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

wes

gizmo wrote: »

That being said, attributing its creation to the wider "Anti-GG side" is about as inaccurate as attributing the latest Anti-SJW blocklist, which uses a similar criteria and currently numbers over 45,000 users, to the "Pro-GG side".

Well, no its not all of them on either side, but its enough idiots to taint both sides at this point. There are far to many unreasonable people involved on both sides at this point, for there to be anything useful to come out of this, and gamergate pro and anti are far to toxic at this point.

Evac101

In work so not a lot of time but if someone can't find evidence of GG supporters being harassed or doxed then they're not actually looking - result #3 from my badly worded google search "anti gamergate harassment". I imagine there are better search terms and that bothering to check more then the first three results would result in more "evidence" (in the respect that none of this is proven really - it's all on the internet).

Evade

gizmo wrote: »

It was automated, hence the appearance of some "odd" entries on the list in the first place. He would also have been listed by his Twitter handle, not his real name, which wouldn't have helped matters. Still, endorsing something you haven't completely vetted was incredibly unwise on their part.

It had their @ and the other name, which in his case was his real name, on the list so it would have been pretty easy to go through it and spot someone on the board of directors or KFC and realise something might be wrong with the list.

wes wrote: »

I take it you haven't been paying much attention then, Jian Ghomenshi who wrote anti-GG stuff is now being investigated for sexual assault.

As for Neo-Nazi sympathies, theres Ian Miles Chung, who blamed his own former pro-Nazi statements on a "toxic gaming community", as opposed to taking some personal responsibility. You can google for that crap if you like.

Then, there is the doxxing of youtubers Boogie2988 , Jayd3Fox, and the doxxing of the Fine Young Cataplists (you can google for that stuff, it was discussed earlier in the thread), and that just off the top of my head.

Then, there is the block list we are now discussing, which is just mass libel of a bunch of people, for daring to follow people on twitter.

Its more than fair to say both sides have awful elements that are as bad as one another. There is no winner in this, its just stupid, and no there is no high ground. Just a bunch of internet "activists" fighting the nonsense US culture wars.

Don't forget Geordie Tait.

kunst nugget

Sigh, do both sides not get tired of having their phasers set to outrage. I'm predicting that out of the ashes of all this will come a romantic comedy where a gamergate guy and an anti-gg girl are working in an office and they start a twitter campaign against each other. Sparks fly at first but soon they fall in love not before a misunderstanding sees them falling out with each other but not before they realise how much they are in love. The final scene will see both sides have a dance off at the wedding before backslapping each other and joking around. Maybe Adam Baldwin and Felicia Day could star in it.

Shiminay

kunst nugget wrote: »

Sigh, do both sides not get tired of having their phasers set to outrage.

You've seen the internet, right?

Evac101

kunst nugget wrote: »

Maybe Adam Baldwin and Felicia Day could star in it.

You managed to name two people I detest on most TV they appear in

gizmo

wes wrote: »

Well, no its not all of them on either side, but its enough idiots to taint both sides at this point. There are far to many unreasonable people involved on both sides at this point, for there to be anything useful to come out of this, and gamergate pro and anti are far to toxic at this point.

Quite true! I guess the difference, from my own perspective at least, is that if you discount the extremists on both sides, you're still left with a pretty horrible core on the GG side of things, one which has been around since the beginning and continue to say and do some pretty horrible things. The presence and, more importantly, following of these people is partly why I hold the opinion that I do, as does the realisation that if you were to strip these people away you're not really left with much of a movement at all. By that I mean, what has actually been accomplished by any of this? Ethical breaches by Hernandez were discovered back in September, the Grayson issue wasn't really one in the first place and the mere existence of the GJP list proved nothing in and of itself. We did get some site policy updates regarding Patreon which was good, regardless of personal opinions on it, while other policies were made more visible. And yet, despite these fairly sparse events, three months later it's still going.

Evade wrote: »

It had their @ and the other name, which in his case was his real name, on the list so it would have been pretty easy to go through it and spot someone on the board of directors or KFC and realise something might be wrong with the list.

So it does! My bad, I assumed the output format would be the same as the input black and white lists. That makes it even more unwise that they didn't verify its contents, regardless of the number of entries present.

wes

gizmo wrote: »

The presence and, more importantly, following of these people is partly why I hold the opinion that I do, as does the realisation that if you were to strip these people away you're not really left with much of a movement at all.

