Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The big Phil Fish, Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian discussion thread
Options
Comments
-
Potatoeman wrote: »The path or dear Esther. I mean if he doesnt want to discuss the issue maybe he might not post a picture of the games title and discuss it as an example. Its not that I think he should not talk about it but he cant bring it up and then sidestep the issue when its stuck in the middle of it.
Where does he say he doesn't want to discuss it? He doesn't mention gamergate but I think it's implicit what he's talking about and it seems a decent rationale on why there might be a disconnect between the expectations of consumers and critics.Potatoeman wrote: »I think this is the source of much drama around the whole issue. People on these sites dont want to have this debate but want to comment on certain topics around it. So when it comes back to the source of the topics posters feel censored.
No, I imagine the source of drama is that there is almost no room or reasoned or rational debate in relation to this and that several completely different issues are being lumped together to serve as weapons to attack whoever is on the opposing side. This thread has been a pretty decent space for people with differing opinions to discuss the various issues but of some but the vileness (from all sides) in the wider arena of the internet is pretty astonishing.
So a guy says 'The reason I like a game like this is because it's a breath of fresh air when compared to the last fifteen games I played where I shot people in the face.' and you wonder if it's because he might be friends with the creator. Do you see why it might be surprising that a lot of journalists or whatever you want to call them might not feel that inclined to engage with debate on the issue?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 8293
I think we've got to move past "gaming culture" now. Let's leave the trolls and self-entitled flame warriors to the basement. We don't clearly delineate 'film culture' or 'book culture' or have one all-encompassing 'music culture' so why games? I'm not going to be lumped in with morons who feel threatened by criticism that extends beyond pixel counts. So let's hail the irrelevancy of the traditional gamer identity.
Sorry no I call bull on this "end of gamers" crap. Yes lets leave the trolls and so on in the basement but they can't take the gaming culture with them. Much better for it to evolve into something better without concerted efforts on either side to dismantle it. Hail the end of gamers my arse.0 -
-
I think we've got to move past "gaming culture" now. Let's leave the trolls and self-entitled flame warriors to the basement. We don't clearly delineate 'film culture' or 'book culture' or have one all-encompassing 'music culture' so why games? I'm not going to be lumped in with morons who feel threatened by criticism that extends beyond pixel counts. So let's hail the irrelevancy of the traditional gamer identity.
Completely disagree there, the traditional gamer identity that these guys talk about hasn't existed for years. All kind of people call themselves gamers. People of various races, religions, gender and sexual orientation. Lumping a diverse set of individuals with the various internet trolls is nonsense. Gamers are these days a broad group, who are badly served, by a largely homogenous gaming industry. It basically means anyone who plays and enjoys games, no different than a "movie buff", "audiophile" etc.
This end of gamer stuff imho, exists solely to piss a people off, for no good reason. By all mean condemn the trolls, but don't lump everyone else in with them, even if that is not the intention behind such articles, it is rightly or wrongly being received that way, and continuing in that vein at this point is again imho adding fuel to fire for no good reason. By referring to the trolls as being representative of gamers, imho that is handing them a victory they don't deserve. They are trolls, they exist everywhere on the Internet, and they don't deserve the respect of saying they represent gamers or anything else for that matter. There simple trolls, and thats all the acknowledgement that they deserve.
No, one wants to be called a loser or nerd, and those articles lead to all that kind of nonsense being directed at various gamers (with various a gamer hash is tags on twitter), when a different set of trolls decided to jump on the bandwagon and have a go at people.
I am still amazed that so many sites decided to over the space of a couple of days decided to go with this line of reasoning. It took a bad situation, and made it worse, and just added a whole new level of noise to the situation.0 -
I think we've got to move past "gaming culture" now. Let's leave the trolls and self-entitled flame warriors to the basement. We don't clearly delineate 'film culture' or 'book culture' or have one all-encompassing 'music culture' so why games? I'm not going to be lumped in with morons who feel threatened by criticism that extends beyond pixel counts. So let's hail the irrelevancy of the traditional gamer identity.
