@wogan It's difficult to have a conversation with someone who provides only limited information rather than "fully explaining" himself.
Well then don't start the conversation ;) This is a public forum, and unless I've missed something, not every comment warrants (or even deserves) feedback. You chose to make your case, and if anything, you were calling out @konman 's position. I wasn't even the one that wrote the sentence you got all upset at me about!
And no, I will keep talking about GamerGate because it's still happening. It's still having an impact well beyond what it should be influencing. It's still causing harassment and it's still generating misinformation that needs to be addressed. It is, in essence, not dead yet and I want to kill it.
I don't think you can kill fire with fire. The entire GamerGate shitstorm is almost entirely people saying stuff. All the harassment, the doxxing, the death threats, the counter-narratives, that's people saying stuff. Saying more stuff at and about them may not be the best way to fix it.
Getting people to buy more indie games, thereby eroding the market hold of the AAA studios that pander to the problem audience - that's doing something. Building more indie games to create a bigger market, that's doing something. Changing the discussion away from all the problems gamers create, to the problems games can solve, that's doing something too, and I'm all for all of the above.
I don't think just talking about the issue itself, in its current form, will achieve anything significant. If you really want to kill GamerGate, you need to kill the other side's leverage. Right now they're a bunch of loudmouth shitbirds with industry leverage - with the right actions, we can just reduce them to loudmouth shitbirds with the industry on our side instead. And the only way you swing an industry is by providing it with customers it can profit from - harsh, maybe, but true.
@Wogan : Sure, there are types of discussion that don't serve much purpose. I'm not sure it's so cut and dry in the case of GamerGate, though. There are clearly still people for whom it isn't a settled question.
Oh, and if you enjoy laughing at Davis "I think I'm Kane from C&C" Aurini, definitely watch this video :
(warning, strong language, hate speech)
A kickstarter about journalistic ethics and feminism, brought to you by a man who is one bad date away from becoming the next Elliot Rodgers. Seems legit.
@garethf Thanks for the links, I'll be sure to have a good chuckle :)
I don't think GamerGate will ever be settled. It's built on fault lines that look a lot like religion and politics, and until we all become better human beings, we'll keep dealing with problems like this. I reckon it's a healthier approach to just make the best of it: Do what you can with what you've got.
I wasn't annoyed that my ramblings were misinterpreted. I was annoyed that the misinterpreter invented an entirely different story and then responded to that. Let me quote said misinterpreter: "implied that you intended to bury your head in the sand" - I don't imply things, I outright say them. I did not outright say X, therefore X is not up for discussion. Had I said "I think we should ignore GamerGate", then yes, absolutely, that's the position I'm stating and you can respond to that.
So you were misinterpreted then. Okay. Perhaps responding to it with hostility and belittling someone else might not be the best way to have a useful discussion afterwards.
Getting people to buy more indie games, thereby eroding the market hold of the AAA studios that pander to the problem audience - that's doing something. Building more indie games to create a bigger market, that's doing something. Changing the discussion away from all the problems gamers create, to the problems games can solve, that's doing something too, and I'm all for all of the above.
I do all of these things already, including things that you didn't include (like encouraging other potential indie developers to make their own games, helping people get into the games business as indies, providing tools and skills to help that). Have been for years. Talking about issues to developers on forums like this one is another thing that I do. In fact, a very strong argument could be made for talking on forums being some of the most influential actions I've undertaken.
I don't think just talking about the issue itself, in its current form, will achieve anything significant. If you really want to kill GamerGate, you need to kill the other side's leverage. Right now they're a bunch of loudmouth shitbirds with industry leverage - with the right actions, we can just reduce them to loudmouth shitbirds with the industry on our side instead. And the only way you swing an industry is by providing it with customers it can profit from - harsh, maybe, but true.
What industry leverage are you talking about here? GamerGate is not a games industry thing, it actually seems to have zero awareness of either the games industry OR the indie games scene at large.
Most of the power in GamerGate comes from the people who feel slighted by misrepresented "attacks on gaming" and thus lend their voices to a hateful movement. If those people weren't legitimising GG, it would have a lot less impact... I'm trying to directly influence those people - the moderates caught in the us-vs-them trap - so that they can get out of it, as well as the people who have yet to form strong opinions about said trap. That means undermining the sources of misunderstanding that power this particular groupthink situation: Unthinking sexism, fear of poorly understood feminism and unexamined personal privilege.
It's only by talking about these things that people who are unaware of them can inoculate themselves against falling for shit like GG in the future and properly defend against it now. So yeah, I'm working on doing exactly what you're talking about.
What industry leverage are you talking about here? Most of the power in GamerGate comes from the people who feel slighted by misrepresented "attacks on gaming" and thus lend their voices to a hateful movement. If those people weren't legitimising GG, it would have a lot less impact...
I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Yes, a lot of the noise around GG is coming from everyone feeling slighted, no argument there. I can't help but wonder though: If you take the core of the problem (the hardcore "gamers" right at the middle, instigating all of this), and you make them go away (by getting the companies that build the sort of games they play, thereby giving them more ammunition in this fight), then things will get better.
Maybe I can illustrate it. Not a lot of people are too worried about the KKK. They're a little fringe group with offbeat beliefs and they mainly keep to themselves. I'd easily equate them with Isis - a group of people with offbeat beliefs that mainly keep to themselves. The difference is, Isis has a serious amount of firepower, and that's because, through whatever complex international diplomatic processes, they ended up with a lot of American military hardware.
So now they're not just radical isolationists - they're armed radical isolationists, because they have the resources they need to carry out their designs for the world.
In much the same way, the dolts in the middle of all this have their beliefs, their misogyny and narrow-mindedness and paranoia and what have you, but crucially, they have the ear of the AAA studios. Big companies spend billions of dollars building games to appeal to that sector of the market, because that's where all the money is. The companies don't really care about the morality or ethics of any of this - that's not why they're in business.
If you change that, if you make it more profitable, more reliable, for companies like, say, Activision, to build and publish almost exclusively smaller, artistic titles that appeal to more people, and take ethics and social issues into account, then those dolts lose their grip on the discussion. People will stop listening to them because their concerns (that gaming is being eroded, that the culture is being destroyed by radicalized feminism) are no longer valid.
You can do that, if you can make the business case that it's a smart investment move. I definitely think it's a smart cultural move, but again, big companies don't care for culture, only profit. So use that against them - make it more profitable to produce the sort of games that everyone can play, and that nobody has to feel minimized by. Treat all of indie gaming as a massive real-world experiment that proves that you can make good money from large amounts of smaller titles with better souls.
I think that's a better use of time. Instead of confronting GG head-on, fighting this battle on their terms, rather change the shape of the battlefield as a whole. Get them to fight on your terms, and since they have no real grievance, they'll lose.
Also, I just want to apologize to @dammit - @dislekcia is right, it doesn't help to engender hostility. I don't feel like I shot first, but I shouldn't have shot back. I'm just frustrated that this entire saga even exists - games are meant to be fun, not shitstorms of angry debate. That should be reserved for the console wars :D
@Wogan : Sure, there are types of discussion that don't serve much purpose. I'm not sure it's so cut and dry in the case of GamerGate, though. There are clearly still people for whom it isn't a settled question.
Oh, and if you enjoy laughing at Davis "I think I'm Kane from C&C" Aurini, definitely watch this video :
(warning, strong language, hate speech)
A kickstarter about journalistic ethics and feminism, brought to you by a man who is one bad date away from becoming the next Elliot Rodgers. Seems legit.
Holy wow who the eff is this asshat? "Women of society have become the most decadent sluts since the fall of Rome." Couldn't listen to any more than that.
If you change that, if you make it more profitable, more reliable, for companies like, say, Activision, to build and publish almost exclusively smaller, artistic titles that appeal to more people, and take ethics and social issues into account, then those dolts lose their grip on the discussion. People will stop listening to them because their concerns (that gaming is being eroded, that the culture is being destroyed by radicalized feminism) are no longer valid.
That might be true, but how would you plan to make those games more profitable than what AAA presently is? I mean those kinds of smaller scope artsy diverse titles exist already, but in general they aren't more profitable.
You'd have to change the appeal sensibilities of the consumers to do that.
At present they make what they make because it sells right, because like you said, they only really care about the business of it.
How would you assert that anyone changes so many people's preferences?
He and other douchebags like Adam Baldwin, Thunderf00t, Nero and CH Sommers, have latched themselves onto GamerGate to take advantage of the collective outrage to promote their own noxious agendas. With friends like those, who needs enemies, right?
These are the kinds of creeps that people like Anita and Zoe have to deal with.
You'd have to change the appeal sensibilities of the consumers to do that.
Ahh but no you don't! If you imagine the game industry as a pie, the biggest slice (revenue wise) belongs to misogynist self-insert hero-fantasy sort of gamers (Call of Broty, Gears of Bro, Bralo, whatever). There are two ways to change that: Make the slice smaller, OR, make the pie bigger.
Get more "normal people" to buy more indie games, it's as simple as that. Candy Crush and Angry Birds have proven that you can take small, simple games, to the masses, and make some decent money. Now let's just keep repeating that until the entire landscape shifts - does that make sense?
Right now, sales figures from most indie games are too small for big companies to notice. Minecraft just sold to Microsoft for $2.5bn. That would definitely have made some investors sit up, take notice of this "indie game thing", and go, "maybe there is some real money to be made here".
Would you rather have the top 10 charts dominated by games like Minecraft and Risk of Rain? Then get more people to spend more money in the ecosystem.
eh those other folks sure do have agendas, but lumping them in with this crazy person probably isn't fair.
It's fair.
