The big Phil Fish, Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian discussion thread

kunst nugget

Potatoeman wrote: »

She wrote an article where she said cheating on your partner is rape as you are explosing them to STD's and having sex under false pretenses. You don't seem to have watched the video link I posted before you criticised it.

So is everyone that cheats on their partner a rapist? She is a hypocrite most definitely but calling her a rapist is extremely shoddy logic. Also, as far as I can tell she didn't write an article (but I am open to correction), it was just based on what her and her boyfriend had said to each other.

gizmo

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

There have been some articles written with feminist tones for seemingly little reason where there were much meatier gaming related topics that could have been covered but were ignored.
I vaguely recall something about a PS4 presentation that was severely lacking in quality, but an article was written about how there were no female presenters instead of taking on the real gaming-related issues.

On paper, there's nothing wrong with also having an article written about the lack of female presenters on stage though. Remember the assumptions made when Ubisoft got Aisha Tyler as their keynote speaker? There's also nothing wrong with an article on the lack of games featuring female protagonists on stage or about how the only female shown on stage at the Ubisoft presentation was the helpless mother being held hostage in Rainbow Six. The fact that these articles exist, however, hasn't stopped plenty of other articles being written on the subject from, in this instance, the poor pacing of the presentation to the lack of Vita games on-display.

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

This was poorly done and the video isn't exactly perfect, he would have been better served to simply pose the question as to why she is getting so much attention where other feminist causes are being ignored.

The topic is getting lots of attention in the gaming press and across related sites. The amount of abuse that Quinn and Sarkeesian has gotten is what has caused it to get so much coverage by other non-game specific outlets. For instance, if you were into comics you'd probably have heard about Milo Manara's pretty awful variant cover for the new Spider-Woman comic or going a bit further back, the representation of female hero's in Marvel's New 52 run. There has been plenty of open criticism of both of these topics yet, since there hasn't been a campaign of abuse waged against their authors, the stories have predominately stayed within the sphere of comic-book and other related sites.

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Personally I think she gets the attention she does because she is controversial and gets clicks.
Things like The Fine Young Capitalists is great but it's hard to get people to argue about it so it's not worth so many clicks.

There's also a snowball effect on display. Look at some of the bigger commentators and how they worded their articles. Whether it was larger sources like some of the Editorial pieces from some gaming sites to the relatively smaller responses from the likes of Total Biscuit and Jim Sterling, they nearly all start with "we've been asked to comment on this so here it is". People, gamers, are inundating these people with requests to talk about it, give their opinion on it and write articles on it. The more that happens, the more coverage it gets and the longer the issue will be discussed.

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

But it's not really about the sex, it's about the corruption of games journalism.

No, it's not about the sex, it was made about the sex by a large number of the commentators though. Not only that, but news outlets were criticised for not commenting on the story despite the total lack of evidence against Quinn. There was a blogpost written by an ex-boyfriend about their private lives, one which was ultimately shown to be factually incorrect in a key area, removing the potential for conflict of interest for "reviews" which, as it happens, never existed in the first place. This is not "evidence" and wouldn't be considered as such in any other realm of media save for maybe the likes of TMZ or the Daily Mail.

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

How is writing about a friends achievements in positive light, without disclosing they are a friend, fair to the reader?
Do you not think that such an article might be biased?
Do you think the reader should be informed as such?

What about the high profile people banding together to shut down conversations of the topic?

While I'm very much in favour of the press being transparent when it comes to their relationships with developers or publishers, it's not a completely black and white subject. For instance, should journalists recuse themselves for writing about people or projects which they've back on the likes of Patreon and Kickstarter?

In your specific example, I suppose I would like to see the author say they are friends with that person but, at the same time, I don't believe such an article would have been inherently biased in the first place. I mean sure, it could be but if I felt that way about a certain writer then why would I trust anything they write? Why not just go and read someone else's work?

As for people banding together to shut down conversation, again they appeared to be trying to shut down a specific type of conversation even if it was done in an overly heavy handed way. A barge pole type manner, if you will. From a cursory glance of it before the mass deletions, the two topics were so completely intertwined due to the complete lack of actual evidence that the chance of one being discussed without the other was completely remote. On top of that, the assumptions immediately jumped to were again completely over the top. The Reddit Mod communication on Twitter, for example, was framed in a manner to show there was secret collusion between the two and ignored the fact that it's generally reddit policy to inform a person if they believe they're going to be the victim of a doxx attack.

