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

[earlymodernsteve]

Yates' South Africa ones were great too - even up to the point at which he has to get hands-on in an emergency room. He has the right mix of 'yoof' and intelligence for some harrowing subjects. You can almost see him contemplating chucking Milo in the Thames and his disgust at Roosh is palpable. But, in thread-related discussion, it's interesting how different the reactions are to him than to the various female documentary presenters on BBCThree.

[b00dles]

I'll watch his others too then but I don't know who Stacey Dooley is and never quite sure (which is I suppose ironic for the thread) whether the wub is for her being attractive or the show being a good thing... or both.

Oh and Dapper Laughs.... hmm... I hadn't actually seen any of his stuff myself apart from that bit of the show and I know lots of people like 'his character' but I don't think he's doing it as satire, or if he is, it isn't explicit enough. He himself must know that a lot of the audience just see him as 'talking my language' and making sense, rather than taking the piss out of 'awight Dahhling, get your tits out for the lads' bollocks

Although you could possibly argue that Harry Enfield's Loadsamoney had a similar 'problem'.

Oh and I don't mean to be armchair psychologist but I'd be willing to bet that the 18 year old fella, Josh iirc would have had some sort of rejection/ falling out with a girl from school or college or something. Reggie seemed to suggest that something had happened to him (or so I understood it) even if it was not specifically referenced on film. If you want to have a career in a think tank or the like, I wouldn't have thought loads of vitriolic firebrand MRA stuff is going to be a good starting point. I might be wrong but there has to be some reason as to why he went down that route and it just seems unrealistic he just decided upon it as a topic. Not impossible, just a bit curious.

EDIT: Not really watched much BBC3 docs tbh, I don't have 'normal' TV so I only really watch things if I know they are on iplayer etc, only found out about the Reggie one on the last page or whenever it was, I'll have to check iplayer more regularly!

[LyonJacques]

That was a wub of admiration, Stacey makes fantastic documentaries on social issues. She started as a sort of 'amiable idiot' -in a doc about uk yoof visiting the sweatshops their clothes were made in, i believe- but her compassion and emotional intelligence elevated the material, and the bbc obviously saw her potential as a way to introduce serious content to the bbc3 audience so they kept sending her to report on horrific injustices around the world. Over the course of her series she's become more educated, more investigative and better at understanding the wider issues behind the situations she uncovers, but she still has the naivety and unguardedness that lets the kids relate and disarms her interviewees. She's ace

Also the two eps currently on iplayer are at least thematically related, being about everyday violence against women in Honduras and Internet grooming by westerners in Malaysia.

[ZOK]

Yes, LOVELY STACE does some cracking documentaries too, although I think she's been in a bit of bother about how she interviews in the past.

BBC3 generally has loads of great content, it's a real shame it's going internet only.

[b00dles]

Nice, more stuff to watch on the topic.

See NEG, it's easy to find out about things without basing opinion on vids from people that don't like the maker of the doc.

As a small aside, without wanting to seem too attacking but I have to ask;

If you saw a thread about a film you hadn't watched, would you go into that thread and post videos calling the makers of the movies "sour faced" and attacking them without making a critical comment of it? Wait, it's not even that.... would you see a thread about film 2015 with Wossy and then post a video by someone saying he was a floppy haired ugly tit in the first 30 secs and assume that he's out to stop the industry from existing? Then not actually read the 400 page thread (even skim) or watch the videos that had been discussed until about a week later?

I just can't understand your train of thought and resulting surprise when some people thought you might be trolling, it was a slightly peculiar way to go about 'starting the discussion again' as you allege was the plan all along.

[Wroth]

Usually in addition, and usually just swearing, but yes, that one video example of: don't listen to this person because she listens to Bell Hooks' wasn't related to anything else 'but' one of Anita's sources, certainly.

But I don't believe it's fundamentally wrong to point out if any of her beliefs/what she's done outside the Tropes videos into question when telling people what she thinks about video games.

Now, at this point I don't believe there's much of anything dodgy about her, and the rebuttals are just digging (aimlessly, possibly desperately) to find or even invent things about her, as evident in that video and the Iwata thing that happened. But you wouldn't be interested in hearing the opinion of Rolf Harris for example.

Her only downside from what I know already is that she doesn't/hasn't played video games. Whilst that doesn't make the information bad or wrong, it would have been nicer knowing a gamer cared enough to tell these things to us, not a non-gamer. The counter-argument to 'it doesn't matter' is that the same issues would have risen eventually.

