Journalism and sexism in the games industry

[TrashMan]

 

Gotta admire woman who can hold her vodka and make good points. Especially the take down that starts around 11 minutes in was epic.

 

Glorious doesn't even BEGIN to describe this.

This right here is Exterminatus-level ass-ripping.

 

McIntosh and the Beta Brigade will never be able to sit again. The amount of anal cream they will need would sink a tanker.

[Malcador]

They should just settle this all with a boxing match

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

They should just settle this all with a boxing match

That's unfair to McIntosh ****lord.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I don't think it's a difficult concept to grasp that whenever a journalist chooses to report on something, they're simultaneously not reporting on something else.

That's actually not true, since reporters can work on multiple stories.

 

They also don't work in a vacuum, so that reporter A isn't reporting on something doesn't mean Reporter B couldn't be.

 

 

 

Let's assume for a moment that people don't have infinite time and energy. If we're willing to accept this, it's not a huge leap of logic that despite being able to work on multiple stories, there is a finite number of stories they can work on at any given time. Therefore, assuming a maximum workload - which can be expected, given how astonishingly ****tily games journalists are paid, and the fact that bills usually don't just magically go away -, choosing to report on a given story does mean that a different story won't make it.

 

But this is actuall orthogonal to the point I was making, which is "assuming that all opinions are equally valid and worthy of being heard is dangerous, especially when one concludes that because of this, privately owned entities are somehow morally obliged to give platform to inane bull****, even at the cost of covering other, perhaps worthier subjects".

 

 

 

In the words of Chrys Ingraham:

 

"As Althusser has argued, 'A word or concept cannot be considered in isolation; it only exists in the theoretical or ideological framework in which it is used: its problematic' (1982:253). To determine a text's problematic is to reveal another logic circulating beneath the surface. It appears as the answer to questions left unasked. It is not that which is left unsaid or unaccounted for, but that which the text assumes and does not speak. What is required, then, is a process of analysis capable of inquiring into the power relations organizing the allowed as well as the disallowed meanings in an effort to expose the artificiality of the theories and ideologies organizing the use of particular concepts."

There's an assumption in what he says that a test assumes something that it doesn't speak.

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure it's impossible to create anything - well, anything with words in it, at the very least - without some amount of cultural context seeping into it.

 

It might not be intentional on the part of the creator, but the author is dead, and has been dead for the better part of a century or so.

 

 

 

 

So what we have is a small cadre of cultural and artistic critics who write quite unlike the status quo, and a subset of gamers who give a **** what they say.  It’s hard to say how unique a problem this is to the games industry.  There are many film critics who have focused on progressing film as a medium artistically and culturally.  Most of them have total disdain for Michael Bay-type mass market pap, and to the people who buy tickets for them.  But there isn’t a whole lot of people going around arguing that the Pauline Kaels and Roger Eberts of the world are going to somehow destroy the medium.  And I’m assuming that Michael Bay is still cashing some pretty big checks.

 

In the real world, most people stick to media sources that they, you know, actually like. If you don’t like film critique, you’ll probably never care who Pauline Kael is.  However, games has a culture where the criticism is cross-pollinated by outrage.  People who are far outside of Polygon and Kotaku’s normal readerbase are directed to go there because OMFG BURN THE HERETIC!  And the sites have learned that having some disparate opinions and unique worldviews on games people are passionate about are effectively clickbait.  People like Erik make the mistake of thinking that, no, all gamers think alike, and therefore all gamer writers are talking down to them.   Despite the fact that numerous sites, including IGN & Gamespot (the market leaders) keep giving us triple helpings of exactly the ‘old’ style of journalism we’ve grown accustomed to.

 

 

 

I could be wrong, but I don't remember Roger Ebert advocating that a film shouldn't exist or be distributed.  I remember (or misremember) reading something from Pauline Kael indicating she wished certain people would stop making movies, but I don't necessarily remember her specifically saying that a film shouldn't exist or be distributed.

 

Could be wrong, of course, but my readings of both (unlike some games journalists) were that they were advocates for better films by promoting what they wanted to see and being critical of the things they didn't.  They didn't go out and try to stop a film being distributed or made.  And I think that's the key difference - a lot of the game buying public (rightly or wrongly) are of the opinion that there are some game journalists who only want games made that they approve of (which is why we are where we are).

 

 

 

Then again, the only context where I've even heard (from second-hand accounts, with no direct quotes) of games journalists advocating for stopping a game from being distributed/made is the case of How To Gun Down Unarmed Civilians Begging for Their Lives: The Game. Which is a bit different situation from anything the aforementioned film critics have ever encountered.

[Keyrock]

Then again, the only context where I've even heard (from second-hand accounts, with no direct quotes) of games journalists advocating for stopping a game from being distributed/made is the case of How To Gun Down Unarmed Civilians Begging for Their Lives: The Game. Which is a bit different situation from anything the aforementioned film critics have ever encountered.

