kidkarolus's forum posts

  • 36 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#1 Posted by kidkarolus (38 posts) -

I would argue that the anti-GG side is far more political than the GG side. I would challenge @patrickklepek to read the following http://www.popehat.com/2014/10/21/gamer-gate-three-stages-to-obit/ as a counterpoint to the VOX article. That is, GamerGate is a reaction, for good or for ill. If you would like a more even handed approach, Ken (of the same site) is spot on: http://www.popehat.com/2014/10/26/ten-short-rants-about-gamergate/.

I would caution against using people or organizations implicated in the scandal. It seems to me like cultivating an echo chamber as opposed to facilitating debate. Also, on a personal note, I would urge you to remember that the idea that "the personal is political" is not the opinion of most members of GamerGate. Indeed, many in the movement reject that idea all together as an outside notion, imported from feminism (see Sargon of Akkad for examples of this).

#2 Posted by kidkarolus (38 posts) -

@marokai said:

The Total Biscuit & Stephen Totilo video is the perfect example of what there should be more of, but sadly won't be, because people are either too scared or too prideful to do it.

Also, the Maddy Myers article was good, and is exactly what plenty of posters around here and elsewhere have said before. The term "male gaze" is a very presumptuous term that gets applied to virtually everything sexual, is extremely hetero-normative (gay dude here that loves seeing sexy women in games; plenty of women dig it too!), and most importantly, is really just an abstract academic term that shouldn't be applied to individual people because it doesn't really advance the debate very much. A lot like terms such as "patriarchy" or "privilege," they're terms that are valid academic concepts to be preserved and discussed, but when applied directly to individuals they rob each situation of its individual merit and put people on the defensive as opposed to fostering open-minded dialogue.

I would argue that many of the words you highlighted don't have any place in an academic or critical sphere. Gaze theory, for example, has undergone drastic changes since its inception in the 70s and it is held by some feminists that one can gaze while recognizing the humanity of the individual subject to the gaze. Patriarchy is also subject to debate; some believe that it is the construct of any hetero-normative society, while others think it applies exclusively to certain cultural groups like those in India or China. Ultimately, as a philosopher, there is a lack of firm definition for many of these terms. That makes them unhelpful in any analysis, critical or otherwise.

It may be your personal opinion that things like Bayonetta demean females, but that should be based on well reasoned argument, not knee-jerk reaction and poorly defined concepts such as gaze theory or patriarchy.

#3 Edited by kidkarolus (38 posts) -

@nmarebfly said:

@kidkarolus said:

@nmarebfly said:

@kidkarolus said:

So, I am going to call you out, and I appologize for that but where is there "aspects of the culture [that] are indeed unambiguously misogynistic". Remember, by the dictionary's own definition, misogyny is: 1. hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women. Keep in mind this is all women, so a particular woman who is reviled is not sufficient.

The person who sent the threat that this article is about might be a good example. Like it or not, that person is a part of gaming culture and was encouraged to action by other people who are part of gaming culture. Go to 8chan if you want to see it in action.

No one person gets to define what gaming culture is. It contains plenty of people who are not assholes, but it also contains plenty who are.

That isn't misogyny, no matter how you spin it. If people hate one woman, that is not misogyny; the definition says ambiguously: "women" not "a woman". If you are to say they are equivalent, any harassment of a man is driven by misandry. I think people would be hard pressed to call anyone who has criticized a male a misandrist.

I think the fourth paragraph in the letter shown in the article makes it clear that the person is not speaking just about Anita. For instance, when he says 'Anita Sarkeesian is everything wrong with the feminist woman... bear witness to what feminist lies and poison have done to the men of America' that implies to me that he has problems with rather more women than just her. Are you quibbling about whether or not he hates them? The definition you posted includes 'mistrust' which I think is pretty evident either way.

Also, I'll point out that in the original quote you jumped from defining 'misogynistic' to 'misogyny'. If we're talking about semantics, then here's the definition for that: 'reflecting or exhibiting hatred, dislike, mistrust, or mistreatment of women.'

I believe the letter in the article falls into misogynistic territory pretty unambigously.

I would say that he is speaking specifically to a group of women, feminists. That means the writer is a bigot, certainly, but not a misogynist. He is intolerant of feminists to be sure, but nothing there suggests he hates, mistrusts, dislikes or mistreats women, just feminist women. Granted, that may be a purely semantic argument, but i think the distinction is important.

#4 Edited by kidkarolus (38 posts) -

@splodge said:

@kidkarolus said:

@nmarebfly said:

@kidkarolus said:

So, I am going to call you out, and I appologize for that but where is there "aspects of the culture [that] are indeed unambiguously misogynistic". Remember, by the dictionary's own definition, misogyny is: 1. hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women. Keep in mind this is all women, so a particular woman who is reviled is not sufficient.

