Journalism and sexism in the games industry

[TrashMan]

 

I hear what you saying but you can't separate the Internet from RL

 

In other words its not unreasonable to expect people to behave on the Internet the same way we expect them to behave in RL in most cases

 

So there are codes of conduct that need to be enforced on certain websites and forums and certain statements and perspectives that won't be acceptable just because they said on the Internet

 

There we disagree. Why should we have the same conventions and mode of behavior?

 

I've have never visited the chans before. I thought they were the cesspool of the internet. I joined 8chan three weeks ago and I was pleasantly surprised.

It's so liberating to speak freely, not having to dance on eggshells or pick words.

 

The internet is the most free "public" place on the planet. But it's getting less so every day. More censoring, more rules, more "sanitizing".

Ever watched Demolition Man? The rat-burger scene?

That's me.

[Chilloutman]

Ever watched Demolition Man? The rat-burger scene?

That's me.

 

seconded

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeBt8_MMpU8

 

Life above was future where SJW wins

Edited November 11, 2014 by Chilloutman

[BruceVC]

 

 

I hear what you saying but you can't separate the Internet from RL

 

In other words its not unreasonable to expect people to behave on the Internet the same way we expect them to behave in RL in most cases

 

So there are codes of conduct that need to be enforced on certain websites and forums and certain statements and perspectives that won't be acceptable just because they said on the Internet

 

There we disagree. Why should we have the same conventions and mode of behavior?

 

 

 

Why should be have the same rules on the Internet that exist in RL? Good question

 

There are several reasons but the primary ones are ( this doesn't apply to all websites and forums but most of them)

 

• The Internet has become a mainstream way of communication and expression
• Websites have standards and seek to attract like minded people
• This means that automatically there have to be rules and codes of conduct that define what that particular website stands for. These exist on almost all websites
• If for example someone logs on to a website and says something like " I'm a gay gamer and I am interested in this game about feature x or lack of feature y "  a completely unacceptable response would be from some members " oh well we don't care about gay people so go to some other website"
• By allowing this type of discrimination you would be undermining what most websites stand for which is a place where anyone can really discuss a topic without fear of abuse or vitriol
• A small percentage of people cannot be relied on to adhere to what the principles of most websites stand for, which includes policies of non-discrimination. So you need to enforce rules or some people don't care what they say and the consequences of those words

[Malcador]

Hm, and of course these sites should only be allowed to attract like minded people if they are of the "Right Kind" of mind, naturally. People worry about hurting others' feelings too much online (given how those are made of tissue sometimes)

Edited November 11, 2014 by Malcador

[Chilloutman]

• If for example someone logs on to a website and says something like " I'm a gay gamer and I am interested in this game about feature x or lack of feature y "  a completely unacceptable response would be from some members " oh well we don't care about gay people so go to some other website"

 

Not true, that guy litteraly asking for it. I dont endorse my opinions by pointing out that I am white male wihtout criminal record either. So I guess its completely acceptable response as long as we have right of free speach

[BruceVC]

Hm, and of course these sites should only be allowed to attract like minded people if they are of the "Right Kind" of mind, naturally. People worry about hurting others' feelings too much online (given how those are made of tissue sometimes)

 

Well yes, I imagine very few websites would want to attract a raging bigot ? Being "Right Kind " is not an unusual expectation to have of members of a forum. Its not like you are expected to follow all these unreasonable rules in order to engage in debate ?

[Malcador]

Well yes, I imagine very few websites would want to attract a raging bigot ? Being "Right Kind " is not an unusual expectation to have of members of a forum. Its not like you are expected to follow all these unreasonable rules in order to engage in debate ?

There was a reason I put that in quotes. But, several websites do like attracting people that are harsher than most or people that don't mind bad things being said, I guess 4chan is a decent example. But are you ok with 4chan ?

 

You don't have a freedom from abuse or vitriol from speaking in the real world, either, so why have one online ?

[BruceVC]

Well yes, I imagine very few websites would want to attract a raging bigot ? Being "Right Kind " is not an unusual expectation to have of members of a forum. Its not like you are expected to follow all these unreasonable rules in order to engage in debate ?

There was a reason I put that in quotes. But, several websites do like attracting people that are harsher than most or people that don't mind bad things being said, I guess 4chan is a decent example. But are you ok with 4chan ?

