Journalism and bias in the gaming industry.

[Barothmuk]

This whole thing isn't about bigotry on their part as much as a desire to use games as 'progressive' (which is just a polite word for fascist) propaganda.

Mum: Namu, honey, clean your room.

 

Namutree: FASCIST!

[Namutree]

 

Mum: Namu, honey, clean your room.

 

Namutree: FASCIST!

 

This is just silly. My mom would never tell me to clean my room.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Namutree

[Oerwinde]

 

 

 

 

 

Ehh not really. 

 

They believed in their own conjured delusions of what gamers were and declared all gamers as such and should've die as 'a culture'. They do not like games or the medium itself and therefore they wish to change it according to their whims. They approve of corruption or turn the blind eye to it as long as it is for a greater good, which is to consolidate the market for more progressive 'games', which are not bound by market forces, but rather by the approval of themselves. 

 

 

[citation needed]

 

 

 

 

...Short version?

 

I mean, it's not like people are incapable of arriving on different conclusions based on the same facts, and I'm arguing with your conclusions, not your facts; hence, sitting through about an hour's worth of videos telling me what I already know seems... unproductive.

 

 

So, after watching, the jist is that a study by a feminist ideologue found that gamers don't care about representation in games because gamers don't identify with the characters, they identify as the characters. White males had no problems playing as Princess Peach, black women had no problems playing as Kratos. Players were more worried about what their characters could do than who they were, and identity results were the same when players played pre-created characters and characters they could build themselves. Study concluded that representation isn't important in games because the interactivity essentially replaces emotional ties that are required in other mediums.

 

2nd video the same person applies those results to the wider industry and gamer identity. Found that gamer identity is tied to what and how people play games rather than gender and race. People who primarily play casual games don't identify as gamers. People who identified as gamers tended to play more often for longer periods, and were more into intense games rather than relaxing games. Gamers also tended to see other people as gamers if they acted the same way and didn't discriminate based on race or sex. She then took all the evidence she had collected, and proceeded to make things up and ignore her findings because she wanted gender politics to be a major thing in gaming, and her results found they weren't.

[Longknife]

 

 

 

 

Ehh not really. 

 

They believed in their own conjured delusions of what gamers were and declared all gamers as such and should've die as 'a culture'. They do not like games or the medium itself and therefore they wish to change it according to their whims. They approve of corruption or turn the blind eye to it as long as it is for a greater good, which is to consolidate the market for more progressive 'games', which are not bound by market forces, but rather by the approval of themselves. 

 

 

[citation needed]

 

Are you actually expecting GooberGrunters to do fact-checking?

 

What you're dealing with here is, essentially, a paranoid conspiracy theory, and like most conspiracy theories, reason and facts are no match for it. Try convincing a 9/11 Truther that the World Trade Center wasn't brought down by a controlled demolition and see how much success you have. There's no convincing them that those windmills they're tilting at are not, in fact, giants in disguise.

 

American historian Richard Hofstadter wrote a famous essay titled The Paranoid Style in American Politics, which perfectly describes the attitude behind GamerGate.

 

 

Are you aware GamerGate supporters are in the clear majority? You can use this thread series as a sample, you can reference a recent poll a website conducted where I believe the results looked something like 47% approve of GamerGate, 10% oppose, and 43% lacked knowledge or opinion on the matter? If you don't trust either of those, simply compare the subscription sizes of their respective subreddits, and you'll find GamerGate has about 6 times the numbers it's opposition has. You're calling a majority of people a bunch of conspiracy theorists.

 

Secondly, I find it funny you want to reference an essay that cites the paranoid style of American politics, yet you wish to apply that to the people rather than to the political leaders themselves, or rather the entirety of the culture, media included. What I'm getting at? Case and point: recently I've gotten a very strange amount of American friends and family contacting me urging me to leave Germany and return to the US, because they fear for my safety with all the ISIS news. I sit there dumbfounded like "what the HELL are they talking about," they mention a bunch of people got beheaded, then when I look it up, it's in Libya or some crap. Initially, despite being American myself I wanted to discredit it all as "stupid Americans gonna stupid" and not recognize the difference between Germany and Libya, but I actually developed a theory after - of all things - seeing episodes of the British and American versions of Kitchen Nightmares back to back. Noted that the American version was sooooooo overdramatic, complete with dramatic zooms, sound effects etc, whereas the British version was treated far more like a typical critic job.  Then it kinda hit me: I theorize the American news networks are sensationalizing ISIS stories to a far greater degree than other countries. I find this far more plausible than all of my friends and family just being complete idiots.