The person who sent the threat that this article is about might be a good example. Like it or not, that person is a part of gaming culture and was encouraged to action by other people who are part of gaming culture. Go to 8chan if you want to see it in action.

No one person gets to define what gaming culture is. It contains plenty of people who are not assholes, but it also contains plenty who are.

That isn't misogyny, no matter how you spin it. If people hate one woman, that is not misogyny; the definition says ambiguously: "women" not "a woman". If you are to say they are equivalent, any harassment of a man is driven by misandry. I think people would be hard pressed to call anyone who has criticized a male a misandrist.

To anyone reading this. Be careful and critical when classifying GamerGate. I would compare it to any other social movements in terms of composition. Remember the Civil Rights Movement had the Black Panthers; the Irish Freedom Movement had the IRA; the Zionist movement had the Irgun, the Lehi, the Haganah and the Palmach. Social movements tend to attract both positive as wells as negative members of society in general and the particular community in specific.

So GamerGate are equivalent to freedom fighters? Fighting for a just cause? What have they achieved?

The only achievements that I can see are 1) Advertisers pulled money from a gaming website (sweet, that must be a huge victory) and......

...hmmm.

I was drawing a parallel between social movements and this particular movement, but challenge accepted. Do you claim that journalistic integrity is a bad thing? How about unbiased reporting? Is wanting to see journalists apologize for deliberately spreading misinformation and harming individuals and organizations ignoble?

I would say that is fighting for a just cause. So you have said that, because these groups fought for more profound freedoms, literal terrorism is ok, but because GGers want to see change in an industry, no amount of threats and harassment is ok? Is that your claim, because I think few people would find that position attractive.

Are you saying that because you approve of those particular goals, and means justifies that end?

I would also point out that Intel pulling advertising on any site is no small deal, but that is just my personal opinion.

#5 Edited by kidkarolus (38 posts) -

@shtinky said:

It's a real shame to see all this propaganda (from both sides, but mostly from the anti-GG side) tear this community apart.

I agree, but again advise caution. The writers are journalists and their friends, colleagues and co-workers are being accused of a breach of journalistic integrity. Indeed, some GGers are calling for a purge of the gaming press all together, throw the baby out with the bathwater, so-to-speak. I would like to see more moderate pieces, but understand why GB and other outlets resist the movement so strongly.

Still I think a civil discussion is warranted and appropriate. I would like to see a thread opened to this topic that is relatively less moderated here on GB (so it isn't a drain on staff and moderator time), but understand why @rorie has taken this stance.

I certainly appreciate his efforts and the modicum of civility preserved within this forum.

#6 Posted by kidkarolus (38 posts) -

@kidkarolus said:

So, I am going to call you out, and I appologize for that but where is there "aspects of the culture [that] are indeed unambiguously misogynistic". Remember, by the dictionary's own definition, misogyny is: 1. hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women. Keep in mind this is all women, so a particular woman who is reviled is not sufficient.

The person who sent the threat that this article is about might be a good example. Like it or not, that person is a part of gaming culture and was encouraged to action by other people who are part of gaming culture. Go to 8chan if you want to see it in action.

No one person gets to define what gaming culture is. It contains plenty of people who are not assholes, but it also contains plenty who are.

That isn't misogyny, no matter how you spin it. If people hate one woman, that is not misogyny; the definition says ambiguously: "women" not "a woman". If you are to say they are equivalent, any harassment of a man is driven by misandry. I think people would be hard pressed to call anyone who has criticized a male a misandrist.

To anyone reading this. Be careful and critical when classifying GamerGate. I would compare it to any other social movements in terms of composition. Remember the Civil Rights Movement had the Black Panthers; the Irish Freedom Movement had the IRA; the Zionist movement had the Irgun, the Lehi, the Haganah and the Palmach. Social movements tend to attract both positive as wells as negative members of society in general and the particular community in specific.

#7 Posted by kidkarolus (38 posts) -

@weilide said:

@kidkarolus said:

@patrickklepek said:

@kidkarolus said:

@patrickklepek said:

@dudleyville said:

@cogsdev: I was simply stating a fact in reply to the question. The original issue is still whether or not these threats actually came from people who support GamerGate or people using the tag to try and hijack it. For the last time, nobody is disputing the threat or its severity.

I've spoken with Anita at length in person, and she's very much a lover and player of video games. I barely played any video games in college because I was more interested in getting drunk and hanging out at parties. Does that mean I'm not hardcore enough to talk about them? We all take breaks from our hobbies sometimes. You realize that she and her producer play the video games that are used in her videos, right? (Queue up the counterargument that she's allegedly taken video footage from uncredited sources, one that's never been explicitly proven.) What does that matter? It doesn't impact what she's arguing, it's grasping for reasons to discredit her, rather than attacking what the's actually saying.