Neither side would have a much of a movement, as its pretty much your with them or against them, regardless of which side there on.

gizmo

wes wrote: »

Neither side would have a much of a movement, as its pretty much your with them or against them, regardless of which side there on.

Yup, so much for reasonable debate. But hey, at least we have here!





*adds wes to the list*

Generic Dreadhead

So.... who actually blocked the Twitter people?
I'm confused, was it just 1 side of the fence blocked the other side?
Or did Twitter actually roll out sone code or what?

wes

Cormac... wrote: »

So.... who actually blocked the Twitter people?
I'm confused, was it just 1 side of the fence blocked the other side?
Or did Twitter actually roll out sone code or what?

Its not Twitter, its some people writing some scripts, that I assume interact with the Twitter API, to block people on whatever arbitrary reason they have chosen, so they can tweet in an echo chamber. Both sides apparently have these block lists.

shruikan2553

Cormac... wrote: »

So.... who actually blocked the Twitter people?
I'm confused, was it just 1 side of the fence blocked the other side?
Or did Twitter actually roll out sone code or what?

Someone created it themselves, both sides are using it so that everyone is safe from an opposing view.

Generic Dreadhead

But when is the murder pit beginning?
Will i dip out of the thread for another week?
Surely when I return they'll finally be kicking $h!t€ out of each other.
I mean, if they have the energy to keep this whole thing going this long they need to expect it
Twitter Black/Block lists.... FFS.... Jesus wept

kunst nugget

Evac101 wrote: »

You managed to name two people I detest on most TV they appear in

But over time, your walls will be broken down and in the end you'll find yourself laughing to yourself thinking about their little quirks and then you realize that you can't live without them.

Guyanachronism

wes wrote: »

I take it you haven't been paying much attention then, Jian Ghomenshi who wrote anti-GG stuff is now being investigated for sexual assault.

As for Neo-Nazi sympathies, theres Ian Miles Chung, who blamed his own former pro-Nazi statements on a "toxic gaming community", as opposed to taking some personal responsibility. You can google for that crap if you like.

Then, there is the doxxing of youtubers Boogie2988 , Jayd3Fox, and the doxxing of the Fine Young Cataplists (you can google for that stuff, it was discussed earlier Ian in the thread), and that just off the top of my head.

Then, there is the block list we are now discussing, which is just mass libel of a bunch of people, for daring to follow people on twitter.

Its more than fair to say both sides have awful elements that are as bad as one another. There is no winner in this, its just stupid, and no there is no high ground. Just a bunch of internet "activists" fighting the nonsense US culture wars.

Well I was asking for specific links that documents this stuff and examples of influential figures with extreme view. That's a really good link although some of it is a bit contrived such as Bullying GaymerX.

I've been looking at We Hunted the Mammoth and GamerGhazi on Reddit.

The first one how does the investigation of sexual assault relate to criticism of GG? He's not trying to incorporate that into his crticism of GG. Unlike Jordan Owen and Paul Elam who are trying to bring their misogynist ideologies into GG. I also don't think he has previously expressed ugly opinions.

I only knew Ian Miles Chung from name in reference to his neo-nazi views. Again he's shunned now, banned from reddit and renounced those views unlike Davis Aurini. You also get the images of Sarkeeisan based on jewish propaganda from the Nazi period widely disseminated on 8chan etc.

Then the internet aristocrat is also a horrible misogynist he has broken from the movement for some reason but kicked a lot of it off with his initial video about Quinn.

If you think a non directly related crime is an example of extremism from critics then surely it should be mentioned that Milo Yiannopoulos is being sued for not paying contributors and staff of the Kernel. It doesn't justify doxxing or abuse but he doesn't seem to be a particularly pleasant person.

Obviously doxxing and abuse is wrong. But again I don't see the causal racism, homophobia etc. amongst the critics that I do amongst the GG crowd nor figures with influence that encourage that behaviour.

When Sarkeeisan, Quinn, Wu, Wheaton, Leigh Alexander etc. start spouting homophobic, transhobic and misogynist bile, and people celebrate them for it the n will I really consider both sides as bad as each other.

