Games and Culture - discussion and debate

[Huma_22]

Well this is interesting: FBI working with game developer association to combat online harassment

Edwards said she was approached by the FBI in July during a visit to San Diego for Comic-Con to discuss the harassment of developers online.

"I had a meeting with the FBI in July regarding harassment," she said. "They noted a rise in activity. They themselves monitor this activity, but they're focused more on cybercrime issues like hacking and very malicious harassment."

 

[grommit!]

Can we keep the SJW/MRA name calling out of this thread? (not referring to Huma_22's post). For those who've forgotten:

A) Keep it about gaming.
B) Do not use TMZ-style gossip as part of the discussion. I expect that you can back up anything you post with either factual evidence or a reasonable argument as to why it is relevant.
C) Do not fall into the SJW/MRA trap. Refer to A.
D) Argue the ideas, not the poster. Any personal attacks, whether in jest or not, will not be tolerated. Better to nip it in the bud right off the bat instead of getting into "well so'n'so was allowed to say this!" arguments.

 

[grommit!]

Huma_22[/url]":2z717yvp]Well this is interesting: FBI working with game developer association to combat online harassment

Kind of understandable given we're talking about a discussion with the IGDA, but this stood out to me for some reason:

The FBI, Edwards said, seemed mostly concerned with the security of video game companies, its IP and the developers.

Note the priority given to concerns about commercial security before personal safety.

 

[SituationSoap]

Aside from the fact that I don't know what "SJW/MRA trap" even means, literally every single bullet point on that list has been violated.

 

[Vampyre]

Huma_22[/url]":1vvi4qcy]Well this is interesting: FBI working with game developer association to combat online harassment

Edwards said she was approached by the FBI in July during a visit to San Diego for Comic-Con to discuss the harassment of developers online.

"I had a meeting with the FBI in July regarding harassment," she said. "They noted a rise in activity. They themselves monitor this activity, but they're focused more on cybercrime issues like hacking and very malicious harassment."

Why is this interesting? Ars had an article up about this some time ago. It's virtually identical, of course. I bet it even uses the same quotes.

What's interesting about it now that wasn't earlier?

 

[DemonGSides]

SituationSoap[/url]":5vlmp1vj]Aside from the fact that I don't know what "SJW/MRA trap" even means, literally every single bullet point on that list has been violated.

I think it means don't let the discussion devolve into talking about sexism, and focus on the corruption of gaming journalists on the merits of their actions, instead of whether or not the MRA's or SJW's are supporting whichever side.

 

[Huma_22]

Vampyre[/url]":2eung76r] Why is this interesting? Ars had an article up about this some time ago. It's virtually identical, of course. I bet it even uses the same quotes.

What's interesting about it now that wasn't earlier?

You're assuming I saw the earlier Ars article.

 

[Huma_22]

DemonGSides[/url]":t4cktput]

SituationSoap[/url]":t4cktput]Aside from the fact that I don't know what "SJW/MRA trap" even means, literally every single bullet point on that list has been violated.

I think it means don't let the discussion devolve into talking about sexism, and focus on the corruption of gaming journalists on the merits of their actions, instead of whether or not the MRA's or SJW's are supporting whichever side.

Nope. Especially since the thread is titled "Games and Culture".

The trap involves labeling and dismissing posters based on some perceived social allegiance, instead of responding to their points.

 

[SituationSoap]

Huma_22[/url]":2dwbwduy]The trap involves labeling and dismissing posters based on some perceived social allegiance, instead of responding to their points.

That actually makes some sense, and has amazingly been working well in this thread.

It's literally the only point we've managed to keep, but hey, we kept to that one!

 

[cf18]

SituationSoap[/url]":1n7624oo]

cf18[/url]":1n7624oo]Ok just WTF is this bull shit? People complain about gaming forum censorship or if the censorship is to cover up those corruption accusations, are they also just "people who think women should only make babies and sandwiches"?

The corruption accusations which are actually just ever more thinly veiled attempts at attacking Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian?

Even if it was true at the beginning, it had quickly turned into attacks on the gaming news site and writers. They can't keep using those poor girls as shields.

 

[Polar Bear]

cf18[/url]":2ih9hd75]

SituationSoap[/url]":2ih9hd75]

cf18[/url]":2ih9hd75]Ok just WTF is this bull shit? People complain about gaming forum censorship or if the censorship is to cover up those corruption accusations, are they also just "people who think women should only make babies and sandwiches"?

