Journalism and bias in the gaming industry

[McMayhem]

Anita Sarkeesian is mostly full of crap. I don’t see how anyone can debate that fact. Can the game industry as a whole do a better job of female representation? Sure, in some areas there can be better representation. Should we hold developers hostage to ensure that goal is reached? Absolutely not.

 

The thing about this debate that irks the hell out of me from the feminist perspective is that the word equality is used when the actual notion they seem to be reaching for is superiority. Women should be able to serve in combat, hold high positions in jobs, and be given the same respect in public discourse as men. But violence against women is NEVER okay. Violence against men? Eh…

 

That isn’t equality at all. Wanting to have all the positive aspects but none of the negative ones is superiority, not equality. This kind of logical fissure is seen by most of us on both sides of this argument. However, the left-wing hate machine has such a tight vice over this issue, that a true discussion just can’t be had at the moment.

 

When it comes to game development, my philosophy is this: If a change to a character would better suit the story, do it. If a change is desired to appease a group or avoid confrontation, don’t do it. The second you start moderating creativity, creativity dies.

 

In some ways, I think the desired representation by these groups sponsor a philosophy that is much more prejudice than the one they are trying to fight against. Take the damsel in distress example. According to the feminist perspective, it is unacceptable for any woman character to be in any way weak or fragile. This imposes a notion that all women must be strong, and any women who do not fall into that category are somehow less valuable than the others.

 

There is a particular scene in “Crash” that really pisses me off. Tony Danza’s character is a director and one of the characters in his movie is black. Danza’s character want’s the character to speak with a hood-like slang. He is demonized for this and is portrayed as the evil white man seeking to devalue black people as a whole. This again puts up the premise that black people who do use this diction are wrong to do so, less than human.

 

These perspectives are lost however, amidst the colossal sh*tstorm that is the political and social discussion at the moment. Until we are willing to give voice to everyone and not just the minorities, nothing will be achieved.

[Meshugger]

 

10/10, would wife

[kirottu]

Facts matter: left sticks to narratives, evidence be damned.

[Meshugger]

Facts matter: left sticks to narratives, evidence be damned.

 

The pendelum is slowly turning back to sanity.

[Orogun01]

 

Facts matter: left sticks to narratives, evidence be damned.

 

The pendelum is slowly turning back to sanity.

 

Brace for the next wave of hypersanity. 

[Zoraptor]

New York Post? El Oh El.

 

That paper is utter unmitigated Murdoch garbage- and Murdoch is as bad as any SJW just coming from the complete opposite direction and with a whole lot more immediate power. He's also himself the main evidence that any sort of "only the 'left' uses 'narrative' based arguments" implication is a load of old bollocks. His media outlets are the past master of narrative based fact light 'news'- just look at Fox News and The Scum as examples of his levels of 'journalistic integrity', and the NYPost is basically the US version of the non Murdoch newspaper that shall not be named (albeit both are slightly better than The Scum, which I wouldn't use to wipe my bum if caught short since it's supplied covered with asterisks already).

 

If it really is about journalistic integrity/ ethics or anything at all to do with that citing near anything from a Murdoch source should be out, certainly from his tabloid arms. Even with the respectable outlets he's taken them into his loving embrace like the quality and objectivity sucking vampire he resembles so closely.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

http://www.thecrimson.com/column/words-words-words/article/2015/3/12/simplistic-social-justice-warrior/?page=single

 

Harvard Crimson on a Liberal finding SJWs unbearable.

 

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=370251965

 

[BruceVC]

Anita Sarkeesian is mostly full of crap. I don’t see how anyone can debate that fact. Can the game industry as a whole do a better job of female representation? Sure, in some areas there can be better representation. Should we hold developers hostage to ensure that goal is reached? Absolutely not.

 

The thing about this debate that irks the hell out of me from the feminist perspective is that the word equality is used when the actual notion they seem to be reaching for is superiority. Women should be able to serve in combat, hold high positions in jobs, and be given the same respect in public discourse as men. But violence against women is NEVER okay. Violence against men? Eh…

 

That isn’t equality at all. Wanting to have all the positive aspects but none of the negative ones is superiority, not equality. This kind of logical fissure is seen by most of us on both sides of this argument. However, the left-wing hate machine has such a tight vice over this issue, that a true discussion just can’t be had at the moment.