Potatoeman

kunst nugget wrote: »

So is everyone that cheats on their partner a rapist? She is a hypocrite most definitely but calling her a rapist is extremely shoddy logic. Also, as far as I can tell she didn't write an article (but I am open to correction), it was just based on what her and her boyfriend had said to each other.

It was a silly article but the author that wrote it has admitted to cheating on her partner so by her own standards she is a rapist.

J_E

Potatoeman wrote: »

It was a silly article but the author that wrote it has admitted to cheating on her partner so by her own standards she is a rapist.

What are you trying to achieve with this?

kunst nugget

Potatoeman wrote: »

It was a silly article but the author that wrote it has admitted to cheating on her partner so by her own standards she is a rapist.

This is a nonsense and you know it. In nearly every other instance if someone used this logic there'd be an outcry about the definition of rape being twisted but because it suits an agenda suddenly people are able to shout from the rooftops that Zoe Quinn is a rapist. What if she used condoms that let's say for argument's sake are 98% effective against STDs. Is she then only 2% of a rapist? Like I said already the logic is extremely shoddy and being used merely as smear tactic. She might be a hypocrite but she's not a rapist.

Potatoeman

kunst nugget wrote: »

This is a nonsense and you know it. In nearly every other instance if someone used this logic there'd be an outcry about the definition of rape being twisted but because it suits an agenda suddenly people are able to shout from the rooftops that Zoe Quinn is a rapist. What if she used condoms that let's say for argument's sake are 98% effective against STDs. Is she then only 2% of a rapist? Like I said already the logic is extremely shoddy and being used merely as smear tactic. She might be a hypocrite but she's not a rapist.

I have no problem judging someone by their own standards no matter how crazy they are. She judged people that cheated on their partners as rapist so why cant we hold her to her own standard.

J_E

Potatoeman wrote: »

I have no problem judging someone by their own standards no matter how crazy they are. She judged people that cheated on their partners as rapist so why cant we hold her to her own standard.

Absurd... Truly absurd. The mask is slipping.

Gbear

Cydoniac wrote: »

This is what the outside world sees when we encourage people to get into gaming or use it as a path to education. It's mortifying. When people ask if I play games I have to actually hesitate and shrug it off initially, I am that embarrassed to be associated with any such culture. Fortunately, there is a neutral majority.

This sort of sentiment is daft to me.

If someone is basing their opinion of gaming on gobsh*tery like this, why would their opinion matter to you?

It's like someone writing football off because some of the crowd act like dickheads.

If they're not making any effort to understand their opinion is worthless.

COYVB

Cydoniac wrote: »

This is what the outside world sees when we encourage people to get into gaming or use it as a path to education. It's mortifying.

The only people who tend to see that stuff are gamers, and even then the vast majority of them wouldn't see stuff like that. Don't confuse your interests with the interests of the world.

Nobody cares about the games industry when it comes to the bigger picture. Nobody knows who Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian are, and nobody cares.

Genghiz Cohen

I lost my half written reply to a dodgey computer and lame internet. At my own now so lets get back to it!

Cydoniac wrote: »

Can you elaborate on this?

The video linked to by Potatoeman shows some chat logs and such by Quinn where she rails on people who cheat in a relationship.
Which she did, making her a hypocrite.
He also shows that she thinks people who are cheated on and not told are not able to give consent to their partner if they are not told about the affair. Quinn cheated, didn't tell and after had sex with her boyfriend.
By her logic (and she admits this on Twitter) she is a rapist.

Relevant section of the video

Cydoniac wrote: »

That makes an assumption that it isn't possible to critically judge something if you know someone. I find it strange when people cry for 'transparent journalism '. There is no such thing as unbiased journalism when it comes to art mediums, music, film, graphics or games. People will always review, taking their predisposed views with them. If a review was truly unbiased they would be the same for every game. People enjoy certain reviewers for being brash, or descriptive, or humourous. I don't think it's a very important point in the grand scale of things. If there was something wrong with the state of games journalism, it wasn't caused by a game developer, I can tell you that. If you want real corruption in journalism, start looking at the AAA companies and where their money goes into major game sites.