I would suggest that this particular video is being used to discredit her. As inflammatory as it is, it is impossible to deny that that is her, and she admits to not being a gamer.

WHO CARES? Let's imagine a world where Anita doesn't really play video games, but has chosen to examine video games through an academic lense. What does that change about her argument? Once again, you choose to attack the person, not the argument, and pretend that changes the dynamic.

I am not attacking anyone. I am saying that she is misrepresenting herself if this is true. So she called herself a gamer, but she isn't. That doesn't bother me. What bothers me is the same thing that bothered KiteTails (you may or may not remember linking to her response video). I think her argument are mired in deliberate misinformation and misrepresentation. Indeed, she uses the same logic that Jack Thompson did, that is "in video games you do x and are more likely to do x in real life". For Thompson it was violence and for Ms. Sarkeesian it is misogyny.

That strikes me as a false equivalency. There's an argument to be made (I find it quite convincing myself) that violence and misogyny are qualitatively different because the former requires taking actions with extreme costs (e.g. prison time, etc) associated with them, whereas the later is a worldview that is subject to mixed social messages (many aspects of the culture are indeed unambiguously misogynistic) at best, and as such is far more susceptible to the influence of messages within media such as games, movies, music, and so on.

So, I am going to call you out, and I appologize for that but where is there "aspects of the culture [that] are indeed unambiguously misogynistic". Remember, by the dictionary's own definition, misogyny is: 1. hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women. Keep in mind this is all women, so a particular woman who is reviled is not sufficient.

@cogsdev said:

@kidkarolus said:

@patrickklepek said:

@dudleyville said:

@stryker1121: There was a Huffington Post Live discussion video today with people who are either neutral or for GamerGate that you should watch, as well as the HPL video from yesterday with Wu and the owner of 8chan. The people in the industry who support GamerGate have largely wanted to remain anonymous in articles for understandable reasons. I would recommend reading Erik Kain with Forbes or articles by The Escapist for fair takes. There is no leadership in GamerGate, just voices. If you want people to come forward more, there has to be open and fair dialogue.

A discussion in which they were unable to articulate what actual corruption was occurring in the games industry, or cited long debunked theories that were raised at the beginning of this (i.e. a review of Depression Quest generated from sleeping with a member of the press). They also tried to construct the argument that objective reviews are the way forward, a perspective they couldn't articulate beyond "don't criticize games in a way I don't like them being criticized." I wouldn't be quick to point to anything on The Escapist, either, considering they were forced to remove interviews, as one of the developers profiled was known to have previously harassed Escapist writers. Sounds like a credible source, no?

That is insidious Patrick and you know it. Anti-GGers have harassed gamers including Ms. Alexander, Ms. Quinn and even Ms. Wu. So by your logic, none of those sources are credible.

A number of their complaints have been substantiated as well. Press has personally financially supported Developers. Developers and Press have had relationships far closer than journalistic integrity should dictate. Hell, GamesJurnosPros is a facsimile of the JournoList. There is a real narrative being built that gaming websites are corrupt, and GG is asking for an end to that. I think they have blown the whole thing out of proportion, but to have the audacity to claim GamerGate: couldn't articulate beyond "don't criticize games in a way I don't like them being criticized."" is just false and you know it.

Could you provide links to where Leigh Alexander, Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu sent detailed death and bomb threats to GamerGate posters? Thanks in advance!

Ah. Now you misrepresented my statement. Patrick said, and I referred to, harassment. Now, if only death and bomb threats constitute legitimate harassment, then we can consider the Escapist articles credible. So if you want examples of harassment, Ms. Quinn "ddos'ed someone by accident", Ms. Alexander "boys, you've been making juvenile treehouse shit", and Ms. Wu "you fucking gross aspie".

#8 Posted by kidkarolus (38 posts) -

@dogma said:

@patrickklepek said:

@kidkarolus said:

@patrickklepek said:

@dudleyville said:

@cogsdev: I was simply stating a fact in reply to the question. The original issue is still whether or not these threats actually came from people who support GamerGate or people using the tag to try and hijack it. For the last time, nobody is disputing the threat or its severity.

I've spoken with Anita at length in person, and she's very much a lover and player of video games. I barely played any video games in college because I was more interested in getting drunk and hanging out at parties. Does that mean I'm not hardcore enough to talk about them? We all take breaks from our hobbies sometimes. You realize that she and her producer play the video games that are used in her videos, right? (Queue up the counterargument that she's allegedly taken video footage from uncredited sources, one that's never been explicitly proven.) What does that matter? It doesn't impact what she's arguing, it's grasping for reasons to discredit her, rather than attacking what the's actually saying.