I'd love to agree here but the thing is, this kind of thing is all too familiar in games. At concerts, in movies and well.. in the library, I don't come across these miscreants. In games, I do, often. In online games, its even worse. When it comes to how nasty and vocal people get over even the smallest things in games I don't see any parallel in popular cutlure... actually, I do. Justin Bieber and One Direction fans. Thing is, most of them are 12 - 15 or whatever and mostly harmless whereas these dribblers are older and smart enough to know how to ruin someones life in very real ways (think how this thread started)0 -
Advertisement
-
And the best part?super_furry wrote: »Meanwhile, award winning games writer Jenn Frank is literally on twitter begging people to stop harassing her, because of you know, "ethics".
https://twitter.com/jennatar/status/507411937383022592
Looking forward to the 'she's faking it and making it up for attention' arguments and oh so convincing rambling tumblr screenshots here too.
https://twitter.com/dominicrupert/status/507383980547526656
As for the reason behind it and how it was another example of "evidence" gone wrong, here's her response.0 -
kunst nugget wrote: »Where does he say he doesn't want to discuss it? He doesn't mention gamergate but I think it's implicit what he's talking about and it seems a decent rationale on why there might be a disconnect between the expectations of consumers and critics.
No, I imagine the source of drama is that there is almost no room or reasoned or rational debate in relation to this and that several completely different issues are being lumped together to serve as weapons to attack whoever is on the opposing side. This thread has been a pretty decent space for people with differing opinions to discuss the various issues but of some but the vileness (from all sides) in the wider arena of the internet is pretty astonishing.
So a guy says 'The reason I like a game like this is because it's a breath of fresh air when compared to the last fifteen games I played where I shot people in the face.' and you wonder if it's because he might be friends with the creator. Do you see why it might be surprising that a lot of journalists or whatever you want to call them might not feel that inclined to engage with debate on the issue?
Its in tbe comments section.
This issue was closed for discussion on many sites where reviewers knew devs of indie games. They damaged themselves in that they did not mention that they knew them.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,294 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 16322
Did you miss the threats with the cancellation Gareth Brook concerts popping up everywhere against the person who was seen as leading the petition against it inc. death threats? Those were not 12 to 15 year olds being harmless... How about the racists taunts against football players in every major league in Europe in the last year (for example throwing a banana at a player or the managers accting the maggot in texts)? Or hey how about death threats against a 5 year old in a Disney TV show because lesbians appeared? The simple fact is once you can be anonymous (or think you are which is very true on the Internetz) people tend to turn into morons (and that goes for every category and group of people, be it talking on the phone, texting etc.) and is in no way unique to gamers.I'd love to agree here but the thing is, this kind of thing is all too familiar in games. At concerts, in movies and well.. in the library, I don't come across these miscreants. In games, I do, often. In online games, its even worse. When it comes to how nasty and vocal people get over even the smallest things in games I don't see any parallel in popular cutlure... actually, I do. Justin Bieber and One Direction fans. Thing is, most of them are 12 - 15 or whatever and mostly harmless whereas these dribblers are older and smart enough to know how to ruin someones life in very real ways (think how this thread started)0 -
And don't forget Anders Frisk was forced into retirement after being hounded by Chelsea fans after a decision in a champions league semi final.
It's not just games, it's any thing people have a passion for.
IT does seem like several different issues have been lumped in together. You have the Feminist Frequency videos about sexism in video games (which I don't see how anyone can really have an issue with, because she's right).
The Quinnspiracy, I'm not sure if that is about video game journalism ethics or a the private lives of several people. (In anyway way I certainly view Zoe Quinn as a victim from the moment that chap put up his sordid post).
And then there's the #gamergate thing, which is about how the media portrays gamers, because the majority of gamers don't want to be lumped in with the people attacking Anita Sarkeesian, or attacking Zoe Quinn. Except it's also about complaining how games with a feminist or lgbt bias are viewed more favourably than others? Actually, I have no idea what the whole #gamergate thing is about.0 -
I've never liked the idea that the two sides in any conflict as as bad as each other. It's always far too pat. Particularly so in this case.I think this is the best article I've read on a lot of what has gone on so far. We love to be so polarised. Dislike Anita Sarkeesian? Ignore everything she says? Dislike Thunderfoot? Ignore everything he says. How about taking on board any valid points people on either "side" might have
I think that you're 100% right when you say that everyone 'needs to take on board valid points' but to me that is the very crux of the issue. The reality is that if you want to have a constructive debate with Sarkeesian's views then you have to either engage with the framework that she presents (or at least implicitly accept it as a starting point) or present another theoretical framework to serve as a counter. That's what's not been happening.
