Journalism and bias in the gaming industry

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

It's ok if you don't understand anything KP just wrote, Luj1.

 

Third time'll the charm for you, keep at it.

 

Despite all the wonderful posts you guys have put up about this stuff, I still have no desire to delve into the buttcrack of the internet and get involved in your movement.  

Then why are you continuously posting in a thread about it?

[Malcador]

See, told you the third time was the charm.

[Hurlshort]

 

 

 

It's ok if you don't understand anything KP just wrote, Luj1.

Third time'll the charm for you, keep at it.

 

Despite all the wonderful posts you guys have put up about this stuff, I still have no desire to delve into the buttcrack of the internet and get involved in your movement.  

Then why are you continuously posting in a thread about it?

 

 

Because it is hilarious and this is my hangout place?

[Amentep]

I don't think you have to be "in" or "against" the movement to talk about.  Hurl's welcome IMO as we all are.

 

And realistically, as both sides slip now and then to being about people than issues, its actually a fair point that Hurl makes that you really don't need to know who any of those people are because they're not the issue (at best someone like IMC might be symptomatic of the issues, but...)

[Oerwinde]

IMC would be relevant. Hes editor at Gameranx and has killed interviews held for the site because during the interview he found out the devs being interviewed didnt hold the same political views. I would count that as bad/unethical game journalism.

[Amentep]

I did mention that he seems to currently have the biggest connection to the real issue at play.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

 

It's ok if you don't understand anything KP just wrote, Luj1.

 

Third time'll the charm for you, keep at it.

 

Despite all the wonderful posts you guys have put up about this stuff, I still have no desire to delve into the buttcrack of the internet and get involved in your movement.  

Then why are you continuously posting in a thread about it?

 

Because it is hilarious and this is my hangout place?

Seems a bit strange to talk about something you have no interest in.

 

*shrug* Guess California teachers have more time on their hands than most folk.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

It's ok if you don't understand anything KP just wrote, Luj1.

Third time'll the charm for you, keep at it.

 

Despite all the wonderful posts you guys have put up about this stuff, I still have no desire to delve into the buttcrack of the internet and get involved in your movement.  

Then why are you continuously posting in a thread about it?

 

Excellent question, I find this thread most of the time  utterly irrelevant but there are certain interesting topics you guys raise and I like to debate certain topics that are aligned with SJ  issues 

[Meshugger]

Don't worry Hurlie, we will always love you, despite that you seem to call it a movement when it is a consumer revolt.

 

In other news, 

 

 

I don't know if it is BS or not, but aren't RICO laws something used when going after organized crime?

[Hurlshort]

 

 

 

 

 

It's ok if you don't understand anything KP just wrote, Luj1.

Third time'll the charm for you, keep at it.

 

Despite all the wonderful posts you guys have put up about this stuff, I still have no desire to delve into the buttcrack of the internet and get involved in your movement.  

Then why are you continuously posting in a thread about it?

 

Because it is hilarious and this is my hangout place?

Seems a bit strange to talk about something you have no interest in.

 

*shrug* Guess California teachers have more time on their hands than most folk.

 

 

Aww, I always have time for you KP.  

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's ok if you don't understand anything KP just wrote, Luj1.

 

Third time'll the charm for you, keep at it.

 

Despite all the wonderful posts you guys have put up about this stuff, I still have no desire to delve into the buttcrack of the internet and get involved in your movement.  

Then why are you continuously posting in a thread about it?

 

Because it is hilarious and this is my hangout place?

Seems a bit strange to talk about something you have no interest in.

*shrug* Guess California teachers have more time on their hands than most folk.

 

Aww, I always have time for you KP.  

Awww.....

 

[kirottu]

Videogames don't make you violent or sexist.

 

Leigh Alexander claiming no one ever said playing games makes someone sexist.

 

Can't these twitter heroes do anything else but lie? Or has she drank her long term memory away?

[Volourn]

"Classy Chu, as always."

 

Look at him. Dehumanzing a minority women simply because she didn't drink his koo-aid. I bet she's all for equality. She's just likely not for insanity or hating white men simply because they are white men.

[Zoraptor]

I'd be extremely surprised if Rex was an actual neo nazi at any stage, as opposed to an attention seeker wanting attention on the 'codex. That would also explain his switch to SJW, that too is a good way of getting attention.

[kirottu]

Secretary for Feminist Frequency: "Neither I, nor anyone else worth their salt, has said VG *causes* sexism full stop."

 

I still don't get it. Isn't this exactly what they have been saying? 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Secretary for Feminist Frequency: "Neither I, nor anyone else worth their salt, has said VG *causes* sexism full stop."

