Drama in indy gaming and games journalism part 2

[Malcador]

I don't understand your point ? What do you mean by hidden qualifiers?

The whole gamers being the bad white men rather than all and its clarity to you, as delivered by Alexander.

 

Also this thread is far over the limit, no ?

Edited September 22, 2014 by Malcador

[Volourn]

Because the word gamer inherently has nothing to do with gender or race or sexual preference.

 

While the word feminism already has certain things inherent connected to it. It is inherently sexist just like plenty of other gender based words like masculine. that feminists ironically hate and repeatedly try (and successfully!) change.. L0L

[Elerond]

Ask a gamer what they mean when claling themselves gamers you'll know the answer - they play games.

If you ask people that identify themselves as gamers what it takes to be gamer you will get variable answers, which usually specify what kind of games one has to play and how much and how good one has to be, and even what gender one has to be to qualify as gamer. You can find unifying aspects in universal level from their answers, like that most answers refer to playing games in one form or another, but same is true for most things that people identify themselves with, which is why we have universal level identifiers for them, to make it easier to brush their opinion aside or take strength from their number to our arguments etc..

[Amentep]

You two are tools of sexist feminists (yeah yeah I just called you sexist sexists). Don't be ignorant.  I'm not 'mischaracteruizing' feminism. Feminism doesn't even know what it means. Ask a feminist what they mean by calling themselves - you have multiple answers. Ask a gamer what they mean when claling themselves gamers you'll know the answer - they play games.

It is a mischaracterization to say that the meaning of feminism is not what it means; in context of your post, yes Watson was arguing about the perception of people who apply the word (to self/to others). It doesn't change the meaning of the word as it was originally constructed, however, and Watson makes a fair point that the word would be better reclaimed than allowed to fester because "people" have attempted to alter the meaning beyond what was intended.

 

It's not confusing at all.

Yes it is. Based on what it appeared to be you were arguing for was definition by largest definition during use -

 

Volo (when gamer is 51% defined as people who play games): "Gamers means people who play games."

Volo (when gamer is 51% defined as white misogynist people who play games): "Gamers are evil mysoginists!"

Volo (when gamer is back at 51% defined as people who play games: "Gamers means people who play games."

 

That way leads to not even having a universal context to discuss anything with.

 

On top of that, feminism is inherently sexist just as masculine is.

Feminine and masculine are descriptos of traits commonly associated with females and males. They are inherently gendered concepts, not inherently sexist.

 

Feminism was coined as a movement to promote that women should be treated as equals to men. That's what it means. For many years people railed against "feminzais" until the point that many just started lumping all feminists together as a monolithic group without understanding the difference between the meaning of the word as coined and the practice of people who adopt the word to describe themselves.

 

Which is, really, the exact same problem with arguing that gamers are white misogynists because white misogynists call themselves gamers.

 

I guess I should refer to strong woman as masculine right?

You could refer to her as a strong woman. Also what kind of strong? Strength of will? Of arm? Of mind? Compared to whom?

 

That's rather sexist implying that to be striong you must be masculine. That's evil. That's the main reason wnhy I have an issue with the word feminism. If you take the idea that feminism = belief in equality it implies that in order to believe in equality one must be feminine which is sexist since it suggests that if one isn't feminine ie. a man you inherently don't believe in equality.

That's a rather skewed view of what feminism means, how it was defined and used. Arguably the use of "feminism" (as opposed to say, gender equality) was to say that women and things feminine have an equal value to men and things masculine, not that to be equal one must be feminine.

 

That is evil. I believe in equality, and I'm not feminine. PERIOD.

And that's fine - I think a good argument could be made that groups seeking equality could move to adopt language that was more gender neutral. It doesn't make feminist inherently sexist anymore than gamer is inherently misogynist.

 

\Now, take your trolling elsewhere.

Capiche?

Not trolling and no, respectively.

[Volourn]

Considering we live in a word that has forcefully pushed on everyone 'gender neutral' words in schools and normal speech it's high time 'equalists' do the same thing with feminism. Oh yeah, my bad, gender biased words are ONLY bad in reference to males. LMAO

 

If equality between genders is what one seeks you'd think you'd find a gender neutral word to define it. Heh.