The criticism of her criticism has been predominately, from what I've seen, been talking straight past her points without engaging with them. That's at best. Most of them have been playing the man rather than the ball. Thunderf00t's videos are terrible, nothing more than anti-feminist screeds. If he has a valid point then it's because a stopped clock and all that. Even if we look at this thread alone then you'll see that people have called Sarkeesian a liar, greedy, cheery-picking, biased, feminist (!), non-academic, etc, etc. This is not debate and it does not constitute a genuine attempt to engage with the topics.
As such, the actual arguments that Sarkeesian has been making are rather tangential to this whole affair; the 'sides' are not 'Sarkeesian vs the world'. What we have here is a division between those who are happy to have critiques from multiple viewpoints and those who simply reject this (whether it's because of 'feminism' or some yearning for 'objectivity' or whatever); those who insist that any feminist critique of gaming narratives or characterisation is inherently worthless.
Frankly, I don't think there's much of a choice there at all. Which is where I think a lot of the journalistic frustration is coming from.
What is "gaming culture"? And what is there that's positive about it? Certainly I don't see how it can be divorced from the seas of toxicity that seem to constantly bubble beneath the surface.Sorry no I call bull on this "end of gamers" crap. Yes lets leave the trolls and so on in the basement but they can't take the gaming culture with them. Much better for it to evolve into something better without concerted efforts on either side to dismantle it. Hail the end of gamers my arse.
As far as I'm concerned I have absolutely nothing in common with these trolls - and not just those making death threats - beyond the fact that I play computer games. I'm not going to carry the baggage of their bull**** and call myself a 'gamer' when that increasingly carries connotations of being an anti-feminist flame warrior. I look at 'gaming culture' and I see those bright spots (ie PAX, indies) increasingly being drowned out by the nonsense.
So what is gaming culture? What is it that makes me a gamer? And why should I care to salvage that label?
Which is exactly the point. I address it below but, in a nutshell, games have outgrown the 'gaming' subculture to which it's been shackled for decades. Most 'gamers' today are likely to share very few of the cultural references of 'traditional gamers'. Or, to put it another way, 'people who play computer games' is a much broader group than 'people who self-identify as gamers'.Completely disagree there, the traditional gamer identity that these guys talk about hasn't existed for years. All kind of people call themselves gamers. People of various races, religions, gender and sexual orientation.
This I disagree with. 'Gamer' still has more baggage than any of those terms. No one ever argues over whether someone is a 'real' bibliophile or a 'casual' bibliophile. 'Film buff' does not come with definite connotations of gender and race. Certainly none of them are as toxic as the 'gamer' label.wes wrote:It basically means anyone who plays and enjoys games, no different than a "movie buff", "audiophile" etc.
They're already pissed off with no good reason. That's very much the point.This end of gamer stuff imho, exists solely to piss a people off, for no good reason.
I've come to believe that 'gaming' is at a crossroads. Those who want to wallow in a "infantilized cultural desert of ****ty behavior" (Alexander) are free to do so. They're very much attached to the label 'gamer' so let them have it. They can stick with their 'objective' analyses and pat scores and complete absence of anything approaching critical appraisal that goes beyond mere mechanics. Realistically, they're going to do that anyway.
There's no reason for those who don't want this, who have been encouraged by the developments in games over the past decade (the emergence of interesting indies, the growth of games journalism, the increasing numbers of 'casual' players, etc) to be weighted down by such trolls and reactionaries.
Wrongly. But I've covered the inability of those trolls to understand nuance enough.By all mean condemn the trolls, but don't lump everyone else in with them, even if that is not the intention behind such articles, it is rightly or wrongly being received that way...
The thrust of these articles is not 'everyone who plays games is a troll'. It's the idea that the label 'gamer' is now no longer adequate. It covers a whole spectrum of people, of which the old core ('traditional gamers') is now just a shrinking part. 'Gamer' simply no longer describes what it once did and the long discussions as to just what makes a 'gamer' ('real vs casual' and so on) are redundant.
Now 'gamer' could perhaps have survived as an umbrella term. Maybe. The problem is of course that a chunk of 'traditional gamers' (relatively homogeneous in terms of gender, ethnicity and class) haven't taken particularly well to the fact that they are no longer the locus of the industry. To put it mildly. It's the actions of this subset that have poisoned the term and made the identity so exclusive.
