Censorship? There is no censorship!

[Akratus]

Well, I had made a nazi joke in the previous thread, so it was only fair.

 

[TheWesDude]

you know, here is the crux of the matter.

as long as people are buying games that you consider "sexist" and "violent", then companies will continue to make them. especially when they rake in millions of dollars.

i also had not realized that the target and such in AU pulling GTA5 from their shelves was largely a token move. the games had already been out for what, a year now? they had already been way past their "prime" selling period of the first 3 months. it was a token gesture. given those considerations, i would probably do the same thing. it doesnt really cost those stores much because they were not selling many of those copies.

i thought the "anti-gamergate" crowd hated tokenism? and yet they consider this a victory. tell you what, get target to not even sell the next GTA/Hitman/whatever game and then you might have a victory.


and no, you wont find sarkeesian or mcintosh demanding a full ban on "problem" games. their goal is far more insidious. they dont even want developers to make those games at all. they dont want them to be available, not because they are banned, but because nobody is making them.

what would be worse, book stores across the world taking all their copies of plato, aristotle, etc and burning them or all the publishers around the world having a discussion and decide nobody will print any of those books.

anyone have a link to that picture handy that goes like this:
briwu: dont buy stardock games, they hate women!
rando: dont they hire more women than your company?
stardock: yes we do, and the lead on galciv2 was a woman!
rando: rekt

we need a copy of that pic here

 

[Tagaziel]

Oh so then the ones that do that are not real feminists and should not be taken into account. Funny how that can only be used by third wave feminists, yet when Gamergate does it they are liers.

Maybe because GamerGhazi is several orders of magnitude smaller than feminism and is predominantly focused on harassment, with the good apples being few and far in between?

Also here comes the completely dumb black and white narrative, there have to be good guys and bad guys, sexism needs a face you can punch, or at least yell at, no it's not an abstract thing deeply rooted in the culture of a lot of countries, no, it's something you can yell at, you can cure it by harasing the undesirable, is not something that requires effort to solve, it's something that just needs the appropiate amount of whinning.

You do realize that you're whining, right? Or that you're trying to say that harassing people through doxxing, death threats, stalking, et al is not abysmal, but morally gray?

as long as people are buying games that you consider "sexist" and "violent", then companies will continue to make them. especially when they rake in millions of dollars.

Which is why the goal is to convince developers to be more considerate.

i also had not realized that the target and such in AU pulling GTA5 from their shelves was largely a token move. the games had already been out for what, a year now? they had already been way past their "prime" selling period of the first 3 months. it was a token gesture. given those considerations, i would probably do the same thing. it doesnt really cost those stores much because they were not selling many of those copies.


i thought the "anti-gamergate" crowd hated tokenism? and yet they consider this a victory. tell you what, get target to not even sell the next GTA/Hitman/whatever game and then you might have a victory.

Plenty of people campaigning for diversity consider this to be a stupid, kneejerk reaction.

and no, you wont find sarkeesian or mcintosh demanding a full ban on "problem" games. their goal is far more insidious. they dont even want developers to make those games at all. they dont want them to be available, not because they are banned, but because nobody is making them.

That's a neat fantasy. Too bad it's just fantasy.

what would be worse, book stores across the world taking all their copies of plato, aristotle, etc and burning them or all the publishers around the world having a discussion and decide nobody will print any of those books.

Uh, did you just compare classical philosophers and their landmark works to games?

well first and foremost, Hitler is a name. Maybe we got Tagz intentions wrong? Who knows. Looking at it, Hitler was in WW1, he was a Soldier, he was not the best Soldier, but he was not a coward either, it turns out that he was not THAAAAT bad as painter either, he sold some as post cards. And he was a vegetarian, known to love animals and children. So for all we know he was an average man. Maybe that is the stuff Tagz had in mind with Akratus. I fear, we will never know.

Though, I do agree that it was somewhat uncalled for.

It was a deliberate choice meant to show just how fucking retarded claiming "diversity for diversity's sake is bad" is. I guess humanity is bad, because we're diverse - apparently, for diversity's sake. It's the kind of moronic argument that deserves only a stupid image as a reply.