But for now I will condemn critics of GG who resort to nasty tactics as there is nastiness on both sides but GG remains an extremist movement.

wes

Guyanachronism wrote: »

I've been looking at We Hunted the Mammoth and GamerGhazi on Reddit.

Those guys are as bad as there pro-GG equivalents imho.

Guyanachronism wrote: »

The first one how does the investigation of sexual assault relate to criticism of GG? He's not trying to incorporate that into his crticism of GG. Unlike Jordan Owen and Paul Elam who are trying to bring their misogynist ideologies into GG. I also don't think he has previously expressed ugly opinions.

It points to the hypocrisy of some of GG critics, as quite a few them are no angels by any stretch.

Guyanachronism wrote: »

I only knew Ian Miles Chung from name in reference to his neo-nazi views. Again he's shunned now, banned from reddit and renounced those views unlike Davis Aurini.

He tried to blame the gaming community, it wasn't an apology. Also, gamergate has also mass reported people for some crap they pulled.

Guyanachronism wrote: »

You also get the images of Sarkeeisan based on jewish propaganda from the Nazi period widely disseminated on 8chan etc.

I never claimed that Gamergate weren't just as bad......., but seeing as you have the anti-gg side resorting to comparing gamergate to being worse than ISIS, Nazi, the KKK and other such childish nonsense.

Guyanachronism wrote: »

When Sarkeeisan, Quinn, Wu, Wheaton, Leigh Alexander etc. start spouting homophobic, transhobic and misogynist bile, and people celebrate them for it the n will I really consider both sides as bad as each other.

Anti-GG is far bigger than just them....

Guyanachronism wrote: »

But for now I will condemn critics of GG who resort to nasty tactics as there is nastiness on both sides but GG remains an extremist movement.

There is enough bile recounted on these pages from both sides at this point. You list a lot of nasty stuff gamergate has done, well I never defended them, I stand by my statement, there as bad as one another. Nasty crap all round, and I see no reason to give Anti-GG a pass.

Evac101

What I would add to wes's comment Guy is that, at this point, neither side seems interested in dialogue, both seem to be entrenched in the "us versus them" narrative which they've created for themselves and anyone attempting to bridge that (from either side) is almost instantaneously pilloried by their compatriots. The fact is that neither side will win here - it'll either peter out, with occasional flare ups on message boards into the future, or it will continue to split people who should be old and wise enough to come to an understanding/compromise/evolve beyond this. As most of the commentators have said here, and in many other places, some of what both sides say is sane and reasonable, some isn't and until both sides recognise that sometimes groups you disagree (broadly) with can still have valid points to make it'll continue to be deadlocked.

kunst nugget

I think you need to stick both sides in a room with a bag of MDMA and they'll sort themselves out in no time. Work wonders for English football hooligans back in the early 90s.

Guyanachronism

wes wrote: »

Those guys are as bad as there pro-GG equivalents imho.

How is We Hunted the Mammoth and GamerGhazi as bad?

wes wrote: »

It points to the hypocrisy of some of GG critics, as quite a few them are no angels by any stretch.

It wasn't my point though, "no angels" isn't the same as holding extremist views. Saying that a couple of the critics are "no angels" doesn't justify homophobia, misogyny and racism.

He tried to blame the gaming community, it wasn't an apology. Also, gamergate has also mass reported people for some crap they pulled.

I don't really care, it seems he's been punished and shunned for his behaviour not championed and I don't get your second point? Can you be specific please?

I never claimed that Gamergate weren't just as bad......., but seeing as you have the anti-gg side resorting to comparing gamergate to being worse than ISIS, Nazi, the KKK and other such childish nonsense.

I have not compared them to the Nazis, I pointed out supporters of GG who hold neo-nazi views. I also never compared them to KKK or ISIS.

Anti-GG is far bigger than just them . . .

Who else do you want to count for your convenience? We can link nasty twitter comments from nobodies all day, but it's surely the behaviour of influential people that matter.

There is enough bile recounted on these pages from both sides at this point. You list a lot of nasty stuff gamergate has done, well I never defended them, I stand by my statement, there as bad as one another. Nasty crap all round, and I see no reason to give Anti-GG a pass.

That's the point of clash, while I think there has been nastiness on both sides, I've argued that GG is an extremist/hate movement so I am not going to step back from the debate and say both sides are as bad as each other, when I clearly see extremism in GG that's harmful and needs to be challenged.