 

   And that's kind of the point of GamerGate. GamerGate has made it clear that a lot of these journalists wish to sell narratives.  They report, sure, but they tend to report the parts that sell a specific narrative more than others. This is not hard to see, as you'll struggle to find a mainstream media report that covers GamerGate and actually provides GamerGate with a voice equal in size to it's opposition. No, the reports are typically largely bias towards the opposition, likening GamerGate to a hate mob. Compare this to a journalist liked by GamerGate such as David Pakman, and you will not see such unfair bias between his interviews with GG and anti-GG supporters.

 

 

  So yes, I do find your citation bitterly ironic, because I for one believe the media has a very large hand in the actions of a culture, and if you wanna talk about people being insanely paranoid or reactionary....? Perhaps it's because the media finds fear-mongering and hate-infusing narratives to be marketable, and guess who GamerGate is after? The media and their slanted narratives.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Longknife

[Meshugger]

The producer of StarCraft, Diablo II and Team Lead for World of Warcraft tweeted this about GG:

 

https://twitter.com/Grummz/status/572212550106021888

 

*crosses fingers*

[Meshugger]

More info about Mark Kern and his treatment by Polygon:

 

http://imgur.com/gallery/anq6b/new

[Rosbjerg]

I for one believe the media has a very large hand in the actions of a culture, and if you wanna talk about people being insanely paranoid or reactionary....? Perhaps it's because the media finds fear-mongering and hate-infusing narratives to be marketable, and guess who GamerGate is after? The media and their slanted narratives.

 

I can certainly get behind that and have experienced people worrying on my behalf (who watch a lot of TV news incidentally), more than I worry myself.

 

But as someone looking at GG objectively, I do see a lot of sensationalism on all sides - from fairly straight forward feminists agendas and/or misogyny, to big business corruption and nepotism... and while I can certainly understand the conclusions being drawn, I have to say that they often done so on rather flimsy evidence. And the entire debate seems to have been hijacked (and allowed to be hijacked) by the loudest 'I see a conspiracy!!' types.

 

As a 'pro-GG', do you feel your platform is being taken over by the same kind of hate-infused narrative (from other pro-GGs)?

edit: or rather, I guess my question is - what do the majority of 'pro-GG' see the issue as? From your perspective.

[Luckmann]

This whole thing isn't about bigotry on their part as much as a desire to use games as 'progressive' (which is just a polite word for fascist) propaganda.

As much as I'd like to agree with you in general, on this you're wrong. There is nothing fascist about it - "fascist" is a whole 'nother neck of the woods. What you are describing is essentially cultural marxism, which is about as far away from fascism as possible. The issue essentially boils down to people, cultural marxists, who have no interest in gaming as a hobby, seeks to use it as a political platform. It is a tactic that is simply alien to most forms of fascist thought, and can be considered culturally anti-fascist in that it subverts the ideals of fascism (action instead of words, honesty instead of guile, etc).

[Blarghagh]

That's an odd divide, who says some of those cultural marxists don't play video games all the time?

[Meshugger]

Check Mark Kern's Twitter feed: https://twitter.com/grummz

[Luckmann]

That's an odd divide, who says some of those cultural marxists don't play video games all the time?

Oh, don't get me wrong, of course there are. I've known several marxists that definitely can be called gamers. But that's not really the issue, it wouldn't even be an issue if marxists produced games with marxist messages (if you ask me, at least), honestly, but the issue is the tactic itself. A marxist gamer looks at games and thinks, "Hey, I think I can make a good game", and then his ideals will of course colour that game, some may even go so far as to make their politics a concious part of the game.

 

Fair enough. He's a gamer, he looks to games as a medium, and he sees the art, the hobby, he appreciates gaming because of what it is and what it can do.

 

A cultural marxist looks at the gaming industry and sees it's potential as an engine for cultural subversion. If you are a cultural marxist, you are really just a marxist that employs the tactic of cultural marxism, and if you employ that tactic, you cannot be a fan of the medium you employ it against, or you wouldn't be doing it.

[Namutree]

 

This whole thing isn't about bigotry on their part as much as a desire to use games as 'progressive' (which is just a polite word for fascist) propaganda.

What you are describing is essentially cultural marxism, which is about as far away from fascism as possible. The issue essentially boils down to people, cultural marxists, who have no interest in gaming as a hobby, seeks to use it as a political platform.