Cue Akratus running around claiming "Tagz called me a moron" in 3, 2, 1...

 

[Hassknecht]

The actual goal is not that developers don't make such games anymore, but more that they think about what they're doing. Like, "Is it necessary that the armour for female characters does not actually function as armour at all?". Or, "Does this character need to be a white, brown haired hunk or can it be someone more unique?". And even, "Ok, so our hero needs an incentive. Is it necessary that his girlfriend gets murdered/raped/flayed?"
They want the developers to stop being lazy, to stop using the same tropes all the time. The devs are of course free to stick with those tropes, but they will also get critizised for that. Because let's face it, it's often just a result of lazyness.
It's safer to just use the default hero-dude. Just look at how many people complained about the stormtrooper in the Star Wars teaser being black.

 

[Buxbaum666]

That black stormtrooper is obviously just Hollywood pandering to stupid whining sjw mangina bullies with their super-gay agendas, trying to force diversity nobody wants down our throats. What's next, a tranny jedi? Sheesh. It's so obvious that they just want people to stop making movies with straight white people altogether.

 

[Sander]

So okay, first idea, there can never be any representation of violence against women. So then in most cases women are only support characters and that's bad, but then they can't be victimized by fictional violence ever, because that's bad too, so you want women to be main characters or play non support roles, but you want this to be done while also not showing any indication that those women would suffer any form of violence, because that normalizes violent behavior against females. So... that means that we should limit the roles they can assume even more? Because they can't be affected by violence, yet they can't be support characters.... so they shouldn't exist I guess, or they should be invincible and invulnerable shields that are there just to show women.

Then also comes the thing of only certain kinds of women being allowed to be represented, forms of dress, personality types, body types and mentality towards sex, those have to be regulated too. Because everyone knows women that are sexual are indecent and amoral beings that deserve no respect or representation I guess....

Are you enjoying railing against straw men? Because that's what you're doing.

The problem isn't that women are seen in supporting roles, it's that they are overwhelmingly seen in supporting roles rather than lead roles. The problem isn't the presence of violence against women per se, but the way it is contextualized and treated in games. The problem isn't that certain things are shown, it's that those things are shown to the exclusion of other things. Everything in media critique is about context and frequency, and those are the very things your careless reading completely ignores.

What you read into these things is so very far removed from what is actually being advocated that it's obvious you're not even entertaining the idea that these people might have a brain.

It appears that that's what Sander/Tagaziel believe. But I'm saying allowing one but not the other is silly.

Tranny certainly is an insult, but that's not why those posts were vatted. Rather, they were vatted for Surf Solar's apparent inability to communicate without resorting to casual sexism in every other sentence. If he wants to actually contribute something that actually has some content, he can go ahead and do that without displaying his hatred for anything female.

 

[Akratus]

Der ist kein zensur auf diesem forum aber sexism ist verboten!

So okay, first idea, there can never be any representation of violence against women. So then in most cases women are only support characters and that's bad, but then they can't be victimized by fictional violence ever, because that's bad too, so you want women to be main characters or play non support roles, but you want this to be done while also not showing any indication that those women would suffer any form of violence, because that normalizes violent behavior against females. So... that means that we should limit the roles they can assume even more? Because they can't be affected by violence, yet they can't be support characters.... so they shouldn't exist I guess, or they should be invincible and invulnerable shields that are there just to show women.

Then also comes the thing of only certain kinds of women being allowed to be represented, forms of dress, personality types, body types and mentality towards sex, those have to be regulated too. Because everyone knows women that are sexual are indecent and amoral beings that deserve no respect or representation I guess....

Are you enjoying railing against straw men? Because that's what you're doing.

The problem isn't that women are seen in supporting roles, it's that they are overwhelmingly seen in supporting roles rather than lead roles. The problem isn't the presence of violence against women per se, but the way it is contextualized and treated in games. The problem isn't that certain things are shown, it's that those things are shown to the exclusion of other things. Everything in media critique is about context and frequency, and those are the very things your careless reading completely ignores.

