Feminist Frequency to pivot toward combating “gendered online harassment”

FF discloses financials, announces plans for new "masculinity in games" video series.

Read the whole story

 

[falsoman]

D_K_night[/url]":u87nowq6]I'm a male who is harassed repeatedly on the internet. Can I go to Anita to help me?

That's what I want to know.

First you should go to the police, of course.

 

[ScottTFrazer]

D_K_night[/url]":1sd5wbhi]I'm a male who is harassed repeatedly on the internet. Can I go to Anita to help me?

That's what I want to know.

It doesn't sound like Anita has her new plan operational yet. But you could check in with Zoe's project:

http://www.crashoverridenetwork.com/

 

[GeraltvonRivia]

tjones2[/url]":2n6k87jd]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":2n6k87jd]

tjones2[/url]":2n6k87jd]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":2n6k87jd]
Using the bias media and social pressure. We see it already with media, providing false narratives to sway public opinion. Look at the piece by ABC talking about GTA V with Anita.

Has it occured to you that the reason why the media war is going badly is because of GG. #gamergate probably did much more to damage the reputation of gaming and the tech industry than any of its critics. Sure, gaming is being ran through the mud by the press, but you have GG to blame for that.

GG has nothing to do with this, even if it did false claims, lies and bias should be spurred no matter the reasoning for them. The media just likes a good victim story.

I will repeat. Would anyone of heard of Sarkiskian were it not for GG? Until all of this crap hit Sarkiskian was just some lightweight feminist blogger who had little reach outside of the feminist internet bubble. Quinn was just the author of a game about being depressed, who also had some extreme political views.

Its kind of hard to rebut lies when the gaming industry is being "defended" by the pack of poo flinging howler monkeys that is GG.

Sarkeesian is not a journalist so GG is not about her. Her name just got brought up into it just to troll gamers. Then you have more trolls making false threats then having those being attributed to GG as a whole. Quinn was brought up for her unethical practice in getting positive reviews for her game, not for her politically extreme views. You might be surprised to find how many women, LGTB and different races identify with GG if you actually looked into it instead of believing the hype put forth by the media, Anita, Brianna and Zoe.

 

[GeraltvonRivia]

sorrykb1[/url]":3payrfz6]

tjones2[/url]":3payrfz6]

imagremlin[/url]":3payrfz6]The success of unbelievably phony Sarkeesian (Thunderfoot has made a rock solid case debunking her) makes me think there is some real issue to be addressed. As it is, she isn't, she's just milking it for all its worth while it lasts.

Hopefully somebody who's actually serious will pick it up.

Oh. Please. Thunderf00t (aka Phil Mason) is an idiot on this topic.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Thunderf00t

In fairness, "idiot" is his default setting.

How is he an idiot?

 

[noops]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":bs5kmwl4]

noops[/url]":bs5kmwl4]
I fail to see how this is 'forcing' which is a pretty strong word. Thompson tried to use the government to force his agenda. Using the legal system I would consider to be 'force'. Voicing criticism and people giving you a platform to do so is not 'force'.

When you present lies as fact, use false arguments and give someone a bias platform to state these claims on a national level, this is trying to force something. We will see what happens in the legal arena if this gains anymore momentum from the vocal minority.

I still don't agree this is force.

How would you define gamergate targeting advertisers to remove the source of funding for websites they disagree with? Is that force? Is that stifling freedom of speech?

 

[tjones2]

noops[/url]":2rbfa40o]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":2rbfa40o]

noops[/url]":2rbfa40o]
I fail to see how this is 'forcing' which is a pretty strong word. Thompson tried to use the government to force his agenda. Using the legal system I would consider to be 'force'. Voicing criticism and people giving you a platform to do so is not 'force'.

When you present lies as fact, use false arguments and give someone a bias platform to state these claims on a national level, this is trying to force something. We will see what happens in the legal arena if this gains anymore momentum from the vocal minority.

I still don't agree this is force.

How would you define gamergate targeting advertisers to remove the source of funding for websites they disagree with? Is that force? Is that stifling freedom of speech?

GG is amazingly hypocritical on censorship. They say they oppose it when it bites them. But, when one of their opponents say something they don't like censorship becomes GG's best friend.

 

[tjones2]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":htydf0xe]

tjones2[/url]":htydf0xe]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":htydf0xe]

tjones2[/url]":htydf0xe]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":htydf0xe]
Using the bias media and social pressure. We see it already with media, providing false narratives to sway public opinion. Look at the piece by ABC talking about GTA V with Anita.

Has it occured to you that the reason why the media war is going badly is because of GG. #gamergate probably did much more to damage the reputation of gaming and the tech industry than any of its critics. Sure, gaming is being ran through the mud by the press, but you have GG to blame for that.

GG has nothing to do with this, even if it did false claims, lies and bias should be spurred no matter the reasoning for them. The media just likes a good victim story.