This thread isn't the Anita Sarkeesian thread, it's the Tropes vs Women in Video Games thread. That's what is being discussed. It's sad that our acceptance of arguments and points are affected by the mouths they come from, but they should stand and fall on their own merits. Rolf Harris also said that drawing is fun. Is that statement no longer valid?

[NEG]

I didn't say Anita said the dead comment, asked where it came from.

[JohnnyNolan]

For Pompeii I recommend the Doctor Who episode on it, it's pretty great!

When arguing your point for having knowledge of a subject to pass commentary on it, then referencing an episode of Doctor Who as a guide to the events and impact of what happened at Pompeii is highlighting how poorly you've know doubt investigated the topic here.

[NEG]

That's called deliberate comedy.

[robdood]

Hilarious!

Can we just give up trying to help NEG see the light? It's not getting anywhere.

[NEG]

'Gamers are Dead' originated from a Leigh Alexander article for (IIRC) Gamasutra..

It's interesting you're saying "Gamers are Dead" as the phrase she actually used in the article to put across her point was "Gamers are Over."

It's another example of the 'Chinese Whispers' effect that happens when the premise of an article is reduced to bullet points and pull quotes, which are regurgitated to an audience that doesn't bother to read the original and passes that version of it on to fan the flames.. No prizes for guessing which one ended up more widely quoted..

She argues that the audience for games has become so much wider and more diverse than just the cliche of the teenage male for whom it's his primary hobby and those users are less important to the industry than they used to be.. They used to be the ~whole~ of the industry, but that's not been the case for years now.

Gaming is greater than just them now, whether they like it or not and they're harming the industry's future by being insular and inflexible to any kind of evolution.

She feels 'Gamer' has become a label used by the (proportionally) shrinking hard-core crowd, around whom has developed an insular online culture of rabid, factional support for the big brands and that it is having a toxic effect on gaming in general.

Hrm, sounds like a self-entitled bunch that clearly don't use the term gamer the same way I do above. X number of people is something to be proud of that gaming is expanding into, there is no sub-minority to it, just whatever genres people are into.

I get what the writer was trying to say but it's clearly speaking to a specific bunch, not all gamers.

Let's remember, Anita Sarkeessian never said she wasn't a 'gamer'; on one occasion she said she wasn't 'a fan of games'.

Seeing as being a 'fan' carries a different connotation, that is a better position to be in as a critic, as it means she is more likely to approach the subject with a critical distance. 'Fondness' for the medium is entirely unnecessary for a critic.

On a different note, it's interesting that Gamer Gate use this 'Anita is not a gamer' as a stick to attack her. On the other hand, they lap up any old bullshit from Milo Yiannopoulos who has documented and published his hatred of games and gamers on numerous occasions.

Of course, now he has realised he can get clicks out of gamers, he's a genuine fan of the medium.

You can certainly critic something you are not fond of, just saying it would have felt better coming from someone that is (into our hobby).

Nice, more stuff to watch on the topic.

See NEG, it's easy to find out about things without basing opinion on vids from people that don't like the maker of the doc.

As a small aside, without wanting to seem too attacking but I have to ask;

If you saw a thread about a film you hadn't watched, would you go into that thread and post videos calling the makers of the movies "sour faced" and attacking them without making a critical comment of it? Wait, it's not even that.... would you see a thread about film 2015 with Wossy and then post a video by someone saying he was a floppy haired ugly tit in the first 30 secs and assume that he's out to stop the industry from existing? Then not actually read the 400 page thread (even skim) or watch the videos that had been discussed until about a week later?

I just can't understand your train of thought and resulting surprise when some people thought you might be trolling, it was a slightly peculiar way to go about 'starting the discussion again' as you allege was the plan all along.

I wrote earlier: When many gaming YouTube channels say one particular thing and you are only semi-paying attention as you don't care enough, you get enough of a impression to be able say 'Yeah sure, I know about this subject well enough to give my two cents!'. I didn't know Anita's videos had much to do with anything, it was more so what feminists were 'supposedly' saying. So it's not quite critic'ing a movie I haven't seen kinds of terrible, no.

I was still in the wrong about my way around talking about it, no denying there.

This thread isn't the Anita Sarkeesian thread, it's the Tropes vs Women in Video Games thread. That's what is being discussed. It's sad that our acceptance of arguments and points are affected by the mouths they come from, but they should stand and fall on their own merits. Rolf Harris also said that drawing is fun. Is that statement no longer valid?

I agree to an extent, and already mentioned it seems horrible to try to find dirt on a person, but it's done in all popular celebrity culture. We all adore Gaben but God knows how he feels about all the memes about him over the years. Probably little, but celeb status causes discomfort for many. And no, I'm not comparing childish memes to harassment and all the rest, just saying Anita at this point is just as much a celeb.