 

In comparison, the word gamer isn't biased against/for anyone. It  only means 'someone who plays games'. Not complex, not complicated, mot biased, not sexist.

 

L0L FEminism L0L

 

Why the hard on to keep using that word when a much better more fitting term is there to be used? Gender equality = or 'equalist' (which doesn't come off the tongue as easy since it's not commonly used admittedly).

Edited September 22, 2014 by Volourn

[Amentep]

If equality between genders is what one seeks you'd think you'd find a gender neutral word to define it. Heh.

The idea was to say there is value in females and in feminine concepts that weren't being given much attention or recognition. The idea wasn't to be against male and masculine concepts, like you imply. A gender neutral term wouldn't have done that, because by its essence it would have never addressed the "societal value" of masculine or feminine concepts.

 

Whether its necessary to continue with that terminology is a valid argument for now; starting without that terminology probably would not have been terribly successful (particularly considering that the English languages' gender-neutral generic person pronouns are all also the masculine pronouns).

[Ganrich]

I agree with Volourn here. A term given to a group of people, while excluding others, is used to exalt that labeled group over the other. Feminism is used to give benefits to females, and has recently become about tearing down males in some smaller sects of the movement as well. It is ceasing, or has ceased (depending on who you talk to), to be about equality. Human Equality will always mean equality among humans as it isn't a word that is exclusive to a group of people. It is a blanket term covering all of humanity.

[Ganrich]

@Amentep - I can also agree that the word feminism may have been necessary to get the equality ball rolling. I can see your point there.

 

On a side note this is interesting if it is true:

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/someone-inside-congress-edited-a-wikipedia-article-about-gam#2hcih81

 

This next article is interesting as well. It has valid points that A) game media is basically an advertising arm of publishers, B) Gamers are very skeptic of what comes out of these sources as a byproduct, and C) Gamers may have been more receptive to criticism of the industry had A and B not been an issue. It stays in the middle a bit, but it definitely is an improvement from the Gamegate bashing that other articles tend to follow. It also says:

 

Part of the blame for this lies on gaming media - the reason I say this is because when you get right down to it, games media has always had a dodgy relationship with ethics.

 

You can see this in preview content, when journalists write about why you should be excited about an upcoming title. That is not journalism – it is advertorial.

 

But if you follow gaming media for long enough, you’ll see more extreme examples.

 

For the new gaming media there was Machinima’s dealings with Microsoft to not say negative things about the Xbox One, and for older media there was Gamespot firing Jeff Gerstmann for a writing a negative review about a game they were heavily advertising.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/opinion/2014/09/22/gamergate-ethics-and-hate

[Oerwinde]

This next article is interesting as well. It has valid points that A) game media is basically an advertising arm of publishers, B) Gamers are very skeptic of what comes out of these sources as a byproduct, and C) Gamers may have been more receptive to criticism of the industry had A and B not been an issue. It stays in the middle a bit, but it definitely is an improvement from the Gamegate bashing that other articles tend to follow. It also says:

 

 

Part of the blame for this lies on gaming media - the reason I say this is because when you get right down to it, games media has always had a dodgy relationship with ethics.

 

You can see this in preview content, when journalists write about why you should be excited about an upcoming title. That is not journalism – it is advertorial.

 

But if you follow gaming media for long enough, you’ll see more extreme examples.

 

For the new gaming media there was Machinima’s dealings with Microsoft to not say negative things about the Xbox One, and for older media there was Gamespot firing Jeff Gerstmann for a writing a negative review about a game they were heavily advertising.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/opinion/2014/09/22/gamergate-ethics-and-hate

It ****s all over games journalism as much as it ****s on gamers, definitely more balanced.

[Volourn]

Back to the Watson speech. of coruse, the usual idiots spin it the wrong. They're talking about how it was a 'message to men' which completely ignores the main point. the message was to EVERYBODY.

 

Morans will morans.

[kirottu]

Titanium Dragon, one of the only pro-GG editors on the Wikipedia article on #GamerGate, has been banned.

http://i.imgur.com/gYvqWOA.jpg

 

Especially the gamergate article at wikipedia is really onesided. Almost everything anti-GG is stated as a fact and pro-GG stuff is always "alleged" if it's even mentioned.

[Gorth]

The Drama that goes on and on... and on