Journalism and sexism in the games industry

[Blarghagh]

I've never played a GTA past GTA 2 and I don't recall that function being there, but I will defend to the death its right to be there.

 

First of all, simulated violence isn't real violence, in fact most research I've read suggested that simulated violence decreased the likelihood of simulated violence happening in the real world. Crime is a forbidden fruit type thing and unfortunately prostitution very much falls under that, a game exploring crime (whether for entertainment or serious drama) should have it. Plus, removing the ability to harm prostitutes in GTA only cements their status as a "special class" or to state it more seriously, "not the same as actual people" - I'd say this is more offensive than anything else.

 

Then there's the question of "if you do virtual (safe space) violence, do you have mental issues?". I know a few completely well-adjusted, productive members of society who are deep into things such as rape fiction or BDSM. Are they into sexualized simulated violence because they have serious mental issues? Or are they just people exploring darker sides of the human psyche from places of complete safety? Because I'd argue shaming people for killing a nonexistent hooker in GTA holds the exact same grounds as shaming those people; namely, absolutely none.

[Meshugger]

 

Whaaa?

http://branch.com/b/gamergate-debate-video-games-free-speech-misogyny

 

Chu slams Pinsof for outing a trans because he reported that they were running a scam.

 

Hotwheels posted an image of Wu working from the same location(over the span of several months, using various interviews and the recent AJ piece) to show that she hasn't moved. I suppose one could argue she's been holed up in a different apartment, but it does look strange.

 

 

Thanks!

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

Whaaa?

 

http://branch.com/b/gamergate-debate-video-games-free-speech-misogyny

Chu slams Pinsof for outing a trans because he reported that they were running a scam.

Hotwheels posted an image of Wu working from the same location(over the span of several months, using various interviews and the recent AJ piece) to show that she hasn't moved. I suppose one could argue she's been holed up in a different apartment, but it does look strange.

Thanks!

Chu is currently railing against free speech now, and the America Tonight moderator posted an example of a journalist providing extensive disclosure.

 

Then took a big **** on TFYC for trying to get women into videogames.

Edited December 11, 2014 by KaineParker

[Meshugger]

 

 

Also, to Fredrick-with-one-E - the fact that nowadays anyone can become a "public figure" if a bunch of channers decides you are is a major feature of why the Internet is deeply broken

 

Arthur Chu is just dumb.

[Nonek]

I've never played a GTA past GTA 2 and I don't recall that function being there, but I will defend to the death its right to be there.

 

First of all, simulated violence isn't real violence, in fact most research I've read suggested that simulated violence decreased the likelihood of simulated violence happening in the real world. Crime is a forbidden fruit type thing and unfortunately prostitution very much falls under that, a game exploring crime (whether for entertainment or serious drama) should have it. Plus, removing the ability to harm prostitutes in GTA only cements their status as a "special class" or to state it more seriously, "not the same as actual people" - I'd say this is more offensive than anything else.

 

Then there's the question of "if you do virtual (safe space) violence, do you have mental issues?". I know a few completely well-adjusted, productive members of society who are deep into things such as rape fiction or BDSM. Are they into sexualized simulated violence because they have serious mental issues? Or are they just people exploring darker sides of the human psyche from places of complete safety? Because I'd argue shaming people for killing a nonexistent hooker in GTA holds the exact same grounds as shaming those people; namely, absolutely none.

 

Also since anybody can be a victim of crime, regardless of race, class, gender or whatever, shouldn't everybody be made invulnerable? Including the protagonist.

 

It sometimes seems the pro corruption, anti gaming people are simply morons, whom cannot think one step beyond their own limited definitions.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

Also, to Fredrick-with-one-E - the fact that nowadays anyone can become a "public figure" if a bunch of channers decides you are is a major feature of why the Internet is deeply broken

 

Arthur Chu is just dumb.

The more I see him talk, the more I wonder how he hasn't been laughed into obscurity.

 

Hotwheels posting so many truth bombs it's breaking my sides.