I loved Rolf Harris as a kid.

[NEG]

Nothing to do with Anita Sarkeesian, that one. It is a misrepresentation of a cluster of articles discussing how the traditional conception of a hardcore gamer as the only audience for video games should be put to bed, and how cringeworthy it is that gamergate is being seen as the public face of gaming. For example, in this article, the word gamers is in quote marks to show it is the label in relation to a small niche demographic that is over, not people wanting to play video games. Likewise this article in which both gaming and killed are in quotes. In this article, again using quotes and again a response to shame about gamergate. Here death of an identity. Again in quotes. Go through the whole of the list of articles on this theme (handily linked in the OP here) and find me one in which it is a genuine threat to kill anyone, or even a "truly horrible antagonistic phrase". It's a response to gamergate being embarrassing and a consensus that gaming is wider than the traditional niche of young straight white men who live in their parents' basement and have no social skills. A pretty legitimate conclusion, I'd say.

Antagonist in the sense of everyone that plays games, which would have been horrible, not just the niche the writer seems to be referring to. I'd call the niche (that are harassing and see themselves as self-important to any degree) simply: idiots.

[robdood]

Hrm, sounds like a self-entitled bunch that clearly don't use the term gamer the same way I do above. X number of people is something to be proud of that gaming is expanding into, there is no sub-minority to it, just whatever genres people are into.

I get what the writer was trying to say but it's clearly speaking to a specific bunch, not all gamers.

Fucking hell. That's the point, referring this minority as 'gamers' (in quotes) because they think they are 'true' gamers. The only gamers that matter.

[Scribblor]

The word is 'critique' or 'critiquing' NEG.

Have you read the articles geekette linked to? I ask, because when you said this:

Hrm, sounds like a self-entitled bunch that clearly don't use the term gamer the same way I do above. X number of people is something to be proud of that gaming is expanding into, there is no sub-minority to it, just whatever genres people are into.

I get what the writer was trying to say but it's clearly speaking to a specific bunch, not all gamers.

you seem to have misunderstood who the article was speaking to. She's speaking about the specific bunch, but not to them. She was writing on Gamasutra, a website whose intended audience is games developers, publishers and (to a much lesser extent) journalists.

She's not talking to the 'gamers' she's complaining about, she's talking to game developers and game writers. She's saying to the people who make games and write about games that these 'gamers' don't have to be their audience any more. That the audience for games is far far larger than the very vocal hardcore minority, and that the developers and journalists don't have to pander to them. She's not saying that you, as a gamer, should be better than this. She's saying that 'we', as developers and writers, should shrug off the restrictions of pandering to the 'gamers' and instead embrace the wider group of people who play games.

Admittedly, there is a small but significant crossover where people in the industry are also idiot GamerGate types who identify as 'gamers' as she describes the term, and since it's an open website, loads of non-industry people read it too. But as with Anita's videos, these people seem unable to actually comprehend what people are saying, and decided that she was ATTACKING ALL GAMERS AND WANTED THEM DEAD, when in fact she'd said nothing of the sort.

[Rev]

The word is 'critique' or 'critiquing' NEG.

A thousand times this. NEG; give us this small victory at least!

[Wroth]

I agree to an extent, and already mentioned it seems horrible to try to find dirt on a person, but it's done in all popular celebrity culture. We all adore Gaben but God knows how he feels about all the memes about him over the years. Probably little, but celeb status causes discomfort for many. And no, I'm not comparing childish memes to harassment and all the rest, just saying Anita at this point is just as much a celeb.

I loved Rolf Harris as a kid.

That doesn't explain at all why you're watching old videos to gauge her personality when everyone's asked you to watch the tropes videos and address the points themselves. It's like you're deliberately avoiding the issue and doing a terrible job at hiding that fact.

[NEG]

Yup. I've reached this point again. I think any response is reinforcing at this stage, and if he hasn't got it, he hasn't got it.

Haven't gotten what, exactly? Our current discussion is about how you got annoyed that I'm critiquing Anita's videos as a whole from the beginning of her channel (whilst still talking about feminist issues, Anita, and other noteworthy things that come up along the way), and I'm more or less saying it's fine to agree to disagree. We've had no issues with the topic at hand in a week, friend. I've given enough reasons why I've chosen to go about it the way I have.

A thousand times this. NEG; give us this small victory at least!

Yeah, totally guilty of that, sorry.