Evac101

I feel the sads that I used the word narrative in the context I did - I wish I hadn't and that it still meant something in a book for me

Evac101

Guyanachronism wrote: »

It wasn't my point though, "no angels" isn't the same as holding extremist views. Saying that a couple of the critics are "no angels" doesn't justify homophobia, misogyny and racism.

The way you frame that statement is unfortunate as it appears that you blanket dismiss anyone who is on the other side of the divide as being homophobic, misogynistic and/or racist. An oversight I'm sure.

Guyanachronism wrote: »

I have not compared them to the Nazis, I pointed out supporters of GG who hold neo-nazi views. I also never compared them to KKK or ISIS.

Unfortunately not all OpGamerGate/AntiGamerGate people have been as restrained as you - the poster was referring to people who have described Gamergate supporters (in a blanket sense) as Nazi's, the KKK and ISIS (the last by a gentleman who is also known for fat shaming Francis and then saying "Hey, I used to be fat, I've lost weight and being fat is shaming").

Guyanachronism wrote: »

Who else do you want to count for your convenience? We can link nasty twitter comments from nobodies all day, but it's surely the behaviour of influential people that matter.

The people quoted above (without including the retweets/favouriting and referencing of their views by others) are all reasonably placed within the movement against the Gamergate whatever-it-is and the latter two are well known within the gaming sphere. That said you only have my word for that so feel feel to do searches on google for 'gamergate XXX' inserting whichever terms you wish to research.

Guyanachronism wrote: »

That's the point of clash, while I think there has been nastiness on both sides, I've argued that GG is an extremist/hate movement so I am not going to step back from the debate and say both sides are as bad as each other, when I clearly see extremism in GG that's harmful and needs to be challenged.

Would you at least be willing to say that both sides have elements which should be ejected if they don't want bystanders (like myself ish) to see both as being inclusive of some horrible behaviour?

PS
The legitimacy of any movement that uses the KKK/ISIS/Nazi's as a description of it's opposition when numerous murders and systemic, long term oppression have occurred to reinforce the terrible regimes referenced seems questionable. This applies equally to both sides once again, unfortunately.

wes

Guyanachronism wrote: »

How is We Hunted the Mammoth and GamerGhazi as bad?

Have you not read them?

Guyanachronism wrote: »

It wasn't my point though, "no angels" isn't the same as holding extremist views. Saying that a couple of the critics are "no angels" doesn't justify homophobia, misogyny and racism.

No one tried to justify homophobia, racism or misogyny. Saying both are as bad as one another is the opposite of justification for either of them, and your being silly to even suggest that at all.

Guyanachronism wrote: »

I don't really care, it seems he's been punished and shunned for his behaviour not championed and I don't get your second point? Can you be specific please?

And some GG people have mas reported people for harassment. Again, there elements in both sides that aren't completely nuts.

Guyanachronism wrote: »

I have not compared them to the Nazis, I pointed out supporters of GG who hold neo-nazi views. I also never compared them to KKK or ISIS.

I never said that you did, but that GG has been compared to the KKK (some going as far as saying there worse :rolleyes:).

Guyanachronism wrote: »

Who else do you want to count for your convenience? We can link nasty twitter comments from nobodies all day, but it's surely the behaviour of influential people that matter.

You mean like Zoey Quinn's PR person doxxing someone? You mean something like that. Again, Pro-GG, is far bigger than the people you listed, and I see no reason to go through the list of the various childish antics from the likes of Gawker media etc that have been detailed on these pages already.

Guyanachronism wrote: »

That's the point of clash, while I think there has been nastiness on both sides, I've argued that GG is an extremist/hate movement so I am not going to step back from the debate and say both sides are as bad as each other, when I clearly see extremism in GG that's harmful and needs to be challenged.

GG is a bloody hash tag, to say its an extremist movement is an abuse of the word, and again show just how absurd Anti-GG can be. Its kind of talk that is the problem, when you have pro-GG harping on about SJW fascists trying to stifle free speech on the other end.

Sorry, but both sides, when they say this stuff, sound completely deranged and out of touch.