 

You don't have a freedom from abuse or vitriol from speaking in the real world, either, so why have one online ?

 

I don't really have an opinion on 4chan? Its got its good and bad traits like all websites

 

But we absolutely do have freedom of abuse in RL

 

Every company I have ever worked has a code of conduct that explicitly states what is considered unacceptable behaviour and things you can say

 

Below is an example of part of  the business ethics of the company I work for that we have to follow

 

Responsibility to Uphold Diversity

In order to uphold and sustain a fair and sustainable working environment, you must:-

i. Respect the basic human and constitutional rights of all;

ii. Treat people fairly regardless of their differences;

iii. Provide a working environment free of discrimination;

iv. Value different culture and beliefs; and

v. Respect communities in which xx is located.

[Nonek]

A pity game journalists and SJF's can't abide by those rules.

[Malcador]

The Internet is not a workplace though, it's like being on the street - someone can call you an **** there and they are free to and you need to deal with it. Sites already moderate themselves and that is fine, external moderation is just going down a bad road.

[Chilloutman]

 

Well yes, I imagine very few websites would want to attract a raging bigot ? Being "Right Kind " is not an unusual expectation to have of members of a forum. Its not like you are expected to follow all these unreasonable rules in order to engage in debate ?

There was a reason I put that in quotes. But, several websites do like attracting people that are harsher than most or people that don't mind bad things being said, I guess 4chan is a decent example. But are you ok with 4chan ?

 

You don't have a freedom from abuse or vitriol from speaking in the real world, either, so why have one online ?

 

I don't really have an opinion on 4chan? Its got its good and bad traits like all websites

 

But we absolutely do have freedom of abuse in RL

 

Every company I have ever worked has a code of conduct that explicitly states what is considered unacceptable behaviour and things you can say

 

Below is an example of part of  the business ethics of the company I work for that we have to follow

 

Responsibility to Uphold Diversity

In order to uphold and sustain a fair and sustainable working environment, you must:-

i. Respect the basic human and constitutional rights of all;

ii. Treat people fairly regardless of their differences;

iii. Provide a working environment free of discrimination;

iv. Value different culture and beliefs; and

v. Respect communities in which xx is located.

 

 

Well you are not paid for surfing internetz so your comparsion is kinda off. I for one can say what I want when I am in pub (well but have to expect that I can get face smashed )

[Longknife]

 

• If for example someone logs on to a website and says something like " I'm a gay gamer and I am interested in this game about feature x or lack of feature y "  a completely unacceptable response would be from some members " oh well we don't care about gay people so go to some other website"
• By allowing this type of discrimination you would be undermining what most websites stand for which is a place where anyone can really discuss a topic without fear of abuse or vitriol
• A small percentage of people cannot be relied on to adhere to what the principles of most websites stand for, which includes policies of non-discrimination. So you need to enforce rules or some people don't care what they say and the consequences of those word

 

 

And in doing so, you're undermining freedom.

 

Let's be clear here: hate speech is a right. (under the right circumstances of course) The Westboro Baptist Church marches on every funeral they can, and we allow them to because the moment we create laws censoring them, some other people who didn't do jack end up censored too.

 

Everybody has the freedom to do as they please, so long as they aren't hurting anyone. That means that if a man is in his home or his domain, he can say whatever the hell he likes about gay people, no matter how hateful it may be. To the gay guy who would march into his domain and speak out against him, either he's a blatant idiot for purposefully going somewhere that'd deeply offend him and make him cry, or he likely knows damned well what to expect and can handle it, and he believes he can change the guy's views.

 

 

  But the moment you ask the government or some collective organization to censor and restrict people as a pre-emptive strike to hate speech, that's when you start getting all kinds of stuff censored.

 

Great example is GamerGate itself. Would you call the people within this thread who oppose you members of a hate group? Would you say we post hate speech in this thread daily? Funny thing is that the Mainstream media would suggest just that, and if they had their way and had a significant say in labeling what's hate speech (and they would; you'd be naive to doubt what influence the media can have), none of us would be allowed to speak about any of this. We'd get our citations and complaints about corruption deleted and blocked as they claim it was all misogynist lies.

 

 

 

 

Anarchy on the internet works. Anarchy is that thing no one dares try in real life because it won't be long before some **** decides he can shoot up a building full of people to convince a society to listen to his demands, but on the internet...? Worst that can happen is you can be called mean names or banned from a private website where people disagree with you.

