Jump to content
IGNORED

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

Unofficial Who

By Unofficial Who
in Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Alex W.

Alex W.

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, sir_shrew said:

Not so. If someone has been publically attacked and bullied, and is being interviewed by a publication, then that sort of lead image makes sense from a journalistic standpoint and Zoe will have posed accordingly. My point really was that her piece about why she has given up the case was very emotive and namecalling her attacker and blaming the system for forcing her out, which is what the post here led with, "Zoe forced to drop case", and prompted an outpouring of sympathy, when she doesn't appear to have been forced, she decided to drop to it. That's all.

 

I don't think anyone read "forced" as "came up to her with a gun and made her drop the case". I think we all naturally understood it in the sense of being put in a situation where it's the least bad option.

 

There's certainly nothing to suggest that she dropped her case because the conceded it on its merits, or because she reached a settlement, or any of the other reasons that a person would drop a case as the plaintiff.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
smac

smac

Posted
Posted
59 minutes ago, sir_shrew said:

that sort of lead image makes sense from a journalistic standpoint and Zoe will have posed accordingly.

 

 

I'm sorry, you're telling us to be careful about making assumptions and misrepresenting what little we know - when quoting from her posts - and yet you make statements like this?

 

And note the choice of words. 'Will have posed' - setting her up as a manipulator, not a victim.

2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anne Summers

Anne Summers

Posted
Posted
On 2/15/2016 at 5:58 PM, Alex W. said:

The slagging Quinn was getting didn't, for the most part, refer to her game at all.

It did at the start - way before the Zoe Post stuff, loads of people were hating on her for Depression Quest. Because she'd dared to make a game which spoke about social issues. People slagging off Depression Quest was basically what made her a target, and why her boyfriend knew that the Zoe Post would be hugely incendiary. 

 

obviously once the ZP came out, the narrative changed from "Pink haired weirdo is making games about social issues instead of games about killing stuff, which is what games should be about" to "Pink haired weirdo is trading sex for good reviews". 

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
smac

smac

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, sir_shrew said:

Posing for a photo doesn't make you a manipulator, but in general it is said that people 'pose' to have their photograph taken and for promotional or journalistic material this will be manipulated for a purpose. That's the point of a good photographer. Unless you're suggesting she was obliviously dwelling on her plight when a cheeky photographer happened to catch her?

 

I'm not making any assumptions or suggestions about her motives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Bag

The Bag

Posted
Posted

Plus the photo was not taken for that piece, it's just what the writer/site decide to go with, uncredited I might add.  I'm pretty sure it was her twitter profile photo for a while and was on her website also.  As I mentioned above it's a pretty old photo, looking it up in tineye it finds this article from June 2014 at the oldest occurrence of it - http://screenrobot.com/10-underappreciated-women-in-gaming/.  That's June 2014 after the release of Depression Quest (remember she does suffer from depression) but before the shit really hit the fan in August when here ex wrote the article that was the spark for much of what was to come.

4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unofficial Who

Unofficial Who

Posted
  • Author
Posted

It's pretty depressing. I think Sir Shrew's post is instructive because it's shown how successful gators have been in tarring and feathering Ms Quinn.

 

There's a great article here that covers some of the angles.

 

http://www.theestablishment.co/2016/02/17/how-the-media-continues-to-sell-out-victims-of-abuse/

 

It’s the kind of “ethics” Gamergate is based on tearing down, because they view their ability to destroy reputations and ruin lives as a sacred right. It’s the kind of “ethics” modern media increasingly makes impossible, because of the hunger of the rapidly-moving news cycle, because of our increasing sense that we all live our lives in public and everything is fair game.

Romano likely doesn’t think she did anything wrong by giving Quinn’s ex a platform from which to address and rally his troops and release a fresh wave of attacks on Quinn—a small wave in the grand scheme of things, but they add up. Romano likely doesn’t see any contradiction in what she did with her latest piece and the one she spent the previous day bragging about, “covering” the Zoe Quinn saga, bringing attention of her plight to the masses.