 

Could it not be argued, though, that that may well be the best way to provide social commentary on the senseless violence in video games.  I mean, there's an almost infinite amount of games out there that have you murdering obscene amounts of people.  Some of them justify it with some paper thin reasons as to why murdering hundreds, maybe thousands of people is a okay, others coat it with a paint of cartoonishness to dull the grim reality.  By stripping away all the layers of sugar coating and exposing players to the bitter tasting pill, could it not be argued that a game like Hatred could be opening some people's eyes to the horrors they do in other games?  Does that not give it value?  What better way to let people know the horrors of murder than by fully exposing them to the horrors of murder?

 

There's been a long standing debate in movies (since you brought Hollywood into this) about showing the full gore of violence.  Some shy away from showing the full gore and carnage because OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN, even though these movies are clearly marked as not for children, others (myself included) advocate for showing the full horror of death so that people can see the full terrifying nature of what murder is.  If it applies to movies, I think it applies to video games as well.  

Edited December 20, 2014 by Keyrock

[Keyrock]

-snip-

That's a great song and album, and I would call it Megadeth's 2nd or 3rd album (I go back and forth between Countdown to Extinction and Peace Sells... But Who's Buying? as to the second best album), but Rust in Peace is Megadeth's best album, hands down.  Rust in Peace is LEGENDARY.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWLOKmyu40I

Edited December 20, 2014 by Keyrock

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I could use a recommendation on music, been listening too a lot of Black Flag and Minutemen lately and been looking for something different.

[Blarghagh]

There's been a long standing debate in movies (since you brought Hollywood into this) about showing the full gore of violence.  Some shy away from showing the full gore and carnage because OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN, even though these movies are clearly marked as not for children, others (myself included) advocate for showing the full horror of death so that people can see the full terrifying nature of what murder is.  If it applies to movies, I think it applies to video games as well.  

 

 

Think of the children is ridiculous anyway. Yes, children need to be protected, but I grew up with a mother who protected me from literally anything and it stunted my development to the point I'm still recovering from it. I love her to death but that wasn't the greatest idea. I think Terry Pratchett is on point (though the point is exaggerated) in this exchange from Hogfather.

 

[Walsingham]

That was pretty much the attitude of my folks when I got my first knife. And my first (air) gun.

 

"BETTER DROWNED THAN DUFFERS IF NOT DUFFERS WON'T DROWN"

[Longknife]

So Anita recently took a snippet out of a blogger's promo for a research article suggesting feminism is directly contrary to genetic programming and thus shall fail, and then spun it in a tweet to claim it was a quote from some hate ail she received: http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/anita-sarkeesian-plagiarizes-captain.html?m=1

 

EDIT: couple things...just wanted to make it clear I am more interested in the source article, which as it turns out is not research but rather one woman's take on and experience with feminism during the 70's. Interesting read with interesting people, both the feminists she criticizes and her herself with her incredibly old fashioned ways.

Edited December 20, 2014 by Longknife

[Meshugger]

Part two on DiGRA's own research has been posted, i'll post part one as well for those that missed it:

 

 

 

TL;DR: Part 1 is about how DiGRA themselves came to the conclusion that people do not relate to their game character as an identity, unless you were interested in studies of gender (what a surprise). Part 2 is about changing the medium itself, since people who game simply do not care about the characters as explained in part one.

[Fighter]

I guess it bares repeating. I'm both hands for wider representation. What gets me up in arms and calling people "SJW" is this louder and louder borderline accusation of wrong doing or malevolence that's dripping through the so called critique of games like GTA5 for the mere choice of continuing the "status quo" of male protagonists. I also reject the whole idea of so called "social responsibility" of fiction creators to act as the ministry of education which they are not.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2014/12/gamergate-game-journo-pros-blacklistboycott-may-have-breached-antitrust-laws/

 

Interesting read, hope it's not like Valve and the EU law.

[Meshugger]

http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2014/12/gamergate-game-journo-pros-blacklistboycott-may-have-breached-antitrust-laws/

 

Interesting read, hope it's not like Valve and the EU law.

 

If, *if* it goes to the European court, prepare for some asswhoop. They have thrown the hammer down on M$, Google and many others.....problem is, is that it usually takes them 4-5 years to do so.

Edited December 20, 2014 by Meshugger

[Meshugger]

Remember the blue haired girl that created the gg_blocker for Twitter? Turns out she takes pride in animal abuse without even being aware if it herself:

 

Edited December 20, 2014 by Meshugger

[Longknife]

Remember the blue haired girl that created the gg_blocker for Twitter? Turns out she takes pride in animal abuse without even being aware if it herself:

 

 

 

 

 

 

It would be overdone if I used Farnsworth saying he doesn't want to live on this planet anymore, so here's a fun alternative to express my anger:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0_dgBaNabY

[Malcador]

Still no bodies on the floor from this? So much for the terrible human cost of GamerGate, hah.

[Longknife]

Why the **** would you dye your dog blue?

 

I'm still in shock.

