SpaceInsomniac's forum posts

#1 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3728 posts) -

@muzhik said:

@stick100: Considering the main political opinion of those involved with gamergate is that misogyny is good and women shouldn't have a space in video games or games journalism I'm glad they don't have their opinions reflected widely in games journalism.

Pretty narrow minded to actually believe GG supports misogyny when a lot of people that support it are women and minorities. But the other side has explicitly said that white men are scum of the Earth that needs to die (sounds like death threats with social justice logic), and gamers are disgusting and vile people. It's blatant hypocrisy.

I find myself arguing a LOT against the tone of the social justice movement coming from game journalists and feminists these days, and I have to say I feel the exact same way watching this video. And I feel that way about Anita Sarkeesian's videos. And I feel that way about thunderfoot's videos. And I feel that way about most of the many articles on the topic that Patrick chooses to link to and promote.

Can't anyone talk about these subjects without the insulting, generalizing, misrepresenting, condescending, "I'm right and you're wrong" bullshit? All anyone ever seems to want to do is preach to the choir, and I'm getting sick of it.

#2 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3728 posts) -
@LunarJetman said:

Samantha Allen even wrote a blog on it. From what I heard she removed it by now though. Here's an excerpt:

"i’m a misandrist. that means i hate men. i’m not a cute misandrist. i don’t have a fridge magnet that says, “boys are stupid, throw rocks at them.” my loathing cannot be contained by a fridge magnet."

Interestingly this actually goes against things that Leigh Alexander said. You'd think that these two would be on the same wave length in every regard. Here's Leigh's statement:

"there is no such thing as misandry just like there is no such thing as racism against white people"

Who to believe?!

@teaoverlord said:

@LunarJetman: They're two different people. Why would you expect them to have the exact same opinion on everything?

I don't think the point is "why don't they have the same opinion?" I think the point is that Leigh Alexander is wrong.

#3 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3728 posts) -

@icarusfoundyou said:

You have politicized video games. You have managed to take the enjoyment of escapism and managed to vilify it. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

And this absolutely goes both ways, IMO. It now includes the handful of republican bloggers who have latched onto the growing social justice movement in gaming journalism, when before they couldn't have cared less about games. They're only making a politicized movement even worse, and even more politicized, all the way to the point where the entire controversy has been described as "right-wing."

It's funny to see game journalists these days uniting to promote the idea of telling game developers that what they do is offensive. Journalists don't even distance themselves from people who are especially rude to developers and misrepresent their games. In the past, when the same requests and misrepresentations were being made by republicans for a different reason, they would be shouted down almost unanimously by pretty much ALL video gaming fans and ALL video game press.

Remember this?

Now compare that to this video and you'll see some striking similarities. The video in the link does contain some in-game nudity, so don't view the whole thing at work. Also note that I don't support everything said in that entire video, but it's the best example of the kind of misrepresentation that I'm talking about, especially the part that I linked to.

#4 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3728 posts) -

@swisslion said:

Zoe and Maya's "Hateful rants" as you put it, were actually pretty reasonable questions about the transparency of TFYC's operation and why these women were being asked to contribute ideas to something they very likely wouldn't see proceeds from...

...

Nobody has been reporting "That part of the story" because it's been fabricated by probable scam artists in an attempt to piggyback a harassment campaign into a crowd-funding venture.

Have you seen the tweets in question?

If this sort of tone, language, repetitive sarcastic insults, accusations and misrepresentation was being directed by TFYC at Zoe Quinn, I don't think you would call it reasonable.

Beyond this, I don't see why people are so hung up on Zoe Quinn--and you can explain it away as a good person who let her passion for the issue cloud her judgement, which I would accept--but this clearly shouldn't be something that should be defended as reasonable questions about transparency.

The facts are the participants were to see 8% of the profits, never had to do any programming--the concept was to provide ideas for games, not learn to make games--and I think I read that the participants also would retain ownership of the IP. The rest of the money left over would go to charity. I believe this was all very clear from the start, and if it wasn't, the proper response would have been to reach out privately and ask some questions, not to start making hurtful accusations over twitter.

And if you're going to throw around the word "scam" because you can't prove what someone is going to do with all of the money, I find that somewhat hypocritical based on reactions when people do the exact same thing with Anita Sarkeesian. It's not right to make assumptions concerning her intentions, and to suggest that "she's only doing this for the money" so why do you feel that it's acceptable here?

Either way, I'm glad to hear that you intend to look for some solid sources on what TFYC campaign originally said about their transgender policy, because that's a very important factor in how all of this went down, and it would make Quinn look a lot more justifiably upset if it was really that bad. I've also heard that some people behind the website design are French Canadian, and English is their second language, but I've never attempted to verify that information. If true, that could help explain the confusion and poor wording. I'd like to know what it originally said as well.

But please reconsider making negative assumptions about other people's intentions and character, and I'll try to avoid doing the same.