I will repeat. Would anyone of heard of Sarkiskian were it not for GG? Until all of this crap hit Sarkiskian was just some lightweight feminist blogger who had little reach outside of the feminist internet bubble. Quinn was just the author of a game about being depressed, who also had some extreme political views.

Its kind of hard to rebut lies when the gaming industry is being "defended" by the pack of poo flinging howler monkeys that is GG.

Sarkeesian is not a journalist so GG is not about her. Her name just got brought up into it just to troll gamers. Then you have more trolls making false threats then having those being attributed to GG as a whole. Quinn was brought up for her unethical practice in getting positive reviews for her game, not for her politically extreme views. You might be surprised to find how many women, LGTB and different races identify with GG if you actually looked into it instead of believing the hype put forth by the media, Anita, Brianna and Zoe.

Ok then, what gaming journalists were being mean to gamers before GG/the Quinn crap/all of the other GG-related stuff?

 

[noops]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":g51dmoms]

tjones2[/url]":g51dmoms]
I will repeat. Would anyone of heard of Sarkiskian were it not for GG? Until all of this crap hit Sarkiskian was just some lightweight feminist blogger who had little reach outside of the feminist internet bubble. Quinn was just the author of a game about being depressed, who also had some extreme political views.

Its kind of hard to rebut lies when the gaming industry is being "defended" by the pack of poo flinging howler monkeys that is GG.

Sarkeesian is not a journalist so GG is not about her. Her name just got brought up into it just to troll gamers. Then you have more trolls making false threats then having those being attributed to GG as a whole. Quinn was brought up for her unethical practice in getting positive reviews for her game, not for her politically extreme views. You might be surprised to find how many women, LGTB and different races identify with GG if you actually looked into it instead of believing the hype put forth by the media, Anita, Brianna and Zoe.

Are we still repeating the positive reviews talking point? And of course when concerned with journalistic ethics you want to attack the non-journalist, right?

 

[aleph_nought]

This man speaks: when games, game developers and gamers stop treating women as merely sex objects, that's when FF's work is done. It took a long time for the film industry to do this with female actors and production crew and there's still a lot to be done to increase ethnic minority and LGBT representation.

Gamergate? Ethics in game journalism? I'm on Anita's side, these obnoxious doxxers just don't want other people to tell them to grow up and stop playing violent sexist bullshit.

 

[tjones2]

Ethics in gaming journalism from 8chan /gamergate/

http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/10/3 ... rt-report/

 

[TK]

I don't see anything terribly offensive about that post. Asking people to post links in the comments section of and dislike a video is not a bad thing, nor is it harassment.

And that last post is the pic distressingly true. The trope of the lonely shut-in in front of his computer playing MMOs is a popular one. Examples of it can be found in this thread. Two posts down from this one, even.

 

[TK]

aleph_nought[/url]":1a9a5d7d]Gamergate? Ethics in game journalism? I'm on Anita's side, these obnoxious doxxers just don't want other people to tell them to grow up and stop playing violent sexist bullshit.

If you're telling anyone to stop playing anything, you are no better than Jack Thompson.

 

[aleph_nought]

This Gamergate nonsense is a sad example of first world problems gone mad. GGers should get out of the fucking basement and talk to women, talk to people from ethnic minorities, talk to LGBT people. By talking to everyone from everywhere, you realize people want to be treated equally and with dignity.

Reading about "LW2" makes my blood boil. By objectifying Sarkeesian and reducing her to a non-person, these Gamergate idiots are making themselves look mighty stupid, at the same time they're trying to gain the moral high ground.

 

[Porter Doran]

ScottTFrazer[/url]":213dgqi5]

Mitlov[/url]":213dgqi5]
...because on average, men make more than women, and women are more likely than men to make career sacrifices during the course of a marriage. So how is this reflective of society being anti-male?

It's not. It's actually a knock-on effect from society thinking that only a woman can properly raise a family (and therefor shouldn't be preforming other duties). MRA people will try to tell you that feminists somehow made those things happen, despite the laws being on the books largely before women could even vote.

White men in power made the laws that awarded custody without looking at the whole picture. White men in power made the laws that granted women alimony regardless of earning potential. They are examples of patriarchy exactly as much as the glass ceiling and the gendered pay gap.

You're missing some key historical information. For one thing, women were agitating for social change a century or more "before women could even vote." (For example, 'A Vindication of the Rights of Woman' was written in 1792.) Also, you seem unaware that it was automatic to award the children to the father throughout the Victorian era. Simply put, the laws you are referring to may have been written and voted on by men, but they were the result of the progressive movement that began in the late 1800s and in which women activists played leading roles (again, well before women won the suffrage).

 

[GeraltvonRivia]

tjones2[/url]":1ivfbgr8]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":1ivfbgr8]

tjones2[/url]":1ivfbgr8]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":1ivfbgr8]

tjones2[/url]":1ivfbgr8]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":1ivfbgr8]
Using the bias media and social pressure. We see it already with media, providing false narratives to sway public opinion. Look at the piece by ABC talking about GTA V with Anita.

