I cannot comprehend Gamergate

Post Reply New Topic

Which constitutes a fair reflection of the real world.



Because there isn't.



It's obvious that, although she's learned a little from her mistakes, Sarkeesian is incapable of viewing the source material objectively. She opens up by conflating games with the advertising of games - anyone who understands the difference between marketing and development can explain the problem with that.

Here's a fantastic response that covers the major flaws in her presentation:





Cultural criticism that comes from someone who wishes to engage in a dialogue will always be welcome. I'm not sure where you get the idea that games have not come under fire before now. For as long as I can remember, there has been a mainstream vilification of games as being a direct cause of violent behaviour, despite a lack of supporting evidence. Indeed, it's still a fairly popular opinion even though there is a correlation between the growth of the games industry and a reduction in violent crime among younger men.

The problem is not that games are relatively new, it's that it took 40 years for society to open its eyes and realise that games are for everyone, that the geeky male gamer stereotype has been outmoded for more than a decade. There isn't an invasion of women playing games, they've been at it since pacman.



It's highly probable that the most vociferous commentators will be amongst those who haven't played the game. A club full of male strippers would be no different to one featuring naked women. Gamers won't care one way or another as long as the game is a fun, challenging or thought-provoking experience.

I've asked this before, and still haven't received a satisfactory answer. What exactly is wrong with gratuitous nudity in games - male or female? While we're on the subject, what is the problem with human sexuality too? I'd always thought of political leanings as being a straight line between the left and right, but it's looking more and more like a circle where the extreme left and right bend around to meet each other.

Only when they invite discussion of their views.



Precisely. The censorship of every article, video, etc made by feminist critics actively prevents this. Preaching at people does not constitute reasonable criticism, likewise cherry-picking or the manufacturing of evidence.



Political Correctness has its place, but it should never be allowed to overrule freedom of expression. However much I object to the WBC, I completely support their right to say and do the hateful, misguided, bigoted things they do.



There's that feminist/MRA false dichotomy again. Finding fault with feminism or feminists does not make you a men's rights activist. You don't have to push, promote or follow any specific ideology in order to disagree with someone else's. The political leanings of feminists and MRAs is hardly uniform either, so I'm not sure where you're coming from with the political party comment.

The problem with feminism and the MRA movement lies primarily in the nomenclature of their respective ideologies. As an egalitarian, I consider both to be fundamentally flawed.

When we think of most places and times that we don't have direct contact with, the context for that usually comes form entertainment or the news camera.

What gets lost in most entertainment about foreign places are the cultural nuances. Judging by most World War 2 films, you would think that, but for a handful of rebels, the entire German population were enthusiastic nazis. The historical record tells us otherwise. To make another example; from the movies you would think that Genghis Khan's entire army were racially uniform, when in fact they were multi-racial. Genghis Khan himself is said to have had red hair. Deliberately or not, entertainment encourages us to view peoples in terms of incorrect stereotypes.

Even when a movie does not have a conscious political agenda, the culture that shaped the film makers and the logistics of film making often result in an end product with inaccuracies. If the audience derives his real world contexts from these inaccuracies and uses them to make decisions, this can lead to bad things. Cultural criticism helps to immunise people against this.

Unless the movie is a documentary, the onus is on the telling of an interesting story, making us laugh or cry, not to educate about the subtleties of a culture that is not our own. Artists are not responsible for our perception of reality or our prejudices. There's a reason movies, books and other media so often contain the disclaimer "this is a work of fiction".

Needless to say, games are not documentaries either, though they often have a much greater depth of information than movies do. You may have learned nothing useful or accurate watching WWII movies, but I learned loads about aviation history including extensive information on the character and lives of most of the better known WWI ace pilots by playing Red Baron 20-something years ago. However, I had to do a great deal of further reading in order to understand the political and cultural state of Europe in the early 20th century. If your audience is basing their knowledge of Nazi Germany on that one time they played Castle Wolfenstein, they're an idiot rather than a bigot.

These are virtual worlds we're dealing with, and virtual people - most of whom are shells. I don't feel guilty for the hundreds of thousands of virtual lives I've ended with a touch of a key or click of a button, because like most gamers, I understand that the game I am playing is only tenuously grounded in reality and - most importantly - they are not real people.

"Cultural criticism" does not immunise anyone against being prejudiced - especially if the source of the criticism is itself prejudiced against the target audience. Education (autodidactic through experience usually) is the only way one can learn about those things alien to ones bubble. And finally, you yourself complained about the political motivations behind the construction of narratives that are used to attack demographics:

This is as apt a description of the feminist 'criticism' of gaming as you'll find - especially regarding Sarkeesian's series of videos.

Just so you know, Sarkeesian is not a video game reviewer; she is a social critic who specializes in video games. Expecting her to be objective is as absurd as expecting Jesse Jackson to start giving more time to promoting the interests of white folks.

MRAs have exactly zero to do with this, which is my biggest issue with the whole thing. MRAs have comandeered the issue away from what it was originally about. It was a matter of trying to snag instant support from a bunch of anti-feminists and has just continued to get more and more twisted.

I expect her to cite her information and give truthful context for her examples. However, she will never admit to be wrong since that would make her less money. She is allowed to say whatever crazy stuff she wants, however, she should state that these are her ideas and are not supported by any evidence. But, she just lies and says it has been proven that people who think media does not change them, changes the most. Which is complete bull. She should hence be more honest with her work and stop claiming to have evidence.

I am not disagreeing with you about her bias, but you are trying to hold Sarkeesian to a standard that not even journalists are held to these days. I just think this argument is a waste of time and has no real merit. She is an activist, and there are no activists out there that follow these high standards being demanded of her.