Adam Baldwin - Likes to rant about gays, liberals, feminists. LinkLink
Thunderf00t - Got kicked out of the mainstream atheist community for being a douche with a chip on his shoulder about feminists, likes to complain about how anti-harassment policies at conferences spoil the fun, now spends much of his time making videos about how feminists are eeeeevvvil. - Link
Nero - Real name is Milo Yiannopoulos, is a shitty person with a chip on his shoulder about feminism, amongst other things. LinkLinkLink
CH Sommers - Calls herself a feminist, but has spent decades twisting the truth to try to make feminists look bad. Her views are closer to the MRA than feminism. LinkLink. And please enjoy this video picking apart her sneaky tricks on gamergate, set to music.
You'd have to change the appeal sensibilities of the consumers to do that.
Ahh but no you don't! If you imagine the game industry as a pie, the biggest slice (revenue wise) belongs to misogynist self-insert hero-fantasy sort of gamers (Call of Broty, Gears of Bro, Bralo, whatever). There are two ways to change that: Make the slice smaller, OR, make the pie bigger.
Get more "normal people" to buy more indie games, it's as simple as that. Candy Crush and Angry Birds have proven that you can take small, simple games, to the masses, and make some decent money. Now let's just keep repeating that until the entire landscape shifts - does that make sense?
Right now, sales figures from most indie games are too small for big companies to notice. Minecraft just sold to Microsoft for $2.5bn. That would definitely have made some investors sit up, take notice of this "indie game thing", and go, "maybe there is some real money to be made here".
Would you rather have the top 10 charts dominated by games like Minecraft and Risk of Rain? Then get more people to spend more money in the ecosystem.
You realise that calling them misogynists over and over is just fueling the fire right?
You're calling a group of people that include feminists, minorities, men, women, kids etc all misogynists. It just looks bad. And it's fueling the fire.
I don't see why a company that's doing it for the business would cut out the slice of pie that's giving them big moneys. But yeah, fair enough expanding the pie so to speak, would certainly help your cause. But how would you do that?
I mean we know a toooon of people are getting into mobile and stuff, because lots of people have a phone. And there's a lot of money there. I think flappy bird showed us that in a big way too. But that doesn't mean that games like that will become quite as profitable as like.. Well, Destiny's one. They made their $500m back in a day, but man I'd love to see their total profit figures at this point.
And it's understandable that big AAA studios are gunning for that. Sure smaller games can make good money, but I don't think AAA's just gonna stop doing that stuff to shift to small scale indie?
AAA could be more inclusive, and will be after so much fuss has been made. At least, one would hope. But I don't see why they would target a different audience entirely.
Smaller studios can do what you're proposing perhaps, but big studios have different targets and company expenses (?).
Ahh but no you don't! If you imagine the game industry as a pie, the biggest slice (revenue wise) belongs to misogynist self-insert hero-fantasy sort of gamers (Call of Broty, Gears of Bro, Bralo, whatever).
Nope. Adult female gamers (>18 yrs old) outnumber teenage boys (<18 yrs old) in the US significantly, they're over twice the percentage of the total game-playing population. See this ESA report.
It's also a 50-50 split between the genders in terms of buying games, so it would be extremely surprising if more revenue were commanded by openly sexist games. The far more likely explanation for AAA games containing sexist tropes/elements is simply because the developers making them don't realise it. Once points are raised, devs tend to acknowledge them and state that they'd like to do better and be more inclusive. It's generally the isolated subset of gamers that feel attacked by feminist messages and understanding that get all shouty about "protecting" "their" games.
Also, nope, revenue numbers aren't commanded by AAA studios. All you're seeing is how AAA publishers are trying to out-spend each other to market their games and make their ROI. That doesn't mean that a game that was much cheaper to make returns worse than your average AAA title. Remember that loads of AA and AAA studios are constantly going out of business as well.
There are two ways to change that: Make the slice smaller, OR, make the pie bigger.
This is exactly what GamerGate seems to be pushing against the most: Including more people in gaming. There's always this desire to police who can or can't be a gamer, or what is or isn't a game (see the hatred of Depression Quest and the reason GG piled on Zoe), based on arbitrary criteria. There's also this concept of "defending" gaming from the dire forces of inclusivity...
Get more "normal people" to buy more indie games, it's as simple as that. Candy Crush and Angry Birds have proven that you can take small, simple games, to the masses, and make some decent money. Now let's just keep repeating that until the entire landscape shifts - does that make sense?
Right now, sales figures from most indie games are too small for big companies to notice. Minecraft just sold to Microsoft for $2.5bn. That would definitely have made some investors sit up, take notice of this "indie game thing", and go, "maybe there is some real money to be made here".
Would you rather have the top 10 charts dominated by games like Minecraft and Risk of Rain? Then get more people to spend more money in the ecosystem.
Again, this is all already happening. The issue is that GG is actively trying to hamstring people's ability to both make games AND have impacts on other people (normal or otherwise) by silencing them.
You realise that calling them misogynists over and over is just fueling the fire right?
You're calling a group of people that include feminists, minorities, men, women, kids etc all misogynists. It just looks bad. And it's fueling the fire.
I don't think anyone is calling people misogynists that aren't, y'know, misogynists. I have no idea why non-misogynists are so quick to self-identify as being called names. (And I still don't understand why even being called names is really so bad, all anyone has to do is NOT act like one and poof, the name doesn't stick! It's not like it an accusation in court...)
Immature reactions aren't the fault of the things those reactions are to.
AAA could be more inclusive, and will be after so much fuss has been made. At least, one would hope. But I don't see why they would target a different audience entirely.
Because the actual market isn't only made up of hormonal teen men? And because the targeting of said hormonal teen men is an artifact of several feedback forces in the game development industry and marketing spheres, rather than a coherent campaign from an entire industry's worth of people.
You realise that calling them misogynists over and over is just fueling the fire right?
You're calling a group of people that include feminists, minorities, men, women, kids etc all misogynists. It just looks bad. And it's fueling the fire.
I don't think anyone is calling people misogynists that aren't, y'know, misogynists. I have no idea why non-misogynists are so quick to self-identify as being called names. (And I still don't understand why even being called names is really so bad, all anyone has to do is NOT act like one and poof, the name doesn't stick! It's not like it an accusation in court...)
Immature reactions aren't the fault of the things those reactions are to.
AAA could be more inclusive, and will be after so much fuss has been made. At least, one would hope. But I don't see why they would target a different audience entirely.
Because the actual market isn't only made up of hormonal teen men? And because the targeting of said hormonal teen men is an artifact of several feedback forces in the game development industry and marketing spheres, rather than a coherent campaign from an entire industry's worth of people.
P.S. I really need to point out here that the "hormonal teen men" stereotype is a stupid sexist construct that feminism is trying to defuse too.
Thing is, alot of people are using the misogyny thing as a big sweeping statement like it covers all those people when that really isn't the case. There certainly are those kinds of crazy folks out there. But there are also misandrists. And they both really suck.
And they're not en masse acting like they're misogynists. They're asking for ethical press. They condemn harassment, and support inclusivity in games. I don't get how that makes 'em all misogynists. The name does stick however, because everyone's calling them that despite what they're actually doing. I mean a while ago 4chan donated a ton of money towards TFYC's campaign, and someone (horrible group of people) hacked their crowdfunding and things got really screwy. And the reason why it's a problem, is because people are being harassed professionally and losing jobs because of the stupid 'gamers are misogynists' thing that's currently going on. It's bad.
And why would you call them hormonal teen men if you yourself are aware that it's stupid and sexist? And you can say that "feminism" is trying to break that down, but I see feminists pulling the "gross gamer nerd" stuff all the time. Which is also really unfortunate.
And wrt to that study you linked, I think it could have some problems potentially? It considers everyone who plays games right, which is definitely good, but the reason marketing targets a specific audience is also because stuff like collector's eds and merch etc which they perceive those people as being more likely to buy? I mean it doesn't all boil down to game copy sales, it's a whole IP with a whole range of goods to be consumed?
Not that it's right to do things that way, but their marketing follows the money?
One thing that's coming out in all this to alot of people that weren't aware is that most of the AAA game budget goes to marketing rather than development alot of the time. Which is a shame.
Here I can comfortably say I have never seen them point out any legitimate instances of corruption in the media. There are plenty to find, of course, but I find the specific subset of what they deem to be corrupt a bit worrying since it seems to have very little to do with ethics in journalism.
Here I can comfortably say I have never seen them point out any legitimate instances of corruption in the media. There are plenty to find, of course, but I find the specific subset of what they deem to be corrupt a bit worrying since it seems to have very little to do with ethics in journalism.
It's not as simple as corruption. There are cases of journalists reporting on people that they just know too well (which is an objectivity issue), and receiving stuff from developers before writing good reviews etc, which bring the issue of transparency into question. They need to at the very least mention that in the article.
That and the way certain people have been speaking, being racist and hateful etc in the name of their organisations is irritating alot of people, because in more mainstream press, they would've gotten kicked to the curb for that kinda nonsense.
Questioning that kind of stuff is entirely reasonable.
Steam changed their policies that curators have to disclose that kind of stuff in all this though, which is a step forward
If you're referring to Zoe Quinn, then yeah it has nothing to do with anything. But very few actually care about her. Unfortunately some people lost their cool about it earlier on, when that stupid story came out, and it's a damn shame, because that's really the reason people are hating.
The majority of everyone condemns the harassment, but there's nothing they can do about it, they don't know who did it. There has been a big public apology to Zoe Quinn thread on TheEscapist that a ton of people are signing though.
Nope. Adult female gamers (>18 yrs old) outnumber teenage boys (<18 yrs old) in the US significantly, they're over twice the percentage of the total game-playing population. See this ESA report.
Yes that's why I said "revenue wise". I know that female gamers are starting to outpace male gamers in terms of "number of gamers", but look at the revenue figures for games like GTA, Call of Duty, Gears of War, etc etc, games that are built with a male audience in mind, and they totally dominate the charts. Having more non-male gamers is great - we now need more non-male games.