 

When it comes to game development, my philosophy is this: If a change to a character would better suit the story, do it. If a change is desired to appease a group or avoid confrontation, don’t do it. The second you start moderating creativity, creativity dies.

 

In some ways, I think the desired representation by these groups sponsor a philosophy that is much more prejudice than the one they are trying to fight against. Take the damsel in distress example. According to the feminist perspective, it is unacceptable for any woman character to be in any way weak or fragile. This imposes a notion that all women must be strong, and any women who do not fall into that category are somehow less valuable than the others.

 

There is a particular scene in “Crash” that really pisses me off. Tony Danza’s character is a director and one of the characters in his movie is black. Danza’s character want’s the character to speak with a hood-like slang. He is demonized for this and is portrayed as the evil white man seeking to devalue black people as a whole. This again puts up the premise that black people who do use this diction are wrong to do so, less than human.

 

These perspectives are lost however, amidst the colossal sh*tstorm that is the political and social discussion at the moment. Until we are willing to give voice to everyone and not just the minorities, nothing will be achieved.

 

No offense but this post seems like a rant to me and a justification to enforce the status quo...which is a lack of inclusivity in games 

 

So I want to keep this simple because if you know me you will know I firmly believe in SJ  issues but we have also discussed this type of topic to death and still don't have consensus

 

Who said its okay to have violence perpetuated against men and yet violence against women  is unacceptable ? Lets just focus on that statement from you ..because that's  a serious comment and one that needs to be addressed and debated 

Edited April 8, 2015 by BruceVC

[Longknife]

McMayhem you're new so here's some advice: ignore Bruce.

 

He has this wonderful habit of trying to keep the ball in GamerGate's court, AKA he does a wonderful job of making GamerGate and GamerGate supporters defend their statements and defend against all sorts of strawman arguments, but will not and cannot for the life of him defend a single stance of his own (great example, ask him to expand on the point about a lack of inclusivity in games).

  You might defend your point in good faith, as would typically be expected in a normal debate. The problem is that the moment you're done explaining that evidence suggests the SJW freaks out and screams misogyny any time a female character is on the receiving end of violence, your reward will be an insincere "excellent post! You make some great points and I highly suggest everyone read this post " followed by a convenient leap over any counterpoints you may have had, directly jumping instead to another reason to potentially criticize you or GamerGate.

 

  The result is that any time Bruce comes into the discussion, people end up defending points that've already been defended twenty times before and no progress in discussion is actually being made because nothing new is being discussed and Bruce is seemingly incapable of self-reflection and realization when he may be wrong. FFS the "excellent post " responses are so empty and impersonal in regards to the context of the posts that I often wonder if he even reads them or just glosses them over briefly.

 

 

But yeah if you want an actual discussion, respond to someone else who might challenge your points.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Longknife

[Meshugger]

McMayhem you're new so here's some advice: ignore Bruce.

 

He has this wonderful habit of trying to keep the ball in GamerGate's court, AKA he does a wonderful job of making GamerGate and GamerGate supporters defend their statements and defend against all sorts of strawman arguments, but will not and cannot for the life of him defend a single stance of his own (great example, ask him to expand on the point about a lack of inclusivity in games).

 

  You might defend your point in good faith, as would typically be expected in a normal debate. The problem is that the moment you're done explaining that evidence suggests the SJW freaks out and screams misogyny any time a female character is on the receiving end of violence, your reward will be an insincere "excellent post! You make some great points and I highly suggest everyone read this post " followed by a convenient leap over any counterpoints you may have had, directly jumping instead to another reason to potentially criticize you or GamerGate.

 

  The result is that any time Bruce comes into the discussion, people end up defending points that've already been defended twenty times before and no progress in discussion is actually being made because nothing new is being discussed and Bruce is seemingly incapable of self-reflection and realization when he may be wrong. FFS the "excellent post " responses are so empty and impersonal in regards to the context of the posts that I often wonder if he even reads them or just glosses them over briefly.

 

 

But yeah if you want an actual discussion, respond to someone else who might challenge your points.

 

Excellent post! You make some great points and I highly suggest everyone read this post

[BruceVC]

McMayhem you're new so here's some advice: ignore Bruce.

 

He has this wonderful habit of trying to keep the ball in GamerGate's court, AKA he does a wonderful job of making GamerGate and GamerGate supporters defend their statements and defend against all sorts of strawman arguments, but will not and cannot for the life of him defend a single stance of his own (great example, ask him to expand on the point about a lack of inclusivity in games).

