Something went wrong. Try again later

Danterion

This user has not updated recently.

167 0 0 2
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

Danterion's forum posts

Avatar image for danterion
Danterion

167

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Dark Souls 2? This is the only list that matters.

Avatar image for danterion
Danterion

167

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

And yet no female game developers or journalists were involved in this! Funny how that works sometimes.

Avatar image for danterion
Danterion

167

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@johnham said:

Real talk; if you think Leigh Alexander's "Gamers are dead" piece was meant to say literally that all gamers are bad people, or that all white male gamers are bad people, or that games focused on that slice of the market shouldn't exist anymore, you're either misreading the article (in good faith), or purposely misreading the article to drum up more hate.

Alexander's piece was about the widened scope of contemporary gamer culture. "Gamers are dead" is not meant to say that the people who've helped gestate this medium have no place in its future, it's saying that we, as a community of people who love games, have finally helped to usher this hobby truly into the mainstream. "Gamer" as a designation at this point is almost meaningless because from a certain age downward almost everyone knows something about games, and has played and enjoyed them. If you truly read that article with an open mind and read it as "hostile" to its audience, I would suggest that you shouldn't take internet thinkpieces about video games so seriously.

I also think it's really interesting that this piece has become a GamerGate canard, because it has literally nothing to do with ethics, at all. Even if the article was openly hostile and couldn't be read in any other way, how does that present an ethical quandary that GG feels needs addressing? Being mean to someone in an editorial isn't an ethical issue. The reality is that the "Gamers are dead" article is a loose, poorly considered pretense to harass another female voice in the industry.

That's what I've always thought was strange about this whole thing, too. The idea of "gamer" culture is dying, and it's a really great thing! We won. Everyone is gamers. Everyone will be gamers. We built this really amazing thing by nurturing it and supporting it for decades, and now it's growing up and it's going to do weird things that we don't expect. That should be something we get really excited about and embrace.

And yet there are people who view this so differently. People who are bringing back the old, deceased concept that if you like games as more than a "casual", you're a "nerd". If you play more than a certain amount of hours, or engage with games more than most people, you're back to being the antisocial neckbeard who hates women because they don't pay attention to him. Seeing people actually tweer "GamerGate made me realize bullying was right all along!", that shit is disheartening.

If you want to interpret "gamers are dead" as something nice and colorful, where "everyone's a gamer now, gamers don't exist", go for it, but I think it's naive. What it really is, for most of the people saying it (especially outspoken misandrists), is "us vs. them" again. It's "we're better, nerds". It's shunning that pesky minority of people who just so happen to have a different hobby from everyone else - not better or worse, just different. Patrick, I know you're passionate about football, which I personally can't find anything exciting about, and I used to feel smarter about people who really get into the sport. Now I just see it for what it is, a different thing to get passionate about. I don't get the "we won" or "we lost" mentality, but I don't have to, and I can't judge anyone on it. Same as I can't suggest, "yes, you like games because you are a cis white misogynist male". A hobby doesn't really make a person.

If a person watches football, you could say to them "oh you like watching people compete, don't you?" Well yes, that's sports culture. Gaming culture is about gaming. So someone does a bunch of misogynist stuff that gets really publicized, and... gaming culture is dead? Nope. Most of America likes sports on some level. Is sports culture dead?

Avatar image for danterion
Danterion

167

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@hobonium said:

I don't understand how this is a contentious issue.

One cannot claim the moral/ethical high ground after threatening rape and murder. Once you've done this, you've lost! You have no shred of credibility left with which to argue about ethics. You are morally and ethically bankrupt. It's cognitive dissonance of the highest order to think you serve a higher cause.

I'm not familiar with the topography of the different groups here—I don't need to be; I don't have a dog in this race. I know that death threats are utterly wrong. Harassment is utterly wrong. Doxxing is utterly wrong. It doesn't matter how justified you feel your position on any subject is, these things are wrong!

I guess I just don't understand how anyone who does these things, or who aligns themselves with people who do these things, doesn't get laughed out of the room, just completely ostracised and dismissed. They're preposterous. They're a contradiction in terms.

What most anti-GG people don't get, or seem to ignore: the actions of a few don't speak for the majority. Yet those shitty actions speak so much louder than any well-intended discussion. And it's so unfair when only one side of the threats gets reported, while both sides are receiving threats. The fact that this turned into a bunch of people on twitter vs. the entire gaming press? The ones with the bigger megaphone would look like the good guys in the end. CBS says "it's a campaign to harass women!", and that's it.

Avatar image for danterion
Danterion

167

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

The first part of the post was surprisingly centered and neutral, not naming names, a nice portrayal of what's really going on.

Jeff's bit actually took sides, and I'm kinda disappointed to see how far into that side he went. GamerGate may be dilluted and unfocused, but it's not about harassing people. The same way that being against GamerGate is not about harassing people either - yet the Editor-in-chief at Gawker was just going around calling his detractors autistic.

Avatar image for danterion
Danterion

167

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@lokilaufey: the other side is the majority of the gaming press, so....

Avatar image for danterion
Danterion

167

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@lokilaufey: I wasn't aware this was a contest to see who got more threats.

Avatar image for danterion
Danterion

167

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8  Edited By Danterion

@danterion: Did you not read the part of the article showing where she said one of the threats was associated with Gamergate? Or are you just gonna pull the usual "she's LYING for ATTENTION to suit her AGENDA" that Gamergaters do?

Yet I'm sure no one in their right mind would agree with the threats. From either camp. We are talking about less than 0.1% of the people involved here. People supporting GamerGate were also threatened, yet no one will say "damn GamerGate deniers and their horrible threats, far outweighing any reasonable arguments they make".

Avatar image for danterion
Danterion

167

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

The threats are not affiliated with GamerGate, they were made by assholes who have always been assholes, and now they know they're getting a bigger audience because of the current situation. And saying the threats have drowned the legitimate concerns? It's only because you, the gaming press, choose to publish one side of the story - the side that opposes GamerGate and links it to horrible shit that has nothing to do with it.