Journalism and bias in the gaming industry.

[Volourn]

So, the SJWs have  invaded PAX and are now **** shaming  and telling women (and men but the main tagret is women) what they can and cannot wear.

 

\EVIL NAZIS ARE EVIL NAZIS.

 

Why do SJWs hate women so much and see them as weak ansd pathetic little children who need to be baby sat and told what to do?  DISGUSTING,.

 

https://twitter.com/TheMercedesXXX/status/574356436454629376

[Malcador]

"Aggressive" display of cleavage.  Having an amusing time thinking of what that could be. 

[Whipstitch]

No, it's just ironic that the people making the complaint about game dev being a boy's club are the same ones that attack women's games.

Pretty sure people of that ilk attack pretty much everything.

[HoonDing]

http://uk.businessinsider.com/afp-video-game-makers-grapple-with-need-for-diversity-2015-3?r=US

 

 

So glad to see this nonsense reach regular news outlets.

[Meshugger]

 

 

have some respect for privacy, people.

 

I fully expect you to abide by the same ethos when next sex-scandal between a politican in Brussels and a wife of a lobbyist of an Israeli arms dealer breaks the news.

 

I'm thinking that discussing some of the explicit details of DSK's and Berlusconi's parties would get a thread locked down faster than you can say "bunga bunga", here or elsewhere. With good reason, too. Scrutiny of that sort of details belongs in a court of law, and only insofar as it's needed to determine if they constitute a criminal conduct...

 

(thanks for the writeup back there, btw. After reading through 10+ pages I still had no idea what this thread was about, and now I can safely ignore it for good. #firstworldproblems)

 

The thing is, is that explicit details of such a degree were never discussed as the thread would've been locked instantly. The nudies were on porn site that she did modelling for. But it seems like the very mention of such is a breach of privacy. Carry on.

[Meshugger]

http://uk.businessinsider.com/afp-video-game-makers-grapple-with-need-for-diversity-2015-3?r=US

 

 

So glad to see this nonsense reach regular news outlets.

Claim: "These people are involved corruption and collusion in the gaming industry"

Journalist: "Cool, lets asked the accused ones what they think about it"

 

Great digging journalists. Bravo. By that logic, John Gotti is completely innocent. Hey, we asked him and he told us it is a witch-hunt by the NYPD. But i shouldn't be surprised, CBC came out admitting that they are not interested in the claim of corruption, harrassment is much more interesting.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Meshugger

[Volourn]

 But, hey,  we gamers are now an atomic bomb. SWEET.

[Fighter]

https://twitter.com/TheMercedesXXX/status/574356436454629376

 

 

What a joke...

[licketysplit]

Was cosplay or anything of the sort ever a thing at GDC though? Not defending that puritanical guideline. Aggressive display of cleavage, lol. Look out, **** incoming boys!

 

*ducks for cover*

[BruceVC]

 

https://twitter.com/TheMercedesXXX/status/574356436454629376

 

 

What a joke...

 

 

Mmmm,.....this is a bit of a disappointment. I wont lie I am partial to the attire of booth babes. And I imagine that will now change as people will complain about this or that 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

have some respect for privacy, people.

 

I fully expect you to abide by the same ethos when next sex-scandal between a politican in Brussels and a wife of a lobbyist of an Israeli arms dealer breaks the news.

 

 

 

In my country - and I assume in a fair number of other countries, too -, people serving in public positions don't have the same rights to privacy that private citizens do. Hence, I find drawing parallells between the two to be a very strange endeavor. Call it cultural bias, but I don't think equating these is mandated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On one hand, this is slightly idiotic.

 

On the other hand, PAX is a private entity and their management has a right to enforce as idiotic rules as they want to.

Edited March 8, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Fighter]

"higher than 4" above the knee"

 

Are they going to get out a ruler and measure women's skirts?

[Meshugger]

I wonder more what aggressive display of naval means.

[Longknife]

I wonder more what aggressive display of naval means.

 

 

When I was in High school, a female friend of mine once wore a top that didn't cover her shoulders. She and I and another friend were all chatting and then suddenly the Principle called her over to give her a talking to. We were wondering "wtf is going on" and then he made it clear her attire isn't appropriate because it doesn't cover the shoulders. He then was gonna take her to his office to give her something more appropriate to wear over the top.

 

As they walked away me and my friend found it so outrageously ridiculous because wtf who gets turned on by shoulders, so we started going "Oh no, not the shoulders!! Please don't make her cover those sexy, SEXY shoulders! That's what helps a man make it through the day!"

 

Then we got in trouble too for mocking the rules.

 

 

 

Not really relevant, I just like blabbing about life stories. But yeah sometimes I hear about rules for attire and it's like "YA HEAVEN FORBID SOMEONE SEE A NAVAL AND JUST FALL INTO AN AROUSED FRENZY."