 

What the **** ever happened to "sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me?"

 

 

I'm sorry, but if you expect every single word that offends you to magically disappear and for society to cater to you in such a way that it outlaws and bans any words that you find offensive, you're nothing but a spoiled and entitled little kid who's by no means fit to function in the real world. Adapt. Grow thicker skin. If you can't do that? Log off. Stop camping on twitter and reading allegedly offensive tweets obsessively. You cannot tell me with a straight face that anybody in this mess is truly hurt or offended by things that have been said because every single person on both sides remains active. The only person who potentially seems realistically upset by any of this is Boogie, and he's wisely stepped away from the issues every time it became too much for him.

  Are you aware there is such a thing as hypersensitive people who cannot handle stress worth a darn? Know what happens to them? Society specifically places these people in low stress environments where they can function and live happy lives. It does NOT decide "ok Katie is incapable of handling constructive criticism from the workplace, and therefore her boss needs to CHECK HIS PRIVILEGE and be more understanding on how to handle people with her disorder and thus her boss will be fired and fined immediately." No, that doesn't happen.

 

   But this idea we need to change the way we regulate the internet as we know it because some spoiled child got called a "stupid girl?" Here's a tip: stop validating their insults with your asinine suggestions and then they'll probably stop coming.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Longknife

[Hurlshort]

 

What the **** ever happened to "sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me?"

 

 

 

Most people realize that is a ridiculous adage.  If you go through your life never getting hurt by words, you are quite likely a sociopath.

[Meshugger]

For anyone still confused about all of this, ask yourself the following:

 

- Is this "movement" or whatever you might call it, supported by people working in the pornography industry? 

- Does this "movement or whatever you might call it, generate the best satire and jokes about what it fights against?

 

The first question is about uncontrolled lusts and desires. Any authoritarian movement seeks to limit the access to it or change it to their needs, since personal pleasure undermines the authority of those that tries to control it. The second question is about reflection, inner and outer. Satire and sarcasm requires a questioning mind and it also undermines the authority that it jokes about. If the target cannot understand or tries to stiffle satire, then you know that it is authoritarian in its very nature.

 

If you answered yes to both questions, then you know what kind of people that are associated in gamergate. 

[Malcador]

Most people realize that is a ridiculous adage. If you go through your life never getting hurt by words, you are quite likely a sociopath.

So learning to laugh off insults is a sign of sociopathy ? Aim of that statement is to encourage one to not crumple like paper because some guy called you an **** or something. Or to advise you to perhaps break his bones in response, depending on how one looks at it (while effective, it's too much trouble in the end).

Edited November 11, 2014 by Malcador

[Meshugger]

 

 

What the **** ever happened to "sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me?"

 

 

 

Most people realize that is a ridiculous adage.  If you go through your life never getting hurt by words, you are quite likely a sociopath.

 

 

Getting hurt by words is a consequence of any free society. Trying to abolish bad words and malicious intent (=badthink) is the first step to any totalitarian society.

[Shallow]

 

 

What the **** ever happened to "sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me?"

 

 

 

Most people realize that is a ridiculous adage.  If you go through your life never getting hurt by words, you are quite likely a sociopath.

 

If  you know the words uttered aren't true they themselves shouldn't hurt you, the fact that some person you respected is uttering said words may hurt you though. Truth however, even someone you have no respect for will be able to stab you in the heart with a good bit of truth, for there's fact and there's opinion, opinion in itself solely reflects on its owner, fact reflects on all that it touches.

[Hurlshort]

 

Most people realize that is a ridiculous adage. If you go through your life never getting hurt by words, you are quite likely a sociopath.

So learning to laugh off insults is a sign of sociopathy ? Aim of that statement is to encourage one to not crumple like paper because some guy called you an **** or something. Or to advise you to perhaps break his bones in response, depending on how one looks at it (while effective, it's too much trouble in the end).

 

 

It's a terribly simplistic response to give someone who has been hurt by words.  I couldn't imagine feeding that line to my kids or my students when they are genuinely upset about something.  It completely invalidates their emotions.  There are better ways to build emotional fortitude.

 

 

 

 

 

What the **** ever happened to "sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me?"