I would suggest that this particular video is being used to discredit her. As inflammatory as it is, it is impossible to deny that that is her, and she admits to not being a gamer.

WHO CARES? Let's imagine a world where Anita doesn't really play video games, but has chosen to examine video games through an academic lense. What does that change about her argument? Once again, you choose to attack the person, not the argument, and pretend that changes the dynamic.

I would like to, if I may, point out that supporters of Gamergate has clearly being very selective of who they are okey with or not when it comes to being an established gamer. if you're a real gamer or not so to say. They want to discredit Anita all the time and call her out for not being a gamer BUT have no problem what so ever that Christina Hoff Sommers talks about the issue or women in gaming with having no what so ever knowledge about gaming or gaming culture.

But I guess it's okey when she is saying just the right things...

I really don't see the difference between this and fanboys that are just searching for validation all the times in reviews.

But the difference is that Ms. Sommers does not claim to be a gamer, which Ms. Sarkeesian does. Ms. Sarkeesian misrepresented herself for convenience. If Ms. Sommers did the same, her video would be taken as seriously I think.

But, assume that it doesn't matter whether or not Ms. Sarkeesian is a gamer. Then I would discredit her for her poorly constructed arguments, her examples admittedly taken out of context, and the fact that, by her own admission, she has started with a premise and found examples to support it. I have not seen good citations for her examples and she has failed to "prove" anything.

#9 Posted by kidkarolus (38 posts) -

@dudleyville said:

@stryker1121: There was a Huffington Post Live discussion video today with people who are either neutral or for GamerGate that you should watch, as well as the HPL video from yesterday with Wu and the owner of 8chan. The people in the industry who support GamerGate have largely wanted to remain anonymous in articles for understandable reasons. I would recommend reading Erik Kain with Forbes or articles by The Escapist for fair takes. There is no leadership in GamerGate, just voices. If you want people to come forward more, there has to be open and fair dialogue.

A discussion in which they were unable to articulate what actual corruption was occurring in the games industry, or cited long debunked theories that were raised at the beginning of this (i.e. a review of Depression Quest generated from sleeping with a member of the press). They also tried to construct the argument that objective reviews are the way forward, a perspective they couldn't articulate beyond "don't criticize games in a way I don't like them being criticized." I wouldn't be quick to point to anything on The Escapist, either, considering they were forced to remove interviews, as one of the developers profiled was known to have previously harassed Escapist writers. Sounds like a credible source, no?

That is insidious Patrick and you know it. Anti-GGers have harassed gamers including Ms. Alexander, Ms. Quinn and even Ms. Wu. So by your logic, none of those sources are credible.

A number of their complaints have been substantiated as well. Press has personally financially supported Developers. Developers and Press have had relationships far closer than journalistic integrity should dictate. Hell, GamesJurnosPros is a facsimile of the JournoList. There is a real narrative being built that gaming websites are corrupt, and GG is asking for an end to that. I think they have blown the whole thing out of proportion, but to have the audacity to claim GamerGate: couldn't articulate beyond "don't criticize games in a way I don't like them being criticized."" is just false and you know it.

#10 Edited by kidkarolus (38 posts) -

@kidkarolus said:

@patrickklepek said:

@dudleyville said:

@cogsdev: I was simply stating a fact in reply to the question. The original issue is still whether or not these threats actually came from people who support GamerGate or people using the tag to try and hijack it. For the last time, nobody is disputing the threat or its severity.

I've spoken with Anita at length in person, and she's very much a lover and player of video games. I barely played any video games in college because I was more interested in getting drunk and hanging out at parties. Does that mean I'm not hardcore enough to talk about them? We all take breaks from our hobbies sometimes. You realize that she and her producer play the video games that are used in her videos, right? (Queue up the counterargument that she's allegedly taken video footage from uncredited sources, one that's never been explicitly proven.) What does that matter? It doesn't impact what she's arguing, it's grasping for reasons to discredit her, rather than attacking what the's actually saying.

I would suggest that this particular video is being used to discredit her. As inflammatory as it is, it is impossible to deny that that is her, and she admits to not being a gamer.

WHO CARES? Let's imagine a world where Anita doesn't really play video games, but has chosen to examine video games through an academic lense. What does that change about her argument? Once again, you choose to attack the person, not the argument, and pretend that changes the dynamic.

I am not attacking anyone. I am saying that she is misrepresenting herself if this is true. So she called herself a gamer, but she isn't. That doesn't bother me. What bothers me is the same thing that bothered KiteTails (you may or may not remember linking to her response video). I think her argument are mired in deliberate misinformation and misrepresentation. Indeed, she uses the same logic that Jack Thompson did, that is "in video games you do x and are more likely to do x in real life". For Thompson it was violence and for Ms. Sarkeesian it is misogyny.

  • 36 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4