Has it occured to you that the reason why the media war is going badly is because of GG. #gamergate probably did much more to damage the reputation of gaming and the tech industry than any of its critics. Sure, gaming is being ran through the mud by the press, but you have GG to blame for that.

GG has nothing to do with this, even if it did false claims, lies and bias should be spurred no matter the reasoning for them. The media just likes a good victim story.

I will repeat. Would anyone of heard of Sarkiskian were it not for GG? Until all of this crap hit Sarkiskian was just some lightweight feminist blogger who had little reach outside of the feminist internet bubble. Quinn was just the author of a game about being depressed, who also had some extreme political views.

Its kind of hard to rebut lies when the gaming industry is being "defended" by the pack of poo flinging howler monkeys that is GG.

Sarkeesian is not a journalist so GG is not about her. Her name just got brought up into it just to troll gamers. Then you have more trolls making false threats then having those being attributed to GG as a whole. Quinn was brought up for her unethical practice in getting positive reviews for her game, not for her politically extreme views. You might be surprised to find how many women, LGTB and different races identify with GG if you actually looked into it instead of believing the hype put forth by the media, Anita, Brianna and Zoe.

Ok then, what gaming journalists were being mean to gamers before GG/the Quinn crap/all of the other GG-related stuff?

Just look up all of the gaming sites that claimed gamers are dead. While I've never give much credence to gaming news sites (I prefer reviews of gamers who have played the game) I can see how people who do rely on gaming magazines for information wanting unbiased reviews and when they point out some inconsistency's, several different gaming mags come out with almost the same exact article you mean to tell me that collaboration was going on. Also attacking the group that is your audience shows career suicidal tendencies or ideological bias. Which after reading a few of those articles, makes me think the latter.

 

[noops]

TK[/url]":8pky6s8q]

aleph_nought[/url]":8pky6s8q]Gamergate? Ethics in game journalism? I'm on Anita's side, these obnoxious doxxers just don't want other people to tell them to grow up and stop playing violent sexist bullshit.

If you're telling anyone to stop playing anything, you are no better than Jack Thompson.

I disagree. Telling someone to not play something is hardly comparable to Thompson who wanted to use the legal system to actually prevent you from choosing to play something.

Who are you referring to anyways that is saying to stop playing something?

 

[SuperNoob Deluxe*]

TK[/url]":1bn1tth4]

aleph_nought[/url]":1bn1tth4]Gamergate? Ethics in game journalism? I'm on Anita's side, these obnoxious doxxers just don't want other people to tell them to grow up and stop playing violent sexist bullshit.

If you're telling anyone to stop playing anything, you are no better than Jack Thompson.

In Jack Thompson's defense, he wasn't running a racket by playing a victim like Sarkeesian is doing.

 

[TK]

noops[/url]":3a9qexrl]

TK[/url]":3a9qexrl]

aleph_nought[/url]":3a9qexrl]Gamergate? Ethics in game journalism? I'm on Anita's side, these obnoxious doxxers just don't want other people to tell them to grow up and stop playing violent sexist bullshit.

If you're telling anyone to stop playing anything, you are no better than Jack Thompson.

I disagree. Telling someone to not play something is hardly comparable to Thompson who wanted to use the legal system to actually prevent you from choosing to play something.

Who are you referring to anyways that is saying to stop playing something?

... read the text you quoted? And that I was replying to? Emphasizing in case you missed it:

I'm on Anita's side, these obnoxious doxxers just don't want other people to tell them to grow up and stop playing violent sexist bullshit.

 

[tjones2]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":223n6a1s]

Just look up all of the gaming sites that claimed gamers are dead. While I've never give much credence to gaming news sites (I prefer reviews of gamers who have played the game) I can see how people who do rely on gaming magazines for information wanting unbiased reviews and when they point out some inconsistency's, several different gaming mags come out with almost the same exact article you mean to tell me that collaboration was going on. Also attacking the group that is your audience shows career suicidal tendencies or ideological bias. Which after reading a few of those articles, makes me think the latter.

You know what happened before the gamers are dead articles? Quinn, #fiveguys, and the birth of GG. I was here on this forum when that crap dropped. For proof, read the first GG related soap box thread viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1253173

 

[tjones2]

SuperNoob Deluxe*[/url]":2cjb3oza]

TK[/url]":2cjb3oza]

aleph_nought[/url]":2cjb3oza]Gamergate? Ethics in game journalism? I'm on Anita's side, these obnoxious doxxers just don't want other people to tell them to grow up and stop playing violent sexist bullshit.

If you're telling anyone to stop playing anything, you are no better than Jack Thompson.

In Jack Thompson's defense, he wasn't running a racket by playing a victim like Sarkeesian is doing.

:facepalm: :facepalm:

Whut? Playing the victim and earning a living by crap lawsuits was what Thompson DID.

