SpaceInsomniac's forum posts

#1 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3726 posts) -

@cagliostro88 said:

Well in that list there are TheYoungFineCapitalists (entry #1114). They didn't harrass anyone, but it's obvious that someone that disagree with them put them there. They deserve to be blocked by people who don't even know they are there?

Edit:

So even the people using the list are recognisizing it can cause damage that kind of approach

I'm glad to see this.

@truthtellah said:

@spaceinsomniac: Maybe if you held off on the sarcasm for one moment, we could talk about our different feelings on the subject. Personally, I don't know the context of their exchange or their history(though it looks like she did insult him before that), but I'd say, regardless of his quality as a person or writer, Ben Kuchera can decide whoever he wants to not talk to on Twitter.

Yep. You're right, and I apologize. Considering my feelings towards flippant sarcasm, I feel like a hypocrite. I'm not in the best of moods right now because I'm sick, but that doesn't excuse it. It especially made me look foolish with the awful example I used.

#2 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3726 posts) -

@defaultprophet said:

@spaceinsomniac said:

Sure thing. If you like Bayonetta as a game, and someone is ONLY criticizing the character herself, that doesn't mean they're criticizing the game itself or your enjoyment of the game. There are lots of things you can say are good or bad about the game, and the character is just one of them.

However now think of someone who likes Bayonetta as a character. Perhaps they think that she's has a cool design, or perhaps they are a woman who happens to find her empowering, and maybe they even have dressed as her for a convention or two. For those people, by saying that Bayonetta is an offensive character, you have criticized EVERYTHING about Bayonetta as a character.

And to be clear, Sarkeesian has said that the only positive thing about the character is that she's a single mother. Actually, she specifically said that was the only positive thing about the game itself, but even when ignoring this, you still have the issue that I'm referring to.

And because of that, the whole "it's entirely possible to be critical of some aspects of a piece of media while still finding other parts valuable or enjoyable." is kind of worthless at that point.

That's called having a differing opinion and a discussion can be had about that. That doesn't invalidate enjoyment of the whole while recognizing problematic parts.

But the character is the whole, that's my point. The argument is that the character is nothing but problematic parts. If you enjoy the character, you're being told that you're enjoying something that is offensive. And yes, that is called having a differing opinion, but it isn't helped in the slightest by the idea that "it's entirely possible to be critical of some aspects of a piece of media while still finding other parts valuable or enjoyable."

Again, that means everything to a woman who enjoys Bayonetta the game, but finds her offensive as character. But that means nothing to a woman who enjoys Bayonetta as a character, including the woman who designed her.

@jasonr86 said:

Yep. Not everyone has the same experience with a game, movie, book, etc. There isn't a 'right' way to go about experiencing something so saying a way of experiencing is 'worthless' is pretty silly.

That's not quite what I'm getting at. I'm not criticizing the way of experiencing something, I'm saying the justification of saying "it's okay if I don't like everything about the game you like" kind of logically falls apart if the the main character that you really like is said to be offensive, especially if you enjoy that character outside of the game itself.

And hello to you too, Jason. :)

#3 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3726 posts) -

@ekami said:

@defaultprophet said:

@spaceinsomniac said:

@defaultprophet said:

I vehemently disagree with your premise that enjoying something with problematic elements is all it takes. Defending or refusal to acknowledge those elements is where that judgement gets made. As Anita herself said in part 1 of Women as Background Decoration "As always, please keep in mind that it's entirely possible to be critical of some aspects of a piece of media while still finding other parts valuable or enjoyable."

That means everything to a woman who enjoys Bayonetta the game, but finds her offensive as character. But that means nothing to a woman who enjoys Bayonetta as a character, including the woman who designed her.

What?

Hi guys! I've basically stayed out of this whole conversation until just right now, because I also need this sentence explained to me or I won't be able to sleep tonight.

Sure thing. If you like Bayonetta as a game, and someone is ONLY criticizing the character herself, that doesn't mean they're criticizing the game itself or your enjoyment of the game. There are lots of things you can say are good or bad about the game, and the character is just one of them.

However now think of someone who likes Bayonetta as a character. Perhaps they think that she's has a cool design, or perhaps they are a woman who happens to find her empowering, and maybe they even have dressed as her for a convention or two. For those people, by saying that Bayonetta is an offensive character, you have criticized EVERYTHING about Bayonetta as a character.

And to be clear, Sarkeesian has said that the only positive thing about the character is that she's a single mother. Actually, she specifically said that was the only positive thing about the game itself, but even when ignoring this, you still have the issue that I'm referring to.

And because of that, the whole " it's entirely possible to be critical of some aspects of a piece of media while still finding other parts valuable or enjoyable." is kind of worthless at that point.

#4 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3726 posts) -

@defaultprophet said:

I vehemently disagree with your premise that enjoying something with problematic elements is all it takes. Defending or refusal to acknowledge those elements is where that judgement gets made. As Anita herself said in part 1 of Women as Background Decoration "As always, please keep in mind that it's entirely possible to be critical of some aspects of a piece of media while still finding other parts valuable or enjoyable."

That means everything to a woman who enjoys Bayonetta the game, but finds her offensive as character. But that means nothing to a woman who enjoys Bayonetta as a character, including the woman who designed her.

#5 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3726 posts) -

@milkman said:

@spaceinsomniac: Kuchera is a jerk (the nicest possible way I can put it). He did her a favor. I'm sure he hasn't tweeted anything worth reading since then anyway.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the rest of the post. Blaming the victim? Getting blocked on Twitter doesn't make you a victim.

Also, you should do better fact checking.

Well damn. I retract my example then, along with my sarcasm. But getting blocked on twitter would make you a victim if you didn't do anything to deserve it, especially if it ends up somehow affecting your career and you're not even aware of it.