The corruption accusations which are actually just ever more thinly veiled attempts at attacking Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian?

Even if it was true at the beginning, it had quickly turned into attacks on the gaming news site and writers. They can't keep using those poor girls as shields.

Who is using who as a shield? I haven't seen it from the few gaming sites I go to but that is just anecdotal evidence.
I'm still not sure what gamergate is. Is it really just that someone said "Scandal!" and decided to add gate to it? That's pretty lazy and I have no idea what the #notyourshield stuff is.
Again, how was Jenn Frank corrupt? She was someone who was trying to turn out quality gaming journalism essays.

Like a lot of other freelance writers she had to turn to Patreon because of poverty which is something I haven't seen discussed. A lot of gaming journalists live in poverty and makes them very vulnerable to corruption from large game publishers. I don't see how Jenn tried to hide a conflict of interest when the paper is the one who decided not to publish it. And now she is gone.

 

[papadage]

cf18[/url]":3mblj7j4]

SituationSoap[/url]":3mblj7j4]

cf18[/url]":3mblj7j4]Ok just WTF is this bull shit? People complain about gaming forum censorship or if the censorship is to cover up those corruption accusations, are they also just "people who think women should only make babies and sandwiches"?

The corruption accusations which are actually just ever more thinly veiled attempts at attacking Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian?

Even if it was true at the beginning, it had quickly turned into attacks on the gaming news site and writers. They can't keep using those poor girls as shields.

Except all the new targets involve them in some way. Sorry, bot buying it. Make the sexist bed, now lie in it.

 

[Xavin]

SituationSoap[/url]":2njs0y3l]
There's no such thing as a middle side. That's ridiculous. The middle side says "Maybe the people who think women should only make babies and sandwiches actually have some good points".

Either women are actually human beings and deserve to be treated as such, or they're not. There's no "maybe" in there, and there's no "some of the time". Either they're human beings or they're not. The middle side is fundamentally misogynist because they're not convinced women are actually people.

So is your stance that every terrible thing that happens in media condemns the creator and fans as awful people, because that's what it sounds like. Games are filled with things that would be socially unacceptable in the real world. Why should women be a special case?

I'm of the opinion that games reflect society at large. As society changes, games will change (they depend on tropes as shorthand, and they have to use tropes people are familiar with). Therefore, crusading to change the portrayal of women in games is pretty silly, and the effort would be much better spent dealing with the problems women face in the real world.

 

[JonTD]

Those same tropes are self enforcing. A = B because B = A if you will. To change the issues women face in society, we have to make consistent small changes so that in aggregate they start changing everywhere. Games use silly female stereotypes because people believe them. But people believe them because games (and other media) continue to use silly female stereotypes. Games are now apart of our culture and they play a role in setting our cultural standards and can't be written off as simply a cultural "mirror" that doesn't help perpetuate the problem. It's a nonsense argument, just as if you were making it for novels or movies or music, which have been used to great effect to further progress on social issues in the past.

Furthermore, beliefs are changing in the real world already. Hence the continued growing demand for developers to abandon their status quo portrayals of women. But developers aren't going to realize the world outside of them has changed and is beginning to leave them behind if no one says anything about it.

 

[SituationSoap]

Xavin[/url]":iemfw1fk]
So is your stance that every terrible thing that happens in media condemns the creator and fans as awful people, because that's what it sounds like.

I'm not at all sure how you get that from what I'm saying, but to make it more explicit: If you feel that a terrible part of something that happens in media is a required part for your enjoyment of that piece of media, you're an awful person. It's entirely possible to like something without liking every part of it, and it's possible to speak up about the bad parts while still encouraging the good parts.

I'm of the opinion that games reflect society at large. As society changes, games will change (they depend on tropes as shorthand, and they have to use tropes people are familiar with).

Society changes because people like Anita Sarkeesian stand up and say "this is a problem". A lot of womens' problems in society are endemic to the underlying culture that treats them as second class citizens, and pointing out the ways in which we do that is vital to correction. It's just as important to do that in pop culture as it is in daily life. Arguably more so.