Don't you have to be a Marxist to be a Cultural Marxist? A lot of these progressive activist don't seem to be Marxists. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

This whole thing isn't about bigotry on their part as much as a desire to use games as 'progressive' (which is just a polite word for fascist) propaganda.

 

What you are describing is essentially cultural marxism, which is about as far away from fascism as possible. The issue essentially boils down to people, cultural marxists, who have no interest in gaming as a hobby, seeks to use it as a political platform.

Don't you have to be a Marxist to be a Cultural Marxist? A lot of these progressive activist don't seem to be Marxists.

Not really. Actually the few Marxists I've talked to tend to dislike Cultural Marxism and Identity Politics, seeing it as a distraction from class issues.

 

Make of that what you will.

[Chilloutman]

As a 'pro-GG', do you feel your platform is being taken over by the same kind of hate-infused narrative (from other pro-GGs)?

edit: or rather, I guess my question is - what do the majority of 'pro-GG' see the issue as? From your perspective.

 

Heh I feel quite opposite. I feel that someone is forcing his political views on me by 'restricting' development of games they found offensive (hate-infused if you like). Take example of good old Fallout. Child killing was in the game, if this game was launched today, would it have lower scores because of it? I dont know but I believe it would, because its not politicaly correct to kill kids. And thus game would sell less and any other project would avoid it. (and I love to SMG those little thieving bastards in to face) 

[Namutree]

 

 

 

This whole thing isn't about bigotry on their part as much as a desire to use games as 'progressive' (which is just a polite word for fascist) propaganda.

What you are describing is essentially cultural marxism, which is about as far away from fascism as possible. The issue essentially boils down to people, cultural marxists, who have no interest in gaming as a hobby, seeks to use it as a political platform.

Don't you have to be a Marxist to be a Cultural Marxist? A lot of these progressive activist don't seem to be Marxists.

Not really. Actually the few Marxists I've talked to tend to dislike Cultural Marxism and Identity Politics, seeing it as a distraction from class issues.

 

Make of that what you will.

 

Then why call it "Cultural Marxism"?

[Blarghagh]

Because the people who named it are idiots, I guess? I think it's the idea that culture must be equal for everybody - i.e. equal rights and representation for minorities in culture and media. A black, gay, trans or disabled person should be able to enjoy everything on the same level as an abled white cis male.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

 

This whole thing isn't about bigotry on their part as much as a desire to use games as 'progressive' (which is just a polite word for fascist) propaganda.

 

What you are describing is essentially cultural marxism, which is about as far away from fascism as possible. The issue essentially boils down to people, cultural marxists, who have no interest in gaming as a hobby, seeks to use it as a political platform.

Don't you have to be a Marxist to be a Cultural Marxist? A lot of these progressive activist don't seem to be Marxists.

Not really. Actually the few Marxists I've talked to tend to dislike Cultural Marxism and Identity Politics, seeing it as a distraction from class issues.

Make of that what you will.

Then why call it "Cultural Marxism"?

The same reason Social Darwinism is named what it is I suppose.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

So, after watching, the jist is that a study by a feminist ideologue found that gamers don't care about representation in games because gamers don't identify with the characters, they identify as the characters. White males had no problems playing as Princess Peach, black women had no problems playing as Kratos. Players were more worried about what their characters could do than who they were, and identity results were the same when players played pre-created characters and characters they could build themselves. Study concluded that representation isn't important in games because the interactivity essentially replaces emotional ties that are required in other mediums.

 

2nd video the same person applies those results to the wider industry and gamer identity. Found that gamer identity is tied to what and how people play games rather than gender and race. People who primarily play casual games don't identify as gamers. People who identified as gamers tended to play more often for longer periods, and were more into intense games rather than relaxing games. Gamers also tended to see other people as gamers if they acted the same way and didn't discriminate based on race or sex. She then took all the evidence she had collected, and proceeded to make things up and ignore her findings because she wanted gender politics to be a major thing in gaming, and her results found they weren't.

 

 

 

...Says Sargon of Akkad, who, being heavily invested in the MRA community, has at least as much of a vested interest in demonizing feminists as feminists have in demonizing gamers.

 

Being critical of one's sources cuts both ways.

 

 

 

 

Not really. Actually the few Marxists I've talked to tend to dislike Cultural Marxism and Identity Politics, seeing it as a distraction from class issues.

 

Make of that what you will.

 

 

Then why call it "Cultural Marxism"?

 

 

 

Because the name originates from right-wing conspiracy nuts, that's why. "Eeeebul commies are out there to destroy our culture" my ass.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

...So, I actually spent 17 minutes of my life on watching that unbearably inane video of the guy essentially reading this paper aloud.