 

I still don't get it. Isn't this exactly what they have been saying?

Not really, their argument is closer to "Games reinforce the sexism drilled into people by society, which is caused by the patriarchy".

 

Not that different IMO, but enough to make the distinction.

[kirottu]

 

Secretary for Feminist Frequency: "Neither I, nor anyone else worth their salt, has said VG *causes* sexism full stop."

 

I still don't get it. Isn't this exactly what they have been saying?

Not really, their argument is closer to "Games reinforce the sexism drilled into people by society, which is caused by the patriarchy".

 

Not that different IMO, but enough to make the distinction.

 

 

So sexism is like "primal sin" and patriarchy is satan, and the only way to get rid of this sin is to donate money to their patreon? It's dark age christianity for modern crowd.  

[Longknife]

TOTALLY off-topic, but I have to bring this up somewhere so I can marvel at it and this seems like the most "relevant" spot (sorry in advance for being an off-topic tangent):

 

 

 

 

Let me just say that I have never in my life been so bored by a woman wanting to discuss BDSM. I was genuinely in awe that she made that topic boring.

And I marvel at a number of things here. I marvel at the idea that people need a guide (her little three words to keep in mind) to know how to....yknow, have a connection? Pro-tip: if the person legit needs that guide to know how to do bondage, you probably shouldn't do bondage with them. I also cannot for the life of me imagine her approach being romantic, because in my personal experience, most women have the attitude of "I will say if something bad is happening that's off-limits and to stop, and if we do something I simply don't like, I'll bring it up afterwards." Those very same women would consider that level of communication beforehand to be a turn-off, and I can understand why: part of what makes such a scenario so special is that you hit a point where your connection is so strong you don't NEED words to know what the other person wants. That's romantic, that's intimate, that's what people want. If that fails and someone does something wrong, then wtf you speak up, but until then you try to rely on your connection full-stop.

 

 

  Aside from that, three criticisms that had me doing double takes:

 

1) I like how she, for whatever reason, cited a study that blatantly disagreed with her and then proceeded to provide her opinion as to why feminism and BDSM don't collide. I have no idea if they do or if they don't, nor do I care, but I couldn't help but feel as though she was in denial that two things she liked were in direct conflict with one another and the vid was more to convince herself they don't collide rather than to convince others so much. AKA she may have posted it in hopes the comments section is an echo chamber that agrees with her.

 

2) ....Did she just say people that jog are masochists? WTF? That's gotta be the most retarded theory for why people enjoy pain as a sexual thrill that I've ever heard. Instead of trying to reason why pain might cause sexual thrill in some scenarios, she's saying all pain is some pleasure, right down to jogging and fitness? I have a theory of my own as to why pain can cause pleasure, and I promise you it's far more solid than hers, but it'd make feminists flip a ****.

 

3) Let's play a game, shall we? Feminists read too much into things and criticize artists for not thoroughly assessing all of the ramnifications of their work and the effect it could have on the audience. I propose that she just commited a taboo amongst feminists, because in calling joggers masochists, she's encouraging men to go hit on joggers and spank them on the ass without provokation because they'll like it. She's encouraging the mechanisms of the patriarchy.

 

Bonus 4) "Interestingly, both men and women prefer the submissive role." No ****? Did you know that interestingly, both men and women like ****? What a useless statement to make...why did she even include that? What amazes me is I know multiple studies on this subject matter (what makes a person submissive) and I find it amazing she cited none of them.

 

My brain is so full of WTF after watching that vid. It was just confused double take after confused double take for me.

[Longknife]

Oh and also I hate that stupid **** a lot of youtubers do where EVERY THREE SECONDS they do a jump cut for no apparent reason, as if watching the person teleport back and forth is somehow more entertaining than seeing the person just say what they wanna say without the constant jump cuts.

[Fighter]

I am cannot listen to Laci Green. Her her on screen personality and delivery are like nails on a chalkboard.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/04/08/reddit-ceo-ellen-pao-bans-salary-negotiations-to-equalize-pay/

 

So to support gender equality in the work place they are going to ban employees from negotiating for better wages? Does anyone else find find this a cheap justification for paying people less?

 

 

 

Secretary for Feminist Frequency: "Neither I, nor anyone else worth their salt, has said VG *causes* sexism full stop."

 

I still don't get it. Isn't this exactly what they have been saying?

 

Not really, their argument is closer to "Games reinforce the sexism drilled into people by society, which is caused by the patriarchy".

Not that different IMO, but enough to make the distinction.

So sexism is like "primal sin" and patriarchy is satan, and the only way to get rid of this sin is to donate money to their patreon? It's dark age christianity for modern crowd.