 

[Xavin]

Those same tropes are self enforcing. A = B because B = A if you will. To change the issues women face in society, we have to make consistent small changes so that in aggregate they start changing everywhere. Games use silly female stereotypes because people believe them. But people believe them because games (and other media) continue to use silly female stereotypes.

That's nonsense. Do people believe characters like Nathan Drake, Master Chief, and JRPG Hero #85 actually exist? Of course not, they are seen for the silly caricatures they are. I don't believe killing people in games makes people violent in real life, and I don't believe carrying out misogynistic acts in games makes people want to do that in real life either. You can't have it both ways. We have been fighting the "games cause violence" bullshit for decades now, and I refuse to let the same faulty logic shift to misogyny. There's no "damn, I need to go rescue a damsel" after playing Mario.

I'm not at all sure how you get that from what I'm saying, but to make it more explicit: If you feel that a terrible part of something that happens in media is a required part for your enjoyment of that piece of media, you're an awful person. It's entirely possible to like something without liking every part of it, and it's possible to speak up about the bad parts while still encouraging the good parts.

So everyone that enjoyed going on a random killing spree in GTA is a terrible person? Everyone who mows down thousands of people in every FPS is a terrible person? I don't think those are "bad parts", I think fantasy is fantasy, and just about anything goes.

 

[papadage]

So I guess all women on TV should go back to wearing heels and pearls, and making sure dinner is ready for the man to come home and eat?

The problem is not that the tropes exist, but that they tend to be 98% of the depictions of women in games.

 

[Somna]

Xavin[/url]":wuk0i35m]
[...]

I'm not at all sure how you get that from what I'm saying, but to make it more explicit: If you feel that a terrible part of something that happens in media is a required part for your enjoyment of that piece of media, you're an awful person. It's entirely possible to like something without liking every part of it, and it's possible to speak up about the bad parts while still encouraging the good parts.

So everyone that enjoyed going on a random killing spree in GTA is a terrible person? Everyone who mows down thousands of people in every FPS is a terrible person? I don't think those are "bad parts", I think fantasy is fantasy, and just about anything goes.

I got the impression he's saying that there's a big difference between enjoying games that have that as an option (that you may end up participating) and requiring games having that as an option in order for you to enjoy it.

Which would make it on the same level of tunnel vision as someone whining that a blatantly PvE oriented MMO must have PvP in order for it to be "fun," or people saying a single player squad-based RPG wasn't fun because it didn't have multiplayer.

 

[Erich Danke]

Why does this keep getting pushed back to talking about the feminism distraction? There's no real way to remove women from gaming by trying to get games journalism, economic entanglement and competitions to be transparent and fair. Trying to get people to stop calling themselves gamers and to adopt different titles isn't going to result in a more inclusive environment. The only real practical course is to accept that people will call themselves what they want, and to give people the transparency they need to be confident in the indie market.

 

[papadage]

Because all the talk about ethics is just cover for attacks against women and a few guys that have given them moral support through the shitstorm. The movement is tainted and rotten to the core from birth, and still is.

 

[Erich Danke]

papadage[/url]":x2fk1q18]Because all the talk about ethics is just cover for attacks against women and a few guys that have given them moral support through the shitstorm. The movement is tainted and rotten to the core from birth, and still is.

Attacking the messenger isn't really going to stop the problem you perceive from persisting, and attempting to block that movement's direction of inquiry can't have any positive effects. If your assumption that everyone involved in this movement is rotten to the core, why not let them slip up and do some good while their doing their evil rounds?

 

[papadage]

Accidental good does not excuse the greater harm they do. The KKK does Adopt-a-Highway. Do I care? No.

 

[JonTD]

Xavin[/url]":3g18ik8h]

Those same tropes are self enforcing. A = B because B = A if you will. To change the issues women face in society, we have to make consistent small changes so that in aggregate they start changing everywhere. Games use silly female stereotypes because people believe them. But people believe them because games (and other media) continue to use silly female stereotypes.

That's nonsense. Do people believe characters like Nathan Drake, Master Chief, and JRPG Hero #85 actually exist? Of course not, they are seen for the silly caricatures they are. I don't believe killing people in games makes people violent in real life, and I don't believe carrying out misogynistic acts in games makes people want to do that in real life either. You can't have it both ways. We have been fighting the "games cause violence" bullshit for decades now, and I refuse to let the same faulty logic shift to misogyny. There's no "damn, I need to go rescue a damsel" after playing Mario.