Both sides have been harmful, what with all the doxxing and other crap there pulling. There more like children then extremists and facists.

gizmo

wes wrote: »

And some GG people have mas reported people for harassment. Again, there elements in both sides that aren't completely nuts.

To the best of my knowledge neither Yiannopoulos, Cernovich, Roguestar, RalphRetort nor Internet Aristocrat have been mass reported by the GG movement for their behavior. On the contrary, they've been excused, defended and used as a source for news, comments and advice across a variety of issues that have come up. As I said before, ignore the lunatic fringe on both sides and look at what you're left with.

Of course it's perfectly reasonable, in the context of this discussion at least, to dismiss them as fringe extremists too but when you examine the broad support they have, what does that say about the movement in general? Don't get me wrong, I share your desire to see this whole thing just go away, it's just that when the dust settles I believe it would be entirely disingenuous to say both sides, in their totality, were as bad as the other.

wes

gizmo wrote: »

To the best of my knowledge neither Yiannopoulos, Cernovich, Roguestar, RalphRetort nor Internet Aristocrat have been mass reported by the GG movement for their behavior. On the contrary, they've been excused, defended and used as a source for news, comments and advice across a variety of issues that have come up. As I said before, ignore the lunatic fringe on both sides and look at what you're left with.

I know they haven't but my point is that they have mass reported some of the more obvious crazies, as a counter point.

gizmo wrote: »

Of course it's perfectly reasonable, in the context of this discussion at least, to dismiss them as fringe extremists too but when you examine the broad support they have, what does that say about the movement in general? Don't get me wrong, I share your desire to see this whole thing just go away, it's just that when the dust settles I believe it would be entirely disingenuous to say both sides, in their totality, were as bad as the other.

I don't like those people, but until the people you named start murdering people, referring to them as being extreme is imho an abuse of the term.

gizmo

wes wrote: »

I know they haven't but my point is that they have mass reported some of the more obvious crazies, as a counter point.

Which is totally valid. Why are we even discussing these people on either side though, surely it's a total waste of time since no one even approaching a moderate position, regardless of which side that falls on, agree with them?

wes wrote: »

I don't like those people, but until the people you named start murdering people, referring to them as being extreme is imho an abuse of the term.

That paragraph was more for your benefit in case you actually did consider the aforementioned people to be along the same lines as those whose behavior has been called out by GG supporters. I'm using the term in the context of an internet-based movement though, I'll happily use whatever term you wish to differentiate the reasonable people from the completely unreasonable ones.

Retr0gamer

I really am baffled what the hell the pro gamergate side are actually fighting for. Ethics in games journalism? What a load of arse. I mean basing your games buying decisions on the views and reviews of IGN or Giant Bomb is like basing your movie choices on the opinions of the Daily Mail. If you don't know any better then you only have yourself to blame. Then they go after people like Jen Frank and Jeremy Parish who when it comes to ethics in videogame journalism really are not the people to be going after. I can't help but feel it's absolute nonsense.

DeVore

What on earth gives you the idea this is really about games?

BlitzKrieg

As I've already said this is all about twitter.

It has always been about twitter.

if you dont use twitter then none of this effects you.

And frankly you shouldnt be using twitter as clearly demonstrated by all this nonsense twitter is bullsh*t.

yes we have a few echo chambers here and there in the way of subreddits, 8chan (the frankly f*cking awful) ralph retort and zen of design.

but they are echo chambers, they are the equivalent of the stormfront forums.

All the nasty crap goes down on twitter and the move now to both sides trying to create echo chambers on twitter confirms that this whole fight has been about twitter from the get go.

And I dont mean the beginning of gamergate, I mean this all american culture wars bullsh*t is pretty much a fight over twitter online cause twitter is seen as some holy grail of open forum. And now it's in it's messy death throes as someone has gone all mutually assured destruction and has started building walls in twitter. They are destroying what they were fighting over

Good

it's f*cking over let them all build their little walls and stay away from each other. noisy brats the lot of them.


Twitter is bullsh*t.

DeVore

I disagree that twitter is bullsh*t .... The offense brigade want to turn it into Tumblr and other side want to be free to be as rude as they see fit. That, that's bullsh*t but the platform itself is neutral and if you use it right, is terrific.