Yes. You have sexism due to the actions of society and patriarchy is the shadowy force that causes this. You must donate money to approved causes and be a cuckold a good ally to cleanse yourself and reach the promised land. Edited April 9, 2015 by KaineParker

[Fighter]

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/04/08/reddit-ceo-ellen-pao-bans-salary-negotiations-to-equalize-pay/

 

So to support gender equality in the work place they are going to ban employees from negotiating for better wages? Does anyone else find find this a cheap justification for paying people less?

 

“Men negotiate harder than women do and sometimes women get penalized when they do negotiate,” she said. “So as part of our recruiting process we don’t negotiate with candidates. We come up with an offer that we think is fair. If you want more equity, we’ll let you swap a little bit of your cash salary for equity, but we aren’t going to reward people who are better negotiators with more compensation.”

 

So if any of that is remotely true. What she is saying is that the management of the company she is in charge of is sexist because they are unable to negotiate and award salaries without gender based prejudice. So her solution is to punish the guy at the bottom... Solid logic.

[Longknife]

 

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/04/08/reddit-ceo-ellen-pao-bans-salary-negotiations-to-equalize-pay/

 

So to support gender equality in the work place they are going to ban employees from negotiating for better wages? Does anyone else find find this a cheap justification for paying people less?

 

“Men negotiate harder than women do and sometimes women get penalized when they do negotiate,” she said. “So as part of our recruiting process we don’t negotiate with candidates. We come up with an offer that we think is fair. If you want more equity, we’ll let you swap a little bit of your cash salary for equity, but we aren’t going to reward people who are better negotiators with more compensation.”

 

So if any of that is remotely true. What she is saying is that the management of the company she is in charge of is sexist because they are unable to negotiate and award salaries without gender based prejudice. So her solution is to punish the guy at the bottom... Solid logic.

 

Iknorite wtf?

 

Also how is "men negotiate better than women" not a sexist statement? That's the first time I've heard that one and I'd love to hear her reasoning and evidence behind that statement. EDIT: Nevermind, started writing after that snippet, the article itself says there's actually evidence to suggest men do better at negotiation. Still I don't know that her solution is the way to go about creating equality...

Edited April 9, 2015 by Longknife

[Amentep]

 

 

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/04/08/reddit-ceo-ellen-pao-bans-salary-negotiations-to-equalize-pay/

 

So to support gender equality in the work place they are going to ban employees from negotiating for better wages? Does anyone else find find this a cheap justification for paying people less?

 

“Men negotiate harder than women do and sometimes women get penalized when they do negotiate,” she said. “So as part of our recruiting process we don’t negotiate with candidates. We come up with an offer that we think is fair. If you want more equity, we’ll let you swap a little bit of your cash salary for equity, but we aren’t going to reward people who are better negotiators with more compensation.”

 

So if any of that is remotely true. What she is saying is that the management of the company she is in charge of is sexist because they are unable to negotiate and award salaries without gender based prejudice. So her solution is to punish the guy at the bottom... Solid logic.

 

Iknorite wtf?

 

Also how is "men negotiate better than women" not a sexist statement? That's the first time I've heard that one and I'd love to hear her reasoning and evidence behind that statement.

 

 

I'd suspect (but don't know) that the argument would be something like this:

*Western society approves aggressiveness and outspokenness in men but discourages it in women

*Women are trained in western society to not question authority or to stand up for themselves

*therefore society respects and responds to an assertive male, but not an assertive female

*therefore men negotiate better than women because this is what society thinks is acceptable; women will be seen negatively if they negotiate and are trained by society not to negotiate

 

Also, since Sad Puppies was brought up here, George R.R. Martin on Puppygate/Sad Puppies:

http://grrm.livejournal.com/417125.html

 

 

 

Some of you reading this will not like what I am going to say. I expect I will get the usual rash of "I am never reading your books again" emails and posts. Fine, go ahead, I am used to those. They come in every time I say anything of substance.

 

I suspect I may get those sorts of emails from both sides of the Puppygate wars. I have my own views on all of this, and they don't line up precisely what what either camp is saying.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

I'd suspect (but don't know) that the argument would be something like this:

*Western society approves aggressiveness and outspokenness in men but discourages it in women

*Women are trained in western society to not question authority or to stand up for themselves

*therefore society respects and responds to an assertive male, but not an assertive female

*therefore men negotiate better than women because this is what society thinks is acceptable; women will be seen negatively if they negotiate and are trained by society not to negotiate

 

Also, since Sad Puppies was brought up here, George R.R. Martin on Puppygate/Sad Puppies:

http://grrm.livejournal.com/417125.html

 

 

 

 

I would say this is accurate, but I also believe this is more a problem outside Western countries.