And let's be clear: I've been playing PC games since I was a kid in the mid-1990s. I've as much a claim to being a 'traditional gamer' as anyone. But I really don't see the need to fight for such a toxic label.0 -
Advertisement
-
I have to say the word "gamer" itself makes me cringe and for whatever reason I DO associate it with the very worst of the community. I totally agree with Reekwind.0
-
-
Did you miss the threats with the cancellation Gareth Brook concerts popping up everywhere against the person who was seen as leading the petition against it inc. death threats? Those were not 12 to 15 year olds being harmless... How about the racists taunts against football players in every major league in Europe in the last year (for example throwing a banana at a player or the managers accting the maggot in texts)? Or hey how about death threats against a 5 year old in a Disney TV show because lesbians appeared? The simple fact is once you can be anonymous (or think you are which is very true on the Internetz) people tend to turn into morons (and that goes for every category and group of people, be it talking on the phone, texting etc.) and is in no way unique to gamers.
yes, now that I think of it the world is just jam packed with morons
and yes, the term gamer is awful. hate it hate it hate it0 -
This I disagree with. 'Gamer' still has more baggage than any of those terms. No one ever argues over whether someone is a 'real' bibliophile or a 'casual' bibliophile. 'Film buff' does not come with definite connotations of gender and race. Certainly none of them are as toxic as the 'gamer' label.
Really? You will find elements of that in music and film. For example if you like Pop music, well your not really a music fan and that kind of stuff has been around elsewhere for years.
You will find a toxic element amongst all fan bases. To say that the toxic element is the fan base, is at the best of time, a silly thing to say, but during a time, when stuff is already heightened it is just plain foolish.
IMHO, if you play games, your a gamer, and yes there are further labels, of hardcore, pc, console, etc, but all of them are are gamers.They're already pissed off with no good reason. That's very much the point.
Except that a lot of people weren't pissed off, but probably more amused by the whole situation. The term used was chosen specifically, and imho it has far more damage then good, and has just made thing worse.
The people harassing people are trolls, they are always looking to cause trouble. Lumping in a whole bunch of people in with them, hands them a victory, they don't deserve.I've come to believe that 'gaming' is at a crossroads. Those who want to wallow in a "infantilized cultural desert of ****ty behavior" (Alexander) are free to do so. They're very much attached to the label 'gamer' so let them have it. They can stick with their 'objective' analyses and pat scores and complete absence of anything approaching critical appraisal that goes beyond mere mechanics. Realistically, they're going to do that anyway.
So you want to hand a victory to the troll then. I disagree, those people are trolls, and you get them everywhere on the net.There's no reason for those who don't want this, who have been encouraged by the developments in games over the past decade (the emergence of interesting indies, the growth of games journalism, the increasing numbers of 'casual' players, etc) to be weighted down by such trolls and reactionaries.
By handing them the term gamers, that is exactly what is happening. Lumping a whole bunch of people who want nothing to do with trolls, is the height of foolishness.The thrust of these articles is not 'everyone who plays games is a troll'. It's the idea that the label 'gamer' is now no longer adequate. It covers a whole spectrum of people, of which the old core ('traditional gamers') is now just a shrinking part. 'Gamer' simply no longer describes what it once did and the long discussions as to just what makes a 'gamer' ('real vs casual' and so on) are redundant.
Yes, I said the same myself. The label gamer is already diverse, and saying that is represents the trolls is bull.Now 'gamer' could perhaps have survived as an umbrella term. Maybe. The problem is of course that a chunk of 'traditional gamers' (relatively homogeneous in terms of gender, ethnicity and class) haven't taken particularly well to the fact that they are no longer the locus of the industry. To put it mildly. It's the actions of this subset that have poisoned the term and made the identity so exclusive.
So I take you can provide a full ethnic, gender and class break down of this group of "traditional" gamers then? Can you show how majority of this group are harassing people? Sorry, but there really is no way for you prove your claim.
Seems to me that plenty of people who don't fit that group are attached to the term gamer.And let's be clear: I've been playing PC games since I was a kid in the mid-1990s. I've as much a claim to being a 'traditional gamer' as anyone. But I really don't see the need to fight for such a toxic label.
I refuse to let trolls win, they don't deserve the victory, that some are so happy to hand them.0 -
It looks like we finally found some common ground between feminists and gamers both groups are judged by their most extreme individuals and ideas.0
-
Potatoeman wrote: »It looks like we finally found some common ground between feminists and gamers both groups are judged by their most extreme individuals and ideas.