[Blarghagh]

What bothers me about these so-called progressives like Chu is the idea that anonymous posting is inherently bad. I cannot count how many people I know with issues that for years could only find an outlet online. Closeted gay and transgendered people, ashamed rape victims, depression sufferers - their online anonymous outlets literally saved their lives. It literally saved MY life and allowed me to become an at least somewhat productive member of society. If silencing a few neo-Nazis being dumb jerks online means removing that outlet, then seriously, screw that. Nobody who is for any type of human rights can seriously say this is a good thing. This is the speech of closet republicans, which Chu very obviously is.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

What bothers me about these so-called progressives like Chu is the idea that anonymous posting is inherently bad. I cannot count how many people I know with issues that for years could only find an outlet online. Closeted gay and transgendered people, ashamed rape victims, depression sufferers - their online anonymous outlets literally saved their lives. It literally saved MY life and allowed me to become an at least somewhat productive member of society. If silencing a few neo-Nazis being dumb jerks online means removing that outlet, then seriously, screw that. Nobody who is for any type of human rights can seriously say this is a good thing. This is the speech of closet republicans, which Chu very obviously is.

Because they aren't progressives, they're authoritarians first and foremost. They don't like free speech and dissenting opinion, which is why they go after 8chan and slander those who disagree. I see little difference between them and religious fundamentalists, especially concerning their "feels over reals" postmodernist mindset.

[Meshugger]

 

 

I completely disagree that anonymity is any guarantee of ideas being judged on pure "merit" (and am skeptical that "merit" outside of a social context is a coherent concept). Most pure-anon discussion fora are total cesspools because with no personal accountability for what you say its a race to see who can be the most shocking and attention-grabbing.

 

Arthur Chu you stupid dumb ****, anonymity is the very foundation on how unpopular opinion can exist to begin with. It is what makes it possible to build dissent against the current paradigm. It is what makes it possible for ideas to exist on themselves without the possibility to silence the very people that express them.

 

**** off to China already, they have your utopia already established. 

Edited December 11, 2014 by Meshugger

[Blarghagh]

Oh my god Arthur Chu you spineless little absolute ****.

 

 

 

"being judged on your past reputation is a good thing. It is the basis of how civilization works. The reason to say good, laudable, productive things in a conversation is so people will like you, think well if you and treat you well in the future. That's totally basic to how human beings work and that chan culture treats this as a suspect or "corrupt" or "dishonest" motivation says a lot about why its toxic."

 

Well, I'm glad we know why you say these "good things" against #GamerGate it is so "people" will "like" you. But when I fight for better rights for homosexuals, transgenders, differently abled, women and even goddamn animal rights it is because it is in accordance with my values and also THE RIGHT ****ING THING TO DO you totalitarian two-faced nazi ****. As a European, I can say that I laugh at your totalitarian puritanical horse**** in the same way as I laugh at tea party members, you are the worst of the right wing extremist mother****ers on the planet and I cannot believe that in America you are considered to be on the LEFT side of the spectrum.

[Meshugger]

Oh my god Arthur Chu you spineless little absolute ****.

 

 

 

"being judged on your past reputation is a good thing. It is the basis of how civilization works. The reason to say good, laudable, productive things in a conversation is so people will like you, think well if you and treat you well in the future. That's totally basic to how human beings work and that chan culture treats this as a suspect or "corrupt" or "dishonest" motivation says a lot about why its toxic."

 

Well, I'm glad we know why you say these "good things" against #GamerGate it is so "people" will "like" you. But when I fight for better rights for homosexuals, transgenders, differently abled, women and even goddamn animal rights it is because it is in accordance with my values and also THE RIGHT ****ING THING TO DO you totalitarian two-faced nazi ****. As a European, I can say that I laugh at your totalitarian puritanical horse**** in the same way as I laugh at tea party members, you are the worst of the right wing extremist mother****ers on the planet and I cannot believe that in America you are considered to be on the LEFT side of the spectrum.

 

 

You took the words out of my mouth.

Edited December 11, 2014 by Meshugger

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Oh my god Arthur Chu you spineless little absolute ****.