What you read into these things is so very far removed from what is actually being advocated that it's obvious you're not even entertaining the idea that these people might have a brain.

The thing is, Sander, you don't get to decide what the social justice movement in games is about. When gender activists make culturally marxist arguments, or misandrist arguments, or are being spiteful, sexist or racist, we get to label them as such. What we see as the majority, IS the majority. And getting this from only biased sources on one side of the fence only reinforces our ideas, since it's so overwhelmingly accepted. (By the way if you're still not getting it these are all your arguments I've turned around.)

 

[Sander]

No, I don't get to decide what the movement is about. However, what I do get to do is to point out when people are misinterpreting and misrepresenting what other people are saying, which is what Walpknut does right there. What he's railing against is not what the full text, in context, actually says. Nor is it what Anita Sarkeesian says. Nor is it what anyone else I know says.

 

[Tagaziel]

Der ist kein zensur auf diesem forum aber sexism ist verboten!

Idiocy has always been frowned upon on NMA and more than one person found themselves banned for being a racist/sexist/trolling douchebag.

The thing is, Sander, you don't get to decide what the social justice movement in games is about. When gender activists make culturally marxist arguments, or misandrist arguments, or are being spiteful, sexist or racist, we get to label them as such. What we see as the majority, IS the majority. And getting this from only biased sources on one side of the fence only reinforces our ideas, since it's so overwhelmingly accepted. (By the way if you're still not getting it these are all your arguments I've turned around.)

We're not getting it, because there's nothing to get here. In order to turn someone's argument around, your argument has to end up having some merit and yours has pretty much fuck-all to do with reality.


Also, "cultural marxism", "misandry", "social justice movement", gee, you're checking all the checkboxes on the "How to Detect GamerGhazi Bullshit" form.


I mean, cultural marxism.


This has to be the most hilarious thing I've read today. Wonder why I haven't noticed that before.

Akratus, you're hilarious. I mean, I thought you were genuinely supporting GamerGhazi, but now I see you're actually a clever Poe, mocking it while appearing to be totally sincere. Good job, mate.

 

[Akratus]

No, I don't get to decide what the movement is about. However, what I do get to do is to point out when people are misinterpreting and misrepresenting what other people are saying, which is what Walpknut does right there. What he's railing against is not what the full text, in context, actually says. Nor is it what Anita Sarkeesian says. Nor is it what anyone else I know says.

So why can't we do that with Gamergate?

 

[Surf Solar]

Rather, they were vatted for Surf Solar's apparent inability to communicate without resorting to casual sexism in every other sentence. If he wants to actually contribute something that actually has some content, he can go ahead and do that without displaying his hatred for anything female.

Biggest LOL I've had for days. Everyone who knows me would facepalm at your accusation since I am anything but 'hating everything female'. It only shows how far away you are already detached from the real world outside your echo chamber. I showed your post to my girlfriend (strange, I know right) and she was laughing the same as me.

Besides you deliberately ignoring the apparent missing content of my posts, either grow some balls and actually reply to posts that are 'problematic' for you instead of ignoring them with your holier than thou attitude, or simply put it in the fucking forum rules that 'casual sexism' (and its only sexism when the admin says so) will get your posts deleted/moved.

And even bigger lol to you saying insults are verboten when there are countless examples of you and especially our Furry friend throwing insults left and right. But ofcourse it's only an insult when it's against a minority or women, right?

 

[Sander]

Biggest LOL I've had for days. Everyone who knows me would facepalm at your accusation since I am anything but 'hating everything female'. It only shows how far away you are already detached from the real world outside your echo chamber. I showed your post to my girlfriend (strange, I know right) and she was laughing the same as me.

Besides you deliberately ignoring the apparent missing content of my posts, either grow some balls and actually reply to posts that are 'problematic' for you instead of ignoring them with your holier than thou attitude, or simply put it in the fucking forum rules that 'casual sexism' (and its only sexism when the admin says so) will get your posts deleted/moved.