Also, nope, revenue numbers aren't commanded by AAA studios.
Well, you say that, but a quick trip to the Googles brings back the following for 2012:
1. World of Warcraft - Blizzard - $10bn 2. CoD Black Ops - Treyarch/Activision - $1.5bn 3. Mario Kart - Nintendo - $1.4bn 4. GTA4 - Rockstar - $1.35bn 5. Wii Play - Nintendo - $1.25bn 6. New Super Mario Bros - Nintendo - $1.2bn 7. Gran Turismo - SCEE - $850m 8. CoD Modern Warfare 2 - Infinity Ward/Activision- $780m 9. The Sims - EA - $740m 10. CoD Mordern Warfare 1 - Infinity Ward/Activision - $700m
I don't know about you, but I'm seeing a lot of Nintendo, Blizzard and Activision in that list, are they not the dictionary definition of AAA studios? The list for 2013 isn't much better:
1. GTA V - 25.75m units 2. CoD Ghosts - 12.71m units 3. FIFA 2014 - 8.11m units 4. Pokemon X&Y - 7.64m units 5. Assassin's Creed IV - 4.11m units 6. The Last Of Us - 3.69m units 7. Animal Crossing - 3.35m units 8. Tomb Raider - 3.18m units 9. Monster Hunter IV - 3.05m units 10. Bioshock Infinite - 2.89m units
A slightly more diverse list of games in 2013, yes, but GTA V dominates the charts there, and GTA V is not exactly all-audience-friendly. Maybe these AAA studios are in fact outspending eachother, but that doesn't change the fact that they're selling the most games, and people are playing those games.
Thing is, alot of people are using the misogyny thing as a big sweeping statement like it covers all those people when that really isn't the case. There certainly are those kinds of crazy folks out there. But there are also misandrists. And they both really suck.
There's no equivalence there: People are calling misogynist actions misogynist. Judging a group by what it achieves is perfectly legitimate, so far GG has achieved and undertaken only misogynist things. For every "stand" or "campaign" it's possible to show how there are multiple other ethical situations right now that are worse, but don't have an angle that allows the targeting of women.
I suggest you research #notallmen and why making that same argument here isn't helping anyone.
And they're not en masse acting like they're misogynists. They're asking for ethical press. They condemn harassment, and support inclusivity in games. I don't get how that makes 'em all misogynists. The name does stick however, because everyone's calling them that despite what they're actually doing. I mean a while ago 4chan donated a ton of money towards TFYC's campaign, and someone (horrible group of people) hacked their crowdfunding and things got really screwy. And the reason why it's a problem, is because people are being harassed professionally and losing jobs because of the stupid 'gamers are misogynists' thing that's currently going on. It's bad.
Anyone that marginalises the origins of GamerGate and fails to address the issues that underly its targeting of women is ignoring blatant sexism and thus misogynist. This is not a hard argument to fathom and one that has been made repeatedly and not addressed.
Yes, hacking and attacks are bad. If there was a hashtag and an organised movement behind actions like that, I wouldn't stand for that movement, even if it theoretically supported things that I cared about in other ways. In fact, I'd condemn it pretty damn strongly! I DO condemn that hack pretty damn strongly!
Also, you realise that the whole TFYC angle is literally 4chan's GG crowd trying to create smokescreens, right? There are logs of conversations saying exactly that. The TFYC thing has been blown out of proportion completely, from their site going down under load after people tweeted about it, to TFYC not being able to address legitimate criticism of their policy towards trans women. TFYC themselves have said that they handled it badly, should have done things better and that there's no evidence of either doxxing or DDOS attacks on them. The whole TFYC thing is just more false justification for actions - it's not as though any of it actually DOES excuse other actions by GamerGate stalwarts. "Nuh-uh, they did it too" stopped being a defense against responsibility when we were 12.
And why would you call them hormonal teen men if you yourself are aware that it's stupid and sexist? And you can say that "feminism" is trying to break that down, but I see feminists pulling the "gross gamer nerd" stuff all the time. Which is also really unfortunate.
I used the term to emphasise how strange the logic behind targeting a grouping designated like that actually is. I added the explanation to make it clear that I don't condone that grouping.
And wrt to that study you linked, I think it could have some problems potentially? It considers everyone who plays games right, which is definitely good, but the reason marketing targets a specific audience is also because stuff like collector's eds and merch etc which they perceive those people as being more likely to buy? I mean it doesn't all boil down to game copy sales, it's a whole IP with a whole range of goods to be consumed?
The problems you're saying you have with the study are because it doesn't artificially gate who's allowed to be a gamer? Really?
The forces that sell collectors editions and merchandise are not the same as the pre-design targeting of specific gendered groups by marketing message research. Are you suggesting that collectors editions of non-gendered products wouldn't sell? Which do you think makes more money: AAA merchandise or Angry Birds merchandise?
Collectors and limited editions are more about price anchoring and value securing than returning a profit on those specific SKUs, I'd be very surprised if the majority of those editions didn't actually return a slight loss or at least, less than a regular game sale. You see the same thing in the higher tiers of Kickstarter campaigns all the time - they're there to provide impetus to the campaign so that lower tiers get backed. I'm not really sure what argument you're making here, other than "specific people aren't really gamers because they don't support games enough" for magical values of enough...
Not that it's right to do things that way, but their marketing follows the money?
No. That's what that article I linked explains: Marketing follows efficiency of marketing spending. That does not directly correlate with resulting revenue, it only lowers costs in competitive markets and will completely ignore other market segments that it hasn't historically targeted until further cost reduction is no longer possible.
One thing that's coming out in all this to alot of people that weren't aware is that most of the AAA game budget goes to marketing rather than development alot of the time. Which is a shame.
If these are the same people that are surprised that people in game journalism and game development know each other and are often friends, then yeah. I would argue that everyone else already figured that out every time the games press wrote about how much spending went into marketing each new AAA summer blockbuster.
One thing that's coming out in all this to alot of people that weren't aware is that most of the AAA game budget goes to marketing rather than development alot of the time. Which is a shame.
Really? Spending large amounts of money on teams of professionals (who are really good at their jobs, mind you), to produce and promote top-notch promotional content and drive public awareness is a shame? Do you think marketing is just something that happens by accident? It's a crucial component of the process: It's not enough to just build a game, people actually have to play it, and when you're fighting over the same pool of customers, a bad marketing campaign could mean the end of your company and thousands of job losses.
Anyone that marginalises the origins of GamerGate and fails to address the issues that underly its targeting of women is ignoring blatant sexism and thus misogynist. This is not a hard argument to fathom and one that has been made repeatedly and not addressed.
So... You're calling me a misogynist then? Thanks.
You're assuming that it started to target women? I've been told that the thing that was pushing that was 5 guys burgers and fries or something. Which was the campaign that did target Anita and maybe Zoe, not sure. But that's not #GG.
Afaik gamergate was about the journalism from the start.
They just kinda happened simultaneously because of all the drama.
And I did NOT say that anyone was only "allowed" to be a gamer based on anything.
Please would you stop asserting that I'm saying things that I'm not, it's coming across as really hostile. PLEASE STOP IT. I'm begging you.
I'm just saying that they have a consumer base of people that they know will reliably buy stuff. The study doesn't take that into consideration.
Not that female oriented games wouldn't sell alot of stuff, but a company spending half a billion dollars is less likely to take a risk than anyone else, so they gun for what they know. That's all I'm saying
One thing that's coming out in all this to alot of people that weren't aware is that most of the AAA game budget goes to marketing rather than development alot of the time. Which is a shame.
Really? Spending large amounts of money on teams of professionals (who are really good at their jobs, mind you), to produce and promote top-notch promotional content and drive public awareness is a shame? Do you think marketing is just something that happens by accident? It's a crucial component of the process: It's not enough to just build a game, people actually have to play it, and when you're fighting over the same pool of customers, a bad marketing campaign could mean the end of your company and thousands of job losses.
Just bear that in mind.
I'm not saying it's a shame because those marketing folks should all not be doing what they're doing, and that it's not necessary.
I'm saying it's a shame because the difference between marketing and development is so huge, and considering alot of labour practices are questionable, I, as someone working in games, would like for devs to get a bigger cut. That might be biased, but I think it's reasonable to want people in similar situations to my own to be treated well.
It's not as simple as corruption. There are cases of journalists reporting on people that they just know too well (which is an objectivity issue), and receiving stuff from developers before writing good reviews etc, which bring the issue of transparency into question. They need to at the very least mention that in the article.
Now you're doing what they are doing. Give specific examples that they cite, and then I will ask you about all the other instances of poor ethics that they just don't seem to care about in the least.
By "know too well" I am assuming you have never actually attended industry events. People who make games, market games, write about games - these are all people with common interests, and these are people who tend to get along superbly well. And generally, where a specific instance of disclosure is required, I do find that sites are generally very aware of the need to provide said disclosure - this is why I ask for specific examples.
Asking for journalistic ethics is fine, nothing wrong with that, but when groups of very poorly informed people rally en masse to damage sites and their revenue streams, they had better have damn good and specific reasons for doing so.
It's not as simple as corruption. There are cases of journalists reporting on people that they just know too well (which is an objectivity issue), and receiving stuff from developers before writing good reviews etc, which bring the issue of transparency into question. They need to at the very least mention that in the article.
Now you're doing what they are doing. Give specific examples that they cite, and then I will ask you about all the other instances of poor ethics that they just don't seem to care about in the least.
By "know too well" I am assuming you have never actually attended industry events. People who make games, market games, write about games - these are all people with common interests, and these are people who tend to get along superbly well. And generally, where a specific instance of disclosure is required, I do find that sites are generally very aware of the need to provide said disclosure - this is why I ask for specific examples.