 

 

 

 

"being judged on your past reputation is a good thing. It is the basis of how civilization works. The reason to say good, laudable, productive things in a conversation is so people will like you, think well if you and treat you well in the future. That's totally basic to how human beings work and that chan culture treats this as a suspect or "corrupt" or "dishonest" motivation says a lot about why its toxic."

 

Well, I'm glad we know why you say these "good things" against #GamerGate it is so "people" will "like" you. But when I fight for better rights for homosexuals, transgenders, differently abled, women and even goddamn animal rights it is because it is in accordance with my values and also THE RIGHT ****ING THING TO DO you totalitarian two-faced nazi ****. As a European, I can say that I laugh at your totalitarian puritanical horse**** in the same way as I laugh at tea party members, you are the worst of the right wing extremist mother****ers on the planet and I cannot believe that in America you are considered to be on the LEFT side of the spectrum.

I wonder how he feels about Ian Miles Cheong?

 

As to the rest, I'm quite frightened, as an American who leans left, that so many who claim ideological alignment with me are quick to embrace the totalitarian elements of fascism and completely ignore economic issues and dump freedom on the side in order to force their views on others.

[Amentep]

He is not suggesting you can't kill people, he is simply saying its in bad taste to kill groups of people who are already victims of society

 

Minorities have been victims of society - are they off limits?

 

Women have been victims of society - are they off limits?

 

The differently abled have been victims of society - are they off limits?

 

The poor and homeless have been victims of society - are they off limits?

 

If the answer is yes to each, then you've got a game of white, rich men who have no disabilites...

Edited December 11, 2014 by Amentep

[Blarghagh]

 

He is not suggesting you can't kill people, he is simply saying its in bad taste to kill groups of people who are already victims of society

 

Minorities have been victims of society - are they off limits?

 

Women have been victims of society - are they off limits?

 

The differently abled have been victims of society - are they off limits?

 

The poor and homeless have been victims of society - are they off limits?

 

If the answer is yes to each, then you've got a game of white, rich men who have no disabilites...

 

 

In some ways, it can be argued that white men are victims of society (after all, the "toxic ideals of masculinity" are imposed on them too where their ability to conquer women is imbedded in them as a sign of their worth via patriarchy as even feminists make fun of virgins and the vast majority of suicides are white men) so I assume we can just stick to purple cartoon characters.

 

 

It's an argument I've seen raised lately about narrative diversity. A developer told me about concerns that the things you are allowed to portray with women (or minority) characters to not be labeled as sexist is very small. You can explore thematic content like alchoholism via a male character because then it's just a good character as he's a person with flaws. Do it via a female character and suddenly your character is representing all women as drunks. I wonder how many of the people now screaming about female representation in games realize that they played a significant part in creating the divide.

[Amentep]

 

It's an argument I've seen raised lately about narrative diversity. A developer told me about concerns that the things you are allowed to portray with women (or minority) characters to not be labeled as sexist is very small. You can explore thematic content like alchoholism via a male character because then it's just a good character as he's a person with flaws. Do it via a female character and suddenly your character is representing all women as drunks. I wonder how many of the people now screaming about female representation in games realize that they played a significant part in creating the divide.

 

 

 

I think, in some ways, the idea is to create such uncertainty that you have to go get your idea "vetted" by those who "speak" for the "proper" way to represent women so they can "approve" your take.

 

Could be wrong, but the damned if you do/damned if you don't approach only works if there's a way to avoid damnation - ie some form of a seal of approval.

[Keyrock]

 

He is not suggesting you can't kill people, he is simply saying its in bad taste to kill groups of people who are already victims of society

 

Minorities have been victims of society - are they off limits?

 

Women have been victims of society - are they off limits?

 

The differently abled have been victims of society - are they off limits?

 

The poor and homeless have been victims of society - are they off limits?

 

If the answer is yes to each, then you've got a game of white, rich men who have no disabilites...

 

And therein lies the sad irony of the Social Justice Paradox.  By attacking and harassing developers that include these (and other) groups in certain types of video games or portrayed in a bad light, Social Justice Warriors are making it impossible extremely inconvenient for said developers to include these groups in certain games.  The very people that purport to be championing inclusivity in video games are putting up obstacles to inclusivity in video games.