 

Quinn is, after all, a “public figure,” and must take both negative and positive publicity in turn. The Ouroboros-like nature of the logic of becoming a “public figure”—that anyone can make you a public figure by making nasty accusations about you that go viral, that countering that negative publicity with positive becomes an unasked-for unpaid second job—that’s something The Daily Dot has ignored. It’s something, in fact, everyone ignores, when it’s convenient.

 

As for her alleged profiteering

More concretely, she—along with a ton of the people I’ve talked to who’ve had experiences similar to hers—can’t go and get a regular job, with benefits. Any company that officially hitches its brand to hers paints a giant target on its back, puts itself at risk of sustained attack both public and private. It’s a headache most businesses don’t need. It’s the worst possible awkward topic to have to bring up at a job interview. It’s a constant albatross around your neck.

 

So she’s living the freelance life, like the majority of us who’ve become known, to one degree or another, in one context or another, as “harassment targets.” She’s got an impressive résumé on paper but one that doesn’t pay for health insurance or match 401(k) funds or even manage to pay regularly on the 2nd and 4th Fridays of the month.

 

All of this crap isn’t “profiting”—it’s making the best out of a disaster, eating the locusts that have devoured your crops and telling yourself you can get used to the taste.

 

I can see why this sort of case would be difficult to prosecute. Just like half the reason for bittorrent was to make it impossible to charge anyone with copyright infringement for sharing fragments of movies this sort of harrassment is almost impossible to prosecute for the same reason.

 

 

3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rev

Rev

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Protocol Penguin said:

The website of the rotting remains of BBC Three have posted a pro-GG article. Great one, BBC. :rolleyes: 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/9fe76f89-2d48-4393-bbdd-d6b15b0b0503

 

That is feasibly the most pointless piece of writing on the internet. "I've received abuse online, gamergate exists, this other guy received abuse online, bye". What?

3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
b00dles

b00dles

Posted
Posted

It seems to be that weird thing that GG love in regards to 'waaah, it's not just women that get abuse online, they should shut up about it, someone insulted my mum once'.

 

GG isn't a matter to be 'decided for yourself' it's clearly a load of bollocks and is full of misogyny and hateful bellends, although at the same time there are also loads of other types of abuse too but that's bizarre deflection imo

Link to comment
Share on other sites
matt0

matt0

Posted
Posted

It's important for GG at all times to push the concept of there being two sides and the abuse being equal both to themselves and outside observers. Because otherwise, it's screamingly obvious that GG are just a hate group who at one point were literally attempting to hound a woman into committing suicide.

 

There are some self-proclaimed "anti-GG" idiots hurling abuse out there who have given the GG "two sides" version of events a veneer of credibility. But scratch that veneer and it's obvious what's going on.

2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
K

K

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

Hi guys, can I shock with you a super hot take? I don't think either side in this argument is right. I think both sides are as bad as each other, and that the correct position is somewhere between the two.

 

*turns chair backwards, sits down*

 

You see, there's this TV show called South Pa

28
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alex W.

Alex W.

Posted
Posted

I'm not sure that Totalbiscuit has ever argued in favour of ethics in games journalism outside of disliking Gamergate's list of targets. He's been very specific and outspoken in his criticism of diverse game development, design-oriented game reviewing, and people disliking Gamergate, but I don't believe he has ever tied his wagon to any actual ideas about what ethical games journalism might constitute.

 

So when someone says that he's received attacks because of his support of ethics in games journalism I'm genuinely baffled.

3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rev

Rev

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Alex W. said:

I'm not sure that Totalbiscuit has ever argued in favour of ethics in games journalism outside of disliking Gamergate's list of targets. He's been very specific and outspoken in his criticism of diverse game development, design-oriented game reviewing, and people disliking Gamergate, but I don't believe he has ever tied his wagon to any actual ideas about what ethical games journalism might constitute.