Asking for journalistic ethics is fine, nothing wrong with that, but when groups of very poorly informed people rally en masse to damage sites and their revenue streams, they had better have damn good and specific reasons for doing so.
And I'm intentionally avoiding specific examples, because honestly I'm just so done with the animosity and the hatred. I just want to have a reasonable discussion about it.
Thing is just that despite there being any specific cases OR NOT, the companies involved could update their policies about conflicts of interest and objectivity, transparency etc and people would likely be appeased (somewhat at least)?
But, yeah Jimmy Wales responds to this guy well. Although there were like 5 emails weren't there? I read parts of the first one and realised the guy was being stupid, and Jimmy Wales was just telling him so over and over, didn't feel the need to read all of it, since it seemed to repeat itself again and again.
Thing is just that despite there being any specific cases OR NOT, the companies involved could update their policies about conflicts of interest and objectivity, transparency etc and people would likely be appeased (somewhat at least)?
Again, I have to see examples of sites that do not have some kind of transparency info in their terms.
Specifics are very important here as it separates it being a "cause" worthy of attention from it being just a bunch of misdirected anger.
I'm saying it's a shame because the difference between marketing and development is so huge, and considering alot of labour practices are questionable, I, as someone working in games, would like for devs to get a bigger cut. That might be biased, but I think it's reasonable to want people in similar situations to my own to be treated well.
I can't disagree with that logic, and the employment situation for game devs, specially in first-world markets, is intense. Game devs are hired for single projects, then fired again to reduce costs, over and over again. Of course this isn't true everywhere, but given that game dev is such a complex topic, and publishers need to meet market-related deadlines, it's not really surprising.
What there should really be, imo, is less pressure on studios to produce games. Right now, everyone's fighting to be the firstest and the biggest and the bestest, and people's wellbeing is not even an afterthought. I'd rather have more, smaller studios, with well-employed and well-compensated creators, producing good games at a slower pace. Then again maybe that's just me :)
Thing is just that despite there being any specific cases OR NOT, the companies involved could update their policies about conflicts of interest and objectivity, transparency etc and people would likely be appeased (somewhat at least)?
Again, I have to see examples of sites that do not have some kind of transparency info in their terms.
Specifics are very important here as it separates it being a "cause" worthy of attention from it being just a bunch of misdirected anger.
Yes, I'm under the impression that the Escapist is one that updated their policies pretty fast when gamergate started being a thing. The date of that article is 8 Sept, so that lines up as far as I can tell?
Also interesting that despite the owner/ceo/whatever title lead guy is against gamergate, he chose to give them a place where they wouldn't be censored. Although I imagine they're still blocking all kindsa people for saying stupid things
This is an interesting thing though. Guy states he's trying to (with community help) put together a fair sequence of events.
The thing that I've found endlessly frustrating in any discussion about Gamergate is that people are approaching it with fundamentally different knowledge bases. Which isn't a problem in and of itself, but a lot of the time there seems to be a lack of willingness to stop and consider that the way the other person is using language is entirely different to how you're doing it.
Gaters, specifically the ones who genuinely believe they're acting with good intentions and want to bring about a positive change, are constantly assailed with accusations of misogyny and other forms of bigotry. Their responses invariably take the form of "that's not what I said," "this movement isn't about gender," or "minorities support Gamergate."
I often agree with those accusations, and I feel the above retorts aren't good enough, but it's always really obvious that the gater in question doesn't understand the SJW/feminist/anti-gater's reasons for calling them out on specific behaviour. They seem to have missed that from the feminist (just going to use that as shorthand henceforth) perspective, you don't have to drop slurs, or explicitly state "I subscribe to x form of bigotry" to be a bigot. Which I agree with, problematic behaviour is perniciously subtle a lot of the time (look up microaggression theory, it's dope).
Feminists, by contrast, often seem to forget that they have some combination of years' worth of postgraduate education on the matter and a good chunk of time spent discussing these issues in various IRL and online feminist spaces. The way they talk about gender and related politics is vastly different from the common-sense understanding.
So while I think the mass response to Leigh Alexander's Gamasutra piece being "THE FEMINAZIS THINK WE'RE DEAD AND THEY'RE COMING TO TAKE OUR VIDEO GAMES" falls somewhere between genuine misunderstanding and unwillingness to engage, perhaps nuanced intertextual references to Roland Barthes and the writing that stemmed from Death of the Author in a non-academic setting could be better explained.
That kind of explains one chunk of my feelings around Gamergate (there are a lot). Just as a disclaimer, I don't think the truth is somewhere in the middle, I fully agree with the concept of intersectional feminism(s), and I am opposed to the hashtag. I'm just frustrated that dialogue is hindered by these factors.
I'm saying it's a shame because the difference between marketing and development is so huge, and considering alot of labour practices are questionable, I, as someone working in games, would like for devs to get a bigger cut. That might be biased, but I think it's reasonable to want people in similar situations to my own to be treated well.
I can't disagree with that logic, and the employment situation for game devs, specially in first-world markets, is intense. Game devs are hired for single projects, then fired again to reduce costs, over and over again. Of course this isn't true everywhere, but given that game dev is such a complex topic, and publishers need to meet market-related deadlines, it's not really surprising.
What there should really be, imo, is less pressure on studios to produce games. Right now, everyone's fighting to be the firstest and the biggest and the bestest, and people's wellbeing is not even an afterthought. I'd rather have more, smaller studios, with well-employed and well-compensated creators, producing good games at a slower pace. Then again maybe that's just me :)
And yeah the hiring, firing, hiring, firing is sucky for lots of people. :/ Sad really. But it's significantly easier to fire full time eployees in America than here for example. Which in itself might be contributing to the issues there?
How do smaller studios become more relevant if AAA spends hundreds of millions on marketing to win though? D : Stuff like steam and their bundles help alot I guess, but still that marketing really goes far.
I might entirely agree with you on that though. But the big guys could still treat their people well. I mean Riot's pretty big, and I think I saw somewhere that they're considered one of the best places in terms of being treated well. (Yay Riot) They just don't always, because money money money. :'(
It might be good if more people were up in arms about that xD
The thing that I've found endlessly frustrating in any discussion about Gamergate is that people are approaching it with fundamentally different knowledge bases. Which isn't a problem in and of itself, but a lot of the time there seems to be a lack of willingness to stop and consider that the way the other person is using language is entirely different to how you're doing it.
Gaters, specifically the ones who genuinely believe they're acting with good intentions and want to bring about a positive change, are constantly assailed with accusations of misogyny and other forms of bigotry. Their responses invariably take the form of "that's not what I said," "this movement isn't about gender," or "minorities support Gamergate."
I often agree with those accusations, and I feel the above retorts aren't good enough, but it's always really obvious that the gater in question doesn't understand the SJW/feminist/anti-gater's reasons for calling them out on specific behaviour. They seem to have missed that from the feminist (just going to use that as shorthand henceforth) perspective, you don't have to drop slurs, or explicitly state "I subscribe to x form of bigotry" to be a bigot. Which I agree with, problematic behaviour is perniciously subtle a lot of the time (look up microaggression theory, it's dope).
One thing that you're not stating with this is that it goes both ways right? Alot of people feel the bigotry is coming from anti-gg. Me, I think everyone in this discussion is kind of a bigot in one way or another. That's the problem though. Nobody listening to anybody.
Feminists, by contrast, often seem to forget that they have some combination of years' worth of postgraduate education on the matter and a good chunk of time spent discussing these issues in various IRL and online feminist spaces. The way they talk about gender and related politics is vastly different from the common-sense understanding.
So while I think the mass response to Leigh Alexander's Gamasutra piece being "THE FEMINAZIS THINK WE'RE DEAD AND THEY'RE COMING TO TAKE OUR VIDEO GAMES" falls somewhere between genuine misunderstanding and unwillingness to engage, perhaps nuanced intertextual references to Roland Barthes and the writing that stemmed from Death of the Author in a non-academic setting could be better explained.
That kind of explains one chunk of my feelings around Gamergate (there are a lot). Just as a disclaimer, I don't think the truth is somewhere in the middle, I fully agree with the concept of intersectional feminism(s), and I am opposed to the hashtag. I'm just frustrated that dialogue is hindered by these factors.
You're not wrong about the way that people are talking way past eachother without the discussion making any progress at all. It's happening way too often. Dx
Although I really don't think that's why people are hating on Leigh. She's said some really problematic things (outside of those articles), and is poking the mob with a cattle prod alot of the time. I get that she hates them, but it just doesn't seem like a wise thing to do.
Looking a little bit into microaggression I would say that there is alot of that happening wrt gamers in general at the moment which is awful. Not trying to belittle anything or anyone, just pointing it out.
One thing that you're not stating with this is that it goes both ways right? Alot of people feel the bigotry is coming from anti-gg. Me, I think everyone in this discussion is kind of a bigot in one way or another. That's the problem though. Nobody listening to anybody.
You raise a good point and you're right, people have said and done shitty things on both sides of this, and the images you're showing are pretty good evidence of that. I'm not sure I have a good response for it though, I could say that the most vocal opponents of Gamergate tend to be level-headed and empathetic, but I've certainly seen lapses, and that doesn't excuse that some people are saying awful things in the name of a group that supports social justice and inclusivity.
There is a tendency on the anti-gg side to dismiss the complexity of the movement and to view it just as a monolothic misogynistic hate machine. Those elements are there. We can't deny that. But Gamergate consists of a number of sects with various concerns; yesterday a bunch of them took to a mass 'fact-checking' operation where they're trying to (I think, nobody's been clear about this) prove that DiGRA is publishing papers to forward a feminist agenda and somehow exert control over games journalism and game development. It's a many headed beast, and while its origins, and arguably its driving force is rooted in wanting to silence women and feminists in gaming, understanding and responding to GamerGate changes depending on which agenda you're dealing with.