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Throughout the whole video she disingenuously makes claims as to what you can do to women and then disclaim that these mechanics are not exclusive to just female NPCs. The argument is set up in such a way that makes it seem that gamers are meant or forced to kill and torment women and then it has a small disclaimer explaining how the game actually works after having shown a lot of footage of PC killing female NPCs. It is intellectually dishonest.

 

 

You call it intellectually dishonest, I call it simply wrong.

 

It's almost as if scholars of the humanities have always had a great and long-standing tradition of disappearing into their own asses upon reaching a sufficient singularity point of meta-analysis. Oh wait, that tradition totally exists!

 

 

 

I will key in a few words of your statement, emergent, intent, thoughtlessness. What you're saying makes sense but the problem comes from the cultural lens and subjective interpretation. I have no soft way to put it, the interpretation of sandbox mechanics as misogynistic is ****ing insane. It asks to assume the position of an insane person and treats it like that is the norm.

To put in an example; if an insane woman started complaining about the fact her daughter's doll can be used as an adult toy and then decides to try sue the toy company for what is clearly "emergent" uses of their toy, claiming they "intended" it because the toy does not prevent this usage and that they are "thoughtless". Any reasonable person would tell that crazy lady to **** off.

 

 

 

Again, what you call "****ing insane" I'll call "meh, yet another academic disappearing into her own ass. must be Thursday." (Also, small logic issue: if it's an emergent use arising from thoughtlessness, it can't also be intended. Just let it go.) I mean, conclusions such as this are not uncommon in academic analysis. I once read a paper (written by a perfectly intelligent, capable and reasonably nerdy person) on The Matrix trilogy being a metaphor for the trans* experience.

 

Basically, the line of logic in this case goes like this: by showing sexualized female bodies as objects to be acted upon, the game contributes to an overall culture of seeing female bodies as objects to be acted upon. When people are not paying attention to do otherwise, they usually default to their cultural conditioning in their decision-making. This cultural conditioning is very multi-faceted and games are only a small part of it (individual games even smaller), but the influence these games have is still there. Hence, it achieves a misogynistic outcome not due to authorial intent, but as an emergent property of how human minds work, and an immense media presence of similar messages. The problem is never with individual games, but in aggregate, they become an influencing factor in unconscious decision-making (ie. the effect can be counteracted by making a conscious effort to cancel one's biases). It's a valid line of logic. It's pretty much accepted that unless cognitive effort is expended, people are prone to defaulting to unspoken assumptions, and there is reasonably "hard" research supporting that these assumptions do exist. (Will find them for you, but for some reason, I only have research showing unconscious racial bias bookmarked.)

 

 

Extreme liberals will have you believe that gender is a social construct and it bears no consequence on will(unless we're talking about that "Toxic masculinity") But gender differences do create taste differences, which explain how some genres become gendered.

 

 

You're making a few assumptions in bad faith here, I think.

 

First off, gender is a social construct. Sex is the biological component. And this biological component is made of smaller components (chromosomal, genital, hormonal, etc.) that don't always match. The separation of gender identity and biological sex is an eminently reasonable thing, because "biological sex" is sometimes just not very useful or easy to determine. You don't need to be an "extreme liberal" to see that, just have an above-average knowledge of DSDs.

 

Second, because it's socially constructed, it both has no inherent bearing on will (you can negate it with sufficient cognitive effort) and is impossible to ignore (because the required cognitive effort is huge, and you'll never be able to perfectly get rid of your biases).

 

Third, while it explains how it becomes gendered, I'm not sure the explanation is relevant to the discussion. 

 

 

 

I'd be grateful if you could provide me with examples [of SJWs having damaged and ended careers as well as swindled people from their money and damaged the relationship between consumer and the industry]

 

Brad Wardell has become a notorious example

http://wiki.gamergate.me/index.php?title=Brad_Wardell#cite_note-1

There is the scandal of judges having financial ties to games that they judge at the IGF

https://archive.today/04Qsh

 

 

I'm not sure what Wardell is an example of. SJW harrassment and death threats, sure. But his career doesn't exactly seem ended to me. And as for the IGF article, I recognize none of the names of the investors who allegedly manipulated the award show as "SJWs".

 

 

 

Whoa, way to miss the point.

The cow example was meant to point out how industry make half measures to deal with negative public opinion, in that case humane treatment of cows to cater to people who like meat but are very sensitive about animal abuse. Which was meant to tie into the larger point of game publishers making half measures but still sticking to what they do.

 

 

 

No, I think I got your point just fine. You made a claim of Sarkeesian being invited on panels by big publishers is a proof of how far her influence extends. I contest your claim, citing how they're essentially paying lip service to her ideals while sticking to what they do - something you seem to be agreeing with -, which, to me, doesn't exactly scream her having an influence at all.