 

Edit:  Ninja'd by TrueNeutral. 

Edited December 11, 2014 by Keyrock

[Longknife]

 

https://archive.today/1DbIe

 

This was pretty funny. I am not sure the game is especially reveling in the deaths of hookers versus other NPCs (you get money from them regardless, right?)

He actually makes a compelling argument and raises some cogent points

 

Did you read the whole article because he answers your question, see below where he explains the difference between killing a hooker and killing other people

 

 

"What I personally find repulsive about this game is the pleasure it offers in portraying the savaging of a class of people who are already victims, in real life. This is where GTA 5 shows a lack of judgment. I take issue with the portrayal of sex workers being abused and murdered, because sex workers are already victims, and it's just not right to take your fun in abusing victims.

I know a lot of people desperately want to believe that killing a prostitute in GTA 5 is the same as killing any other character, but it's really not. Unlike gangsters or cops or business dudes or hot dog vendors, prostitutes, as a class, are despised, marginalized and abused in real life, all the time. This means that GTA 5 takes its pleasure in humiliating and abusing victims of humiliation and abuse.

In what kind of world is that not worthy of debate, above and beyond the ignorant cry of "if you don't like it, don't buy it"? "

He is basically advocating for Rockstar to remove the killing of hookers as they are already victims and it makes sense to me after reading that article. Its not unreasonable

 

 

 

How do you manage to, in the course of two posts, agree with and praise someone who cites studies suggesting such video games can actually reduce violent crime as they provide people with a psychological outlet (Mercedes said this and cited it) and then in the very next post you are adamantly siding with someone who claims this is a problem as all hookers are victims?

 

 

Likewise, how are hookers victims? He goes on to say that gangsters or cops or business dudes are not despised, marginalized and abused in real life, and quite frankly I'm not quite sure where he's getting that stance from as all three of those classes are pretty controversial and unpopular in today's world, what with gangsters being a bad thing, cops in the USA often being on power trips and many businessmen being blatantly corrupt.

 

 

   But again, how are hookers victims? I'm not saying there aren't hookers who are victims, but to mark all of them as such....? Are you aware the sex industry is constantly growing or able to survive because it often occurs that a woman will take on sex work to complete university, and then after obtaining a degree, finds out the sex work is easier and still pays better? I mean, I sincerely wonder if that's not why Mercedes left stem research to be a porn star. I promise you not all of them are victims, especially if you leave the USA:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCCfgWfexHA

Simple analogy here: I actually wish disabled gamers never came up as a charity effort. Why? Because I don't like being seen as a victim or someone who needs help, and I know there are plenty of very ignorant people who view it as such. It was a very uneasy feeling to inadvertedly be the topic of discussion, with people saying what a group I'm a part of would and would not want. As far as I'm concerned, being called and labeled a victim can easily be an insult, as it implies you're helpless and need saving and until some normal white dude comes along to do the saving, woe is you! Sound familiar?

 

   By the end of the day, I hate absolutes. And that's exactly what that little quote is arguing: an absolute.

 

And as said from the get-go, I'm amazed you praise a person saying such games provide a psychological outlet and help prevent physical violence in one post and then in the very next you're praising someone who says we need to remove a form of physical violence from a video game.

[Chilloutman]

Simple analogy here: I actually wish disabled gamers never came up as a charity effort. Why? Because I don't like being seen as a victim or someone who needs help, and I know there are plenty of very ignorant people who view it as such. It was a very uneasy feeling to inadvertedly be the topic of discussion, with people saying what a group I'm a part of would and would not want. As far as I'm concerned, being called and labeled a victim can easily be an insult, as it implies you're helpless and need saving and until some normal white dude comes along to do the saving, woe is you! Sound familiar?