I hate to break this to you, but there is growing evidence that this just isn't true and that media does impact our value systems at a young age. It doesn't mean it makes people murderous sociopaths because the rest of our wider cultural interactions tell us that violence is wrong. But imagery that doesn't conflict with broader stereotypes of women can and does re-enforce beliefs in our individual value systems without external actors correcting for it. We don't just dismiss all media out of hand as simple fantasy. It doesn't work that way.

 

[Erich Danke]

papadage[/url]":rejh78ha]Accidental good does not excuse the greater harm they do. The KKK does Adopt-a-Highway. Do I care? No.

Are you going to campaign to stop them from doing adopt a highway?

 

[papadage]

No, but I will call them out for greenwashing their shitty reputation.

Why? Do you want to start posting their talking points here?

 

[HappyBunny]

neffer[/url]":2lslaczg]
Of course your side always resorts to threats when they lack substantive arguments. But thanks for exhibiting one the problems this gamergate issue has been about, your side always resorts to suppressing opposing opinion because you can't argue on the merits.

OK most of your stuff has been nonsense, but this is completely fucking bonkers. Only one group of people has spent the last several weeks harassing and threatening others in an attempt to silence them, and it sure as hell isn't the ones calling for a little less sexist BS in games.

Jenns in quotes because the name always exposes the gender, and I have a hunch that has a significant effect on lowering the standards of integrity users like you hold people to when something like this happens. She's a big girl, and she should be judged by adult standards. She knew better than to write an op ed which was written to appear as work of a disinterested third party until you got to a foot note, if you ever saw it. Its deceptive by default, and in context of this scandal where people are in trouble for exactly this type of deceptive behavior, she should have known better. This isn't a third rate blogger site, its the guardian, and writers for the guardian can't be held to high standards, no one can.

Have you even thought this through or read her actual article? Her minimal connection to the people in the article is irrelevant to its content, which is why The Guardian left out her disclosure. The article was about harassment, not game developers or critics.

 

[papadage]

So much about it being about corruption. It's always about the culture war.

 

[Erich Danke]

papadage[/url]":27ril5sm]No, but I will call them out for greenwashing their shitty reputation.

Why? Do you want to start posting their talking points here?

Because if you took a moment to stop with ad hominem you'd notice that if you disregard who is doing the good, more good would be done. I have no interest in seeing people block a positive change out of spite, that's wasteful.

 

[papadage]

What's the ad hom? They are vile poeple doing vile shit.

Their behavior has been trash since this started, and is lazily obfuscated trash now. Why give assholes the benefit of the doubt when they continue to be assholes? They lost their shot on day one.

Your assistance in the whitewashing of their record is about a half step above them, but no more.

 

[SituationSoap]

Erich Danke[/url]":1p95rs6q]

Because if you took a moment to stop with ad hominem

Papadage didn't make an ad hom. Want to try again?

 

[neffer]

papadage[/url]":3g1yu1pp]Yep.., bigots and mouth breathers are persecuted classes.

Please.

The least classy parts of this has been the attempted cooption of civil rights identity, much like the 'persectued white man' when talking about race. The group doing the hounding and doxxing, and death threats is the victim? If you aren't doing these things, then stop identifying yourself with them. And don't carry water for them either.

Mouth breathers...

Its kind of funny the "establishment" which controls almost all the media venues and has women who are barely known to gamers for doing anything related to actual gaming have such access to the bully pulpit in media that she churns out multiple stories during this scandal... and yet these are the people who need protecting?



'Gamers' don't have to be your audience. 'Gamers' are over. Exclusive
http://archive.today/l1kTW
Leigh Alexander
Gamasutra
Aug 28, 10:00am

An awful week to care about video games
http://archive.today/rkvO8
Chris Plante
Polygon
Aug 28, 1:21pm

The death of the "gamers" and the women who "killed" them
https://archive.today/ZyLdw
Casey Johnson
Ars Technica
Aug 28, 5:00pm

A Guide to Ending "Gamers"
http://archive.today/2t93l
Devin Wilson
Gamasutra
Aug 28, 7:57 pm

We Might Be Witnessing The 'Death of An Identity'
https://archive.today/ht088
Luke Plunkett
Kotaku
Aug 28, 8:00pm