 

[SuperNoob Deluxe*]

ScottTFrazer[/url]":203brzd7]

Mitlov[/url]":203brzd7]
...because on average, men make more than women, and women are more likely than men to make career sacrifices during the course of a marriage. So how is this reflective of society being anti-male?

It's not. It's actually a knock-on effect from society thinking that only a woman can properly raise a family (and therefor shouldn't be preforming other duties). MRA people will try to tell you that feminists somehow made those things happen, despite the laws being on the books largely before women could even vote.

White men in power made the laws that awarded custody without looking at the whole picture. White men in power made the laws that granted women alimony regardless of earning potential. They are examples of patriarchy exactly as much as the glass ceiling and the gendered pay gap.

It's time for the whole society to move on from the patriarchal times. Since women have given up their traditional role, so should men. Ergo, men should not be the protectors and providers anymore, directly or indirectly (through government handouts). No more patriarchal alimony or welfare checks! Go strong and independent women!

 

[TK]

tjones2[/url]":19wwkdv2]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":19wwkdv2]

Just look up all of the gaming sites that claimed gamers are dead. While I've never give much credence to gaming news sites (I prefer reviews of gamers who have played the game) I can see how people who do rely on gaming magazines for information wanting unbiased reviews and when they point out some inconsistency's, several different gaming mags come out with almost the same exact article you mean to tell me that collaboration was going on. Also attacking the group that is your audience shows career suicidal tendencies or ideological bias. Which after reading a few of those articles, makes me think the latter.

You know what happened before the gamers are dead articles? Quinn, #fiveguys, and the birth of GG. I was here on this forum when that crap dropped. For proof, read the first GG related soap box thread viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1253173

Ah yes, that thread that is specifically about games journalism and is shat on by two moderators?

Ars' early treatment of GG is hardly above reproach. They were directly involved in the "gamers are dead" coordinated article drop, had staff in the GameJournoPros email list, and posts like the one you linked to do nothing to help their case. (Claiming that a thread isn't about journalism when it very damn well specifically is in the OP)

 

[GeraltvonRivia]

noops[/url]":2elxgpkv]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":2elxgpkv]

noops[/url]":2elxgpkv]
I fail to see how this is 'forcing' which is a pretty strong word. Thompson tried to use the government to force his agenda. Using the legal system I would consider to be 'force'. Voicing criticism and people giving you a platform to do so is not 'force'.

When you present lies as fact, use false arguments and give someone a bias platform to state these claims on a national level, this is trying to force something. We will see what happens in the legal arena if this gains anymore momentum from the vocal minority.

I still don't agree this is force.

How would you define gamergate targeting advertisers to remove the source of funding for websites they disagree with? Is that force? Is that stifling freedom of speech?

Companies have the freedom to choose who they associate their name with. If something comes to light about a company A that is true and company B doesn't want to be associated with that, is their choice to remove their name from it.
If you assume that a company like Intel would remove advertising solely based on a few emails, then you clearly have no business sense. They obviously would have looked long and hard into the claims.

 

[TK]

tjones2[/url]":181fh5to]

SuperNoob Deluxe*[/url]":181fh5to]

TK[/url]":181fh5to]

aleph_nought[/url]":181fh5to]Gamergate? Ethics in game journalism? I'm on Anita's side, these obnoxious doxxers just don't want other people to tell them to grow up and stop playing violent sexist bullshit.

If you're telling anyone to stop playing anything, you are no better than Jack Thompson.

In Jack Thompson's defense, he wasn't running a racket by playing a victim like Sarkeesian is doing.

:facepalm: :facepalm:

Whut? Playing the victim and earning a living by crap lawsuits was what Thompson DID.

I don't actually remember that many details about the guy. I do remember rah rah violence rah rah murder simulators, but him playing the victim card at every occasion is not something I remember. He kind of faded away after getting disbarred.

 

[GeraltvonRivia]

noops[/url]":2r20dtz8]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":2r20dtz8]

tjones2[/url]":2r20dtz8]
I will repeat. Would anyone of heard of Sarkiskian were it not for GG? Until all of this crap hit Sarkiskian was just some lightweight feminist blogger who had little reach outside of the feminist internet bubble. Quinn was just the author of a game about being depressed, who also had some extreme political views.

Its kind of hard to rebut lies when the gaming industry is being "defended" by the pack of poo flinging howler monkeys that is GG.

Sarkeesian is not a journalist so GG is not about her. Her name just got brought up into it just to troll gamers. Then you have more trolls making false threats then having those being attributed to GG as a whole. Quinn was brought up for her unethical practice in getting positive reviews for her game, not for her politically extreme views. You might be surprised to find how many women, LGTB and different races identify with GG if you actually looked into it instead of believing the hype put forth by the media, Anita, Brianna and Zoe.

Are we still repeating the positive reviews talking point? And of course when concerned with journalistic ethics you want to attack the non-journalist, right?

If you read the whole post threat you would know I was responding to his claims about GG, I did not bring up GG as she is not related to GG. I am not attacking her, I am criticizing her ideas.