And he would be doing her a favor if it was just her being blocked by him. Instead, it's her being blocked by an entire group because of him.

But yeah, it turns out that was not a good example. I'll certainly admit that much.

My reason for making this topic really has nothing to do with gamergate other than it prompted the use of Block Together. My intent is not to feed the flames of either side.

And that's certainly understandable. I'd like to keep that out of this thread as well, as this is a completely different topic. For anyone who thought I was alluding to it, that was not my intention.

#7 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3726 posts) -

@jasonr86 said:

When you start with 'when this this whole feminism explosion happened..." you're not going to win many people over. In fact, it says quite a lot.

But it... did happen. Now we can't even acknowledge that the feminist movement has decided to weigh in much more on games in the past several years? I don't see anything even the least bit offensive, belligerent, or untrue with that statement.

"I remember back when the whole FPS explosion happened..."

How DARE you, sir! I stopped reading right there, you hateful FPS detractor!

That really says quite a lot?

#8 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3726 posts) -

@tdot said:

@spaceinsomniac:

Okay a few things:

First off, Film reviewers review their friends work all the time. Roger Ebert and Scorsese were close friends. Hell Ebert wrote a whole book about him. Many people don't understand how these industries work. Ebert, and many other reviewers of any enthusiast press often don't disclose their relationship because it has no impact and is useless information for the most part

Secondly, while you're in gray territory if you use your romantic interest as a source it depends on what you're doing. Using friends, family and whatever as sources for a story is fine as long as you're not being a nepotist and elusively using them and editorializing about them. In fact your best sources are your close friends, it's actually how most investigative journalism works.

Also I took a journalistic ethics course. None of the examples you listed were really talked about. Most important thing that didn't make your test or come up in the discussion about "Ethics" and "Corruption" is about how to treat advertisers.

"But Ebert did it," doesn't make it ethically acceptable. Nor does "but Destructoid did it," as Anthony Burch seems to think. If anything, that's even more reason for me to avoid Destructoid in the future. If this wasn't a conflict of interests, then there would be no reason for Giant Bomb to avoid reviewing Bastion or Transistor.

But it's also important to note that we're not talking about reviews, we're just talking about coverage. That why I don't see much of this as all that big of a deal, and I think it would have been fine as long as there was a simple "hey, you should know this this person in my friend" disclaimer.

As far as investigative journalism goes, that generally exists to tell a story that some people don't want told. Promoting your friend's indie game doesn't that fit that description, even if some people might not like the game.

And advertiser issues are certainly a part of the ethics debate, as "doritogate" and the recent you tube scandal recently proved.

#9 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3726 posts) -

For those claiming that there have been no ethics violations, I invite you to try this thought exercise:

You're taking an ethics class. For some reason you couldn't study like you needed to, so you'll just have to use your best judgement while taking the test. If you fail the test, you'll have to take the class again next semester, and you won't be able to graduate.

Question 1) You are someone who gets paid to write about movies. Your good friend is an aspiring director, and their work is starting to get some attention in the indie film scene. How should you handle that situation?

A) Refuse to write about your friend at all.

B) Refuse to review your friends movies, but it's okay to write about them.

C) Only write about your friend when other people start writing about them, because to not write about them at that point would be unfair to your readers and your friend.

D) Ask someone else at your publication to write about your friend for you. It's okay to help promote your friend as long as you're not the one writing about them.

Question 2) You are someone who gets paid to write about vacuum cleaners. While leaving work one day, a man approaches who you quickly recognize as someone who does public relations for some of the vacuums companies you write about. He walks up to you, shakes your hand, and says "hey, just wanted you to know that I believe in you, and I support what you do." After he walks away, you notice that he just handed you five dollars. You should now:

A) Give the money to your favorite charity.

B) Mail the money back.

C) Refuse to write about any vacuum cleaner company that agents represents.

D) Disclose that donation to your readers in every subsequent article you write concerning any vacuum cleaner company that agents represents.

E) Keep the money, because it's not very much, and much more is spent on food at vacuum cleaner conventions held for the press.

Question 3) You are someone who gets paid to write about bird houses. You find yourself attracted to someone who makes birdhouses, and you begin a romantic relationship with them. At this point, the publication you write for should do what?

A) Not let you write about your significant other or their products.

B) Consider letting you go, because it reflects poorly on their publication.

C) Nothing, because you're an ethical person who can write about a significant other or their products without it affecting you.

D) Not let you write reviews of your significant other's products, but you can still talk about them.

Basically, just about every #gamergate or #gameethics ethics violation I've seen discussed IS an ethics violation. How much actual affect it had on anything is up for debate, and I would guess that the affects have been pretty minimal overall, if they even existed in the first place. But the thing is, ethical issues aren't judged for their actual affect on integrity, they're judged for having ANY potential affect on integrity, and that's especially true when avoidable.

A simple "who is good friend of mine" included in most of the criticized articles would have gone a long way.

#10 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3726 posts) -

@thatpinguino said:

@hailinel: @splodge: the article is about how she likes the game for its GTA fun but feels excluded by the protagonists. So she isn't saying the devs don't care about women. She is saying that they are not acquiescing to the people who would like to play as a woman. She likes and plays the games anyway.

it’s not an outright “fuck you” to female gamers, it’s a pretty implicit one.

why is the company so dismissive of having a female GTA lead?

[Rockstar] assumes that women aren’t capable of criminality

it’s insulting that women are still excluded...

the women of the GTA universe are either eye candy or hookers.

whether it’s stated directly or just suggested: You don’t belong here.

She isn't?

I'm pretty sure you could make an argument for a female GTA protagonist without being anywhere near this belligerent, and without making hurtful assumptions regarding character and intent.