I want to post something supportive but I realise that you are probably disabled so f**k off xD

[HoonDing]

Capitalism: a love story

 

[Longknife]

 

Simple analogy here: I actually wish disabled gamers never came up as a charity effort. Why? Because I don't like being seen as a victim or someone who needs help, and I know there are plenty of very ignorant people who view it as such. It was a very uneasy feeling to inadvertedly be the topic of discussion, with people saying what a group I'm a part of would and would not want. As far as I'm concerned, being called and labeled a victim can easily be an insult, as it implies you're helpless and need saving and until some normal white dude comes along to do the saving, woe is you! Sound familiar?

I want to post something supportive but I realise that you are probably disabled so f**k off xD

 

 

 

Just some backround here:

 

I was born in San Francisco. San Francisco is two things: possibly the gay capitol of the world and possibly the disabled capitol of the world. Not trying to argue it is for either, just getting the point across it has a lot of both. When I was born with one leg my mom freaked out not knowing what to do about it and ended up awkwardly approaching a couple in wheelchairs asking them what to do. That very same couple would later become my godparents, including Michael Winter, a man who worked under the Clinton Administration. Perhaps you can get a sense for what kind of a guy he was here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/michael-a-winter-advocate-and-activist-for-disability-rights-dies-at-61/2013/08/14/6fd5a432-0397-11e3-9259-e2aafe5a5f84_story.html

 

  But the overarching advice he provided my mom? Don't. Don't act like I'm different, don't treat me special, don't do anything different. And in my opinion, that's very sound advice. This is a city and an area (area I should say since we lived all about the bay area) where my mom once encountered and knew an almost fully paralyzed man in an electric wheelchair who thought ramming that thing into people was funny and fun, and the only words he would take great effort to try and say were "**** you." My mom caught him one day trying to run down another person, but in his haste his wheelchair went too fast, hit the curb and got knocked on it's side. My mom went over to help him up and ask if he was ok, and she got a traditional "**** you" and mean demeanor as her thanks.

   This to me summarizes why you don't treat the disabled special unless it's explicitly being asked for or in a situation where help would obviously be appreciated: because a person can grow to expect such treatment as though it's their god given right, and quite frankly, can develop into a total ass hole. Even so, you do not teach a person to EXPECT help; you provide it because you want to. Yes, opening a door from a wheelchair is difficult, but is it something every wheelchair user (who isn't COMPLETELY paralyzed) should know how to do? Absolutely. And yes, if there are times when my prosthetic is too uncomfortable or painful to wear, should I know how to manage to walk down the street, buy groceries and manage to get home on my own? Absolutely.

   There is nothing superior or inferior about being disabled, just a different set of rules in life we need to adapt to. What makes a person "superior or inferior" (strong words I dunno that I'd use), at least in certain categories, is how well they adapt to that situation.

 

 

  So I'm not saying there's anything INHERITLY wrong with charities for the disabled, but I also worry that many of the donors would be ignorant people wanting to do good for what they perceive as a helpless group of people, and I also cannot shake the idea that perhaps a couple of the people who receive donation support may grow to expect such special treatment, which is NOT doing them any favors. It's nothing against such charity efforts or the people benefiting from them, it's just, in my opinion, a sad reality that it won't always end ideally for both sides. There's nothing inheritly wrong with AbleGamers for example, and there my worry is more that donors may remain ignorant of how capable a disabled person can be.

 

  Honestly if someone were to offer me help with my disability, the only thing I'd want is some lobbying efforts to get better regulation of disabled issues. If I have to leave the USA because I cannot get healthcare due to privatization, that's an issue. If I struggle to find a job in Germany because the average employer considers employment laws to protect disabled workers to be "too long and confusing" and can't be assed to learn those to the point they'd rather avoid disabled employees while paying an additional tax for not hitting their quota, and to the point that both the unemployment office itself and the catholic church charity efforts recognize this issue as a sad reality and the latter organizes special efforts to try and help counteract that, there's a problem and some tweaking needs to be done.

 

 

 

But yeah, tl;dr is that being labeled a victim can easily be seen as insulting. I do not think this attitude is exclusive to the disabled, I think that's universal. So when I read somebody labeling hookers or anyone else as "victims" that need protection without even bothering to explain or define WHY that group is a bunch of victims, yeah, I take offense and question the motives and attitude of the person making the statement.