If there were a journalist who could write without bias we would only need one journalist.
I want a game critic with the same biases as myself (I want one for you too), so I can know if he likes the game, I will like it. It's also important to have a reviewer like a game in spite of his biases, E.G. Say Yahtzee finds that he likes the upcoming Heroes of the Storm, in spite of his dislike of multiplayer games, that would be a huge point in Blizzards favor.
So no, I don't want a world where journalists have no biases, I want one where their biases are based on what the game is rather than who made it. And if they can't do that then we should be told at the start of the article.

Cydoniac wrote: »

We're still making a lot of assumptions based on an emotive account from an ex. Pinch of salt and all that, yeah? We've all had an ex who felt bitter afterwards and tried to do something to ruin our day or worse, career.


Someone is viciously being attacked and the subject of a multitude of 'chinese whispers' accusations, at a really scary level. The same would happen on Boards here if people started gossiping about a politician or public figure. Why entertain it, better for all if things are allowed to cool down. There are many avenues in which people are talking about it entirely unmoderated. Again, nobody talks about the game, just her, instead hopping onto Metacritic and Steam to give it a negative review 'because she's corrupting games journalism'.

Seriously, check those reviews. Every second one judges the game entirely on the fact that Zoe Quinn 'is a girl', or because she is being bullied, or because she slept with someone. How childish can you get? I am not hugely into the game myself, but that's merely more to do with the fact I just don't go for pure text adventures that cover more domestic topics. Loads of those reviews name dropping that video where Zoe is pontificated on for 'sleeping with men for her own gain as an entrepreneur'.

I think everyone in this thread agrees that hurling abuse at anyone across the internet is a reprehensible thing to do. I would much rather see this all laid out nice and plain without rabid abuse, lies and DMCA Takedowns.

Keep in mind there is abuse flying both ways, TotalBiscuit had quite a level-headed commentary on the topic and Phil Fish attacked him, straight out.
Here is his TL:DR of the situation

TL:DR - If Zoey Quinn did engage in censorship via the abuse of the DMCA on Youtube then I thoroughly condemn her actions as being both ****ing stupid and unethical. If outlets did provide her favourable coverage because she had intimate relations with some of the writers, they're goddamn idiots for doing it, why the hell would you compromise the trust of your readers for that? The ****storm is too insane right now to make a huge amount of sense of and I have no idea what is true and what isn't. Cooler heads prevail, heard of that phrase? Calm the **** down and things might become clearer. Also please stop shouting at me, thanks.

Phil's response.

That boy ain't right...

J_E

COYVB wrote: »

The only people who tend to see that stuff are gamers, and even then the vast majority of them wouldn't see stuff like that. Don't confuse your interests with the interests of the world.

Nobody cares about the games industry when it comes to the bigger picture. Nobody knows who Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian are, and nobody cares.

This is true!


That video also suggests Zoe slept with mean to further herself as an entrepreneur, so you can understand why I switched it off after that part. No doubt she's guilty of several things too - but it's past a point where anyone can reasonably discuss it thanks to the anonymous masses knocking it clean out of proportion.

Honestly though, if we're lowering the discussion to 'Zoe said she's a rapist so I think she's a rapist'... Let's not go there, please? I am so not interested getting into a TMZ style gossip over her personal domain.

If the DMCA takedowns were her, she needs to squarely own up to it and take accountability.

So no, I don't want a world where journalists have no biases, I want one where their biases are based on what the game is rather than who made it. And if they can't do that then we should be told at the start of the article.

Sure - I agree with that too. Where was this Depression Quest review again...?



Phil Fish is egotistical, from what I read he doesn't seem genuinely malicious, just a byproduct of the Tumblr SJW special snowflake era. I don't think many people genuinely pay heed to him anymore... leave him at it, bit weak for him to ride on someone else's problem and flap his arms around. "look at meeeeee look at meeeeee i made fezzzzz"


Really, I think Tumblr and gaming should stay away from each other, at least in social circles... There's a place for discussion and real social justice. It's not in loud masses of 'check your privilege, cishet bastards' types. I'd happily take Anita's Youtube videos over someone like Sophie Houlden yapping over Twitter.

Kirby

Cydoniac wrote: »

Honestly though, if we're lowering the discussion to 'Zoe said she's a rapist so I think she's a rapist'... Let's not go there, please? .

Why not? Nobody here said that....she said it herself.