 

  You might defend your point in good faith, as would typically be expected in a normal debate. The problem is that the moment you're done explaining that evidence suggests the SJW freaks out and screams misogyny any time a female character is on the receiving end of violence, your reward will be an insincere "excellent post! You make some great points and I highly suggest everyone read this post " followed by a convenient leap over any counterpoints you may have had, directly jumping instead to another reason to potentially criticize you or GamerGate.

 

  The result is that any time Bruce comes into the discussion, people end up defending points that've already been defended twenty times before and no progress in discussion is actually being made because nothing new is being discussed and Bruce is seemingly incapable of self-reflection and realization when he may be wrong. FFS the "excellent post " responses are so empty and impersonal in regards to the context of the posts that I often wonder if he even reads them or just glosses them over briefly.

 

 

But yeah if you want an actual discussion, respond to someone else who might challenge your points.

 

Well my advice is stop raising the same issues if you don't want people to dispute the same points? Its not rocket science

 

If a new forum member  who is unfamiliar with what has been discussed says " no one cares about violence towards men" I will obviously dispute that 

 

Also stop trying to be the center of attention, if McMayhem has this concern then let us discuss it...you keep thinking you are judge and jury of what is acceptable content. And you not, sorry

[BruceVC]

 

McMayhem you're new so here's some advice: ignore Bruce.

 

He has this wonderful habit of trying to keep the ball in GamerGate's court, AKA he does a wonderful job of making GamerGate and GamerGate supporters defend their statements and defend against all sorts of strawman arguments, but will not and cannot for the life of him defend a single stance of his own (great example, ask him to expand on the point about a lack of inclusivity in games).

 

  You might defend your point in good faith, as would typically be expected in a normal debate. The problem is that the moment you're done explaining that evidence suggests the SJW freaks out and screams misogyny any time a female character is on the receiving end of violence, your reward will be an insincere "excellent post! You make some great points and I highly suggest everyone read this post " followed by a convenient leap over any counterpoints you may have had, directly jumping instead to another reason to potentially criticize you or GamerGate.

 

  The result is that any time Bruce comes into the discussion, people end up defending points that've already been defended twenty times before and no progress in discussion is actually being made because nothing new is being discussed and Bruce is seemingly incapable of self-reflection and realization when he may be wrong. FFS the "excellent post " responses are so empty and impersonal in regards to the context of the posts that I often wonder if he even reads them or just glosses them over briefly.

 

 

But yeah if you want an actual discussion, respond to someone else who might challenge your points.

 

Excellent post! You make some great points and I highly suggest everyone read this post

 

 

Cheeky 

[Meshugger]

Ok, what's so special about Sad Puppies that will make people say things like these?

 

[Blarghagh]

Yes, he married someone because years later, he may be able to use it to defend himself against baseless accusations of racism.

 

Someone take the mic away from Chu. I'm tired of hearing his nonsense. The man is clearly not right in the head and needs help.

[Malcador]

Classy Chu, as always.

[Longknife]

Yes, he married someone because years later, he may be able to use it to defend himself against baseless accusations of racism.

 

Someone take the mic away from Chu. I'm tired of hearing his nonsense. The man is clearly not right in the head and needs help.

 

 

I'm sorry but:

 

Zoe Quinn - Liar, perhaps pathologically so

Brianna Wu - Liar, with some high school classmates claiming they were always "special"

Anita Sarkeesian - Con-artist. To me this is clear as day by how nervous she looks on Colbert, if you believe the accounts that he asked tougher questions that got edited out

Leigh Alexander - Alcoholic. Needs help

Arthur Chu - Honestly, he sadly seems to be the most "normal" of the bunch.

Ian Miles Cheong - Ex Neo-Nazi. People will debate the ex part, and even if you're Ex, this isn't exactly something you change just like that and all is good

 

 

 

There are legit times where I actually feel bad and I feel sorry for getting involved with this stuff, because at times it seems obvious many of the voices for the opposition have no concrete grasp of what's going on and deserve pity more than anger. (some, obviously, as Anita by all means should be taken to court by someone)  Even if you wish to claim "the same can be said for both sides"....can it? You may disagree with Milo's journalism and opinions, but he's mentally there. You may not like TotalBiscuit or his brand of humor, but he's fully stable. The only person who supports GG and has a flawed mentality in general would be the Amazing Atheist, because it seems obvious to me from the way the guy speaks that he's a narcissist with a sizeable ego, but even that only makes him obnoxious to listen to and I've yet to hear him be named as a part of GamerGate, he merely makes debunk vids for Anita on occassion.