Has that not been obvious from the outset?0 -
We should reword that Killers song: "I play games but I'm not a gamer."0
-
The Quinnspiracy, I'm not sure if that is about video game journalism ethics or a the private lives of several people. (In anyway way I certainly view Zoe Quinn as a victim from the moment that chap put up his sordid post).
.
I lost most of the sympathy for ZQ after it came out she was involved in doxing the organisers of FYC.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,383 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 28095
Everything that has happened is definitive proof that 'gaming' is changing. That its diversifying and expanding in ways a lot of us are currently trying to comprehend. There's excitement, there's confusion and there's a bit of anger. Sarkeesian is the most prominent example yet that people are looking at games in different ways. As the perspectives expand, we're all going to find areas we're interested in or disagree with. This is a natural process to be welcomed rather than feared - the dominant perspective is going to be challenged, but for good rather than some sinister effort to take away all our games.
The one thing that needs to happen is more of a 'safe space' to develop. When I want to read or talk about cinema seriously, I thankfully have places and publications where that happens. That's rather rare when it comes to games, even if it's just a small minority ruining it for everyone. Again, it's not about agreeing with everything that's said or written - it's merely allowing for a culture to develop where criticism and different takes are respected. Gaming is unique in that it has developed in a more open sphere, where everyone can rebut. This is great in one respect (in theory it means more voices are heard), toxic in another. Certainly the fact that film and literary criticism developed predominately in print has meant that the transition to online has been quite a bit smoother (not without the odd attack on critics who decide to give the latest superhero movie a mediocre review) - the legwork and language had been developed long before the floodgates were opened.0 -
Potatoeman wrote: »I lost most of the sympathy for ZQ after it came out she was involved in doxing the organisers of FYC.
FYC seem to believe she wasn't involved in it…Regarding our grievances with Zoe Quinn, an associate of hers, posted my Facebook information. Zoe did not add any information to the post, nor did she post my phone number or email. The subsequent death threat I received via email was not orchestrated by Zoe. Nor was the DDOSing of our website or the banning of us from Twitter. She was simply the most famous voice in a choir of people that did not understand the project.
http://www.thefineyoungcapitalists.com/PeaceTreaty0 -
Advertisement
-
kunst nugget wrote: »
Was it a result of her critising them? The message from her PR manager seemed to hint at involvement. I imagine its pretty difficult to prove.0 -
Potatoeman wrote: »Was it a result of her critising them? The message from her PR manager seemed to hint at involvement. I imagine its pretty difficult to prove.
So, if I say I'm not fond of person A on facebook or some other social media and someone I know without my prompting puts up private information about person A after me, am I responsible for that private information going public? I don't think so…
Don't get me wrong, I think Zoe Quinn seems like a bit of an eejit but if FYC don't believe she was behind the doxxing of information, I'm willing to believe them.0 -
kunst nugget wrote: »So, if I say I'm not fond of person A on facebook or some other social media and someone I know without my prompting puts up private information about person A after me, am I responsible for that private information going public? I don't think so…
Don't get me wrong, I think Zoe Quinn seems like a bit of an eejit but if FYC don't believe she was behind the doxxing of information, I'm willing to believe them.
They seem to be hinting at her PR manager.0 -
Potatoeman wrote: »They seem to be hinting at her PR manager.
Who are they? First you were saying Zoe Quinn doxxing FYC but now your saying 'people' are hinting without any proof that it was her PR manager.
I reckon I might take that one with a grain of salt for the time being…0 -
I think this is incredibly insightful. Not the latter part of the post (which seems to imply that everything is just swell, aside from those darned 'extremists') but the assumption on your part that it is impossible to be both a feminist and a gamer, that is that the two are in conflict.Potatoeman wrote: »It looks like we finally found some common ground between feminists and gamers both groups are judged by their most extreme individuals and ideas.
It's a great dichotomy because it strikes at the heart of the issue - feminism (or indeed any sort of -ism) is not part of the traditional 'gaming' identity. It precludes the idea that feminists can actually play, enjoy and talk about games as much as anyone else. Hence the bile (both explicit and implicit) directed Sarkeesian or anyone else who tries to interpret games in a different way. They're not 'gamers'.
So to hell with that label and redundant identity.