Tbh, I've stayed away from following any of these people and my timeline is nice and informative about lots of topics. Its a matter of what you make of it.

jimbob_jones

At this stage I don't know if I should just go through my follow list like a dose of salts and get back to where I was before I had even heard of this whole debacle or just stay away from Twitter entirely.

I really thought when the indie games scene started to pick up that the game industry was starting to come full circle for want of a better term and just hark back to the days of the Spectrum and Commodore when folks were cranking out games from the bedroom. Just the old rose tinted glasses I suspect

I was looking at a penny-arcade cartoon from 2004 and it just seems a bit apt... http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/02/16

I suppose the old quote rings true as well.. A wise men told me never argue with fools, because people from a distance can't tell who is who

gizmo

jimbob_jones wrote: »

I really thought when the indie games scene started to pick up that the game industry was starting to come full circle for want of a better term and just hark back to the days of the Spectrum and Commodore when folks were cranking out games from the bedroom. Just the old rose tinted glasses I suspect

Why wait on the industry to change when a lot of what you're looking for exists right now? Start by popping over to the TigSource forums and check out the DevLogs, it's chock full of some pretty great projects. From there you should be able to pick up some decent people/projects to follow on Twitter who in turn will help you discover even more interesting people and projects via retweets and the like. Before you know it you'll have a nice feed full of awesome games and dev related updates.

shruikan2553

gizmo wrote: »

it's just that when the dust settles I believe it would be entirely disingenuous to say both sides, in their totality, were as bad as the other.

Give me a choice of being locked in a room with someone who is pro or anti GG to discuss it I'm still going to go through a window.

DeVore

Without saying which side was "worse" ... would everyone agree that both have been "bad"

K.O.Kiki

Four-part critical dissertion of Anita Sarkeesian's video series:
https://medium.com/@cainejw/dishonesty-feminist-frequency-part-1-fe937f6a791e
https://medium.com/@cainejw/dishonesty-feminist-frequency-part-2-damsels-in-distress-pt-1-2309ce61c2a5
https://medium.com/@cainejw/dishonesty-feminist-frequency-part-2-damsels-in-distress-pt-2-fde349026b7d
https://medium.com/@cainejw/dishonesty-feminist-frequency-part-4-b26293b4755b

Haven't had a chance to even read through the first part yet.

BlitzKrieg

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Four-part critical dissertion of Anita Sarkeesian's video series:
https://medium.com/@cainejw/dishonesty-feminist-frequency-part-1-fe937f6a791e
https://medium.com/@cainejw/dishonesty-feminist-frequency-part-2-damsels-in-distress-pt-1-2309ce61c2a5
https://medium.com/@cainejw/dishonesty-feminist-frequency-part-2-damsels-in-distress-pt-2-fde349026b7d
https://medium.com/@cainejw/dishonesty-feminist-frequency-part-4-b26293b4755b

Haven't had a chance to even read through the first part yet.

I'll have a sit down and read, but the opening paragraph has me already expecting very little as while I have seen the arguments on *dishonesty* involving anita's work (wasnt this about ethics in journalism?) opening the piece with numerous examples of acedemic plagiarism you're going to want to actually have a case of actual plagiarism by the end of the read.

Which as far as I have seen no one has accused her of actual plagiarism and academic plagiarism involving media studies and feminism is not something you would easily get away considering there are quite a a lot of academics in this field and unless we are still subscribing to the ridiculous feminist agenda notion they would not let someone use their work to the extent of Anita without credit.

Nollog

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I'll have a sit down and read, but the opening paragraph has me already expecting very little as while I have seen the arguments on *dishonesty* involving anita's work (wasnt this about ethics in journalism?) opening the piece with numerous examples of acedemic plagiarism you're going to want to actually have a case of actual plagiarism by the end of the read.

Which as far as I have seen no one has accused her of actual plagiarism and academic plagiarism involving media studies and feminism is not something you would easily get away considering there are quite a a lot of academics in this field and unless we are still subscribing to the ridiculous feminist agenda notion they would not let someone use their work to the extent of Anita without credit.

I read the first piece, it's about how they put only the woman in the spotlight, Sarkeeeesssiaaaan, or however you spell it, and the guy she works with is invisible, and how their claims are poorly researched with zero sources cited.
Also, a history of feminism in the US.

kunst nugget

/\/ollog wrote: »

I read the first piece, it's about how they put only the woman in the spotlight, Sarkeeeesssiaaaan, or however you spell it, and the guy she works with is invisible, and how their claims are poorly researched with zero sources cited.
Also, a history of feminism in the US.