 

[noops]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":ha5vqh0v]

noops[/url]":ha5vqh0v]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":ha5vqh0v]

noops[/url]":ha5vqh0v]
I fail to see how this is 'forcing' which is a pretty strong word. Thompson tried to use the government to force his agenda. Using the legal system I would consider to be 'force'. Voicing criticism and people giving you a platform to do so is not 'force'.

When you present lies as fact, use false arguments and give someone a bias platform to state these claims on a national level, this is trying to force something. We will see what happens in the legal arena if this gains anymore momentum from the vocal minority.

I still don't agree this is force.

How would you define gamergate targeting advertisers to remove the source of funding for websites they disagree with? Is that force? Is that stifling freedom of speech?

Companies have the freedom to choose who they associate their name with. If something comes to light about a company A that is true and company B doesn't want to be associated with that, is their choice to remove their name from it.
If you assume that a company like Intel would remove advertising solely based on a few emails, then you clearly have no business sense. They obviously would have looked long and hard into the claims.

They didn't look long and hard into it. The admitted it was made in haste and a mistake. They restored advertising. They also appear to be directly supporting FemFreq based on recent presentations.

Do you really think it was only a few emails they received? There was an entire operation to send lots of emails and to not mention gamergate; because even back then GG realized how toxic it would be to associate with gamergate.

With regards to 'forcing' and removing advertising: I was not referring to forcing advertisers to remove ads. I was referring to using the threat of advertising money to adjust the content of the website.

This seems to be the exact opposite of what gamergate supposedly wants: ethics in gaming journalism. If your content is tailored to appease your advertisers, how is that a good thing?

 

[noops]

TK[/url]":2h4efmta]

noops[/url]":2h4efmta]

TK[/url]":2h4efmta]

aleph_nought[/url]":2h4efmta]Gamergate? Ethics in game journalism? I'm on Anita's side, these obnoxious doxxers just don't want other people to tell them to grow up and stop playing violent sexist bullshit.

If you're telling anyone to stop playing anything, you are no better than Jack Thompson.

I disagree. Telling someone to not play something is hardly comparable to Thompson who wanted to use the legal system to actually prevent you from choosing to play something.

Who are you referring to anyways that is saying to stop playing something?

... read the text you quoted? And that I was replying to? Emphasizing in case you missed it:

I'm on Anita's side, these obnoxious doxxers just don't want other people to tell them to grow up and stop playing violent sexist bullshit.

I did miss it; I thought you were referring to Anita telling people to stop playing these games. Anyways, my point still stands: telling someone not to play something and trying to use the legal system to prevent you from even having the option to play is drastically different.

 

[TK]

Oh no doubt, we agree on that, but I also have no doubt that Anita and her ilk would move in that direction were there actually a legally feasible way to do so. (Thompson pretty much got any attempt to regulate games based on their content shot down on first amendment grounds while he was flailing about though, so that door remains permanently closed.)

I still place them both in the same category of horrible human beings. That being, self-interested agenda pushers with a tenuous connection to facts, logic, and basic honesty.

You needn't abuse the legal system to put propaganda in people's minds.

 

[aleph_nought]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":3ouyrpjm]

noops[/url]":3ouyrpjm]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":3ouyrpjm]

tjones2[/url]":3ouyrpjm]
I will repeat. Would anyone of heard of Sarkiskian were it not for GG? Until all of this crap hit Sarkiskian was just some lightweight feminist blogger who had little reach outside of the feminist internet bubble. Quinn was just the author of a game about being depressed, who also had some extreme political views.

Its kind of hard to rebut lies when the gaming industry is being "defended" by the pack of poo flinging howler monkeys that is GG.

Sarkeesian is not a journalist so GG is not about her. Her name just got brought up into it just to troll gamers. Then you have more trolls making false threats then having those being attributed to GG as a whole. Quinn was brought up for her unethical practice in getting positive reviews for her game, not for her politically extreme views. You might be surprised to find how many women, LGTB and different races identify with GG if you actually looked into it instead of believing the hype put forth by the media, Anita, Brianna and Zoe.

Are we still repeating the positive reviews talking point? And of course when concerned with journalistic ethics you want to attack the non-journalist, right?

If you read the whole post threat you would know I was responding to his claims about GG, I did not bring up GG as she is not related to GG. I am not attacking her, I am criticizing her ideas.

Then let's have blackface shows back on TV, let's bring back Nazi-era anti-semitic media, hell let's have women relegated to sex objects in games. Oops, the last one is exactly what Gamergate wants because they don't want anyone telling them the world hasn't moved on. Misogyny is misogyny, hatred is hatred, exploitation is exploitation, no matter what the medium. As for men who think the glass ceiling doesn't exist any more, do try asking your wife or partner. And "men's rights" is about men scared of losing their privileges in a patriarchal society, nothing to do with equality at all.

