Jump to content

Gender Diversity / Politics in games (was Tropes Vs. Women)


Unofficial Who
 Share

Recommended Posts

Unless you have an absolute certainty, which is pretty rare, then there is always room for alternative viewpoints. If only to expose the weakness of the theory.

The problem isn't that alternative viewpoints are being aired, it is that any and every debate is being framed in a way that gives all arguments equal merit and relatively settled issues (e.g. climate change) become a ceaseless cultural battleground as a consequence.

There is plenty of space in all kinds of media for alternative viewpoints, but I'd hope our national broadcaster could occasionally raise the tone of our public discourse above that of a sixth form debating society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BBC's job is not to take sides in a debate on a current affairs new show, it is to pose questions to both sides and allow each side to present their case accordingly. The Today programme has been doing exactly this for decades.

That is true however that approach in itself is a flawed system because claiming the neutral position or choosing to express no opinion is still taking a stance at the end of the day and in the context of BBC and Gamegate it has taken the stance that both sides are of equal value which creates problems in of itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is true however that approach in itself is a flawed system because claiming the neutral position or choosing to express no opinion is still taking a stance at the end of the day and in the context of BBC and Gamegate it has taken the stance that both sides are of equal value which creates problems in of itself.

It has to take a neutral stance, for obvious reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm amazed you still see Gamergaters retweeting things like Milo's blog post about the GameJournoPros mailing list being proof of corruption. Dread to think what they must think about Twitter, all those game industry types chatting to each other. Scandal!

The other stupid thing about that is that there were some 150 people on the mailing list, discussing and arguing about different things, about a tenth chatted about (i.e. not one-sided) the topics to which GamerGate specifically object and the majority of the tenth were in effect in agreement with GamerGate. You can read this in the emails that Milo himself published.

So the fact that a tiny minority of the people on the mailing list proposed or otherwise talked about something that GamerGate object to and that others on the list disagreed with them, somehow* turns into a collusion of 150 journalists pushing the same ideology.

* because of the way it is reported to credulous nitwits

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has to take a neutral stance, for obvious reasons.

The problem with presenting both sides of the debate is that it's not neutral. The news programme gets to pick what the 'debate' is on a given subject and then gets to choose what the two 'sides' are. So, using climate change as an example, we see news organisations framing it as a debate between people who think that it's man made and people who think it isn't. But that's not the real debate, it IS man made. The debate is: What can we do about it. You could then have one person who thinks we should enact new laws to force everyone to be greener and another who thinks that the free market will sort it out. That still provides 'balance' but it's a radically different discussion.

In the case of GG, it is a socially regressive campaign against outspoken women in videogames. That's not up for debate, it's true. So if you wanted to present both sides of the story you could have one person who thought this is a problem specific to videogames and another who thought that the issue wasn't videogames but our culture in general. Or one person who thinks that thinks that a greater diversity of games is needed against someone else who thinks that greater policing of twitter is needed.

Either of those is just as balanced or neutral as the Radio 4 piece. Arguably more so as it doesn't give airtime to the views of extremists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is pretty fun. The 22 most ridiculous things said by 8channers about the colbert episode.

They really love their images of cartoon villains alongside childlike 'dramatic' quotes like 'The Fire Still Burns'.

http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/10/30/the-top-22-most-ridiculous-things-said-by-8channers-about-anita-sarkeesians-appearance-on-the-colbert-report/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is pretty fun. The 22 most ridiculous things said by 8channers about the colbert episode.

They really love their images of cartoon villains alongside childlike 'dramatic' quotes like 'The Fire Still Burns'.

http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/10/30/the-top-22-most-ridiculous-things-said-by-8channers-about-anita-sarkeesians-appearance-on-the-colbert-report/

they're really into the melodrama aren't they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that the sides aren't equally weighted in the real world.

Neutral in this case doesn't mean equal or inequal representation of all opinons, rather that the BBC does not take a stance with either camp.