Although I really don't think that's why people are hating on Leigh. She's said some really problematic things (outside of those articles), and is poking the mob with a cattle prod alot of the time. I get that she hates them, but it just doesn't seem like a wise thing to do.
I know she's been at the centre of a lot of controversies, but I'm not well read on those and I don't think I'm fully equipped to go into a lengthy discussion about that. So yeah, there are other factors, but since that article was published, it's been one of the first things mentioned in discussions about why people are mad about games journalism and why they're mad at Leigh Alexander. I don't think we can ignore the role that article plays in the current situation.
Looking a little bit into microaggression I would say that there is alot of that happening wrt gamers in general at the moment which is awful. Not trying to belittle anything or anyone, just pointing it out.
Could you give examples? Not saying they're not happening, just wondering what you'd consider a microaggression against gamers?
(I'm kidding, I have several of these around me all day, and I love them dearly despite their need to roll around on my keyboard)
Well the #neverkissagamer thing is happening... Nevermind that it's probably a problem from a feminist perspective, but it's really just unnecessary and hateful.
Also "gamer culture is trash and an embarrassment, it makes me ashamed to be involved with gaming." ala twitter
There were alot more, but for some reason screencapping those awful tweets and keeping them in a public git repo was considered to be harassment and it was all taken down? (WEIRD)
@brondin So they go on a big fact-checking operation to show that there's a "feminist agenda" to try and influence game development. Proving that, as viewed through their crooked perspective is easy. OF COURSE there are women/men trying to influence game development to lay off the sexist crap - why wouldn't there be?
@eSculpt: I think the cat might be the best example of a microaggression, actually :P I think those other ones are just straight-up aggressions, there's no subtlety to them, it's just shittiness towards gamers. It's really disappointing, because Leigh Alexander and others have been making very nuanced, useful commentary on the use of the term 'gamer' and its status as an identity, and the people you've quoted here embody the strawmen that many in Gamergate try to make of Alexander et al.
Btw, Moms Against Gaming account is a parody account, those aren't their real views. Parody is tricky of course, and I suppose someone could make the argument that the others were being satirical, but yeah, intent isn't all that important if your joke falls flat.
Also, now that I think about it, I'm not so sure how I feel about applying microaggression theory to gamers, especially given that the point of it was to explain subtle system oppression of marginalised groups, when gamers are a niche identity centred around a hobby, and don't suffer discrimination anywhere near the extent to which women, people of colour, and queer people experience.
@rustybroomhandle It is the most absurd thing, but I'm also weirdly fascinated by it, because it means that academic literature on video games will actually be read by a large-ish audience. I've been posting recommended feminist readings to the hashtag, because this might be the closest Gamergate as a whole has actually come to engaging with feminist theory. :D
@eSculpt: I think the cat might be the best example of a microaggression, actually :P I think those other ones are just straight-up aggressions, there's no subtlety to them, it's just shittiness towards gamers. It's really disappointing, because Leigh Alexander and others have been making very nuanced, useful commentary on the use of the term 'gamer' and its status as an identity, and the people you've quoted here embody the strawmen that many in Gamergate try to make of Alexander et al.
Btw, Moms Against Gaming account is a parody account, those aren't their real views. Parody is tricky of course, and I suppose someone could make the argument that the others were being satirical, but yeah, intent isn't all that important if your joke falls flat.
Also, now that I think about it, I'm not so sure how I feel about applying microaggression theory to gamers, especially given that the point of it was to explain subtle system oppression of marginalised groups, when gamers are a niche identity centred around a hobby, and don't suffer discrimination anywhere near the extent to which women, people of colour, and queer people experience.
@rustybroomhandle It is the most absurd thing, but I'm also weirdly fascinated by it, because it means that academic literature on video games will actually be read by a large-ish audience. I've been posting recommended feminist readings to the hashtag, because this might be the closest Gamergate as a whole has actually come to engaging with feminist theory. :D
Wow you're brave. I'm not even going close to that hashtag on twitter. xD
But, I disagree. Microaggressions aren't just about marginalised groups.
Psychologist and Columbia University professor Derald Wing Sue defined microaggressions as "brief, everyday exchanges that send denigrating messages to certain individuals because of their group membership."
Group membership could mean anything from "gamer" to "white" to "male"?
Not posting to GamerGate, posting to OperationDiggingDiGRA, the offshoot that's devoted to discussing this stuff. So not that brave. :P
The theory was proposed as a means of explaining contemporary instantiations of racism, and has since been applied to gender and sexuality as well. The common definition of it makes recourse to encounters between a member of a privileged group and a member of a marginalised group. I can see the logic in calling gamers a marginalised group, but I'd avoid going about doing that, because I don't want to imply that gamers have, in any sense, even come close to experiencing the same sort of oppression and discrimination as those who are subject to racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia.
The broader, less explicitly ideological definition does imply that it could be used in a variety of other cases, but I just want us to be clear about the fact that discrimination faced by gamers is quantitatively and qualitatively different to discrimination faced by say, people of colour.
I can see the logic in calling gamers a marginalised group, but I'd avoid going about doing that, because I don't want to imply that gamers have, in any sense, even come close to experiencing the same sort of oppression and discrimination as those who are subject to racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia.
Well alot of them have, because they are to some extent, minorities, women and LGBT folks.
Yep, it's called intersectionality. We fit into multiple identity categories, some of which are privileged, while being marginalised on multiple fronts ends up compounding, and all of that needs to be taken into account when taking about oppression :)
Here's a great article by Samantha Allen on using Bastion to teach her feminist theory students about intersectionality: http://borderhouseblog.com/?p=11456
Yep, it's called intersectionality. We fit into multiple identity categories, some of which are privileged, while being marginalised on multiple fronts ends up compounding, and all of that needs to be taken into account when taking about oppression :)
Here's a great article by Samantha Allen on using Bastion to teach her feminist theory students about intersectionality: http://borderhouseblog.com/?p=11456
"If you want to practice an intersectional politics, you have to focus on the ways in which all systems of oppression interact with each other." she says. Been trying to say this for weeks, but sadly I'm just met by "check your privelege white boy"... If I said I was a feminist and used academic feminist terms they would've listened? Irony. xD
Weirdly enough, people forget about academic privilege. They also forget how important jargon is to maintaining the discussions that take place in the academy, and how that jargon excludes people who aren't also experts in that field, whether by design or not. That's something I went through with my first year class last week, and something that I think we need to constantly be reminded, especially once we reach grad school and take up positions in academia. I mean, it could be possible that you did need to check your privilege, I wasn't privy to those discussions and I don't think it'd be terribly useful to analyse them now, but you're right in pointing out that academically-oriented feminists sometimes dismiss the opinions of those who don't use the jargon.
I'm more into Judith Butler's feminism, and her matrix of intelligibility does suggest a (really convoluted) hierarchy of privilege, but I'm really glad that this thread has reached the point where we're sharing Audre Lorde's writing. :D
But yeah in the case of gamergate, I feel like people are screaming jargon at gamers that aren't academics for the most part, and they then get dismissed for saying things that don't include the common jargon. Indicates a clear bias to me, and it concerns me alot, but yeah. I've not considered academic privelege. Check your academic privelege @bronding, jees :) hehe
And the one that nobody really likes to discuss of course is religious privelege, which does play a part, as all the other things do. I read some stuff about christian privelege a little while ago, that was interesting.
But yeah, great. I like her words. Some people call it socialist feminism, but I don't know if she's entirely that way. She just gets lumped in with it in some readings.
I'll look up the 'matrix of intelligibility'. Sounds like it may well be convoluted, but interesting nonetheless.
The jargon/academia/privilege thing is more complicated than how I've laid it out. Obviously that jargon has been used by journalists who aren't academics, and talking about academic privilege was basically the first way I thought to frame it because being in grad school and thinking about these issues around accessibility is part of my personal experience. After three years of engaging with critical theory day in and day out, as well as being surrounded by people who agree with feminism and related schools of thought, I also forget that not everyone's studied this stuff or engaged with it outside of the academy to the extent that I have, and a pedagogical approach is often better than shouting people down. At the same time, being straight, white, and cis, I don't face microaggressions and oppression every second of my life, so I don't hold it against anyone who is from a marginalised group and reacts to people's shitty worldviews with a demeanour that isn't particularly calm.
Discovering Judith Butler changed my life, seriously. Her writing is just about impenetrable though, so consider finding a secondary source that summarises it in simpler language.
The jargon/academia/privilege thing is more complicated than how I've laid it out. Obviously that jargon has been used by journalists who aren't academics, and talking about academic privilege was basically the first way I thought to frame it because being in grad school and thinking about these issues around accessibility is part of my personal experience. After three years of engaging with critical theory day in and day out, as well as being surrounded by people who agree with feminism and related schools of thought, I also forget that not everyone's studied this stuff or engaged with it outside of the academy to the extent that I have, and a pedagogical approach is often better than shouting people down. At the same time, being straight, white, and cis, I don't face microaggressions and oppression every second of my life, so I don't hold it against anyone who is from a marginalised group and reacts to people's shitty worldviews with a demeanour that isn't particularly calm.
Discovering Judith Butler changed my life, seriously. Her writing is just about impenetrable though, so consider finding a secondary source that summarises it in simpler language.
Of course, nothing is ever as simple as the brief mention of it in a forum post makes it seem. ;P
But aw. I'll go look for an interpretation somewheres ;_;
The jargon/academia/privilege thing is more complicated than how I've laid it out. Obviously that jargon has been used by journalists who aren't academics, and talking about academic privilege was basically the first way I thought to frame it because being in grad school and thinking about these issues around accessibility is part of my personal experience. After three years of engaging with critical theory day in and day out, as well as being surrounded by people who agree with feminism and related schools of thought, I also forget that not everyone's studied this stuff or engaged with it outside of the academy to the extent that I have, and a pedagogical approach is often better than shouting people down.