 

 

 

You seem to be oddly unconcerned by the fact that the only people to whom sexualized imagery of child models appeals are the very child porn enthusiasts we're talking about. That said, "sheltering" was a poor choice of words on my part; should've said "pandering to".

 

It isn't sheltering or pandering so much as selling a house to a convicted pedophile is. While it is disturbing, it also legal (which shouldn't be IMO, not just the possession or distribution but mainly the manufacture) If you believe the extreme that pedophile should be executed even when they haven't had any sexual relations with children then there isn't any room for compromise. But as a reasonable person I understand that free speech will support some expressions that I find negative. Yet the legality of it isn't my expertise or burden and I try not to impose my morals on others.

As to how it discredits GG, it would be the same as saying that because you live in the same neighborhood as a pedophile then you must support him/her as you haven't kicked him out.

 

 

I find this to be an intellectually dishonest line of argument.

 

Selling house to a convicted pedophile is somewhat different from providing a platform for said pedophile to look at sexualized imagery of children. Main difference being that needing a home to live in is pretty much universal to humanity, whereas looking at softcore kiddie porn is really, really not.

 

I also dislike the insinuation that me not being okay with providing such a platform for pedophiles hints at a desire to execute them even when they make a conscious effort to suppress their desires. I'll assume in good faith that it was just an unfortunate use of "general you", and you meant nothing of the sort.

 

Re:this discrediting GG... not so much. But I do think it reflects on them. It's not really guilt by association, it's more like "your ideology is seen to be just as undesirable in most communities as sexualized imagery of children is".

 

 

 

The community just provided the links to forum posts made by known SJW activist on which they claimed to have engaged in said acts.

 

 

 

Yet you don't seem to view this as strong enough evidence to post the same link here, am I mistaken?

 

 

 

Well, you need to understand that developers suffer because games journalism decides to rip their games a new one on account of being misogynistic or not having PoC or women and then for not having the right ones. Games scores do affect sales and they have a hierarchical effect where investors get scared, stock drops, publisher puts pressure on both journalists and developers. But publishers and journalist have a strained relationship in which they depend on each other even when they sometimes loathe each other. Developers on the other hand are more reliant on publishers so they're more vulnerable.

 

 

 

I'll file this under "good argument against the existence of video game scoring systems in general", then.

[Blarghagh]

So, the SJWs have  invaded PAX and are now **** shaming  and telling women (and men but the main tagret is women) what they can and cannot wear.

 

\EVIL NAZIS ARE EVIL NAZIS.

 

Why do SJWs hate women so much and see them as weak ansd pathetic little children who need to be baby sat and told what to do?  DISGUSTING,.

 

https://twitter.com/TheMercedesXXX/status/574356436454629376

 

I think you're overstating this. The only thing it says regarding cosplayers is "can be asked to change", what it really talks about is booth babes, a.k.a. women who are hired and dressed by other people to stand there and look sexy for money. Nobody is teling others what they cannot wear, only what they can make others wear. Essentially they want PAX to be about video games, not a meat market.

[Zoraptor]

 

https://twitter.com/TheMercedesXXX/status/574356436454629376

 

 

What a joke...

 

 

While it's a policy which is certainly open to some... negative interpretation, that isn't a new policy. Been around since at least 2010.

[Blarghagh]

Guys, its not about consumers. It's for hired booth babes, i.e. people who are dressed by someone else. They're not telling anyone who wants to wear those things as a visitor that they can't.

[Fighter]

That description still sounds ridiculous.

[Blarghagh]

That's true, but why does it matter? Anything that turns games cons back into being about video games is good in my book. Booth babes and goodies have turned it into something where the consumer becomes the product.

[Meshugger]

 

Huh.

Still wondering what aggressive naval display mens though.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Meshugger

[Malcador]

I guess they meant to say bare midriffs but figured it was not official sounding enough.

[Fighter]

That's true, but why does it matter? Anything that turns games cons back into being about video games is good in my book. Booth babes and goodies have turned it into something where the consumer becomes the product.

 

I have my doubts that it was ever so bad that these kinds of rules were necessary.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Huh.

Still wondering what aggressive naval display mens though.

It's when you force people to stare at your navel.

 

Dev tries to talk to Arthur Gies about variety, hits a brick wall.

 

 

Gies is also a fan of Suicide Girls, which is an erotic(ie porn) site featuring alt(goth girls and ****) models that happens to have contracts that are very bad for their models if they want to model for anyone but SG.

 

 

Why are all these people huge hypocrites?

Edited March 8, 2015 by KaineParker

[Meshugger]

They are ashamed by their own desires and are projecting.

 

//arm-chair psychologist hath spoken