Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Thoughts on the Zoe Quinn controversy, "Gamergate", the "death of gamer culture", etc.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The thing is, though, at this point I'm fairly certain "ethics" was just a rationalization for the "feminists are ruining video games" undertones that were present from the very beginning. Even going all the way back to Internet Aristocrat's first video that was exactly the sentiment that drove the movement.
It's actually the same sentiment. IA and the like see some excesses of feminism and other progressives as a movement out to ruïn videogames(takeover rather than diversification), and journalists and devs are either in lockstep with them or catering to them for the clicks, in their viewpoint, and what's even more outrageous are the double standards they seem to employ in it(it's less bad when we do bad stuff because it's for a good agenda, or because there's a power differential at work).
In the light of some of the statements("gaming culture is dead", Anita's paraphrased "violence as a conflict resolution is inherently masculine and therefore problematic", and an output that largely consists of interactive fiction and paint-by-the-numbers tokenization) made by anti-GG, their fears are partly justified, although they instantly veer too far into the opposite direction instead.
In this thread: 4chan is one person.
Just now I popped my head into the one IRC channel I know about, and I'm not seeing much in the way of sexism and misogyny, but instead I'm seeing a lot in the way of declaring and fighting a war against SJWs, and fighting over territory (not a term they used, but just my description) in the form of websites. The talk of the town seems to be 4chan (or 4chan's admin moot) switching sides to side with the SJWs, and how there's an SJW conspiracy to silence and character-assassinate them.
Also, some debate over whether the #GamerGate movement should try to clean its image, or whether that would be either pointless or giving into the notion of political correctness (vs. messing with the opposition as much as possible).
Mind you, this may or may not be representative, since I've just hung out there for like half an hour. Of course, the fact that I'm putting this cautionary note here is more than most people do with impression-forming on the internet...
Lel, more SJWs speaking over minorities:
See, here's the thing. Just because #GamerGate has been victim of some admittedly awful things doesn't mean their ideology is right. The entire thing has been more or less about "ESS JAY DUBYAS ARE GOING TO TAKE AWAY MAH VIDYA GAMES" from the very beginning.
And that, in my mind, is what makes the whole thing misguided. That, and letting Milo Yiannopoulos have a voice in their movement instead of telling him to GTFO for being such a huge male chauvinist douche.
>"Segments of SJWs are campaigning to fundamentally alter the paradigm of gaming."
Be careful to distinguish the people pleading for more inclusivity, diversification and an end to toxicity from the clown car that demands tokenized progressivist narratives, trope checkboxes and a manner to make abuse their exclusive moral right. The progressive stack, Atheism+ and campus shenanigans that make you have FIRE on speeddial give plenty of reason to be very, very wary of said clown car, and make very strange bedfellows(which leads to the hilarity of having a dismissive altright chauvinist signal boosting the harassment of transfolks, black peeps and overweight NEETS).
You do realize that "SJW" is essentially "liberal" translated into Internet-speak, right? It's interesting reading the posts in this thread with every mention of SJW replaced with liberal.
Also, I find it personally quite offensive in a whitesplaining sense that you use the voices of a few to say "See, liberals don't really care about minorities!" I've heard a lot of "I'm X and I'm not offended" and it is an irritating thought-terminating cliché.
SJW is not liberal, it's progressive internet pseudo-activist like those in tumblr.
Where did you think the liberals went?
To talk shows like The Young Turks. Or to do humanitarian aide. Or to lobbying groups.
A year or two ago I would have agreed but SJW has devolved, through the likes of 4chan, into a way to attack feminism and other progressive movements without actually naming it.
This definition drift you ascertain feels too broad to be of any use beyond complaining about social causes. Mea culpa if I haven't keep up with the these drifts in meaning.
Can you guys define the common definition of social justice then? I can't seem to find a universally agreed upon definition from average people, and judging from this video the postmodern contemporary definition seems to have strayed from its origins in economic disparity.
The term Social Justice Warrior is so ridiculous, though, it was bound to be co-opted into an insult.
There's the social justice, and there's the social justice wankery. Everything is bad in excess, especially with bonus stupidity. You know, like a feminist promoting women's welfare versus a feminist promoting women's welfare by calling for an introduction of a special tax paid solely by men (I've read of something like that suggested by some feminist fringe in Sweden).
It's a hard thing to do, because neither proponents or detractors can agree on what they mean with it, and the waters are further muddled by the existence of an actual christian philosophical movement from old that took that denomination.
In other words...
...there are people to whom "SJW" means a naughty Christian.
I don't think anyone involved in these discussions considers such an old definition (except maybe the quirkiest theorists in /pol/). But if we're to find a proper definition, we might as well take into account the origin of the term.
@RedEyedAbyss
My post had an example of the moderate versus the excess in it already. Heck, your post is an example of the very distinction between liberal and SJW: even when angry, you manage to channel it constructively, call out behaviour rather than character and specify your terminology. Besides, I probably count as a liberal by American/Canadian standards.
Likewise, laughing at SJWs that don't abide by their own rules of 'shut up and listen to minority experiences' is miles different from 'see, liberals only use minorities as voting cattle', and I apologize if I gave off the impression that I meant the latter.
Apology accepted.
Honestly, a lot of the problem was, as previously mentioned, the change in the connotation of SJW. After your explanation, I got that it was simply you laughing at idiots, but in the context of the whole GamerGate stupidity, that was hard to tell amongst SJW being thrown around as a generic politicized insult.
In any case (this part probably deserves its own thread), labels are stupid because they only mean what people want it to mean, you have to waste time explaining how your interpretation differs from the other person's, and it just leads to assuming bad faith all around. See also, the "socialist" argument earlier in the thread.
Incidentally, my interpretation of "social justice" was a less aggressive euphemism for class conflict, since I felt that people who did not want to be associated with socialism tended to use the former term.
You know, it does sound like it could appear in a papal encyclique, yeah. In the class kind of way, at least, not the stuff like sexual minorities. Popes have a tendency not to be the kind of people who care about gay rights, if you know what I mean by that.
accidental doublepost
That dilemma's pretty widespread, but the solution of asking the other person for their definition usually works, either because he'll clarify or else put his foot in his mouth to your advantage in a debate.
Ahahahaa, wow, GamerGate just created a Steam curator list that is literally nothing but "SJWs criticized these games, you should buy them."
Cool. More games I won't ever buy anyway.
It's an unpleasant feeling to be reminded of George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson supporters. If I recall, it was an out-of-court settlement. Like Zimmerman, being an asshole isn't enough to convict someone, but he sure arouses suspicion.
Other than that, regarding this and the previously linked boycott list: enemy lists are primarily associated with Richard Nixon in the public consciousness. Remember how the NRA made an enemy list that included Sylvester Stallone? Even they removed it after everyone found out.
^^ I remember some feminist bashing Dragon Age. Some kind of cultural appropriation bullshit or whatever, it's not like it had to make sense. Something about the fact that Dragon Age's elves were inspired by the Jewish ghettoes of medieval and early modern Europe.
Well I've got Shantae on my wishlist, and I'm probably never gonna buy Batman Arkham City or Skullgirls or Mafia II.
And nothing is changing because of that list. I've got bigger fish to fry.
^Everything with dwarves and goblins in it ever is already based on anti-semitic lore.
>only ten games
>no GTA V on it
Terrible lack of effort, we need more games, and we need review sources and reasons why these misrepresent the game.
Also, I'd say comparing this with NRA lists is on the same level as people who compare the hunt for -isms with the Red Scare: if you mock Gamergate for their paranoid hyperbole, then this is not really an option either.