SpaceInsomniac's forum posts

#1 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3820 posts) -
@conmulligan said:

@spaceinsomniac said:

Fullbright pulled out of PAX because PAX organizers did something that they considered offensive. Intel had to make the same type of decision. But to get that example even more fitting, let's go ahead a change it to something a little closer to the what happened with Intel.

People were offended by what Leigh wrote. They asked Intel to consider dropping their ad support. Intel looked into the matter and agreed that was was written was offensive, and decided to drop their association with the website that published her article. You view this as cowardly.

I have a hard time believing Intel pulled their advertising from Gama because they actually though Leigh's article was offensive, when it's much more plausible that they were just trying to appease the GG crowd. There's a world of difference between doing someone on principal and doing it under pressure. Besides, even if you didn't think their initial actions were cowardly, their followup statement was so utterly spineless that I can't imagine either side seeing them in a positive light now.

Yep, that's pretty spineless. "We fully support woman and diversity, we are not picking sides in this debate, but we also agreed after reading the article that our customers who also don't identify with either side could have easily been offended by the content of the article. We are a technology company and gamers are our customers, just as Nike is a shoe company and runners are their customers." How hard would it be to say something like that?

@conmulligan said:

So then, if Bioware--just to pick one of the more progressive game companies--was asked by fans to consider canceling their association with PAX during the height of the whole "dickwolves" controversy, and Bioware did just that, would you view that as cowardly? Would you say that they "caved to a stupid internet campaign"?

No, because Bioware have a history of supporting women, so it would be natural for them to come down against something like the Dickwolves controversy. To the best of my knowledge, Intel has never given any indication that they give a shit about press corruption, or gamers' fragile feelings, or whatever else the mob is upset about this week.

I picked Bioware because they seemed like a logical choice. So if a company without a history of supporting woman announced that they wouldn't be making an appearance at PAX because of the dickwolves thing, that you would call cowardly? That you would say was an example of caving to a stupid internet campaign? It couldn't possibly be because the customers of that company might have been offended by what was said, causing them to cut ties?

And "Intel has never given any indication that they give a shit about press corruption, or gamers' fragile feelings?" Since when does any company want to advertise with someone who is insulting their customers? This has nothing to do with standing up to press corruption or anything else gamergate might care about, and everything to do with cutting ties with someone who is generalizing and insulting your customers.

@conmulligan said:

I don't think Leigh did any of that either, but let's leave that aside for a minute. Jeff said that "most people who identify with their hobby are fucking assholes" and told gamers to "grow up, find another interest, spread your fucking wings a little bit". It's difficult to imagine someone being legitimately offended at what Leigh said not also taking exception to Jeff's words.

Thanks for the quotes. I take exception to both, and continue to be baffled by how some people seem to think that calling yourself a "gamer" is any different than calling yourself a "reader" or a "runner," and must mean that you need to "grow up, find another interest, spread your fucking wings a little bit".

I can self-identify as a gamer and still consider that hobby a fairly small portion of my life and my interests. Seriously, how hard is that to understand?

@spraynardtatum said:

@conmulligan: What Jeff said at that PAX panel was a close minded and shitty thing to say. Probably the most misguided and dumb thing I've ever heard him say.

Agreed.

#2 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3820 posts) -

@rorie said:

The New La Roux album: This isn’t very good! It’s repetitive musically and doesn’t have any songs with the kind of lyrical hooks that songs like In For The Kill and Fascination did on the the first album. There’s a strong theme of sexual anxiety in the album, and anxiety can lead to some amazing music (see: most of Fiona Apple’s best songs), but that only works if the songs are actually interesting to listen to. They were decent live when I saw them, but damn does Elly Jackson ever dance like...well, like me. I don’t dance well.

Awww. I hope I don't agree with this when I get around to picking it up.

#3 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3820 posts) -

@milkman said:

@spaceinsomniac said:

So has Jenn Frank written anything about John Drake? As I said, I'm not well-versed in this part of the discussion, because I don't care very much about it.

That's exactly my point. No one ever asked these questions. It's why I find it impossible to take GamerGate seriously when it's clear there is a ulterior motive to things they pick and choose to get upset about.

That's a good point, and like I said earlier:

I disagree with a LOT of what comes out of gamergate. Seriously, every time I try to watch a video, I end up internally shouting to myself "oh my gosh, you're engaging in the same stupid cycle of misrepresentation / generalization / conflation that you're speaking out against!" Throw a rock in this debate, and you'll hit a hypocrite.

But I've also seen a lot of issues that have nothing to do with the "conspiracy!" side of gamergate being ignored by the press, such as the doxxing of gamergate supporters, or the women who identify with the movement, or the campaign against TFYC, or Phil Fish attacking an indie developer after the developer claimed that he was sexually harassed, etc. While many in gamergate pick and choose things to get upset about, many in the gaming press pick and choose things to report.