 

So when someone says that he's received attacks because of his support of ethics in games journalism I'm genuinely baffled.

 

He's certainly done pro-consumer bits and pieces. I'd be suprised if he'd done anything about ethics in games journalism though, since it's alleged he's slightly dubious on that front himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mentazm

Mentazm

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, K said:

Hi guys, can I shock with you a super hot take? I don't think either side in this argument is right. I think both sides are as bad as each other, and that the correct position is somewhere between the two.

 

*turns chair backwards, sits down*

 

You see, there's this TV show called South Pa

 

How come you said what I said months ago and got 10 pos, whereas I got something like 60 negs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anne Summers

Anne Summers

Posted
Posted

Milo and CHS doing a two hour talk about how feminism is evil 

 

 

A few protesters near the start. 

The rest is the usual nonsense, Milo trotting out the same stuff he always comes out with, and completely not bothering to take seriously anything he doesn't agree with. 

 

Mostly interesting because of CHS to be honest. Now I don't really know a lot about her, hadn't heard of her before GG and have done a bit of reading of/about her work since, but not sure I've still got the whole picture. GG call her a "feminist" but everything until now has led me to conclude she isn't a feminist at all, she's a scholar of feminism, which obviously is totally different (although I can see how the distinction is too subtle for the average GG mind). A scholar who takes an overwhelmingly critical stance. But from what I have read, she might actually have been active in actual feminism in the past. 

 

In this video she seems to be a bit embarrassed by quite a bit of what Milo says. She is quite often moderating him - hiding it behind a thin veil of living up to the "mom" persona GG have given her - she also seems to find this "veil" somewhat embarrassing, but gives the impression she's just playing along because she knows she has to, with this audience. All the questions have clearly been vetted and are strongly anti-feminist in tone, but even so she refuses to answer at least one (obviously I didn't watch the whole video). I think they were questions which, if she had answered honestly and in line with her own beliefs, would have meant providing answers the GG / Milo fanboy audience wouldn't have wanted to hear. So she just says "Next question". 

 

To be honest she seems far too bright to be associating herself with Milo, hopefully she is waking up to that fact herself. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Harsin

Harsin

Posted
Posted

The reason for the article is because of a short film BBC Three released today about the harassment of women in gaming. I'm not gonna post the link again but it's around here somewhere. So I go into my own personal experience of the things I've been called while playing a game and then I move onto #GamerGate and introduce TB. He is, as I'm sure you will agree, a figure in the gaming world. While the harassment he received could have happened at any time and would have been about anything, the things we talked about were to do with gaming. But in our interview we did talk about other fandoms online being just as vicious and how it is more the anonymity of the internet rather than just gaming. But because the topic on discussion used gaming as an in point, I'd say it was fair to a certain degree.

 

"He is [TB], as I'm sure you will agree, a figure in the gaming world."

 

I feel a Pulitzer coming any day now.

2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alex W.

Alex W.

Posted
Posted

If he's so keen to present both sides of every issue, I'm surprised he didn't seek to present the viewpoints of people throwing racist slurs at him online. He could've got that guy who looks like a magician who's a "white supremacist on paper" to explain why caucasians are inherently genetically superior for instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Kenny

David Kenny

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, sir_shrew said:

Unofficial Who - I haven't read what gators have said to tar ZQ, I think I made some pretty obvious and reasonable points from reading her statement.

I think what you did was try to suggest that rather than being a woman who has reached the end of her tether, and can no longer continue a battle she does not feel the authorities even understand, let alone care about, and that is giving her persecutor a platform from which to encourage more morons to attack her, she is in fact giving it up because she doesn't feel she can "win". Even though winning in this case is a difficult thing to define.

 

You then caution against making assumptions when you know very little about what is going on. The last part was wise advice indeed.

1
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
Go to topic listing

  • 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.

  I accept