If people are going to post such crazy tirades, it's only right that they are held up to their own standard....which she didn't manage to do. She's a hypocrite.

J_E

Kirby wrote: »

Why not? Nobody here said that....she said it herself.

If people are going to post such crazy tirades, it's only right that they are held up to their own standard....which she didn't manage to do. She's a hypocrite.

Can we please not? What does this add to anything bar a cheap smear? That Quinnspiracy video is trashy, I'll be completely honest.

K.O.Kiki

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km3DZQp0StE

J_E

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

"it will destroy gaming for the male population forever" :pac::pac::pac:

K.O.Kiki

Cydoniac wrote: »

"it will destroy gaming for the male population forever" :pac::pac::pac:

At this stage I'm just laughing at everyone. :pac:

wes

Wow, this entire thing is pretty nutty. No one is going to come out of this looking good.

Genghiz Cohen

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

"Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."

Retr0gamer

Who needs Eastenders?

kunst nugget

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

And she would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those pesky gamers…

Sonics2k

Reekwind wrote: »

Eh, no she doesn't. Not unless you've confused 'objective' with 'objectification'. Hitman was used to illustrate how developers provide players with settings (eg strip clubs) and objects (eg scantily clad strippers) to implicitly encourage violence against empty sexual objects. Now you can agree or disagree with Sarkeesian but let's not misinterpret her point.

I probably won't post on this thread again, as I find Sarkessian to be one of the worst people in the world because she is an absolute liar and is taking what could be a serious and proper issue and using it to make money for herself.

At no point in Hitman are players EVER encouraged to kill an NPC which is not the main target of the level, in fact you are actively discouraged from doing so.
Yes, you are capable of killing the strippers on that level, but you are equally capable of killing random people you pass by too.

Sarkeesian is not a gamer, knows little about most women in video games and stretches the definition of tropes against women to it's absolute limit. Even my fiancé who is an avid gamer and firm fighter for womens rights finds who bile to be nothing but the gibberish of an attention seeking fraud desperate for attention.

Does she deserve the disgusting abuse aimed at her? No, not at all.
Does she deserve to be listened to? Not on this subject. She is a liar.

johnny_ultimate

Sonics2k wrote: »

I find Sarkessian to be one of the worst people in the world because she is an absolute liar and is taking what could be a serious and proper issue and using it to make money for herself.
....
Does she deserve the disgusting abuse aimed at her? No, not at all.

Em... I'm detecting a wee bit of dissonance in the tone of this post :pac:

On another note, seems several of the actresses that had personal photos stolen and shared online are the latest victims of the misogynist mob Hopefully it will highlight in more mainstream outlets how this small minority really need to have some serious action taken against them. There should be real life consequences to these sort of threats and attacks.

kunst nugget

Sonics2k wrote: »

I probably won't post on this thread again, as I find Sarkessian to be one of the worst people in the world because she is an absolute liar and is taking what could be a serious and proper issue and using it to make money for herself.

At no point in Hitman are players EVER encouraged to kill an NPC which is not the main target of the level, in fact you are actively discouraged from doing so.
Yes, you are capable of killing the strippers on that level, but you are equally capable of killing random people you pass by too.

Sarkeesian is not a gamer, knows little about most women in video games and stretches the definition of tropes against women to it's absolute limit. Even my fiancé who is an avid gamer and firm fighter for womens rights finds who bile to be nothing but the gibberish of an attention seeking fraud desperate for attention.

Does she deserve the disgusting abuse aimed at her? No, not at all.
Does she deserve to be listened to? Not on this subject. She is a liar.

I really, really don't understand the hysterical levels of hate directed at this woman. So she examines things from a feminist perspective? Big fúcking deal! She's not forcing people to eat aborted fetuses. So she made money for herself? Again, whoop-de-fooking-doo! I make money for myself in my job. Should people hate me for that?

Christ on a stick, there's some of the stuff in her videos that strains credibility and some it is slightly hectoring in parts but you'd swear she was advocating chemical castration the way some people go on about it.

K.O.Kiki

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

On another note, seems several of the actresses that had personal photos stolen and shared online are the latest victims of the misogynist mob Hopefully it will highlight in more mainstream outlets how this small minority really need to have some serious action taken against them. There should be real life consequences to these sort of threats and attacks.