I think both are pretty awful, and clear examples of hypocrisy.

#4 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3820 posts) -

@milkman said:

@spaceinsomniac: I think you misunderstood what I was saying about John Drake. My point was that Drake contributed to the Patreon of Jenn Frank. Which is what Maya Kramer did and why Frank's article about Quinn was called unethical.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. I was under the assumption that Drake contributed to Zoe. Why would a journalist have a Patreon account, and why would anyone in the gaming industry think it's acceptable to contribute to it? Like I said, I don't really care much about this aspect of the discussion, but that just screams conflict of interests even to me. That sounds about as ethical as a radio show host in the 50s with a tip jar on their deck.

So has Jenn Frank written anything about John Drake? As I said, I'm not well-versed in this part of the discussion, because I don't care very much about it.

#5 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3820 posts) -

He basically came up with the idea for propaganda, something governments have been doing for quite some time now. Still, what a jackass.

Hey everyone, I have the this amazing new idea. I can't believe no one has thought of this yet!

What a jackass, indeed.

#6 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3820 posts) -

@conmulligan said:

@spaceinsomniac said:

Was this also cowardly bullshit? I don't think so. If someone is attacking your target audience, you don't stick around. You make them eat their words.

C'mon, they're completely different situations. Fullbright pulled out of PAX on their own volition, Intel caved to a stupid internet campaign. Only one of those is cowardly.

Fullbright pulled out of PAX because PAX organizers did something that they considered offensive. Intel had to make the same type of decision. But to get that example even more fitting, let's go ahead a change it to something a little closer to the what happened with Intel.

People were offended by what Leigh wrote. They asked Intel to consider dropping their ad support. Intel looked into the matter and agreed that was was written was offensive, and decided to drop their association with the website that published her article. You view this as cowardly.

So then, if Bioware--just to pick one of the more progressive game companies--was asked by fans to consider canceling their association with PAX during the height of the whole "dickwolves" controversy, and Bioware did just that, would you view that as cowardly? Would you say that they "caved to a stupid internet campaign"?

As for Jeff coming out against the term gamer as well, that would be a good point if Jeff pretty much said the same things, but I don't think he did. I don't think he used the term gamer to mock people who go to gaming conventions, generalize them as socially inept, and conflate them with people sending death threats, did he?

@milkman said:

I'll give an example. One of the issues that GamerGate was fighting about a while back is that Maya Kramer, who does PR for Zoe Quinn, contributes to the Patreon of Jenn Frank. Frank wrote an article about Quinn, which what lead to GamerGate attacking her and then lead to her quitting the game industry. Another contributor to to the Patreon? My friend and yours, John Drake. Yet not once did anyone, to my knowledge, question this at all. There was no attempt to find any of corruption within Frank's writing when it came to Harmonix or Sony properties. Now, why do you think this is? Take a look at every target of the GamerGate movement and tell me how many of these people haven't been outspoken about feminism or gender issues at some point in the past.

Does John Drake work in the gaming press? Did he write an article defending someone when he was contributing to their Patreon account? Then perhaps that's not the best example. I don't care much about the "conspiracy!" side of gamergate, I think this is the least interesting stuff to talk about, and I think the blame should rest with the editors rather than Jenn Frank. I think Jenn Frank did nothing wrong, and I think that its a shame she left the industry.

As I've said, you can find plenty of hypocrisy on all sides of this issue, but that's just not a great example of it.

There are strong voices in this discussion suggesting "This person is only being targeted because they are a woman. No one would care if a man said the same thing." That's kind of a personal attack on literally anyone who is disagreeing with you, which makes me uncomfortable with its use. It's pretty much a blanket accusation of misogyny, and I think there is a good chance that it's often not true.

Consider Adam Orth. Remember him? Mr. "Always online is the future, #deal with it." Remember what happened to him. Remember MS letting him go. Remember the massive amount of hate that was thrown his way. And now imagine if everything that happened was the same, only he was a woman.

You would have a large number of people claiming "This person is only being targeted because they are a woman. No one would care if a man said the same thing." And they would be convincing. And they would backup their claims with proof, in the form of gender targeted tweets that included slurs that specifically refer to women. And they would convince many people that no one would have cared if a man said the same thing. And they would be wrong.

I think that much is fact, but the rest we can only speculate. Would Alice Orth would still have her job today? Would MS not dare fire someone who had suffered such abuse for the crime of being female? Would many people successfully conflate those opposed to always online with assholes sending hateful and harassing tweets to a woman? It's interesting to think about.

#7 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3820 posts) -

Very uninformed blog, but I appreciate the attempt. Thanks!