That doesn't explain at all why you're watching old videos to gauge her personality when everyone's asked you to watch the tropes videos and address the points themselves. It's like you're deliberately avoiding the issue and doing a terrible job at hiding that fact.

I've written reasons on the previous page. In retrospect I shouldn't have felt like I owed certain people a more in-depth look by yours truly, quite the shame.

Edit: If the first Tropes video doesn't come up by Video 20, I'll continue in that same post until it appears.

[b00dles]

He said critiquing!, WOOP!WOOP!WOOP!

[minkee]

What's a good way to explain who or what Milo Whassface is?

[Mr Cochese]

Just show them this:

[Broker]

Hey Neg, how come you get to decide what the definition of "gamers" is? How come you get to call people entitled when they discuss things they've carefully researched and worked around for years, but you're allowed to throw out spurious comments on any subject, no matter how poor your understanding of it is? Sounds pretty entitled to me, the way that you have decided that you are part of a group of people like you who are the only ones who matter, and that you're only willing to listen to voices from within that group who reinforce your existing ideas and prejudices.

You're probably the most entitled person I've ever encountered, windmilling through life with a certainty that everything you do and say and think is so very, very important but genuinely believing that everything else must be cast under your critical eye and be "validated", unlike your inherent assumptions and the utter shit you've heard people talk on YouTube. Which is just trustworthy. You're a trusting guy right? You assume everything is true, unless it's pages and pages of people patiently explaining things to you in idiots terms. Then you're suddenly sceptical.

Anita has actually played a few games over the last few years. She thought the new AC was interesting, but criticised it's lack of innovation in gameplay systems. That's a statement that makes me think someone who cares played a game and thought about it.

The stuff you say is almost entirely focused on yourself and your painfully narrow view of both the world and the gaming market. You genuinely believe that Sonic games are good, but can't spend fifteen minutes watching a video analysing tropes. You waste your time watching YouTube videos made by MRAs about games, when you could be playing games.

I can see an adult who has devoted their time, energy and intelligence to playing, analysing and discussing games. I also see an entitled idiot who spends their days watching YouTube, playing Sonic and trolling Internet forums. I know which one sounds like a real gamer to me.

[robdood]

TL;DR: Zing!

[NEG]

Hey Neg, how come you get to decide what the definition of "gamers" is?

I don't, and I made that quite clear by saying 'To me'.

Giving thoughts and opinions using my perspective is hardly shocking, as that's what anyone does.

I wouldn't describe ReviewTechUSA and AlphaOmegaSin (gaming YTers that spring to mind that disagree) as MRA just because they disagree with Anita/the Tropes subject. They are generally varied in their gaming content.

The only entitlement on this matter I can think of is speech, I believe. And everyone has that. You are free to not hear my supposedly 'important' and 'entitled' thoughts. /eyeroll

Please think before insulting blindly again. Thanks. Go have a cup of coffee, it's what I'm about to do.

[The Bag]

That's called deliberate comedy.

I don't want to pile on, but why in this thread? People are trying to have a serious discussion, and engage you in it, and you keep doing stuff like this. There's an entire forum out there to fill with your comedy routine but doing it in here makes it hard to believe you're not just trolling at this point, and even if you're not it makes it hard to know which parts of your posts to take seriously. It may be obvious to you which parts are jokes but looking at the number of times in thread and the other that you've had to explain you were joking/weren't being serious it's not clear to others which makes it hard to have a discussion including you - have you said X because you believe it, or because you think it's funny, or because it's meant to be a joke.

[Broker]

Please think before insulting blindly again. Thanks. Go have a cup of coffee, it's what I'm about to do.

The tired "please say whatever you have to say in a way I find polite enough" stuff can go fuck itself as hard as you can, you ignorant cunt. I didn't agree to have some childish PG conversation with you, and I'd suggest if all you can ever see is insults instead of points then you grown the fuck up.

Insulting blindly would imply that I hadn't made many points directly, but you've ignored them to pick on a single point which you can refute because you learned to debate from idiots who think disproving a minor point is the same as disproving an argument. But I've wasted enough time on you, please believe me that the only reason I sound so angry is because you're offensively stupid and it makes you impossible to talk to.

[NEG]

I don't want to pile on, but why in this thread? People are trying to have a serious discussion, and engage you in it and you keep doing stuff like this. There's an entire forum out there to fill with your comedy routine but doing it in here makes it hard to believe you're not just trolling at this point, and even if your not it makes it hard to know which parts of your posts to take seriously. It may be obvious to you which parts are jokes but looking at the number of times in thread and the other that you've had to explain you were joking/weren't being serious it's not clear to others which makes it hard to have a discussion including you - have you said X because you believe it, or because you think it's funny, or because it's meant to be a joke.