Please don't paint all anons/ gamers with the same brush.
It is simplistic and ignores basic logic.
The more important question is, why would you visit a site that publishes these privacy violations, and give them ad revenue for doing so?

johnny_ultimate

I think we can happily disregard the 'she's only out to make money' argument, considering that 7000 people, of their own free will and without coercion, opted to give her almost thirty times more than she asked for while being informed, in no uncertain terms, exactly what they were donating to.

Blame the dastardly patrons.

J_E

I was one of those people who hated Anita too for 'being a liar' until I actually sat down and watched her videos. She makes plenty of valid points, I don't agree with her method of make the point, and then prove it, and certainly think its odd for her to seek donations on top of $160k she was funded, but she's just a woman posting civil YouTube videos and blog posts. Her 'betters' act like dogs on the internet, so honestly I have no real issue with her anymore, and will sit down and listen to what she has to say, once I put my male ego to the side. She's not top tier feminism (and for gods sake ignore the silly kids on Tumblr who make her out to be a saviour) but it's another perspective to hear, and she has people talking and thinking about women in games, surely that's not a bad thing.

Really, it's just more telling how willing some guys on the internet are to slam her and try to trash her name and reputation online. It just makes her look better and better. So far the only reasonable videos I've seen criticising her are from women.

johnny_ultimate

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Please don't paint all anons/ gamers with the same brush.
It is simplistic and ignores basic logic.
The more important question is, why would you visit a site that publishes these privacy violations, and give them ad revenue for doing so?

I'm not tarring anyone with a brush apart from the small amount of people who persist with this horrid behaviour? An attack against them is not an attack against anyone who disagrees with Sarkeesian or Zoe Quinn or indeed anyone who games - that's reading something that isn't there, and would be as silly as you suggest.

I'm not visiting any of these sites either, hearing reports on twitter from some of those affected and news sources that aren't sharing the videos and pictures.

Slot Machine

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Please don't paint all anons/ gamers with the same brush.
It is simplistic and ignores basic logic.

Came across a comment on Reddit today that encapsulates my issues with this kerfuffle:

'Gaming Culture' is a broad label media likes to paint on an entire group of people when really they are talking about a very small minority, often a minority that they have helped create with click bait articles that aggravates loud knee jerk reaction types.

If you talk to most people around the world of gaming, everyone feels like what media and outspoken public figures are referring to does not apply to them, as if they are being yelled at for something they didn't take part in - and they aren't wrong.

Certain figures and media types are simply broadly labeling huge sways of people with the same brush, simply because they think the few people that converse with them through comment systems, twitter and other social media systems represent the whole.

Gamers, as a whole, are hugely diverse. You have a huge range of people all over the world, you have young people, old people, middle aged and everything inbetween. You have every genre under the sun, you have people from every corner of the world. How possibly could one 'culture' represent all of them.

The vast majority of people who have done nothing wrong are getting tarred with the same brush and it's starting to wear thin. All these comments about "the gaming community" suppose that it is made up solely of its worst elements when that is patently not the case.

nesf

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Em... I'm detecting a wee bit of dissonance in the tone of this post :pac:

You can feel someone is a hateful person whilst thinking the person shouldn't get abuse. I really have little respect for her but equally I don't think she deserves any of the personal crap that's been thrown at her and I'd like to see the worst offenders punished.

Sonics2k

kunst nugget wrote: »

I really, really don't understand the hysterical levels of hate directed at this woman. So she examines things from a feminist perspective? Big fúcking deal! She's not forcing people to eat aborted fetuses. So she made money for herself? Again, whoop-de-fooking-doo! I make money for myself in my job. Should people hate me for that?

Christ on a stick, there's some of the stuff in her videos that strains credibility and some it is slightly hectoring in parts but you'd swear she was advocating chemical castration the way some people go on about it.

I don't understand the hysterical level of hate either, but then we both know you mean me.

I do not hate Sarkeesian, I just don't like her method and think she can and will stretch the truth and exaggerate her findings to suit her needs. For the record I also find people like Thunderfoot and the Amazing Atheist go do the same thing, and don't like them either.

She's fine to make money from her career, got no problem with that that, I just don't like the sheer amount of lies she tells and gets away with because we're not allowed call her out. She does not deserve the disgusting levels of abuse she gets and anyone sending her death threats and worse should be sent to jail.