PeteBrant is taking an lot of flak for his stance but I basically agree with him. If it's so clear cut that one side is correct and one is incorrect then hearing both sides is enough for anyone sensible to make up their mind, then ideally you want the obviously wrong opinion exposed as loudly and widely as possible so as to galvanise people against it. The excellent book by Jonathan Rauch Kindly Inquisitors covers this (any many other things) from his point of view being an activist in the American gay rights movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would be why the BBC gives prominent space to holocaust deniers any time that issue comes up, then.

The BBC is not neutral in all things. It chooses to provide false balance for many things but for some things it remains beyond the pale. These are influenced by cultural mores. There is absolutely not an immutable law of broadcasting that says the BBC is bound to act as it currently does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's so clear cut that one side is correct and one is incorrect then hearing both sides is enough for anyone sensible to make up their mind, then ideally you want the obviously wrong opinion exposed as loudly and widely as possible so as to galvanise people against it.

Well that's the problem though, it doesn't work if people aren't aware of how obviously wrong one thing is. Global warming is the scientific consensus, but by presenting the wonky science of a denialist to non-experts on the same level as the consensus you generate a false equivalency that reinforced incorrect perceptions or continues to provide the viewer with an incorrect picture of the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would be why the BBC gives prominent space to holocaust deniers any time that issue comes up, then.

I expect they would if it came up in such a way that it was somehow a current event again due to new evidence, but I won't hold my breath to be proven right or wrong on that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the fascinating thing about misogyny. It's usually almost completely invisible to men. The @EverydaySexism project is a fascinating insight into the day to day shit women have to put up with. GG is unusual in that it's intruded into our little sphere so we're forced to take notice.

That reminds me of my favourite response to the Tropes videos, which was essentially; "Sarkessian is a c*nt and wrong because if I believed her views and opinions I'd see sexism everywhere"

Amaze.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's the problem though, it doesn't work if people aren't aware of how obviously wrong one thing is. Global warming is the scientific consensus, but by presenting the wonky science of a denialist to non-experts on the same level as the consensus you generate a false equivalency that reinforced incorrect perceptions or continues to provide the viewer with an incorrect picture of the situation.

Here we go again with "people aren't intelligent as us bullshit"

Top tip - If a woman is receiving death threat because of something she said about videogames, most people will side with the woman

This would be why the BBC gives prominent space to holocaust deniers any time that issue comes up, then.

Oh my Christing fuck

Racial segregation in the States

Child rapists

The holocaust.

None of these things, are in any conceivable way, comparable to fucking gamergate.

Neutral in this case doesn't mean equal or inequal representation of all opinons, rather that the BBC does not take a stance with either camp.

PeteBrant is taking an lot of flak for his stance but I basically agree with him. If it's so clear cut that one side is correct and one is incorrect then hearing both sides is enough for anyone sensible to make up their mind, then ideally you want the obviously wrong opinion exposed as loudly and widely as possible so as to galvanise people against it. The excellent book by Jonathan Rauch Kindly Inquisitors covers this (any many other things) from his point of view being an activist in the American gay rights movement.

At last!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it still "presenting both sides" when it's the BBC presenter basically coming up with a contrary view to present? As opposed to actually finding someone who is on the GG side which would've been gold.

I mean you're both lending the other side unfair authority there and letting the BBC decide what the "other side" actually is about.

If the BBC had decided to end the interview with "of course, Zoe Quinn has been accused of multiple unethical practices in the games development community, which is the basis for the Gamergate campaign" would we be even debating whether it's right for them to be presenting the other side?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my Christing fuck

Racial segregation in the States

Child rapists

The holocaust.

None of these things, are in any conceivable way, comparable to fucking gamergate.

No-one's saying they're equivalent, but mentioning other analogous situations in broadcasting and taking your views to their logical conclusion. You didn't have a problem with the drug addiction example earlier - or maybe you did? Is there a list of things which are acceptable to contrast with gamergate coverage? Does the BBC have guidelines on this alongside the 'always be neutral according to our secret definition of neutrality' rulings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neutral in this case doesn't mean equal or inequal representation of all opinons, rather that the BBC does not take a stance with either camp.