Yet you just thanked Potatoeman's post above where he draws a clear contrast between feminists and gamers?wes wrote:IMHO, if you play games, your a gamer, and yes there are further labels, of hardcore, pc, console, etc, but all of them are are gamers.
Regardless, this isn't a matter of individual definitions. We've all seen threads over the years as to what is and isn't a 'gamer'. There are plenty of people who reject the idea that someone who plays Candy Crush on the bus to work is a 'gamer'. We've seen more than plenty who reject the idea that Sarkeesian is a 'gamer'. Certainly those who are avowedly anti-Sarkeesian would not typically consider her to be one of them.
Again, that's just not what has happened. Nobody has suggested that all 'gamers' are trolls. It's perfectly possible to identify as a 'gamer' and not be a troll. I don't intend to repeat that.The people harassing people are trolls, they are always looking to cause trouble. Lumping in a whole bunch of people in with them, hands them a victory, they don't deserve.
But I'm intrigued by your logic. Surely you, who is insisting that we're all 'gamers', are the one "lumping in a whole bunch of people" with 'the trolls'? What the authors of those articles is saying is that there is no reason to be shackled to them, no reason to consider yourself as having something in common with such reactionaries. If they want to hang on to their badge of exclusivity then, well, who cares?
I'm sorry, are you really questioning whether the majority of people who played computer games, say, two decades ago were not white, male and with relatively comfortable levels of disposable income? I mean, I'm sure I can produce studies that show exactly that but, before I go a-searching, I want to check that that's really necessary?So I take you can provide a full ethnic, gender and class break down of this group of "traditional" gamers then?0 -
kunst nugget wrote: »So, if I say I'm not fond of person A on facebook or some other social media and someone I know without my prompting puts up private information about person A after me, am I responsible for that private information going public? I don't think so…
Don't get me wrong, I think Zoe Quinn seems like a bit of an eejit but if FYC don't believe she was behind the doxxing of information, I'm willing to believe them.
They say associate of hers and the posted message earlier was from her PR manager.0 -
I think this is incredibly insightful. Not the latter part of the post (which seems to imply that everything is just swell, aside from those darned 'extremists') but the assumption on your part that it is impossible to be both a feminist and a gamer, that is that the two are in conflict.
It's a great dichotomy because it strikes at the heart of the issue - feminism (or indeed any sort of -ism) is not part of the traditional 'gaming' identity. It precludes the idea that feminists can actually play, enjoy and talk about games as much as anyone else. Hence the bile (both explicit and implicit) directed Sarkeesian or anyone else who tries to interpret games in a different way. They're not 'gamers'.
So to hell with that label and redundant identity.
Yet you just thanked Potatoeman's post above where he draws a clear contrast between feminists and gamers?
Regardless, this isn't a matter of individual definitions. We've all seen threads over the years as to what is and isn't a 'gamer'. There are plenty of people who reject the idea that someone who plays Candy Crush on the bus to work is a 'gamer'. We've seen more than plenty who reject the idea that Sarkeesian is a 'gamer'. Certainly those who are avowedly anti-Sarkeesian would not typically consider her to be one of them.
Again, that's just not what has happened. Nobody has suggested that all 'gamers' are trolls. It's perfectly possible to identify as a 'gamer' and not be a troll. I don't intend to repeat that.
But I'm intrigued by your logic. Surely you, who is insisting that we're all 'gamers', are the one "lumping in a whole bunch of people" with 'the trolls'? What the authors of those articles is saying is that there is no reason to be shackled to them, no reason to consider yourself as having something in common with such reactionaries. If they want to hang on to their badge of exclusivity then, well, who cares?
I'm sorry, are you really questioning whether the majority of people who played computer games, say, two decades ago were not white, male and with relatively comfortable levels of disposable income? I mean, I'm sure I can produce studies that show exactly that but, before I go a-searching, I want to check that that's really necessary?
They would probably be judged by both parties as being on the other 'side'.0 -
I don't think you guys get to decide what a word means.
A gamer is someone who plays games.
Just because you don't like PETA you can't claim you're not vegetarian. If that makes sense.0 -
I think this is incredibly insightful. Not the latter part of the post (which seems to imply that everything is just swell, aside from those darned 'extremists') but the assumption on your part that it is impossible to be both a feminist and a gamer, that is that the two are in conflict.