  I question how much of that is the group ACTUALLY needing the assistance suggested and how much of it is just the "savior" trying to feel good about themselves and sleep better at night.

[Zoraptor]

 

What bothers me about these so-called progressives like Chu is the idea that anonymous posting is inherently bad. I cannot count how many people I know with issues that for years could only find an outlet online. Closeted gay and transgendered people, ashamed rape victims, depression sufferers - their online anonymous outlets literally saved their lives. It literally saved MY life and allowed me to become an at least somewhat productive member of society. If silencing a few neo-Nazis being dumb jerks online means removing that outlet, then seriously, screw that. Nobody who is for any type of human rights can seriously say this is a good thing. This is the speech of closet republicans, which Chu very obviously is.

Because they aren't progressives, they're authoritarians first and foremost.

 

Oh gods yes. Seeing GG/ antiGG portrayed as being right v left makes me, as someone who is pretty far left by most measures, grind my teeth. Wanting to tell other people how to think and how to act is independent of the right/ left dichotomy- you have the classic leftist SJW (or 'cultural marxist', though I dislike that term precisely because of its overt politicisation) as well as the classic old enemy of the rightist Moral Majority, they may be almost diametrically opposed in terms of the left/right divide but they're both authoritarian and use arbitrary yardsticks to determine morality. And, of course, both groups hate games like GTA about evenly though for slightly differing baseline reasons.

Edited December 11, 2014 by Zoraptor

[Orogun01]

 

 

What bothers me about these so-called progressives like Chu is the idea that anonymous posting is inherently bad. I cannot count how many people I know with issues that for years could only find an outlet online. Closeted gay and transgendered people, ashamed rape victims, depression sufferers - their online anonymous outlets literally saved their lives. It literally saved MY life and allowed me to become an at least somewhat productive member of society. If silencing a few neo-Nazis being dumb jerks online means removing that outlet, then seriously, screw that. Nobody who is for any type of human rights can seriously say this is a good thing. This is the speech of closet republicans, which Chu very obviously is.

Because they aren't progressives, they're authoritarians first and foremost.

 

Oh gods yes. Seeing GG/ antiGG portrayed as being right v left makes me, as someone who is pretty far left by most measures, grind my teeth. Wanting to tell other people how to think and how to act is independent of the right/ left dichotomy- you have the classic leftist SJW (or 'cultural marxist', though I dislike that term precisely because of its overt politicisation) as well as the classic old enemy of the rightist Moral Majority, they may be almost diametrically opposed in terms of the left/right divide but they're both authoritarian and use arbitrary yardsticks to determine morality. And, of course, both groups hate games like GTA about evenly though for slightly differing baseline reasons.

 

Well you're problem is that your're not left enough that your'e in the right.

[Longknife]

http://nichegamer.net/2014/12/papers-please-censored-by-apple-for-ipad-release/

 

This is getting ridiculous.

[Undecaf]

This is getting ridiculous.

 

This whole thing has been utterly insane already from the very beginning.

[Volourn]

"Well the anti-GG side isn't some  monolithic group that is united on all it views."

 

O

 

M

 

G

 

 

 

"He actually makes a compelling argument and raises some cogent points"

 

No. He makes NONE. And, I don't even care about GTA. The guy is an idiot just like all other pro banners.

 

 

 

"For example why not allow children to be killed? Now most of us wouldn't be happy with that for a variety of reasons. So you have this automatic moral objection to the killing of children but not hookers?"

 

Big deal. Killing FAKE children in video games is meaningless.  I ahve no moral objection to it nor does any sane normal good person. Only evil nazis sdo.

 

 

 

"Hell I love the GTA series and I have been on killing sprees and killed only hookers. And this does not suggest I would ever do this in RL"

 

GAME OVER, man, GAME OVER.

 

 

hookers are real people who have real emotions and feelings and many of them are victims of horrendous abuse"

 

GTA hookers are NOT real people. Don't be delusional.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Volourn