Gaming Is Leaving "Gamers" Behind
http://archive.today/jVqJ8
Joseph Bernstein
Buzzfeed
Aug 28, 8:29 pm

Sexism, Misogyny, and online attacks: It's a horrible time to consider

yourself a gamer
https://archive.today/HkPHc
Patrick O'Rourke
Financial Post
Aug 28, 9:33pm

It's Dangerous to Go Alone: Why Are Gamers So Angry?
https://archive.today/HkPHc
Arthur Chu
The Daily Beast
Aug 28, time unknown

The End of Gamers
https://archive.today/L4vJG
Dan Golding
Tumblr
Aug 28, time unknown

This guy's embarassing relationship drama is killing the 'gamer' identity
https://archive.today/L4n6p
Mike Pearl
Vice
Aug 29, time unknown

Why #GamerGate Is a Lie Gamers Need to Stop Telling Themselves
https://archive.today/waQOe
Dan Seitz
Sep 2, time unknown

Gamergate: the community is eating itself but there should be room for all
https://archive.today/pMoWr
Keith Stuart
Sep 3, time unknown

Leigh Alexander & Agency For Games - Conflict of Interest?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJf6sFThGbs

http://time.com/3274247/video-game-culture-war/

Yea those poor oppressed people without a voice!!

HappyBunny[/url]":3g1yu1pp]Personally I'd welcome a more critical examination of violence games. In some ways, I find violence to be a lazy trope in the same way that many of the ways women characters are treated. An example that comes to mind is the Uncharted series... the combat in those games is easily the worst part of the games for me, and the idea of slogging through all that mindless killing eliminates any desire I might have to replay them.

Its a mechanic, its lazy as defeating your opponent in chess. Chess is a game of abstracted strategic violence, and its not lazy. Games are um...games first, stories second if at all. Which is why things like chess and candy crush are things....

 

[JonTD]

Can you please stop reposting huge images outside of spoiler tags that the thread has already debunked? It makes the thread really hard to follow for the topics still under discussion.

 

[neffer]

HappyBunny[/url]":3tdlj8m6]
As has been pointed out, she intended to disclose this and The Guardian removed it because they felt it was not relevant. She said this from the beginning, and has been proven to be telling the truth. I think it's pretty dubious to claim that supporting someone's Patreon is much of a conflict of interest, especially in an opinion piece that wasn't even about Quinn, but rather about the campaign of harassment against many people (honestly, what's the conflict? Generally, a conflict of interest involves the person getting something for an action against the interests they are supposed to be working for. Supporting a Patreon isn't an investment or donation, it's buying someone's work product. It's a bit different than buying someone's game, but closer to that than anything else, really. I can see it being a bit of a gray area, but not a clear-cut problem). But regardless of that, the whole thing blew up over a falsehood of her hiding this relationship.

Also she wasn't fired. She's a freelancer, she doesn't work for The Guardian. She quit because of assholes hounding her and claiming she had no integrity.

But then facts don't really seem to matter to a lot of the people doing the harassing. Apparently after The Guardian posted the update her stream was filled with people asking why others were apologizing for the "Gamer is Dead" lady. Some of these people don't even know who it is they are attacking.

And yeah, I am ashamed to be even loosely associated with that bullshit.

And as I pointed out, it doesn't matter if the guardian screwed up, because they should have never run it at all, regardless. She was clearly dirty from financial links to the controversy, it should have never even been considered. But she bears personal responsibility for her decision to go with a misleading style in her op ed which pretended to speak from the perspective of a disinterested objective third party when she was directly connected to this issue of corruption in games media. There just is no excuse for it. Either she didn't know better, which is no excuse and disqualifies her from writing for a prestigious paper, or she was deliberately deceptive, which again disqualifies her from having access to such a bully pulpit.

She quit because she gets paid more for being a victim on patreon than she does for "freelancing" at the guardian. She literally gets 2k+ and growing for being a victim. Not that a reputable newspaper should have kept her around after this regardless.

Again, money talks.

papadage[/url]":3tdlj8m6]Forbes treats it as a real controversy, which it isn't. Th reason there is so much contention is because some vocal gamers have infantile views about women.

Yea "misogynist say what?" defense.

Try that when damseling sarah palin sometime...

papadage[/url]":3tdlj8m6]Pretend ignorance while spreading the same shitty lies. Classy.

It's still just about Quinn and co, and not journalism. It's a mob of shit weasels.