 

[Brakken]

Reading the cmments I was glad that there were some good points made about the role of women in games. I support FF. I support non-white, non-male, non-christian and non-straight characters gainng the role of main protagonist, if not only to alleviate my boredom.

It's true that most people in the programming community seem to be straight white males of a christian background, so what I agree with about FF is preventing the industry from becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy of domination.

Althought the issues of race have somewhat been addressed, the recent surge in anti-religious sentiment still pales in comparison to the overt and subvert vitriol aimed at women and non-straight people.

For me, games are like the pinacle of creativity, and I understand that people don't want their efforts unnecessarily interfered with. However, isn't there a way to integrate a balance into our enjoyment?

How often has a rape been portrayed positively? Is such a thing even possible?
Then why resort to such a thing for entertainment, or merely shock value?

Would you tell your father to 'go make a sandwich'?

 

[noops]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":3dehni8j]

noops[/url]":3dehni8j]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":3dehni8j]

tjones2[/url]":3dehni8j]
I will repeat. Would anyone of heard of Sarkiskian were it not for GG? Until all of this crap hit Sarkiskian was just some lightweight feminist blogger who had little reach outside of the feminist internet bubble. Quinn was just the author of a game about being depressed, who also had some extreme political views.

Its kind of hard to rebut lies when the gaming industry is being "defended" by the pack of poo flinging howler monkeys that is GG.

Sarkeesian is not a journalist so GG is not about her. Her name just got brought up into it just to troll gamers. Then you have more trolls making false threats then having those being attributed to GG as a whole. Quinn was brought up for her unethical practice in getting positive reviews for her game, not for her politically extreme views. You might be surprised to find how many women, LGTB and different races identify with GG if you actually looked into it instead of believing the hype put forth by the media, Anita, Brianna and Zoe.

Are we still repeating the positive reviews talking point? And of course when concerned with journalistic ethics you want to attack the non-journalist, right?

If you read the whole post threat you would know I was responding to his claims about GG, I did not bring up GG as she is not related to GG. I am not attacking her, I am criticizing her ideas.

Who brought up positive reviews?

 

[TK]

aleph_nought[/url]":xxw3der5]Then let's have blackface shows back on TV, let's bring back Nazi-era anti-semitic media, hell let's have women relegated to sex objects in games. Oops, the last one is exactly what Gamergate wants because they don't want anyone telling them the world hasn't moved on. Misogyny is misogyny, hatred is hatred, exploitation is exploitation, no matter what the medium. As for men who think the glass ceiling doesn't exist any more, do try asking your wife or partner. And "men's rights" is about men scared of losing their privileges in a patriarchal society, nothing to do with equality at all.

Such a calm and level headed response to the phrase "I am criticizing her ideas".

 

[noops]

TK[/url]":uvjl84u5]Oh no doubt, we agree on that, but I also have no doubt that Anita and her ilk would move in that direction were there actually a legally feasible way to do so. (Thompson pretty much got any attempt to regulate games based on their content shot down on first amendment grounds while he was flailing about though, so that door remains permanently closed.)

I still place them both in the same category of horrible human beings. That being, self-interested agenda pushers with a tenuous connection to facts, logic, and basic honesty.

You needn't abuse the legal system to put propaganda in people's minds.

Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. That's all I get from your post. You have no doubt they would use the legal system based on ...?

 

[GeraltvonRivia]

noops[/url]":1irp35jj]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":1irp35jj]

noops[/url]":1irp35jj]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":1irp35jj]

noops[/url]":1irp35jj]
I fail to see how this is 'forcing' which is a pretty strong word. Thompson tried to use the government to force his agenda. Using the legal system I would consider to be 'force'. Voicing criticism and people giving you a platform to do so is not 'force'.

When you present lies as fact, use false arguments and give someone a bias platform to state these claims on a national level, this is trying to force something. We will see what happens in the legal arena if this gains anymore momentum from the vocal minority.

I still don't agree this is force.

How would you define gamergate targeting advertisers to remove the source of funding for websites they disagree with? Is that force? Is that stifling freedom of speech?

Companies have the freedom to choose who they associate their name with. If something comes to light about a company A that is true and company B doesn't want to be associated with that, is their choice to remove their name from it.
If you assume that a company like Intel would remove advertising solely based on a few emails, then you clearly have no business sense. They obviously would have looked long and hard into the claims.

They didn't look long and hard into it. The admitted it was made in haste and a mistake. They restored advertising. They also appear to be directly supporting FemFreq based on recent presentations.

Do you really think it was only a few emails they received? There was an entire operation to send lots of emails and to not mention gamergate; because even back then GG realized how toxic it would be to associate with gamergate.

With regards to 'forcing' and removing advertising: I was not referring to forcing advertisers to remove ads. I was referring to using the threat of advertising money to adjust the content of the website.

This seems to be the exact opposite of what gamergate supposedly wants: ethics in gaming journalism. If your content is tailored to appease your advertisers, how is that a good thing?