I started to read it but it seems very dry and I'm kind of time short at the moment in the run up to Christmas. I will say one thing though, I think where he's coming from is kind of flawed to start with. In essence, he has saying that this is an academic work so it should have the full rigors of academic research, annotation, accreditation etc. But I think the point of the series was to actually present what would be considered dry academia to a wider audience and educate in the same way that science programmes on TV might. Obviously that doesn't excuse the flaws in research.

o1s1n

I really like this part from the second link;

Preliminary research that I am conducting, and has gone through the history of console gaming until the Sega Master System, shows that of 1,800 examined games, only 5% or roughly 96 have the Damsel in Distress trope.

McIntosh and Sarkeesian were able to find 24 games to justify the statement that the Damsel trope is pernicious and problematic as a sign of sexism in gaming.

McIntosh also state there are “literally hundreds of examples.” The Nintendo Entertainment System had 822 games released between 1985 and 1995. The Super Nintendo Entertainment system, active between 1991 and 1999, had 784 games available.

On two systems alone, there were over 1,600 games released. McIntosh and Sarkeesian do not source their claim for “hundreds.” In fact, McIntosh and Sarkeesian state that they purchased “well over 300 games” in one update, but they have “hundreds” of examples meaning that 200–300 of their games had these cliches. Even if one assumes that every game, of which only modern generation games were pictured, had this problem, this is only 12% to 18% of games released between 1985 and 1999.

My examination using any female characters every captured for any reason only returned 5% of games. If we are kind, 18% of the games have the trope. If we use the criteria put forth by McIntosh and Sarkeesian, up to the NES, only 5% do.

Are McIntosh and Sarkeesian really saying that there’s a problem in gaming with objectification of women based on 5–18% of games?

wes

kunst nugget wrote: »

I started to read it but it seems very dry and I'm kind of time short at the moment in the run up to Christmas. I will say one thing though, I think where he's coming from is kind of flawed to start with. In essence, he has saying that this is an academic work so it should have the full rigors of academic research, annotation, accreditation etc. But I think the point of the series was to actually present what would be considered dry academia to a wider audience and educate in the same way that science programmes on TV might. Obviously that doesn't excuse the flaws in research.

In fairness the guy points out that the authors of feminist frequency, are saying it is educational and has a class room curriculum etc, so I think its more than fair to hold it to academic standards in that case.

kunst nugget

…

johnny_ultimate

o1s1n wrote: »

My examination using any female characters every captured for any reason only returned 5% of games. If we are kind, 18% of the games have the trope. If we use the criteria put forth by McIntosh and Sarkeesian, up to the NES, only 5% do.

Are McIntosh and Sarkeesian really saying that there’s a problem in gaming with objectification of women based on 5–18% of games?

If he wants to deconstruct shallow arguments - and no question some of Feminist Frequency's are very shallow - then he needs to hold himself up to the same standards (I'm assuming the author is a he?)

If we're looking at portrayals of females in gaming, '100% of all games' is not the place to start. Whether it's a feminist perspective, trying to prove there is not an issue, or even from a completely neutral, unbiased position this is an unhelpful starting point. '100% of games' has to be whittled down significantly. A significant proportion of games, especially ones popular in the early years of gaming, will not feature narrative or characters - for example almost all puzzle games, racing games, sporting games, shoot 'em ups. Some of these may feature male/female avatars and have gender representations deserving of their own analysis (e.g. the use of 'starting line girls' in racing games), but narrative tropes, clichés etc... cannot be analysed in games where narrative does not exist. It's fair to say lots of games don't feature cliches or tropes when it comes to their portrayal of female characters, but in many cases that's because they don't really feature characters at all.

Even then, a trend, trope or cliche does not need to be present in 51%+ of games to be considered problematic. If it's common enough, then it is worthy of critique. Even if there is only '5–18% of games' that objectify women, that to me is far from a negligible statistic, and well worth highlighting and talking about. To me, the value in the Feminist Frequency videos so far is that they have highlighted just how prevalent a lot of the 'cliches' are in so many popular, successful games, even when we allow for the fact that Sarkeesian has in some case struggled or outright failed to analyse the 'big picture' of individual titles. The series' failings have been associated with rushed, unconvincing attempts to link that with real-world consequences.