Funny how they are so much more mature than your side is....



Anyways live stream with internet aristocrat who helped kick this off
Shitaku Stream
by InternetAristocrat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpwyEq_m0zc

Interesting how so much more genuine the guy is compared to Sarkeesian. He actually answers questions, and has something to say other than prescripted lines. Honestly, have you seen sarkeesian not be a robot? It almost never happens because she has to stay on point, she can't let herself be cornered into actually having to address real criticism, let alone by anyone who will "suey park" her by actually demanding a real answer.

And again the difference, this guy doesn't even monetize his videos on youtube, money is not a corrupting influence. While Anita, if she conceeded anything, or lost her reason for outrage, would lose her job.

 

[papadage]

He needs to follow the marching orders from the cesspool. Is this the fourth or fifth time this stupid image has been posted?

 

[neffer]

JonTD[/url]":1x24ov06]Can you please stop reposting huge images outside of spoiler tags that the thread has already debunked? It makes the thread really hard to follow for the topics still under discussion.

The thread debunked nothing, games for women in japan exist, and the female manga market is thriving and even makes money through export to other markets.

Sorry just the truth of the matter, japanese women got off their asses and actually served their own market, while western women complain about jiggle physics and spiderwomans "pose" which again was proven to be a nonsense issue just based on the facts. And you can bet not one of the people who wrote articles about that spiderwoman thing would have bought a spiderwoman comic no matter how she was drawn.

papadage[/url]":1x24ov06]He needs to follow the marching orders from the cesspool. Is this the fourth or fifth time this stupid image has been posted?

Its really sad what your side has been left with..just smears.

 

[JonTD]

neffer[/url]":1di9ovw4]

JonTD[/url]":1di9ovw4]Can you please stop reposting huge images outside of spoiler tags that the thread has already debunked? It makes the thread really hard to follow for the topics still under discussion.

The thread debunked nothing, games for women in japan exist, and the female manga market is thriving and even makes money through export to other markets.

Sorry just the truth of the matter, japanese women got off their asses and actually served their own market, while western women complain about jiggle physics and spiderwomans "pose" which again was proven to be a nonsense issue just based on the facts. And you can bet not one of the people who wrote articles about that spiderwoman thing would have bought a spiderwoman comic no matter how she was drawn.

What does this incoherent nonsense have to do with the image you posted? How in the world is that related to Leigh Alexander's supposed journalistic trespasses at TIME that you already posted in this thread several pages ago and we've already discussed?

It's common courtesy on Ars to spoiler large images for users browsing on small screen devices and just the general disruption of conversation. If you refuse to do it yourself, like every other member of the community, then a mod can just be asked to do it instead. Though spamming content across multiple threads and repeatedly in the same thread is against the PG, so good luck with that if it happens.

It's in the GESC ground rules in the sticky thread:

5) Inlining of images and the use of spoiler tags

Try not to inline anything over about 800x600. As a courtesy to other readers, please think twice about inlining anything at all – a link is usually sufficient. If you want to show something larger, we strongly encourage use of spoiler tags.

EDIT: Providing link to sticky.

 

[grommit!]

neffer[/url]":2z6c70v5]
Its kind of funny the "establishment" which controls almost all the media venues and has women who are barely known to gamers for doing anything related to actual gaming have such access to the bully pulpit in media that she churns out multiple stories during this scandal... and yet these are the people who need protecting?

... other nonsense removed ...

Let me get this straight. First there was a conspiracy to cover up something that didn't turn out to be true (and involved a huge invasion of privacy - see "ethics"). Then, when things looked like they might be calming down, there was another conspiracy to talk about what had just happened and what that meant?

I'm guessing that you'll want sites to take turns reviewing new games? Perhaps they should draw straws to see who goes first? Perhaps you'd like them to sign agreements to not read what other sites are publishing also?

And all of this somehow justifies sending death threats?

 

[jxl]

neffer[/url]":25hip6st]Sorry just the truth of the matter, japanese women got off their asses and actually served their own market, while western women complain about

...threats of violence and having private details of their life laid bare to the world? I would complain about the same thing.

 

[SituationSoap]

Zoe Quinn made her own game, and she's gotten death and rape threats.

There's no winning for this group.

 

[HexRei]

Does anyone seriously think those "threats" are anything other than trolling?