Just on this academic privilege point: Just because someone is using terms that are easily definable and googleable, doesn't mean that they're abusing academic privilege; It can simply mean that they're talking about those topics and those are the best terms that describe those particular things. Using overly complicated academic jargon is definitely problematic when people are trying to obscure and prevent discussion by other people without years and years of degrees to their name. But I'm honestly not seeing that in any discussions here so far.
What I have seen is repeated attempts at engaging in coherent argument being ignored and deflected into "Stop attacking me!" derailment tactics. That doesn't help anyone and it's really sad watching otherwise intelligent people (hey, they can type) engaging in second-rate rhetorical tricks like that to avoid actually discussing certain things.
"If you want to practice an intersectional politics, you have to focus on the ways in which all systems of oppression interact with each other." she says. Been trying to say this for weeks, but sadly I'm just met by "check your privelege white boy"... If I said I was a feminist and used academic feminist terms they would've listened? Irony. xD
It's not irony. It's a result of you not proving how well-reasoned articles are in any way a form of oppression. It's a result of your argument consisting of trying to equate cherry-picked reactionary vitriol against GamerGate (that admittedly is horrible stuff and generally shouldn't have been said) with what Leigh Alexander wrote when the two are not in any way the same. (And before you make the "but you're doing exactly the same thing!" accusation, be aware that people are responding to GamerGate's *most rational* arguments as well and finding them sorely lacking in both sense and content - case in point, this DiGRA fact-checking malarky)
Perhaps if you'd used more academic terms, you wouldn't be insisting that gamers are being attacked - but I doubt that ;)
"If you want to practice an intersectional politics, you have to focus on the ways in which all systems of oppression interact with each other." she says. Been trying to say this for weeks, but sadly I'm just met by "check your privelege white boy"... If I said I was a feminist and used academic feminist terms they would've listened? Irony. xD
It's not irony. It's a result of you not proving how well-reasoned articles are in any way a form of oppression. It's a result of your argument consisting of trying to equate cherry-picked reactionary vitriol against GamerGate (that admittedly is horrible stuff and generally shouldn't have been said) with what Leigh Alexander wrote when the two are not in any way the same. (And before you make the "but you're doing exactly the same thing!" accusation, be aware that people are responding to GamerGate's *most rational* arguments as well and finding them sorely lacking in both sense and content - case in point, this DiGRA fact-checking malarky)
Perhaps if you'd used more academic terms, you wouldn't be insisting that gamers are being attacked - but I doubt that ;)
yeah I'm just gonna go ahead and add you to my ignore list, because everything you say comes across as a taunt
@dislekcia : All good points! I think I maybe got carried away trying to explain the 'Gamergate doesn't understand feminism' point. I was also referring mostly to people who do seem to be arguing in good faith and are trying to engage but don't seem to have the necessary vocabulary. Unfortunately that seems to be a pretty small portion of the arguments I've seen. They're there, but so much of it seems to be the sort of derailment you've mentioned, which ranges from lazy to straight-up hostile.
Not sure if you've noticed this, but since the CH Sommers video came out (this could have started at another point, this is just when I picked up on it), pro-GG folks have appropriated what, I guess they believe to be, 'SJW jargon', and now a lot of responses tend to use the sort of language that Gamergate's opponents use, but some twisted bizarro version that tries to frame them as the victims SJWs (I hate that term, and the fact that they think 'fundamentally decent human being who wants equality' is an insult). As if they're the ones being 'oppressed' and 'silenced' and 'mansplained to'.
Comments
Getting people to buy more indie games, thereby eroding the market hold of the AAA studios that pander to the problem audience - that's doing something. Building more indie games to create a bigger market, that's doing something. Changing the discussion away from all the problems gamers create, to the problems games can solve, that's doing something too, and I'm all for all of the above.
I don't think just talking about the issue itself, in its current form, will achieve anything significant. If you really want to kill GamerGate, you need to kill the other side's leverage. Right now they're a bunch of loudmouth shitbirds with industry leverage - with the right actions, we can just reduce them to loudmouth shitbirds with the industry on our side instead. And the only way you swing an industry is by providing it with customers it can profit from - harsh, maybe, but true.
Oh, and if you enjoy laughing at Davis "I think I'm Kane from C&C" Aurini, definitely watch this video :
(warning, strong language, hate speech)
A kickstarter about journalistic ethics and feminism, brought to you by a man who is one bad date away from becoming the next Elliot Rodgers. Seems legit.
I don't think GamerGate will ever be settled. It's built on fault lines that look a lot like religion and politics, and until we all become better human beings, we'll keep dealing with problems like this. I reckon it's a healthier approach to just make the best of it: Do what you can with what you've got.
Most of the power in GamerGate comes from the people who feel slighted by misrepresented "attacks on gaming" and thus lend their voices to a hateful movement. If those people weren't legitimising GG, it would have a lot less impact... I'm trying to directly influence those people - the moderates caught in the us-vs-them trap - so that they can get out of it, as well as the people who have yet to form strong opinions about said trap. That means undermining the sources of misunderstanding that power this particular groupthink situation: Unthinking sexism, fear of poorly understood feminism and unexamined personal privilege.
It's only by talking about these things that people who are unaware of them can inoculate themselves against falling for shit like GG in the future and properly defend against it now. So yeah, I'm working on doing exactly what you're talking about.
Maybe I can illustrate it. Not a lot of people are too worried about the KKK. They're a little fringe group with offbeat beliefs and they mainly keep to themselves. I'd easily equate them with Isis - a group of people with offbeat beliefs that mainly keep to themselves. The difference is, Isis has a serious amount of firepower, and that's because, through whatever complex international diplomatic processes, they ended up with a lot of American military hardware.
So now they're not just radical isolationists - they're armed radical isolationists, because they have the resources they need to carry out their designs for the world.
In much the same way, the dolts in the middle of all this have their beliefs, their misogyny and narrow-mindedness and paranoia and what have you, but crucially, they have the ear of the AAA studios. Big companies spend billions of dollars building games to appeal to that sector of the market, because that's where all the money is. The companies don't really care about the morality or ethics of any of this - that's not why they're in business.
If you change that, if you make it more profitable, more reliable, for companies like, say, Activision, to build and publish almost exclusively smaller, artistic titles that appeal to more people, and take ethics and social issues into account, then those dolts lose their grip on the discussion. People will stop listening to them because their concerns (that gaming is being eroded, that the culture is being destroyed by radicalized feminism) are no longer valid.
You can do that, if you can make the business case that it's a smart investment move. I definitely think it's a smart cultural move, but again, big companies don't care for culture, only profit. So use that against them - make it more profitable to produce the sort of games that everyone can play, and that nobody has to feel minimized by. Treat all of indie gaming as a massive real-world experiment that proves that you can make good money from large amounts of smaller titles with better souls.
I think that's a better use of time. Instead of confronting GG head-on, fighting this battle on their terms, rather change the shape of the battlefield as a whole. Get them to fight on your terms, and since they have no real grievance, they'll lose.
That might be true, but how would you plan to make those games more profitable than what AAA presently is? I mean those kinds of smaller scope artsy diverse titles exist already, but in general they aren't more profitable.
You'd have to change the appeal sensibilities of the consumers to do that.
At present they make what they make because it sells right, because like you said, they only really care about the business of it.
How would you assert that anyone changes so many people's preferences?
He and other douchebags like Adam Baldwin, Thunderf00t, Nero and CH Sommers, have latched themselves onto GamerGate to take advantage of the collective outrage to promote their own noxious agendas. With friends like those, who needs enemies, right?
These are the kinds of creeps that people like Anita and Zoe have to deal with.
He's a real misogynist. Understand why people want to destroy the sarkeesian effect now! xD
Get more "normal people" to buy more indie games, it's as simple as that. Candy Crush and Angry Birds have proven that you can take small, simple games, to the masses, and make some decent money. Now let's just keep repeating that until the entire landscape shifts - does that make sense?
Right now, sales figures from most indie games are too small for big companies to notice. Minecraft just sold to Microsoft for $2.5bn. That would definitely have made some investors sit up, take notice of this "indie game thing", and go, "maybe there is some real money to be made here".
Would you rather have the top 10 charts dominated by games like Minecraft and Risk of Rain? Then get more people to spend more money in the ecosystem.
Adam Baldwin - Likes to rant about gays, liberals, feminists. Link Link
Thunderf00t - Got kicked out of the mainstream atheist community for being a douche with a chip on his shoulder about feminists, likes to complain about how anti-harassment policies at conferences spoil the fun, now spends much of his time making videos about how feminists are eeeeevvvil. - Link
Nero - Real name is Milo Yiannopoulos, is a shitty person with a chip on his shoulder about feminism, amongst other things. Link Link Link
CH Sommers - Calls herself a feminist, but has spent decades twisting the truth to try to make feminists look bad. Her views are closer to the MRA than feminism. Link Link. And please enjoy this video picking apart her sneaky tricks on gamergate, set to music.
"@AdamBaldwin What hard evidence is there that Obama doesn't want ebola in America?"
Dude's as crazy as Aurini, in his own way.
You're calling a group of people that include feminists, minorities, men, women, kids etc all misogynists. It just looks bad. And it's fueling the fire.
I don't see why a company that's doing it for the business would cut out the slice of pie that's giving them big moneys.
But yeah, fair enough expanding the pie so to speak, would certainly help your cause. But how would you do that?
I mean we know a toooon of people are getting into mobile and stuff, because lots of people have a phone. And there's a lot of money there. I think flappy bird showed us that in a big way too. But that doesn't mean that games like that will become quite as profitable as like.. Well, Destiny's one. They made their $500m back in a day, but man I'd love to see their total profit figures at this point.
And it's understandable that big AAA studios are gunning for that. Sure smaller games can make good money, but I don't think AAA's just gonna stop doing that stuff to shift to small scale indie?