 

 

 

Most people realize that is a ridiculous adage.  If you go through your life never getting hurt by words, you are quite likely a sociopath.

 

 

Getting hurt by words is a consequence of any free society. Trying to abolish bad words and malicious intent (=badthink) is the first step to any totalitarian society.

 

 

That's quite a leap from what I said.  Living in a free society doesn't mean you need to accept that your free society sucks.  Societal pressure is a very real and effective force in enacting change.  

 

 

But really, all I meant with my original statement is:

 

It is perfectly normal to have your feelings hurt by words.  

[Keyrock]

 

It's a terribly simplistic response to give someone who has been hurt by words.

Sure, but the whole idea of an adage is for it to be a short, succinct phrase that's easily remembered and one can relatively easily extrapolate the deeper meaning from.  Going off into a paragraph long explanation on how it's beneficial to toughen oneself's psyche against belligerent speech just doesn't roll off the tongue the same way.

 

Not to mention that just about everyone in our western, English speaking culture has heard the adage, knows the adage, and knows exactly what it means.  Hence, I propose that the adage serves its purpose sufficiently well.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Keyrock

[Malcador]

It's a terribly simplistic response to give someone who has been hurt by words.  I couldn't imagine feeding that line to my kids or my students when they are genuinely upset about something.  It completely invalidates their emotions.  There are better ways to build emotional fortitude.

I suppose it does invalidate their emotion in that they shouldn't feel upset, but it does get the point across that they shouldn't. Best life skill to have is to not let others upset you, after all. Any way to build up fortitude is going to be about the same, but I guess it'll be in a more round about way ?

[BruceVC]

Come on guys this old view that  " words don't matter and you must just ignore them because its the Internet" is so pre-GG its actually hilarious that on this very thread people are making that point and expecting the rest of us to believe it

 

One of the foundations of the creation of GG is about the insult associated with the word "gamers" and the outrage and offense that certain gamers felt.

 

So lets stop suggesting that words are irrelevant because that's not how most of you who support GG have been acting

[Keyrock]

Come on guys this old view that  " words don't matter and you must just ignore them because its the Internet" is so pre-GG its actually hilarious that on this very thread people are making that point and expecting the rest of us to believe it

 

One of the foundations of the creation of GG is about the insult associated with the word "gamers" and the outrage and offense that certain gamers felt.

 

So lets stop suggesting that words are irrelevant because that's not how most of you who support GG have been acting

I gotta give that one to you, Bruce, that's a fair point. 

[Malcador]

Come on guys this old view that  " words don't matter and you must just ignore them because its the Internet" is so pre-GG its actually hilarious that on this very thread people are making that point and expecting the rest of us to believe it

 

One of the foundations of the creation of GG is about the insult associated with the word "gamers" and the outrage and offense that certain gamers felt.

 

So lets stop suggesting that words are irrelevant because that's not how most of you who support GG have been acting

Well, it's not that they don't matter, but you shouldn't be hurt by it. Additionally, it doesn't really say you should not strike back, either. But as you believe they do matter, aren't these GG people you're referring to correct in your view ?

[BruceVC]

 

Come on guys this old view that  " words don't matter and you must just ignore them because its the Internet" is so pre-GG its actually hilarious that on this very thread people are making that point and expecting the rest of us to believe it

 

One of the foundations of the creation of GG is about the insult associated with the word "gamers" and the outrage and offense that certain gamers felt.

 

So lets stop suggesting that words are irrelevant because that's not how most of you who support GG have been acting

Well, it's not that they don't matter, but you shouldn't be hurt by it. Additionally, it doesn't really say you should not strike back, either. But as you believe they do matter, aren't these GG people you're referring to correct in your view ?

 

 

I have always maintained that words on the Internet can be hurtful and create contention

 

So yes you are right,  I can understand how people got annoyed by what Leigh Alexander said. The issue though with GG, for me,  is that it has evolved to something much more than just people taking exception to what some gaming journalists said.

[Malcador]

I have always maintained that words on the Internet can be hurtful and create contention

 

So yes you are right,  I can understand how people got annoyed by what Leigh Alexander said. The issue though with GG, for me,  is that it has evolved to something much more than just people taking exception to what some gaming journalists said.

Things change and movements move, not much of an issue. Though what it became is rather interesting to think of, as there's many people willing to tell you that bit of info