Edited December 20, 2014 by Longknife

[BruceVC]

 

Remember the blue haired girl that created the gg_blocker for Twitter? Turns out she takes pride in animal abuse without even being aware if it herself:

 

 

 

 

 

 

It would be overdone if I used Farnsworth saying he doesn't want to live on this planet anymore, so here's a fun alternative to express my anger:

 

 

 

Yeah it is shameful to do that to any animal but its a case of abuse done in ignorance, in other words she didn't mean to intentionally abuse her dog . So she shouldn't be judged too harshly 

[Longknife]

Yeah it is shameful to do that to any animal but its a case of abuse done in ignorance, in other words she didn't mean to intentionally abuse her dog . So she shouldn't be judged too harshly 

 

 

Ignorance is a choice.

 

 

I cannot fathom a single environment within this world where one could grow up thinking that trying to dye your dog is a good or wise idea. She is truly, truly ****ing special and I actually HOPE she has zero friends in real life, and not out of malice, but because again I cannot fathom a scenario where not a single friend says "hey dumb****, don't dye your dog. Idiot."

 

  The only situation where that level of ignorance seems acceptable is if she literally lives on the moon with a mentally challenged mother and/or father and doesn't have enough human contact to learn these things...which in itself doesn't seem plausible because there's no hair dye on the moon.

[BruceVC]

 

Yeah it is shameful to do that to any animal but its a case of abuse done in ignorance, in other words she didn't mean to intentionally abuse her dog . So she shouldn't be judged too harshly 

 

 

Ignorance is a choice.

 

 

I cannot fathom a single environment within this world where one could grow up thinking that trying to dye your dog is a good or wise idea. She is truly, truly ****ing special and I actually HOPE she has zero friends in real life, and not out of malice, but because again I cannot fathom a scenario where not a single friend says "hey dumb****, don't dye your dog. Idiot."

 

  The only situation where that level of ignorance seems acceptable is if she literally lives on the moon with a mentally challenged mother and/or father and doesn't have enough human contact to learn these things...which in itself doesn't seem plausible because there's no hair dye on the moon.

 

 

You seem to be missing point, we all should agree it was stupid thing to do

 

But she dyed her dog out of  a misplaced sense of affection. She wanted her dog to look like her, she wanted them to be even closer

 

It wasn't malicious so I question the level of abuse you can sincerely level at her ?

[Longknife]

 

 

Yeah it is shameful to do that to any animal but its a case of abuse done in ignorance, in other words she didn't mean to intentionally abuse her dog . So she shouldn't be judged too harshly 

 

 

Ignorance is a choice.

 

 

I cannot fathom a single environment within this world where one could grow up thinking that trying to dye your dog is a good or wise idea. She is truly, truly ****ing special and I actually HOPE she has zero friends in real life, and not out of malice, but because again I cannot fathom a scenario where not a single friend says "hey dumb****, don't dye your dog. Idiot."

 

  The only situation where that level of ignorance seems acceptable is if she literally lives on the moon with a mentally challenged mother and/or father and doesn't have enough human contact to learn these things...which in itself doesn't seem plausible because there's no hair dye on the moon.

 

 

You seem to be missing point, we all should agree it was stupid thing to do

 

But she dyed her dog out of  a misplaced sense of affection. She wanted her dog to look like her, she wanted them to be even closer

 

It wasn't malicious so I question the level of abuse you can sincerely level at her ?

 

 

 

This is a level of ignorance on par with "omg guys I shot my cat with a paintball gun cuz I wanted to play with it but it turns out shooting your cat with paintball guns can kill it????"

 

 

Like I said, moments like this validate the "Ignorance is a choice" quote from Ulysses to me, because yes, there is a point where certain degrees of ignorance are downright inexcuseable. This is one of those times.

[Nonek]

Ignorant and stupid, could almost be a rallying cry for the SJFs. Ideally they shouldn't be allowed out of care institutions if they're that lacking in basic common sense, and yet these simpletons have the nerve to criticise gamers. Most amusing.

 

Hope the poor animal is taken from her by the RSPCA or similar institution for its own good, and she's not allowed to own any other animals.

[Orogun01]

You seem to be missing point, we all should agree it was stupid thing to do

 

But she dyed her dog out of  a misplaced sense of affection. She wanted her dog to look like her, she wanted them to be even closer

 

It wasn't malicious so I question the level of abuse you can sincerely level at her ?

Bruce I don't think you understand, this isn't a group of polite people who argue their discontent with other polite people. It's a bunch of lunatics trying to out-crazy each other and we'll be damned if we let those other crazies get away with stuff. Besides the SJWs should appreciate it, after all moral outrage has always been their preferred weapon.

[Longknife]

Ignorant and stupid, could almost be a rallying cry for the SJFs. Ideally they shouldn't be allowed out of care institutions if they're that lacking in basic common sense, and yet these simpletons have the nerve to criticise gamers. Most amusing.

 

Hope the poor animal is taken from her by the RSPCA or similar institution for its own good, and she's not allowed to own any other animals.

 

 

What she's doing is actually downright illegal in many states, countries and provinces. Assuming she lives in one of those and an animal lover spots this story, it is actually highly possible she could end up fined or end up losing the dog.

 

Assuming she's California though, the only laws there seem to be in regards to ducks, rabbits, chickens and the like. (farm animals)

Edited December 20, 2014 by Longknife