 

After reading what the paper actually says, I have concluded that the guy has utterly failed to comprehend it on the most basic level, and his smug announcement of "see, gamers don't need diversity" only sheds light to the extent of his ignorance, not the fact that gamers, indeed, have no need of diversity.

[Blarghagh]

I didn't see the video, but that study isn't very thorough either. A lot of methods and conclusions are questionable.

[Meshugger]

 

 

My conclusions derive from giving lower ratings for games with questionable content, click-bait journalism and general disdain for the audience. No self-respecting person would conduct in such behaviour unless they want to the change/destroy the industry. Of course the customers did not agree and here we are. 

 

 

I just have no idea why you think the fact that you're not their audience and they make this quite clear must mean they have a general disdain for the people they do consider to be their audience.

 

Also, giving a game a lower rating based on "questionable content" is, ultimately, as much a subjective metric as giving a game a lower rating because it lacks a FOV slider. It's not like you a/ can't just read the article and adjust the final rating based on the fact that the complaints raised are irrelevant to you, and b/ are forced to only consume reviews by people who assign ratings based on criteria you feel are irrelevant. This is the beauty of the free market.

 

 

By that logic there are no reasons to join Greenpeace until one is personally affected by pollution or environmental damage. Things do not work that way.

 

And it has been proven again and again that it is not the free market in motion that has lead to GamerGate. Your point only refers to the idea of what the market would be with more diverse opinion, but again it has been showed that it hasn't worked that way at all.

[Longknife]

 

I for one believe the media has a very large hand in the actions of a culture, and if you wanna talk about people being insanely paranoid or reactionary....? Perhaps it's because the media finds fear-mongering and hate-infusing narratives to be marketable, and guess who GamerGate is after? The media and their slanted narratives.

 

I can certainly get behind that and have experienced people worrying on my behalf (who watch a lot of TV news incidentally), more than I worry myself.

 

But as someone looking at GG objectively, I do see a lot of sensationalism on all sides - from fairly straight forward feminists agendas and/or misogyny, to big business corruption and nepotism... and while I can certainly understand the conclusions being drawn, I have to say that they often done so on rather flimsy evidence. And the entire debate seems to have been hijacked (and allowed to be hijacked) by the loudest 'I see a conspiracy!!' types.

 

As a 'pro-GG', do you feel your platform is being taken over by the same kind of hate-infused narrative (from other pro-GGs)?

edit: or rather, I guess my question is - what do the majority of 'pro-GG' see the issue as? From your perspective.

 

 

 

In what way?

 

Don't get me wrong, the conspiracy-happy crowd is definitely amidst GamerGate, but I would hardly say they've hijacked the debate. For example one little conspiracy I saw was that this was all a plot by that Common Core education system to integrate gaming into education or some crap. Read it, thought it sounded ridiculous, still is. You don't ever see that little conspiracy theory being the cornerstone of discussion though, because it's ridiculous. The stuff that does get discussed is, for example, Mark Kern's comments against the journalist actions and hopes that other devs will speak up and back him up.

[Tigranes]

 

I didn't see the video, but that study isn't very thorough either. A lot of methods and conclusions are questionable.

 

Adrienne Shaw is a fairly well known figure in game studies as an academic field (which remains small and underdeveloped). 

 

Its methods aren't a huge problem. Within cultural / media studies, where this study would fit, it is seen as sufficient (though whether those wider standards are OK is another issue).

 

'Identity' is often a very limited term, though, and when you use that word with your interviewees and to do your analysis you often end up getting into loops where it just catches too many things in its net. What does "I identify with this character" mean, anyway? A lot of things, depending on the circumstance.

 

Which is one of the reasons that paper boils down into something what most gamers know: playing or creating a character, LGBT or not, doesn't mean 'identifying' with them necessarily. *shrug*

[Meshugger]

...So, I actually spent 17 minutes of my life on watching that unbearably inane video of the guy essentially reading this paper aloud.

 

After reading what the paper actually says, I have concluded that the guy has utterly failed to comprehend it on the most basic level, and his smug announcement of "see, gamers don't need diversity" only sheds light to the extent of his ignorance, not the fact that gamers, indeed, have no need of diversity.

 

So what i got out of your two points is that Sargon has doubtful connections (what do you even mean by that?), inane opinions (how?) and fail to comprehend anything (what?). Do you even have an argument? Because you're not saying anything at the moment.

[Meshugger]

About Cultural Marxism, is this the product of insane right wing thinking?

 

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sc1pi4