Like I said, companies are free to associate themselves how they will. They can backtrack and do what they wish with their advertising. I feel a better way is to vote with your wallet, in this case don't visit the site. Less visits means less money as advertisers will back out because they need views. Ethics in gaming journalism means don't give good reviews for sex, because they are your friend or because they paid you. If you lose money because you are doing one or more of those you either change your practice or don't and let the chips fall where they will.

 

[tjones2]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":kc0ultsr]

noops[/url]":kc0ultsr]

GeraltvonRivia[/url]":kc0ultsr]

noops[/url]":kc0ultsr]
I fail to see how this is 'forcing' which is a pretty strong word. Thompson tried to use the government to force his agenda. Using the legal system I would consider to be 'force'. Voicing criticism and people giving you a platform to do so is not 'force'.

When you present lies as fact, use false arguments and give someone a bias platform to state these claims on a national level, this is trying to force something. We will see what happens in the legal arena if this gains anymore momentum from the vocal minority.

I still don't agree this is force.

How would you define gamergate targeting advertisers to remove the source of funding for websites they disagree with? Is that force? Is that stifling freedom of speech?

Companies have the freedom to choose who they associate their name with. If something comes to light about a company A that is true and company B doesn't want to be associated with that, is their choice to remove their name from it.
If you assume that a company like Intel would remove advertising solely based on a few emails, then you clearly have no business sense. They obviously would have looked long and hard into the claims.

Oh. Please. This line of argument (in the forms it is seen in from both sides) is one of the most absurd things. It's clear that it is ethically problematic for a company to use its power gained in one market to influence other unrelated things --- particulary something as important as freedom of speech and the press.And weaponozed boycotts intended primarily for the goal of hurting people for using their freedom of speech rights are even worse ( and that goes for some sacred cows of many of those on the anti gg side, like the Brendan Eich bullshit). If you don't like what someone has to say counter it , or don't listen to their crap--- don't try try to shut them up, or choke them off from commonly. aviable resources. And also, don't pretend that a major corperation with dominance of an industry is just like a lil' mom & pop store. It's not even close.

 

[TK]

noops[/url]":105cfx4t]

TK[/url]":105cfx4t]Oh no doubt, we agree on that, but I also have no doubt that Anita and her ilk would move in that direction were there actually a legally feasible way to do so. (Thompson pretty much got any attempt to regulate games based on their content shot down on first amendment grounds while he was flailing about though, so that door remains permanently closed.)

I still place them both in the same category of horrible human beings. That being, self-interested agenda pushers with a tenuous connection to facts, logic, and basic honesty.

You needn't abuse the legal system to put propaganda in people's minds.

Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. That's all I get from your post. You have no doubt they would use the legal system based on ...?

A hunch and experience. Seriously, please read posts before quoting them and replying to them, that's twice in this thread. I already said:

have no doubt that Anita and her ilk would move in that direction were there actually a legally feasible way to do so.

Hard to sow fear about something that can't actually happen.

Anyways, someone who has no issue abusing basic logic and making outright fabrications based on an ideological position, usually, has no issues forcing that view on others.

But, that's just my opinion. Not FUD, because as I said, that's not a thing that ever can happen in our legal climate, but that is the kind of person I think she is.

This "pivot" mentioned in the headline, I see as a completely self-serving person trying to cash in, literally, on outrage.

 

[Causality]

rabish12[/url]":3omrznfa]I really wish Anita would stop getting attention. There's definitely a serious issue with sexism both in the industry and in the games that come out of it, but her arguments have a tendency to be extremely specious and her work is often poorly researched at best and dishonest at worst (a good example being her representation of Dinosaur Planet early on in her series, where she made claims regarding Krystal's role and the lack of male characters in the earlier builds that were wholly incorrect). The fact that she so consistently refuses to actually respond to any criticisms or detraction whatsoever doesn't exactly help either.

It's nice to have a dialogue, but when that dialogue is headed by someone who isn't driven by a desire to present the truth and who isn't willing to actually engage in... well, dialogue, it tends to undermine the entire process.

That isn't going to happen on Ars Technica. Ars' articles have, to a one, been completely one-sided on this issue in every was conceivable. I'd be astonished if we ever saw an article even alluding to the shadow of a possibility that the people being accused of journalistic fraud are anything but innocent victims of a neckbeard conspiracy. Never mind the fact that, regardless of your opinion of her journalism, she stole her logo (from a female gamer she refuses to pay or credit) and regularly tries to pass off video footage she took from other youtube videos as her original work.

For the love of god, stop giving this piece of shit scam artist more attention.

 

[adammtlx]

The problem is neither the content nor the format of Anita Sarkeesian's "criticism" bear any real scrutiny. There is a reason beyond just "harassment" why she has failed to meet her video production deadline by two years, turns off all comments on her video pages, blocks people who disagree with her on Twitter and spends her time publicizing allegations of harassment and slander instead of engaging any of her critics head-on.

There's no question she HAS received a lot of harassment, but she's also made a habit of misconstruing legitimate criticism of her work as harassment.