 

 

Point is this isn't anything new. The guys holding the mic for the anti side have been pretty questionable, either in their mental capacity or in their sincerity.

[Meshugger]

 

nosebled to death/10

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Ok, what's so special about Sad Puppies that will make people say things like these?

 

I can understand not liking someone's political positions and projecting that dislike onto them personally, but attacking their marriage and children like that seems very churlish. I suppose one could argue that being in an interracial marriage doesn't exclude one from being racist, they can hate other races after all, but this kind of attack on the relationship between the family seems wrong.

 

Also, this is the same Arthur Chu who called a fundraiser to benefit a victim of gang rape, home invasion, and robbery "stupid" because Mercedes Carrera had the gall to signal boost a story that had gotten pitiful amounts of attention. Between that and his admitted knowledge of rape he couldn't be bothered to report, I think we can safley consider Chu to be a disgusting excuse for a human being.

[Luj1]

Zoe Quinn - Liar, perhaps pathologically so

Brianna Wu - Liar, with some high school classmates claiming they were always "special"

Anita Sarkeesian - Con-artist. To me this is clear as day by how nervous she looks on Colbert, if you believe the accounts that he asked tougher questions that got edited out

Leigh Alexander - Alcoholic. Needs help

Arthur Chu - Honestly, he sadly seems to be the most "normal" of the bunch.

Ian Miles Cheong - Ex Neo-Nazi. People will debate the ex part, and even if you're Ex, this isn't exactly something you change just like that and all is good

 

Yo mind breaking it to a newbie who the hell are these people ? I feel Im missing something terrible here.

[Hurlshort]

 

Yo mind breaking it to a newbie who the hell are these people ? I feel Im missing something terrible here.

 

 

You really aren't.  They are people on the fringe of the gaming industry with very little influence who are arguing with other people on the fringe.  

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Zoe Quinn - Liar, perhaps pathologically soBrianna Wu - Liar, with some high school classmates claiming they were always "special"Anita Sarkeesian - Con-artist. To me this is clear as day by how nervous she looks on Colbert, if you believe the accounts that he asked tougher questions that got edited outLeigh Alexander - Alcoholic. Needs helpArthur Chu - Honestly, he sadly seems to be the most "normal" of the bunch.Ian Miles Cheong - Ex Neo-Nazi. People will debate the ex part, and even if you're Ex, this isn't exactly something you change just like that and all is good

Yo mind breaking it to a newbie who the hell are these people ? I feel Im missing something terrible here.

ZQ: An indie dev who the Zoe Post was written about. The Zoe Post directly led to GamerGate by being censored in several gaming forums and 12 articles declaring gamers dead being published. Currently operating CON, an organization that vaguely does something about harassment.

BW: An indie dev who trolled under a sockpuppet and later had information posted publicly which was used by "chatterwhiteman" to threaten on twitter. Went on a press tour and is currently milking the attention for all its worth.

AS: The face of feminist frequency, an organization that makes YouTube videos about pop culture, has a past working for a scam artist(hand writing expert I believe). Had a kickstarter to release a video series and has managed to deliver 25% two years after estimated time of delivery. Currently doing talks and merchandising FF stuff.

AC: A guy who won Jeopardy by gaming the system. Essentially just a self-hating male nerd who occasionally writes stupid **** for Daily Beast and Salon(?) but spends a lot of time on twitter. Is an awful person.

IMC: Current editor of Gameranx and a "former" Neo-Nazi and current SJW who said the holocaust didn't matter because "jews=nothing". In addition to holding questionable views, he was found to be a paid shill for companies on reddit(he ran several subs) and his website was recently believed to be running scams promising free stuff.

 

Of these, AS and IMC are most relevant(IMC is games press and AS is white knighted for by most press), AC is relevant when he writes about games, and the other two should just be ignored as they bring nothing but drama.

[Hurlshort]

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

[BruceVC]

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

 

 

Well maybe if KP wrote his post in English it wouldn't be so  unintelligible ?

[Malcador]

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

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

[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.