AAA could be more inclusive, and will be after so much fuss has been made. At least, one would hope. But I don't see why they would target a different audience entirely.
Smaller studios can do what you're proposing perhaps, but big studios have different targets and company expenses (?).
It's also a 50-50 split between the genders in terms of buying games, so it would be extremely surprising if more revenue were commanded by openly sexist games. The far more likely explanation for AAA games containing sexist tropes/elements is simply because the developers making them don't realise it. Once points are raised, devs tend to acknowledge them and state that they'd like to do better and be more inclusive. It's generally the isolated subset of gamers that feel attacked by feminist messages and understanding that get all shouty about "protecting" "their" games.
Also, nope, revenue numbers aren't commanded by AAA studios. All you're seeing is how AAA publishers are trying to out-spend each other to market their games and make their ROI. That doesn't mean that a game that was much cheaper to make returns worse than your average AAA title. Remember that loads of AA and AAA studios are constantly going out of business as well. This is exactly what GamerGate seems to be pushing against the most: Including more people in gaming. There's always this desire to police who can or can't be a gamer, or what is or isn't a game (see the hatred of Depression Quest and the reason GG piled on Zoe), based on arbitrary criteria. There's also this concept of "defending" gaming from the dire forces of inclusivity... Again, this is all already happening. The issue is that GG is actively trying to hamstring people's ability to both make games AND have impacts on other people (normal or otherwise) by silencing them.
Immature reactions aren't the fault of the things those reactions are to. Because the actual market isn't only made up of hormonal teen men? And because the targeting of said hormonal teen men is an artifact of several feedback forces in the game development industry and marketing spheres, rather than a coherent campaign from an entire industry's worth of people.
This is a brilliant article about how games came to be marketed at young men - it turns out it has everything to do with how easy it is to target a broad swath of a specific demographic than it is about what gender people were trying to make games for.
P.S. I really need to point out here that the "hormonal teen men" stereotype is a stupid sexist construct that feminism is trying to defuse too.
And they're not en masse acting like they're misogynists. They're asking for ethical press. They condemn harassment, and support inclusivity in games. I don't get how that makes 'em all misogynists. The name does stick however, because everyone's calling them that despite what they're actually doing. I mean a while ago 4chan donated a ton of money towards TFYC's campaign, and someone (horrible group of people) hacked their crowdfunding and things got really screwy. And the reason why it's a problem, is because people are being harassed professionally and losing jobs because of the stupid 'gamers are misogynists' thing that's currently going on. It's bad.
And why would you call them hormonal teen men if you yourself are aware that it's stupid and sexist? And you can say that "feminism" is trying to break that down, but I see feminists pulling the "gross gamer nerd" stuff all the time. Which is also really unfortunate.
And wrt to that study you linked, I think it could have some problems potentially?
It considers everyone who plays games right, which is definitely good, but the reason marketing targets a specific audience is also because stuff like collector's eds and merch etc which they perceive those people as being more likely to buy? I mean it doesn't all boil down to game copy sales, it's a whole IP with a whole range of goods to be consumed?
Not that it's right to do things that way, but their marketing follows the money?
One thing that's coming out in all this to alot of people that weren't aware is that most of the AAA game budget goes to marketing rather than development alot of the time. Which is a shame.
That and the way certain people have been speaking, being racist and hateful etc in the name of their organisations is irritating alot of people, because in more mainstream press, they would've gotten kicked to the curb for that kinda nonsense.
Questioning that kind of stuff is entirely reasonable.
Steam changed their policies that curators have to disclose that kind of stuff in all this though, which is a step forward
If you're referring to Zoe Quinn, then yeah it has nothing to do with anything. But very few actually care about her. Unfortunately some people lost their cool about it earlier on, when that stupid story came out, and it's a damn shame, because that's really the reason people are hating.
The majority of everyone condemns the harassment, but there's nothing they can do about it, they don't know who did it.
There has been a big public apology to Zoe Quinn thread on TheEscapist that a ton of people are signing though.
1. World of Warcraft - Blizzard - $10bn
2. CoD Black Ops - Treyarch/Activision - $1.5bn
3. Mario Kart - Nintendo - $1.4bn
4. GTA4 - Rockstar - $1.35bn
5. Wii Play - Nintendo - $1.25bn
6. New Super Mario Bros - Nintendo - $1.2bn
7. Gran Turismo - SCEE - $850m
8. CoD Modern Warfare 2 - Infinity Ward/Activision- $780m
9. The Sims - EA - $740m
10. CoD Mordern Warfare 1 - Infinity Ward/Activision - $700m
I don't know about you, but I'm seeing a lot of Nintendo, Blizzard and Activision in that list, are they not the dictionary definition of AAA studios? The list for 2013 isn't much better:
1. GTA V - 25.75m units
2. CoD Ghosts - 12.71m units
3. FIFA 2014 - 8.11m units
4. Pokemon X&Y - 7.64m units
5. Assassin's Creed IV - 4.11m units
6. The Last Of Us - 3.69m units
7. Animal Crossing - 3.35m units
8. Tomb Raider - 3.18m units
9. Monster Hunter IV - 3.05m units
10. Bioshock Infinite - 2.89m units
A slightly more diverse list of games in 2013, yes, but GTA V dominates the charts there, and GTA V is not exactly all-audience-friendly. Maybe these AAA studios are in fact outspending eachother, but that doesn't change the fact that they're selling the most games, and people are playing those games.
I suggest you research #notallmen and why making that same argument here isn't helping anyone. Anyone that marginalises the origins of GamerGate and fails to address the issues that underly its targeting of women is ignoring blatant sexism and thus misogynist. This is not a hard argument to fathom and one that has been made repeatedly and not addressed.
Yes, hacking and attacks are bad. If there was a hashtag and an organised movement behind actions like that, I wouldn't stand for that movement, even if it theoretically supported things that I cared about in other ways. In fact, I'd condemn it pretty damn strongly! I DO condemn that hack pretty damn strongly!
Also, you realise that the whole TFYC angle is literally 4chan's GG crowd trying to create smokescreens, right? There are logs of conversations saying exactly that. The TFYC thing has been blown out of proportion completely, from their site going down under load after people tweeted about it, to TFYC not being able to address legitimate criticism of their policy towards trans women. TFYC themselves have said that they handled it badly, should have done things better and that there's no evidence of either doxxing or DDOS attacks on them. The whole TFYC thing is just more false justification for actions - it's not as though any of it actually DOES excuse other actions by GamerGate stalwarts. "Nuh-uh, they did it too" stopped being a defense against responsibility when we were 12. I used the term to emphasise how strange the logic behind targeting a grouping designated like that actually is. I added the explanation to make it clear that I don't condone that grouping. The problems you're saying you have with the study are because it doesn't artificially gate who's allowed to be a gamer? Really?
The forces that sell collectors editions and merchandise are not the same as the pre-design targeting of specific gendered groups by marketing message research. Are you suggesting that collectors editions of non-gendered products wouldn't sell? Which do you think makes more money: AAA merchandise or Angry Birds merchandise?
Collectors and limited editions are more about price anchoring and value securing than returning a profit on those specific SKUs, I'd be very surprised if the majority of those editions didn't actually return a slight loss or at least, less than a regular game sale. You see the same thing in the higher tiers of Kickstarter campaigns all the time - they're there to provide impetus to the campaign so that lower tiers get backed. I'm not really sure what argument you're making here, other than "specific people aren't really gamers because they don't support games enough" for magical values of enough... No. That's what that article I linked explains: Marketing follows efficiency of marketing spending. That does not directly correlate with resulting revenue, it only lowers costs in competitive markets and will completely ignore other market segments that it hasn't historically targeted until further cost reduction is no longer possible. If these are the same people that are surprised that people in game journalism and game development know each other and are often friends, then yeah. I would argue that everyone else already figured that out every time the games press wrote about how much spending went into marketing each new AAA summer blockbuster.
Just bear that in mind.
You're assuming that it started to target women? I've been told that the thing that was pushing that was 5 guys burgers and fries or something. Which was the campaign that did target Anita and maybe Zoe, not sure. But that's not #GG.
Afaik gamergate was about the journalism from the start.
They just kinda happened simultaneously because of all the drama.
And I did NOT say that anyone was only "allowed" to be a gamer based on anything.
Please would you stop asserting that I'm saying things that I'm not, it's coming across as really hostile. PLEASE STOP IT. I'm begging you.
I'm just saying that they have a consumer base of people that they know will reliably buy stuff. The study doesn't take that into consideration.
Not that female oriented games wouldn't sell alot of stuff, but a company spending half a billion dollars is less likely to take a risk than anyone else, so they gun for what they know. That's all I'm saying
I'm saying it's a shame because the difference between marketing and development is so huge, and considering alot of labour practices are questionable, I, as someone working in games, would like for devs to get a bigger cut. That might be biased, but I think it's reasonable to want people in similar situations to my own to be treated well.
By "know too well" I am assuming you have never actually attended industry events. People who make games, market games, write about games - these are all people with common interests, and these are people who tend to get along superbly well. And generally, where a specific instance of disclosure is required, I do find that sites are generally very aware of the need to provide said disclosure - this is why I ask for specific examples.
Asking for journalistic ethics is fine, nothing wrong with that, but when groups of very poorly informed people rally en masse to damage sites and their revenue streams, they had better have damn good and specific reasons for doing so.
Loosely related,
Sunday reading: Jimmy Wales: http://pastebin.com/thWdr0mB
Thing is just that despite there being any specific cases OR NOT, the companies involved could update their policies about conflicts of interest and objectivity, transparency etc and people would likely be appeased (somewhat at least)?
But, yeah Jimmy Wales responds to this guy well. Although there were like 5 emails weren't there? I read parts of the first one and realised the guy was being stupid, and Jimmy Wales was just telling him so over and over, didn't feel the need to read all of it, since it seemed to repeat itself again and again.
