to have a very limited racial presence in terms of characters, although there is scope for inclusion in the context of city life and port/naval life. But this depends on setting - if you're depicting medieval villages in buttfuck nowhere is different to a medieval royal court, and is different again from, say, Italy or Spain or the Eastern Empire where awareness was much greater.

It also doesn't preclude dealing with the Other in non-character contexts: of course, everyone in Europe knows who Moors are vaguely, and that other religions exist, and has quite possibly been told something about them in a church setting.

I'm generally for the inclusion of more rather than fewer POC in games, though, I just think the best way would be to do it by exploring the differences in the way different people see Others in different times and situations.

So with the Witcher example, I think Nilfgaard is an enormous wasted opportunity. I think you miss the chance to see how when a big multi-ethnic empire invades a small provincial kingdom, the big empire can be cosmopolitanising as well as oppressive, particularly when you take in to account the fact that the Nilfgaardian empire is not a direct emulation of Germany, but actually includes Roman references. The Empire will use the harnessed economic and military power of its subject peoples to kick your poo poo in, and it will possibly have a more expansive and inclusive idea of Others than your small kingdom, albeit one geared towards conquest.

# ¿ Jun 26, 2015 18:11

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Hadaka Apron posted:

I especially like how they drew animals they never saw.

There are very accurate drawings that are done of animals not seen by the artist, too.

# ¿ Jun 26, 2015 18:18

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

afeelgoodpoop posted:

It's an academic/journalist attempt at painting gamers as misogynist to bolster the power of their ideological fellows in the medium. It is a conspiracy, it is over videogames, its stalinist as gently caress and that is very very funny

Conspiracy is very difficult to prove, and always the least likely explanation. Isn't it much more plausible that people have a grievance, whether it's legitimate or not? If they do, have a grievance, isn't banding together for the redress of that grievance natural and normal, and not a 'conspiracy'.

And what is Stalinist about it? There are no show trials, no sudden knocks on the door in the middle of the night. Just exchanges of radically different views (e.g. something v. un-Stalinist).

# ¿ Jun 30, 2015 02:57

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

If a group of people working together for a common purpose is a conspiracy then every political movement ever is a conspiracy, as are your local PTA meetings.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2015 03:00

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Even if I were to stipulate that it was the case that a number of individuals had agreed together to discreetly to push a feminist agenda in gaming, what would be inherently bad about that?

Of course, believing in conspiracy theories is pointless, but even if we accept this crazy narrative is true - so?

# ¿ Jun 30, 2015 03:10

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

afeelgoodpoop posted:

The only way feminist (and alot of leftist) commit conspiracy is by pushing alarmist half truth at best narratives to leverage off of. That's really the only sneaky thing they do, but they do say that they purposefully do this. Journalist pushing bullshit narratives like that about non political issues is really loving retarded, but since feminist love turning everything political, they justify their dishonesty as means to an end of these great evils they see like a typical dummy radical.

All journalism pushes an agenda, but you have yet to substantiate a claim that half truths and obfuscation were being pushed to an unusual degree by feminists in this argument, or that that dissimulation was organised.

And guess what - everything is political, and that is an important lesson of feminism. Feminists always used to be told that the family unit in which women couldn't work, own property, or have a right not to be raped was not political, but was a private matter. Now they're being told by people like you that there's nothing political about to a medium of expression in which women are not represented equally in any sense. It's just a question of personal taste, or just a bit of harmless fun. And if they don't like it they can go make their own game!

Any time you depict a relationship between men and women - or indeed, depict men and women - you are making a political statement, because that depiction rests on fundamental assumptions you hold about :

- What is a 'woman'
- What role to women play
- What is the relationship between women and men

I'm sorry that this is apparently a burdensome realisation for you, but it is so. Welcome to the 21st century.

Disinterested fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Jun 30, 2015

# ¿ Jun 30, 2015 03:21

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

afeelgoodpoop posted:

Well yes, because I've been idling in their irc for the past 9 months since this started, and they linked literally everything important there. I've already posted an hour long video that showed a conference between an academic videogame feminist talking about socially engineering themselves power in gaming. I looked through alot of this stuff.

Like-minded people grouping together to advance their interests. Mein Gott.

I know unionism is dead in the United States but I think if we regard this as sinister we may have to abolish other apparently conspiratorial groups like the NAACP and the ACLU.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2015 03:28

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

afeelgoodpoop posted:

Okay, a clearer definition. I hate radicals that feel justified in hiding their intent and being devious, this doesn't bother me in my support of GG because it is ultimately a gamer cargo cult version that is disempowering those radicals out games journalism by attacking the journalist themselves.