I didn't make a comment about "neutrality", I made a comment about how arguments are presented (and others have pointed out that the BBC chooses the arguments). I'm quite happy for the BBC to be impartial, in the sense of not taking a side, and for interviewers to take a reasonably adversarial position. This doesn't require them to suggest (explicitly or implicitly) that the two sides of any dispute are equal or to invite only two people to a debate.

PeteBrant is taking an lot of flak for his stance but I basically agree with him. If it's so clear cut that one side is correct and one is incorrect then hearing both sides is enough for anyone sensible to make up their mind, then ideally you want the obviously wrong opinion exposed as loudly and widely as possible so as to galvanise people against it. The excellent book by Jonathan Rauch Kindly Inquisitors covers this (any many other things) from his point of view being an activist in the American gay rights movement.

I don't suggest any particular view should be excluded. However, if it is "so clear cut that one side is correct and one is incorrect" why present the dispute as if the sides are equal? Why present that dispute at all, as if there were no consensus or any remaining argument, instead of proceeding to the real debate? For example, as DukeOfEarlsfield suggested, what to do about climate change instead of continuing to argue about whether it is happening and if so what is to blame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a feature, not a bug.

Heh, indeed!

They are back up now. Great to see that there are stacks of intelligent comments...but then there are ones like this doozy:

'Vanderbilt Father West Coast Yesterday

Ms. Sarkeesian's op-ed does nothing to illuminate the actual dispute between herself and some members of the so-called "gaming community." The fact of the matter is that Ms. Sarkeesian has repeatedly asserted that the millions of people who play the games she denigrates are transformed by that experience into misogynists and dangerous, violent criminals. That is what she says on her YouTube videos. That is what caused the reaction to her YouTube Vidoes, and she knows it. She is dishonest in ignoring that fact in her article.

Apart from the fact that she is simply wrong as a factual matter in this assertion, (peer reviewed research and the everyday experience of millions of people who play these games have amply demonstrated that the "video games make you a serial killer" trope is a lie), it is hardly surprising that among the millions of people she has denigrated as misogynist criminals merely because they play video games she does not like, at least a few would react with criminal hostility toward her slander.

Ms. Sarkeesian writes:

"This wasnt the first time my life had been threatened over video games."

No, Ms. Sarkeesian, your life was not "threatened over video games." It was threatened because you egregiously slandered a huge group of men, and inevitably, when you openly attack a large number of people, there will always be a few terrorists in the crowd.'

Truly mind-boggling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" The fact of the matter is that Ms. Sarkeesian has repeatedly asserted that the millions of people who play the games she denigrates are transformed by that experience into misogynists and dangerous, violent criminals. That is what she says on her YouTube videos."

Must have missed that episode, but it is heartening that they have defended all of us against this claim by transforming into misogynists and dangerous, violent criminals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's so clear cut that one side is correct and one is incorrect then hearing both sides is enough for anyone sensible to make up their mind, then ideally you want the obviously wrong opinion exposed as loudly and widely as possible so as to galvanise people against it.

A fair point, but how does summing up with "I guess both sides are as bad as each other" come into that first part?

Oh my Christing fuck

Racial segregation in the States

Child rapists

The holocaust.

None of these things, are in any conceivable way, comparable to fucking gamergate.

So, are those things in which the BBC isn't obliged to present both sides then? What's the method for working out whether the BBC has to prevent both sides of a particular debate/position then? If I knew that perhaps I'd understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this thread ever going to go back to the 'Tropes VS Women in Videogames? Have you thought about making a seperate Gamergate thread perhaps? Because this is tedious and it is going to run and run - and every new update is much like the last.

http://www.rllmukforum.com/index.php?/topic/174013-closing-threads/#entry4627975

It's ridiculous to try and define the acceptable limits of a conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.