#5 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3728 posts) -

@juno500 said:

@spaceinsomniac said:

@juno500 said:

For those of GamerGate who honestly wanted to have a discussion about the problems in gaming journalism, their good intentions were doomed the second they decided to join a movement that was originally started as a harassment campaign on an indie developer. Did they really think the gaming press would take them seriously? The fact that you have good intentions and legitimate concerns is not enough- how you go about achieving those intentions will have a major impact on your success.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "gamergate" was a result of the concept of "gamers" being attacked and generalized by the gaming press, which then led to many critical of the gaming press to unite under that banner. I don't think anyone started using "gamegate" as a hashtag before Leigh Alexander wrote her "anti-gamer" article, and many in the gaming press wrote similar articles.

It's true that some used gamergate hashtags to spew hate towards Zoe Quinn, but I'm pretty sure it didn't start as that. The Zoe Quinn thing started well before gamergate.

As you can see on this chart, hashtag GamerGate was first used on August 27th. It was used to spread videos about Zoe Quinn.

As you can see here, Alexander's article was written August 28th, after the hashtag was first being used.

So yes, it absolutely did start as an attack on Zoe Quinn, and yes, people absolutely were using the hashtag before Alexander wrote that article.

Cool. I stand corrected, and I thank you for providing some facts on the matter. I still think a lot of people believed that the tag referred mostly towards anti-gamer articles in the press, though, as I did. I also know a lot of people abandoned #gamergate for #gameethics at one point, so obviously many did realize that gamergate had too much hate associated with it.

#6 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3728 posts) -

@castiel said:

The worst thing about the whole "Gamer Gate" thing is the name Gamer Gate. I find it infuriating; like nails on a chalkboard.

At least it's better than donglegate.

#7 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3728 posts) -

@juno500 said:

For those of GamerGate who honestly wanted to have a discussion about the problems in gaming journalism, their good intentions were doomed the second they decided to join a movement that was originally started as a harassment campaign on an indie developer. Did they really think the gaming press would take them seriously? The fact that you have good intentions and legitimate concerns is not enough- how you go about achieving those intentions will have a major impact on your success.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "gamergate" was a result of the concept of "gamers" being attacked and generalized by the gaming press, which then led to many critical of the gaming press to unite under that banner. I don't think anyone started using "gamegate" as a hashtag before Leigh Alexander wrote her "anti-gamer" article, and many in the gaming press wrote similar articles.

It's true that some used gamergate hashtags to spew hate towards Zoe Quinn, but I'm pretty sure it didn't start as that. The Zoe Quinn thing started well before gamergate.

#8 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3728 posts) -

I agree. That's why I asked you to revise your opinion on Jenn's disclaimer. You were not willing to, or were only willing in the most vague terms possible. The sword cuts both ways.

The thing that actually bothers me isn't the lack of disclosure, it's the lack of complete truth. At least some of the anger and hate directed at Quinn was a result of her hateful rants directed towards The Fine Young Capitalists, which incited more hate and negative attention, eventually leading to their charitable indie go go campaign being hacked. It apparently cost them $10,000. None of that is mentioned in most of the articles covering this story, and that includes Jenn Frank's article. Here is one of the few articles to actually attempts to explain what really happened: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/

Do Quinn's actions excuse the harassment and threats that she received? Hell no, but it should still be reported as part of the story. When you intentionally avoid mentioning details like this, I believe people have the right to raise their hands and say "you're either too close to this situation, or you're too invested in only telling one side of the story, and you shouldn't be reporting on it."

If you can't even report all the facts before your op-ed article explains how you feel about the situation, I think that's a problem.

But I fully agree about the disclaimer. Once that fact was known, all frustrations related to the lack of a disclaimer should have been immediately redirected towards the website and editor in question, not Jenn Frank.

#9 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3728 posts) -

I'm mostly just bothered that I've yet to get to play for longer than 20 minutes at a time without it giving me a general network error. I've seen the intro about 12 times, and i've yet to complete the first mission on earth because i disconnect in the middle of it and have to start over again each time.

Are you on Live or PSN? For me, the servers have been fine so far.

#10 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3728 posts) -

I mean, I'm not Swedish or living in Sweden, but isn't that sort of alarmist? I mean, when the republicans win an election in America I don't think of it as the racist party winning just because they've got more of them. Does this party you're speaking of have any other qualities that might be seen as important or defining?

Good point. Republicans are generally against quotas, affirmative action, and most other laws designed to specifically benefit one race over another. They also normally put a large focus on family values. Because of this, those who are racists or socially conservative generally are attracted to the Republican party over the Democratic party.

Democrats are generally in favor of more social programs designed to help the less fortunate, and keeping church and state separate. Because of this, people who are generally socialists or atheists are often attracted to the Democratic party over the Republican party.

But that's doesn't mean that the majority of Republicans are racist bible-thumpers, anymore than it means the majority of Democrats want to forcefully redistribute all wealth and have religion banned.

So when the thread creator says "racist party," I hope he or she is talking about an actual party of racists, and not just a group of people who are more likely to attract one repulsive group over another.

Lastly, I'm of the opinion that there's no reason to ever feel pride or shame because of where you were born, so I don't think you should feel ashamed to be Swedish.