If you don't like her, don't watch her. Demanding that she become a research journalist with peer reviewed YouTube videos does absolutely nothing other than waste your (and everyone's) time and energy.

Oh, and the whole she's only doing it for the money argument is both idiotic and completely unfounded. She has been active in feminism for much longer than she's been on YouTube.

Of course they are. Just like feminists, and every other -ist, there are lobbyists who try to twist the narrative to suit their agenda. Singling out MRA's seems a bit silly though, as their impact has been so immense to date that I've no idea what commandeering you refer too.



Oh wow, I like totally would never have known that if you weren't here to point it out for me.



You clearly misunderstand me. I'm critical of her work on the grounds I've already expressed. My expectation is that she will continue to misinform her viewers and contribute nothing of value to gaming.

I am sorry that I hold people who obtain 150,000 dollars to make a video series at such a high standard. Also,

In principle, I'm right there with you when it comes to holding people to a higher standard, but with me it includes absolutely every single person out there. It's this pesky reality thing that gets in the way, though. For starters, 150K is jack squat when it comes to high profile video production. A well publicized Kickstarter for a pink paper beer cozy company could get that much easily. How about (insert any political pundit on TV or radio today here)? They get paid more than that and have little pressure to be unbiased, are you just as critical of them? Perhaps more critical, considering many of them actually claim to be journalists?

This demand for infallible and completely unbiased videos by a woman who was given money to MAKE A SERIES OF FEMINIST VIDEOS is perhaps the most worthless argument against Sarkeesian out there. It's like saying you are against Obama because he doesn't present the American people with the Republican message in a "fair and balanced" manner after getting money from the DNC.

You can dislike Sarkeesian for selective presentation of info and for interpreting and assuming things in a different manner than you, but she is NOT A JOURNALIST and has never claimed to be one, so it amounts to nothing more than the reason you dislike her.

18-rated games like GTA (n.b. please add this qualifier whenever I say "games", I really love Pokémon and Mario and indeed GTA but it's obvious that this doesn't work as a criticism of FIFA 15 or whatever) go beyond "a fair reflection of the real world". The scene with the naked slaves in... Watch Dogs? goes beyond "a fair reflection of the real world".


That was why I said "substantial" criticism. The scares amongst parents and Alan Titchmarsh weren't substantial. People like Sarkeesian who really know video games are engaging in legitimate criticism rather than throwing mud from the side lines. It's like when Jay-Z or Killer Mike criticise hip-hop culture versus when Rush Limbaugh does it. Particularly as Sakeesian cites academic literature, as well as examples of tropes in popular games.

What you're saying really doesn't make much sense. Not only are you straw-manning, but you're assuming that a fairly centrist position that you happen to disagree with must be on the "extreme" left or right.

There's nothing objectively wrong with human sexuality or gratuitous nudity as such. The issue is assuming that your audience are straight males who are comfortable with gratuitous nudity.

Do you not understand the idea of role playing? When playing a video game one does not need to self assert. I do not believe that love exist and I am not offended that a character in a video game falls in love since it is a fictional world. I am not egoistic enough to demand that every work of fiction should follow my way of thinking!


@sonofghandi
She is lying in her videos. Thus, it is not about the presentation of information, it is the presentation of false information that she says is true based on thin air. The problem is that she is trying to claim it as a fact and not her own idea. If she would have said "I believe ...." it would be more suitable rather then "it has been shown ...".

Of course they do, but we were discussing a single part of such games, not their entirety. The whole point of such games is to twist reality out of shape without breaking it completely, to tell a story that entertains the person playing it. It's irrelevant whether the game offends someone's tender sensibilities. It's not as if the scene in Watch Dogs is an endorsement of slavery.

Conversely, the Pokemon game that you love so much actively encourages players to enslave creatures that are portrayed as being sentient and having emotions.



Anita Sarkeesian understands video games about as well as I understand Mandarin, which is to say not at all.



You'll have to explain who you think I'm straw-manning here, and how. Puritanical censorship of nudity viewed in private is hardly the domain of the moderate.



It's assumed that any consumer who purchased GTA 5 has looked at the ESRB notice on the box (or in the description if purchased online) and decided whether or not their tastes include virtual scenes of "Intense Violence, Blood and Gore, Nudity, Mature Humour, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content and Use of Drugs and Alcohol". Your assertion that the target audience consists solely of straight males comes across as bigotry on your part.

Eh, I don't get the whole issue of games being anti-women. But then, I've mainly been playing on Mass Effect (female main character who *isn't* wearing a stripperific uniform, as well as many other Strong Female Characters), Half Life 2 (which has the character of Alyx, again not wearing stripperific clothing), and Portal (main character is Chell, main antagonist is an uploaded woman, and the moron is Wheatley)... so it must be other games that are super-misogynist.

I can't take anyone who uses the term/acronym "Social Justice Warrior" in a negative light seriously at all.

It makes gamergaters sound less like activists with a cause and more like wannabee supervillians (sworn enemies of those who fight for equality and justice.) Couple that with the typical "activism" methods of gamergate (doxxing, rape threats, disproportionate response to criticism, impassioned long-winded pontifificating about what's essentially a minor-issue, etc) and it's clear that Gamergate doesn't know how to make itself look righteous.

It's like Magneto naming his group "The Brotherhood of Evil Mutants" and commiting acts of terrorism while complaining about how mutants are persecuted.

Should this not raise red flags for gamergaters or are they so socially incompetent and/or withdrawn that they prefer to play the bad guy?

I kinda wish I was back in school. There's a Social Psychology paper in this somewhere.........