I like to think I answered Geek's question straight after my Pompeii comment, but yes it may be another case of the kind of thread where mixing comedy into discussion doesn't work well, as much as one may personally hope it does, as it can also confuse people.

Don't think I've been joking as much lately though, sorry for the slip.

Broker I'd say I answered any 'points' you brought up. Insults are not 'adult communication' to me as you might suggest.

[feltmonkey]

In case anyone's wondering, I looked up just one of those youtubers - alphaomegasin. All his most-watched videos mention either Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn or SJWs in the titles. I picked one at random, entitled something like "SJWs need to get out of the entertainment industry" and watched a bit of it. He starts off by bringing up an article he's read that he says completely reflects his views. I checked the description - it's a Milo article from Breitbart, of course. He then immediately goes on to again unironically mention SJWs, calling them "fucking scum." Do I need to watch any further? I already feel like deleting my YouTube history just to remove the stain of this moron. If I don't, I'm going to end up being bombarded with recommendations of similar GG videos, aren't I?

Neg, I don't know where to begin. I suppose the first question should be, why do you think these youtubers' varied gaming content is in any way relevant, or makes them trustworthy commentators on this issue? Hey, he made some good videos about Fallout 4, so he must be correct about feminism!

How can you not see that when someone is talking, shouting and ranting actually, in such hateful terms, that they are probably not a reasonable commentator on the issue? In your world is this how experts on an issue talk? Do you live so exclusively on the internet, where the uninformed rant is king, that you see bile-spitting tirades as a normal way to approach discussion? You didn't notice that this guy is a hate-filled, ignorant idiot? You thought he might be a reasonable and informed voice?

Finally, these people don't "disagree with the Tropes videos" - they hate Anita and Zoe Quinn personally, hate feminism, or the bogeyman version of it they've been fed, and hate anyone who might try to limit their freedom to be obnoxious. They rarely if ever put any counterpoint to the videos, they just accuse Anita of having agendas that they themselves have invented, and call her scum, among other things.

Jesus fucking Christ.

[PaB]

and nobody thinks the level of violence in Doom is normal.

It's normal in videogames.

I don't have an issue with that, but from an outsiders point of view, the level of violence must seem pretty extreme.

[NEG]

Neg, I don't know where to begin. I suppose the first question should be, why do you think these youtubers' varied gaming content is in any way relevant, or makes them trustworthy commentators on this issue? Hey, he made some good videos about Fallout 4, so he must be correct about feminism!

How can you not see that when someone is talking, shouting and ranting actually, in such hateful terms, that they are probably not a reasonable commentator on the issue? In your world is this how experts on an issue talk? Do you live so exclusively on the internet, where the uninformed rant is king, that you see bile-spitting tirades as a normal way to approach discussion? You didn't notice that this guy is a hate-filled, ignorant idiot? You thought he might be a reasonable and informed voice?

Finally, these people don't "disagree with the Tropes videos" - they hate Anita and Zoe Quinn personally, hate feminism, or the bogeyman version of it they've been fed, and hate anyone who might try to limit their freedom to be obnoxious. They rarely if ever put any counterpoint to the videos, they just accuse Anita of having agendas that they themselves have invented, and call her scum, among other things.

Jesus fucking Christ.

1) Did I call his stance correct? No. Just that labeling any person MRA when their channel has plenty of other unrelated stuff that grew a fan base over years feels wrong to me.

2) They're probably a reasonable commentator, but they have more merit as a person than just that issue. Didn't label anyone an expert. I may disagree with his discussing manner (shouty shouty) but he's shouty shouty for even every day gaming topics for years, so quite normal for his channel.

3) Everyone who disagrees is not hate filled and all the rest. I'd hope so, at least.

It's a shame of the predictability of the critic the channels I mentioned would get. They're there to serve my point, I'm not defending their stance of this issue.

[Rev]

The tired "please say whatever you have to say in a way I find polite enough" stuff can go fuck itself as hard as you can, you ignorant cunt. I didn't agree to have some childish PG conversation with you, and I'd suggest if all you can ever see is insults instead of points then you grown the fuck up.

Insulting blindly would imply that I hadn't made many points directly, but you've ignored them to pick on a single point which you can refute because you learned to debate from idiots who think disproving a minor point is the same as disproving an argument. But I've wasted enough time on you, please believe me that the only reason I sound so angry is because you're offensively stupid and it makes you impossible to talk to.

As much as I sympathise, calling people cunts doesn't really help anything.