Here's a great deconstruction of Sarkeesian's methodology and why it doesn't work.

 

[SuperNoob Deluxe*]

aleph_nought[/url]":3dgu0m8f]As for men who think the glass ceiling doesn't exist any more, do try asking your wife or partner.

Did you just make it up or do you have some examples/proof?

aleph_nought[/url]":3dgu0m8f]
And "men's rights" is about men scared of losing their privileges in a patriarchal society, nothing to do with equality at all.

Being treated equally is a privilege most men don't have.

Spoiler

What privilege do men have in...

Education?

Family court?

Divorce settlements?

Health funding and health care?

Birth control, parental and reproductive rights?

The majority of the homeless which are male?

The military draft and selective service?

Circumcision or genital mutilation of male babies?

The more vigorous criminal prosecution, harsher sentencing and longer prison time for men committing the exact same crimes as women?

Our female-victim-only focus on domestic violence and rape?

The majority of workplace deaths and injuries which are male?

The male suicide epidemic?

The majority of deaths in war which are male, even when non-combatants and civilians are included (97% of fallen US soldiers have been male since the first Gulf War and similar statistics are found in other countries)?

The majority of victims of all forms of violence combined, which are male?

Being treated as nothing more than an ATM and respected only for the size of your wallet?

The general lack of interest in society for the rights and issues affecting men and boys?

If there is a male privilege in our Western societies then …

Why is it always left to men to fight the wars and do the hazardous jobs?

Why do we rob men of fatherhood and treat them merely as disposable sperm banks?

Why are men thrown in jail (or debtors prison) for failing to pay alimony and child support that exceeds their incomes?

Why are men portrayed as idiots and deviants in the media and in advertising?

Why do politicians pander to feminist groups and completely ignore critical issues affecting men?

Why do we have literally hundreds of government and independent bodies and billions of dollars dedicated to women's issues and relatively only a handful of organisations and funding for men's issues?

Why do we have talk shows which make fun of a man’s penis getting chopped off, after he asked his wife for a divorce?

Why do we have women promoting the genocide of men and eugenics against men and boys?

Why do we have T-shirts encouraging girls to throw rocks at boys and ten year old girls wearing such shirts, saying they enjoy making boys feel bad because it is "fun"?

Why do we have books titled the “End of Men”?

Why do women make most of the spending decisions in the household?

Why are men becoming increasingly unemployed and turning to a life of crime and poverty?

Why is male mental illness skyrocketing and why are so many men killing themselves?

And some statistics:

Men Are
*99.999% of American combat deaths and casualties (historically). 97%+ since the 1st Gulf War (DOD)
*The numbers of wounded women and female amputees, meanwhile, are considerably less than their male counterparts–at least 378 wounded versus 17,490; 11 amputees versus over 400–but they are historic for modern day warfare.
*Women are not even required by law to register for selective service, but even mentally challenged and physically disabled men are, in addition to all the healthy ones.
*Men are 94% of industrial deaths and accident (NIOSH)
*76% of homicide victims – DOJ
*80% of Suicide victims – CDC
*Men are the overwhelming majority of rape victims. Male rape has been called “The most closely guarded secret of American prisons.”
*2.1% of men reported forced vaginal sex compared to 1.6% of women in a relationship in the previous year.
*94% of sexually abused youth in correctional facilities reported being abused by female staff. From: Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities, 2008-09.
*Among inmates reporting staff sexual misconduct, ~ 65% reported a female aggressor. From: Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008-09.
*A woman is the party filing for divorce in about 66% of divorce cases.
*Women receive custody in about 84% of child custody cases.
*30% of those named as fathers who test for paternity find they are not the biological father.

 

[seller83]

rcht148[/url]":2ld1ljl0]

noops[/url]":2ld1ljl0]

rcht148[/url]":2ld1ljl0] but zoey quinn did resort to doxxing one of the guys who filed a FOIA request against her

Source?

http://theralphretort.com/court-dox-rev ... -01011015/
http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/ ... who_tried/

I didn't go through all the pages to see if someone else replied to this, but the first link reads like it's from a somewhat unreliable source ("queen of lies" repeated several times? are you kidding me?). The second link is reliable and cites everything, but if you actually look at what happened:

1) Someone edited a long Wikipedia page about GG or something, and Doxxed someone in it at the very end
2) Zoe Quinn tweeted a link to this Wikipedia page, which (probably) had the Doxx in it at the exact time she tweeted it or shortly thereafter.

So, no, she did not doxx anyone, and she likely did not even read to the end of the article, in which case she would not have seen the doxx. God forbid she links to a Wikipedia article that she hasn't fully read. I hope I've never linked an article on Facebook that someone has wiki-vandalized.

Anyway, not that this is in favor or disfavor of Zoe Quinn (I haven't seen any videos of hers, or read about her outside of Ars), but if you're going to criticize someone, then you should probably check into your own "facts" first.