Specifics are very important here as it separates it being a "cause" worthy of attention from it being just a bunch of misdirected anger.
EDIT: Happened to be on The Escapist, and spotted this link at the bottom:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/editorials/12224-The-Official-Ethics-Policy-of-The-Escapist
What there should really be, imo, is less pressure on studios to produce games. Right now, everyone's fighting to be the firstest and the biggest and the bestest, and people's wellbeing is not even an afterthought. I'd rather have more, smaller studios, with well-employed and well-compensated creators, producing good games at a slower pace. Then again maybe that's just me :)
The date of that article is 8 Sept, so that lines up as far as I can tell?
Also interesting that despite the owner/ceo/whatever title lead guy is against gamergate, he chose to give them a place where they wouldn't be censored. Although I imagine they're still blocking all kindsa people for saying stupid things
This is an interesting thing though.
Guy states he's trying to (with community help) put together a fair sequence of events.
It's long though. Really long.
https://medium.com/@cainejw/a-narrative-of-gamergate-and-examination-of-claims-of-collusion-with-4chan-5cf6c1a52a60
(Please don't have at me for posting this, it's just information. If you think it's bollocks then say so, but be nice :) )
Gaters, specifically the ones who genuinely believe they're acting with good intentions and want to bring about a positive change, are constantly assailed with accusations of misogyny and other forms of bigotry. Their responses invariably take the form of "that's not what I said," "this movement isn't about gender," or "minorities support Gamergate."
I often agree with those accusations, and I feel the above retorts aren't good enough, but it's always really obvious that the gater in question doesn't understand the SJW/feminist/anti-gater's reasons for calling them out on specific behaviour. They seem to have missed that from the feminist (just going to use that as shorthand henceforth) perspective, you don't have to drop slurs, or explicitly state "I subscribe to x form of bigotry" to be a bigot. Which I agree with, problematic behaviour is perniciously subtle a lot of the time (look up microaggression theory, it's dope).
Feminists, by contrast, often seem to forget that they have some combination of years' worth of postgraduate education on the matter and a good chunk of time spent discussing these issues in various IRL and online feminist spaces. The way they talk about gender and related politics is vastly different from the common-sense understanding.
So while I think the mass response to Leigh Alexander's Gamasutra piece being "THE FEMINAZIS THINK WE'RE DEAD AND THEY'RE COMING TO TAKE OUR VIDEO GAMES" falls somewhere between genuine misunderstanding and unwillingness to engage, perhaps nuanced intertextual references to Roland Barthes and the writing that stemmed from Death of the Author in a non-academic setting could be better explained.
That kind of explains one chunk of my feelings around Gamergate (there are a lot). Just as a disclaimer, I don't think the truth is somewhere in the middle, I fully agree with the concept of intersectional feminism(s), and I am opposed to the hashtag. I'm just frustrated that dialogue is hindered by these factors.
How do smaller studios become more relevant if AAA spends hundreds of millions on marketing to win though? D :
Stuff like steam and their bundles help alot I guess, but still that marketing really goes far.
I might entirely agree with you on that though. But the big guys could still treat their people well. I mean Riot's pretty big, and I think I saw somewhere that they're considered one of the best places in terms of being treated well. (Yay Riot)
They just don't always, because money money money. :'(
It might be good if more people were up in arms about that xD
Alot of people feel the bigotry is coming from anti-gg. Me, I think everyone in this discussion is kind of a bigot in one way or another. That's the problem though. Nobody listening to anybody. You're not wrong about the way that people are talking way past eachother without the discussion making any progress at all.
It's happening way too often. Dx
Although I really don't think that's why people are hating on Leigh. She's said some really problematic things (outside of those articles), and is poking the mob with a cattle prod alot of the time. I get that she hates them, but it just doesn't seem like a wise thing to do.
Looking a little bit into microaggression I would say that there is alot of that happening wrt gamers in general at the moment which is awful. Not trying to belittle anything or anyone, just pointing it out.
and some hate speech. sadly.
There is a tendency on the anti-gg side to dismiss the complexity of the movement and to view it just as a monolothic misogynistic hate machine. Those elements are there. We can't deny that. But Gamergate consists of a number of sects with various concerns; yesterday a bunch of them took to a mass 'fact-checking' operation where they're trying to (I think, nobody's been clear about this) prove that DiGRA is publishing papers to forward a feminist agenda and somehow exert control over games journalism and game development. It's a many headed beast, and while its origins, and arguably its driving force is rooted in wanting to silence women and feminists in gaming, understanding and responding to GamerGate changes depending on which agenda you're dealing with. I know she's been at the centre of a lot of controversies, but I'm not well read on those and I don't think I'm fully equipped to go into a lengthy discussion about that. So yeah, there are other factors, but since that article was published, it's been one of the first things mentioned in discussions about why people are mad about games journalism and why they're mad at Leigh Alexander. I don't think we can ignore the role that article plays in the current situation. Could you give examples? Not saying they're not happening, just wondering what you'd consider a microaggression against gamers?
This monster is a clear example of the problem.
(I'm kidding, I have several of these around me all day, and I love them dearly despite their need to roll around on my keyboard)
Well the #neverkissagamer thing is happening... Nevermind that it's probably a problem from a feminist perspective, but it's really just unnecessary and hateful.
Also "gamer culture is trash and an embarrassment, it makes me ashamed to be involved with gaming." ala twitter
There were alot more, but for some reason screencapping those awful tweets and keeping them in a public git repo was considered to be harassment and it was all taken down? (WEIRD)
I think the cat might be the best example of a microaggression, actually :P I think those other ones are just straight-up aggressions, there's no subtlety to them, it's just shittiness towards gamers. It's really disappointing, because Leigh Alexander and others have been making very nuanced, useful commentary on the use of the term 'gamer' and its status as an identity, and the people you've quoted here embody the strawmen that many in Gamergate try to make of Alexander et al.
Btw, Moms Against Gaming account is a parody account, those aren't their real views. Parody is tricky of course, and I suppose someone could make the argument that the others were being satirical, but yeah, intent isn't all that important if your joke falls flat.
Also, now that I think about it, I'm not so sure how I feel about applying microaggression theory to gamers, especially given that the point of it was to explain subtle system oppression of marginalised groups, when gamers are a niche identity centred around a hobby, and don't suffer discrimination anywhere near the extent to which women, people of colour, and queer people experience.
@rustybroomhandle
It is the most absurd thing, but I'm also weirdly fascinated by it, because it means that academic literature on video games will actually be read by a large-ish audience. I've been posting recommended feminist readings to the hashtag, because this might be the closest Gamergate as a whole has actually come to engaging with feminist theory. :D
But, I disagree. Microaggressions aren't just about marginalised groups.
Psychologist and Columbia University professor Derald Wing Sue defined microaggressions as "brief, everyday exchanges that send denigrating messages to certain individuals because of their group membership."
Group membership could mean anything from "gamer" to "white" to "male"?
The theory was proposed as a means of explaining contemporary instantiations of racism, and has since been applied to gender and sexuality as well. The common definition of it makes recourse to encounters between a member of a privileged group and a member of a marginalised group. I can see the logic in calling gamers a marginalised group, but I'd avoid going about doing that, because I don't want to imply that gamers have, in any sense, even come close to experiencing the same sort of oppression and discrimination as those who are subject to racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia.
The broader, less explicitly ideological definition does imply that it could be used in a variety of other cases, but I just want us to be clear about the fact that discrimination faced by gamers is quantitatively and qualitatively different to discrimination faced by say, people of colour.
But as "gamers", no, not at all :P
Here's a great article by Samantha Allen on using Bastion to teach her feminist theory students about intersectionality:
http://borderhouseblog.com/?p=11456
Been trying to say this for weeks, but sadly I'm just met by "check your privelege white boy"... If I said I was a feminist and used academic feminist terms they would've listened? Irony. xD
Also, Audre Lorde : http://www.allreadable.com/09f3F1nn (I like her writing)
"There is No Hierarchy of Oppression"
I'm more into Judith Butler's feminism, and her matrix of intelligibility does suggest a (really convoluted) hierarchy of privilege, but I'm really glad that this thread has reached the point where we're sharing Audre Lorde's writing. :D
And the one that nobody really likes to discuss of course is religious privelege, which does play a part, as all the other things do. I read some stuff about christian privelege a little while ago, that was interesting.
But yeah, great. I like her words. Some people call it socialist feminism, but I don't know if she's entirely that way. She just gets lumped in with it in some readings.
I'll look up the 'matrix of intelligibility'. Sounds like it may well be convoluted, but interesting nonetheless.
Discovering Judith Butler changed my life, seriously. Her writing is just about impenetrable though, so consider finding a secondary source that summarises it in simpler language.
But aw. I'll go look for an interpretation somewheres ;_;
What I have seen is repeated attempts at engaging in coherent argument being ignored and deflected into "Stop attacking me!" derailment tactics. That doesn't help anyone and it's really sad watching otherwise intelligent people (hey, they can type) engaging in second-rate rhetorical tricks like that to avoid actually discussing certain things.
P.S. @brondin: You're a hero in this thread :)
Perhaps if you'd used more academic terms, you wouldn't be insisting that gamers are being attacked - but I doubt that ;)
Not sure if you've noticed this, but since the CH Sommers video came out (this could have started at another point, this is just when I picked up on it), pro-GG folks have appropriated what, I guess they believe to be, 'SJW jargon', and now a lot of responses tend to use the sort of language that Gamergate's opponents use, but some twisted bizarro version that tries to frame them as the victims SJWs (I hate that term, and the fact that they think 'fundamentally decent human being who wants equality' is an insult). As if they're the ones being 'oppressed' and 'silenced' and 'mansplained to'.