A truly thorough academic study of these issues is a frankly dizzying, almost impossible prospect. A mix of qualitative and quantitative research that allows for weighting and considerations of the countless variables. I don't envy anybody who tries to tackle such a gargantuan task.

gizmo

wes wrote: »

In fairness the guy points out that the authors of feminist frequency, are saying it is educational and has a class room curriculum etc, so I think its more than fair to hold it to academic standards in that case.

Which isn't really correct. One of the stretch-goals was to provide a supplementary Classroom Curriculum to the Youtube series.

Reekwind, Cormac, Evade and johnny_ultimate talked about this topic on this very thread back in August. It's around the Post #110 mark or thereabouts.

wes

gizmo wrote: »

Which isn't really correct. One of the stretch-goals was to provide a supplementary Classroom Curriculum to the Youtube series.

How does that make it not correct? The stretch goal was reached, so surely that proves the point correct, then? I would take it that something that is suppose to go into a classroom, should be held to a academic standard, depending on the level there targeting.

Generic Dreadhead

gizmo wrote: »

Reekwind, Cormac, Evade and johnny_ultimate talked about this topic on this very thread back in August. It's around the Post #110 mark or thereabouts.

Ah memories

Evac101

If nothing else we'll always have post #110....

gizmo

wes wrote: »

How does that make it not correct? The stretch goal was reached, so surely that proves the point correct, then? I would take it that something that is suppose to go into a classroom, should be held to a academic standard, depending on the level there targeting.

Well no, she hasn't provided it yet.

When she does produce the content then I'd fully expect it to be properly vetted for inclusion into any curriculum that would affect a students GPA.

Cormac... wrote: »

Ah memories

Happier times. **** sundaes for some, gaming and social issues for others...

wes

gizmo wrote: »

Well no, she hasn't provided it yet.

When she does produce the content then I'd fully expect it to be properly vetted for inclusion into any curriculum that would affect a students GPA.

Fair enough, but the class room material is supplementary, meaning that the video should be of the same standard.

Shiminay

wes wrote: »

Fair enough, but the class room material is supplementary, meaning that the video should be of the same standard.

That assumes it's supplementary. If this were to be made into some sort of classroom useable format, it needs to be completely rewritten from the ground up for the sakes of any poor students who'd be exposed to it.

I think Ms Sarkeesian's videos are rubbish. They are poorly written and presented and they tell me nothing of value or interest or even "new" because I happen to be of an above average intelligence and I have a significant interest in both gender equality issues and gaming. It's too easy to dismiss her work and abilities as a content creator because it's hilariously easy to demolish most of what she says. But that's the content, not the woman. As we say here on Boards, attack the post, not the poster. Unfortunately, too many fkwits are so mortally afraid of women that they are compelled to attack her.

HOWEVER!

Someone had to start this discussion in a more public and meaningful way that would make those that need to be involved in addressing these issues pay attention. Strictly academic work, in general, rarely excites or entices anyone who's not also of an academic background. So I'm glad someone is making this series, even if I think it's mostly tosh. The next stage has already started happening, but slowly because all its going to do is attract all the internet outrage fkwits.

Nollog

o1s1n wrote: »

THINGS

I stopped reading after the first part, I got the point he was making.
A 20 minute read proves her crew to be biased, factually inaccurate, and scheming.

kunst nugget wrote: »

I started to read it but it seems very dry and I'm kind of time short at the moment in the run up to Christmas. I will say one thing though, I think where he's coming from is kind of flawed to start with. In essence, he has saying that this is an academic work so it should have the full rigors of academic research, annotation, accreditation etc. But I think the point of the series was to actually present what would be considered dry academia to a wider audience and educate in the same way that science programmes on TV might. Obviously that doesn't excuse the flaws in research.

The article cites their own language used which clearly states their goal is to be academic and educational, not entertaining.

wes

Shiminay wrote: »

That assumes it's supplementary. If this were to be made into some sort of classroom useable format, it needs to be completely rewritten from the ground up for the sakes of any poor students who'd be exposed to it.

Well looking at what there saying it certainly doesn't seem that way, but we can certainly wait and see in that regard.