Everything is swell apart from the extremists. Do you really think the majority of people playing games care about this, let alone know about it? Sure, if you keep your finger on the pulse of social media you'll pick up on it but I'd say such people aren't a majority by any stretch.
Okay, maybe I'm just projecting given I really don't care for the whole social media craze (I have no idea who almost any of the people constantly mentioned are) but isn't it possible this entire thing is confined to a narrow group of people who treat this as a serious subject?It's a great dichotomy because it strikes at the heart of the issue - feminism (or indeed any sort of -ism) is not part of the traditional 'gaming' identity. It precludes the idea that feminists can actually play, enjoy and talk about games as much as anyone else. Hence the bile (both explicit and implicit) directed Sarkeesian or anyone else who tries to interpret games in a different way. They're not 'gamers'.
And I would contend that it is because there is a group of people who are intent on using Sarkeesian et al.'s work as a means to denigrate all "gamers". Of course people are going to lash out when they're unfairly lumped in with the unpleasant elements. With the result that people (like Sarkeesian) who are not making such stupid generalisations are also being unfairly targeted.
This whole thing wouldn't be a problem if people on both sides would exercise a little damn nuance instead of making the most crass and lazy generalisations about each other.Again, that's just not what has happened. Nobody has suggested that all 'gamers' are trolls. It's perfectly possible to identify as a 'gamer' and not be a troll. I don't intend to repeat that.
Yet you talk about "salvaging" the label precisely because there is now this perception that there is a certain toxicness associated with it. That perception would not exist unless there was someone or some group of people suggesting it has such an image.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yet you just thanked Potatoeman's post above where he draws a clear contrast between feminists and gamers?
Last time I checked not all Feminists play games. Some do and some don't. Also, Feminists in general are unfortunately sometimes judged by there worst elements. I fail to see how thanking that post changes what I said.Regardless, this isn't a matter of individual definitions. We've all seen threads over the years as to what is and isn't a 'gamer'. There are plenty of people who reject the idea that someone who plays Candy Crush on the bus to work is a 'gamer'. We've seen more than plenty who reject the idea that Sarkeesian is a 'gamer'. Certainly those who are avowedly anti-Sarkeesian would not typically consider her to be one of them.
Yeah, and you get that sort of silliness everywhere.
BTW, its not my individual definition, its the you know dictionary meaning of the word that I am using:gamer
Line breaks: gamer
Pronunciation: /ˈɡeɪmə
/
noun
1A person who plays a game or games, typically a participant in a computer or role-playing game:
You play games you are gamer, seems simple enough.Again, that's just not what has happened. Nobody has suggested that all 'gamers' are trolls. It's perfectly possible to identify as a 'gamer' and not be a troll. I don't intend to repeat that.
Well, they could have fooled me, considering some of the crap that I am seeing being said online.But I'm intrigued by your logic. Surely you, who is insisting that we're all 'gamers', are the one "lumping in a whole bunch of people" with 'the trolls'? What the authors of those articles is saying is that there is no reason to be shackled to them, no reason to consider yourself as having something in common with such reactionaries. If they want to hang on to their badge of exclusivity then, well, who cares?
I find your logic to be utterly bizarre. If someones sole purpose is to just you know annoy people, and that all they do, when there online, the fact that they may also play games, watch movies etc, doesn't change the fact that there primary goal is to troll, if that all they ever do when the interact with people. As I said, you will always get troll who are sadly part of any given fandom.
Again, I see no reason to suddenly decide gamers equals troll. We already have a word to describe people like that. Its bizarre to suggest, that the term gamer, doesn't solelyI'm sorry, are you really questioning whether the majority of people who played computer games, say, two decades ago were not white, male and with relatively comfortable levels of disposable income? I mean, I'm sure I can produce studies that show exactly that but, before I go a-searching, I want to check that that's really necessary?
I am talking about today, not 20 years ago.
What is the break down, of what are seen as "traditional" games? How many of those people, then decide to harass people online? Is 1%, 10%, or 50%?
Also, how do we define a traditional gamer? Someone who plays on the PC, or consoles, or are the same? Is it just people who play retro games? Do we separate people who just buy Nintendo consoles, Sony consoles, and Microsoft consoles? In this day and age what exactly is a "traditional" gamer as you call them?
Are the guys who play Mario and Sonic the traditional gamer, or the guys playing COD and the like?0
Advertisement