Total Biscuit is not "anti-Leigh". He just disagrees with her a lot, but still appreciates her content. The statements of his you posted are also from long ago and TB has since repeatedly stepped up and said that they were dumb and he regrets making them. I don't see Leigh Alexander owning up to her stupidity and ignorance. TB also didn't directly support GamerGate. He just adressed issues that were important to the movement and they of course jumped on it. TotalBiscuit has handled the situation in a very neural and fair way.

I would also advice you to watch the "Women of Gamergate" videos that the poster above posted. I never put myself under the Gamergate banner because that only limits you, but I would still recommend educating yourself on the matter, before making bold claims and rash decisions.

I should note that I would rather shoot myself than watch a five hour video from ANYONE with ANY opinion on this topic, but I did skip around that video enough to get a general idea of how they felt. It's an interesting take on the situation, and it sure isn't going to be picked up by anyone in the gaming media.

#8 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3820 posts) -

@milkman said:

And no, anyone who supports GamerGate isn't "supporting" these attacks on people but if you sit by and don't try to clean up these people, you are enabling it.

So are you enabling it? What are you doing to try and clean up these people? Condemning the harassment? People associated with gamergate are doing the same thing. It doesn't matter, nothing changes.

So if standing up against harassment doesn't actually accomplish anything when someone associated with gamergate does it, why is it expected to work at any other time?

And is this a two way street? Are you a part of the problem? Do you wish to own this? How about this? Are these things your fault?

I would say they're not your fault, but would you disagree? Are you not doing enough to stop this from happening? Would you be quick to say #notallsocialjusticeadvocates? Would you say that was probably done by gamergaters to make the "SWJ side" look bad? Would you try to minimize this? Would you make the same ridiculous "they did it to themselves" accusation that people have suggested of Zoe Quinn and Phil Fish? Should game journalists be reporting this?

And most importantly, if condemning harassment doesn't work, what should we be doing to fight the worst "gamers" as you see them? What can we do?

@milkman said:

When the vast majority of people see your movement as a harassment campaign, you've fucked up.

And when the vast majority of the gaming press is only writing about your movement when it comes to harassment, you can't possibly be seen as anything other than a harassment campaign.

I disagree with a LOT of what comes out of gamergate. Seriously, every time I try to watch a video, I end up internally shouting to myself "oh my gosh, you're engaging in the same stupid cycle of misrepresentation / generalization / conflation that you're speaking out against!" Throw a rock in this debate, and you'll hit a hypocrite. But likewise, to suggest that gamergate has had a fair and accurate representation in the gaming media is absurd. Only the absolute most hateful and threatening people in the movement have been given any sort of attention. I've not seen any sort of positive article--or even not inflammatory article--regarding ANYTHING related to gamergate. No interview with the women who consider themselves a part of gamergate, no promotion of TFYC, or even a positive / neutral take on Vivian James. Nothing.

If someone in the games media attempted to generalize and conflate social justice advocates like this, they would be crucified by their peers, and correctly so. I would guess that is what people who consider themselves a part of gamergate hate the most.

#9 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3820 posts) -

@conmulligan said:

Intel pulling their ad campaign from Gamasutra was some cowardly bullshit and I really hope it blows up in their face.

Was this also cowardly bullshit? I don't think so. If someone is attacking your target audience, you don't stick around. You make them eat their words.

Most people associate "gamergate" with ethics issues--even though that's just a small part of their complaints--but I don't think Intel pulled their ads over any possible ethics breach. I think they pulled their advertising because Gamasutra either intentionally attacked their audience while trying to make a point, or mistakenly insulted their audience because they seemed to think that the only people who would identify as "gamers" would be the kind of assholes sending death threats to feminists. Either way, Gameasutra fucked up.

If you're arguing that many companies use "gamer" as a marketing tool, you shouldn't be surprised when an advertiser or two pull their support after you shit all over the term. And if some of your readers consider themselves gamers, you shouldn't be surprised when there's a very vocal backlash after you've attacked them and their hobby.

In short, Intel pulled their advertising because they didn't want to be associated with an attack on their customers. That seems fairly sensible to me. If Gameasutra had done their job right, and only attacked people who were actually engaged in harassment and making threats, none of this would be happening right now. This is the cost of generalization and conflation.

#10 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3820 posts) -

@flakmunkey said:

#GG is a campaign of difference in taste masked as an issue of ethics that uses hate, vitriol, deception, and fear as vehicles to achieve their goal of censorship.

While that's a generalization, I don't necessarily think it's completely inaccurate. I've seen a lot of dumb "this isn't even a game" comments floating around. Let's try some word replacement, though:

@flakmunkey said:

[social justice] is a campaign of difference in taste masked as an issue of [proper representation] that uses hate, vitriol, deception, and fear as vehicles to achieve their goal of censorship.

Still a generalization, but does it still have an element of truth? If not, why not? More importantly, why should one be considered a call for censorship, and the other not? Why does each side in this debate reject accusations of censorship, and then turn around and make those same accusations of their opponents?