Clear question: if you didn't think that the feminists involved were being deceitful, would you still be opposed to their views?

If your answer is yes, have you considered the possibility that that view may colour your attitudes to the whole issue?

# ¿ Jun 30, 2015 03:44

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

NutritiousSnack posted:

Saying yes blankly is just as dumb though, it depends on their argument. Like I'd totally say the Hitman commercials widely hated by the press was sexist as hell and they made good arguments towards this but nearly every criticism against The Witcher 3 seems just stupid and frankly culturally imperialist as hell and I'm not GamerGate or whatever.

TW3 argument is more complicated but it's also an example of how groups like gamergate are toxic to discussion since it's impossible to talk about it becoming the dominant topic of conversation.

afeelgoodpoop posted:

Atleast since LF was made leftist got really weird about spreading specific narratives about ongoing events. If you see nearly every single leftist outlet repeating not only specific narratives, but snappy catchphrases and an ultimate conclusive tone about things. It's very obvious some weird collusion is going on. either that or internet leftys really like repeating poo poo in mass in the same exact way everywhere. I guess It's important for me to bring up that I was somewhat radicalized in my youth over the incredibly ridiculous propaganda push to convince the US public to go to war with iraq. I had deep suspicions within the first month that the administration was pushing alot of bullshit. it became more and more obvious over time, all the way leading up to them revealing that spy that was in active duty because they or someone they knew kept calling the news to tell them their evidence was poo poo. When we actually pushed into doing it, the opinion polls came out showing most people believed the bullshit, and then bush getting elected in 2004. I legit wanted to blow up something bad. Thankfully I was a kid and didnt have any power but it made me lose complete faith in other peoples ability to smell bullshit, and made me feel like I have some extra special ability to pick up on obvious media manipulation. I have no faith in others ability to not be brainwashed and manipulated, so when I sense manipulative narratives being pushed I feel a strong disdain and fear that others will be legit manipulated into believing it.

Belief in conspiracies is natural, but also a lazy and immature way out of thinking about the world. You turn everything in to a pattern because it's easy for you to digest, instead of realising that the world is fundamentally much more chaotic and difficult to understand than you'd like it to be. But understanding that there isn't some enormous conspiracy behind everything is an important part of growing up and realising that the world is complicated, rather than ordered behind the scenes.

Posting like this makes you sound borderline mentally ill or like you're sixteen, or both.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2015 03:57

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

afeelgoodpoop posted:

yes and no, feminist have an opinion on everything and not all of them agree. I do dismiss people I agree with if they are deceitful though.

So you think it is worth throwing out what would otherwise be perfectly valid arguments because you have the impression one or another person may have lied? What does it say about you that you might perceive something as unjust, but allow that to continue on the basis that you dislike what you regard as dishonest?

afeelgoodpoop posted:

i have always had a peculiar temperament. My parents, teachers talked about how oddly adult I was at reading emotions. I did get a run with a therapist that eventually said I was highly sensitive with high frustration tolerance, generally sensitive people pick up details and cues better than non sensitive people.

Your sensitivity to individuals does not ipso facto translate in to an ability to understand social movements, groups etc. For example: if we used your analysis to describe Marxists, you would have the impression Marxists are a part of some kind of 'conspiracy' since Marxists use similar languages, hold similar views, and make similar arguments. In fact they just do so because the literature they have all read has a particular style, methodology and language. There's nothing bad or wrong about that.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2015 04:07

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

afeelgoodpoop posted:

Well I am a poor, and have been all my life. I've never had schooling out of high school so I'm very, very ignorant. I don't think getting weirded out about people pushing specific conclusions about events is dumb. Like I said when I first started posting today, a few posters early on said "it isn't censorship unless the government does it" but that is bullshit. EVERYONE knows its bullshit. it was started by anti ggers early on but for some reason people legitimately, all the way to the past few days in this thread felt they needed to push an empty, i can't even call it a half truth. it's like a quarter truth maybe.

Your frustrations notwithstanding, you are still seeing ghosts where there aren't any. You have zero proof for what amounts only to a vague impression that there is a 'conspiracy' of some kind, when there are many other more plausible explanations, including explanations not injurious to your point of view.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2015 04:09

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

NutritiousSnack posted:

TW3 was painfully stupid and simple. It argued from the point of reference of American/Western European centric worldview and not from loving Poland. When their was push back and talk of discussion to begin with, it was treated with hostility because it was part of a deeply held political belief of the writers with the additional filter of the internet to reinforce echo chambers. Everything from Gone Home, to Anita critiques, to Fez has always been sidelined way before GG because very few want to debate or discuss these things but retreat to places they receive positive reinforcement of their world views.

That last part applies to both groups by the way. Gamer Gate would fight tooth and nail to deny anything but the most overt display of sexism, just like the others will complain about any depiction of sexuality or debate about poltical issues or use of tropes outside of a narrowing preview.

I believe it's more complicated than that, but it's also a stupid derail from this topic, and I stand by my assertion that that debate is toxically damaged mostly by gamergaters who want to appropriate any issue related to gaming and media they can find as the latest example of some imaginary 'PC police'.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2015 04:13

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

afeelgoodpoop posted:

Moral faults spell out future actions. in gamergate, zoe quinn is someone who pushed sjw feminist politics in her indie groupie on twitter. Like most radical feminist, some of her actions were morally suspect coming from someone preaching morality. The zoe post happens and now you have someone who by their own standards should be in jail for rape. Her moral failures in her politic pushing foreshadowed her moral failure at following the standards she pushes on other people. How many other feminists pushes turned into shitfest like this? like that rape case that was being pushed by a radical feminists journalist? Their personal moral failure foreshadows their ideological impotence.

I have no idea what this post is supposed to mean, and its incoherence suggests to me that you should take a time out from posting.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2015 04:14

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

afeelgoodpoop posted:

Moral faults spell out future actions. in gamergate, zoe quinn is someone who pushed sjw feminist politics in her indie groupie on twitter. Like most radical feminist, some of her actions were morally suspect coming from someone preaching morality. The zoe post happens and now you have someone who by their own standards should be in jail for rape. Her moral failures in her politic pushing foreshadowed her moral failure at following the standards she pushes on other people. How many other feminists pushes turned into shitfest like this? like that rape case that was being pushed by a radical feminists journalist? Their personal moral failure foreshadows their ideological impotence.

It is worth noting, however, that if moral purity is a requirement for being heard on an issue in public, it is a test failed by everyone.

By your logic, Martin Luther King should have shut the gently caress up because he plagiarised on a number of occasions and may well have cheated on his wife.

You are guilty of the crime you accuse everyone else of - you're saying people should not be heard.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2015 04:17

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Shadoer posted:

Except feelgoodpoop's point is that she was stumping for a specific cause and turned out to be extremely hypocritical about her cause in the way she lived her life. Kind of like someone who is staunchly anti-homosexual, yet has constant gay sex.

Now doing something immoral isn't something that means someone should shut up, but if it relates to the very thing you stand for you need to be called out for being a hypocrite. Like if Martin Luther King turned out to be a racist, that would be something people would find worth carrying about.

I honestly don't know anything about the women involved, nor do I care. All I care about is whether their arguments have substance.

If they're hypocritical and lovely people, whatever, but using that as a tool to undermine an argument is bullshit, and I'm sure there are a great many skeletons to be found in the gamergate closet if that's going to be the game we all play.

It has to be about the substance of the arguments, not about personalities, or the argument fails for being ad-hominem at the first hurdle.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2015 04:28

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Sharkie posted:

It's okay to not know things, but again, there's more written about censorship than you could read in a lifetime, and you're putting that aside to assert your mistaken definition is the correct one because it's a common mistake.

Free speech is an incredibly complex philosophical issue for real.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2015 04:34

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Shadoer posted:

You know, instead of casually dismissing gamers as naturally misogynistic, or that because there are assholes using the brand to cover their lovely activities as proof that all gamergate arguments are invalidated, or if people making the arguments are sad shut ins.

This attempt at a reversal fails by simple virtue of the fact that the argument at issue is precisely whether gamer culture is misogynistic.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2015 04:41

Disinterested: Jun 29, 2011; You look like you're still raking it in. Still killing 'em?

Morkies posted:

the entirety of gamer gate both pro and anti is based on 'ad-hominem'

NutritiousSnack posted:

Likewise so is this. Both topics are valid if you are actually going to discuss this poo poo.

You don't know what ad-hom means. If I say 'you are a misogynist' that is not ad-hominem per se. If I say 'you are wrong about your view on the taxation of derivatives because you are a misogynist' that is ad hom.

So if I assert 'you are a misogynist' and then give examples of your misogynistic behaviour, I am making a perfectly valid non ad-hom argument.

If you retort by saying 'aha, but you have been hypocritical!', that may undermine my moral standing, but that does not undermine the validity of the claim that you are a misogynist, and is an ad-hominem attack.

It's very simple.

If it's just about who's more morally pure, then it's a popularity contest between figures nobody gives a poo poo about, but if it is let's stop pretending there's anything more than gossip going on.

Disinterested fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Jun 30, 2015

# ¿ Jun 30, 2015 04:45