And even bigger lol to you saying insults are verboten when there are countless examples of you and especially our Furry friend throwing insults left and right. But ofcourse it's only an insult when it's against a minority or women, right?

Never said insults are verboten. Just casual sexism, as is casual racism. Like the "effeminate boys" who try to "get in the pants of women". Like "trannies". Like "whiny mangina", and all of the other casual sexism you display in every other post. So, cut that out. Everyone else in this thread seems to do just fine without communicating the way you do.

 

[Akratus]

Also, "cultural marxism", "misandry", "social justice movement", gee, you're checking all the checkboxes on the "How to Detect GamerGhazi Bullshit" form.


I mean, cultural marxism.


This has to be the most hilarious thing I've read today. Wonder why I haven't noticed that before.

Akratus, you're hilarious. I mean, I thought you were genuinely supporting GamerGhazi, but now I see you're actually a clever Poe, mocking it while appearing to be totally sincere. Good job, mate.

What do you think is the difference between you and me when you react like this to those terms, but I remain level-headed when you do not even posit, but outright state authoritatively: that I espouse: "Rape apologism, domestic violence apologism, victim shaming, outright, deliberate lies, and assorted misogynistic crap."?

 

[Sander]

No, I don't get to decide what the movement is about. However, what I do get to do is to point out when people are misinterpreting and misrepresenting what other people are saying, which is what Walpknut does right there. What he's railing against is not what the full text, in context, actually says. Nor is it what Anita Sarkeesian says. Nor is it what anyone else I know says.

So why can't we do that with Gamergate?

You can. The thing is, I'm not misrepresenting anyone's viewpoint. I've been asked for examples of harassment, and gave them. I was asked for examples of misogyny in GamerGate, and gave them. Every time I've been asked to provide an example of something, I've given it, and not once was I misrepresenting or misinterpreting those people. You certainly tried to divorce them from GamerGate or otherwise justify the movement, and sometimes you disagreed over whether something was misogynistic or sexist, but the disagreement wasn't over what they actually said. That is not the case here. What Walpknut is getting out of these texts is simply not what's there.

 

[Akratus]

You can. The thing is, I'm not misrepresenting anyone's viewpoint. I've been asked for examples of harassment, and gave them. I was asked for examples of misogynism in GamerGate, and gave them. Every time I've been asked to provide an example of something, I've given it, and not once was I misrepresenting or misinterpreting those people.

I would say that you were. For one the only "evidence" of gamergate harassment you've provided is the internet aristocrat videos, which, if they are harassment, means you'd have to be condemning everyone with an aggressive opinion of someone's actions, and that's just silly. I would also say that you've failed to tie this into gamergate as a whole. Because Adam Baldwin and IA do not make up a very big portion of gamergate.

 

[Sander]

I provided those as examples of the harassment and sexism in place at the start of the movement. I also provided links to the many forms of harassment published by Sarkeesian, by Quinn, by Wu and others. I provided links to summaries of the 4chan logs, clearly displaying orchestrated harassment. Forgive me for not providing those links again: I am not too interested in hunting all that stuff down, because apparently you'll just forget about it anyway.

That you want to continue to believe that all of that is unrelated to GamerGate is your business. But the issue is not that I'm misinterpreting or misrepresenting people's viewpoints. It's that you think those people don't represent GamerGate. That's fine. But that's not what Walpknut is doing: what he thinks those texts say is not remotely what they say.

 

[Crni Vuk]

The thing is, Sander, you don't get to decide what the social justice movement in games is about. When gender activists make culturally marxist arguments, or misandrist arguments, or are being spiteful, sexist or racist, we get to label them as such. What we see as the majority, IS the majority. And getting this from only biased sources on one side of the fence only reinforces our ideas, since it's so overwhelmingly accepted. (By the way if you're still not getting it these are all your arguments I've turned around.)

Except that the American population consists of 50% of males and females (more or less). Which is also true for many other nations.

Albeit if you mean that most of the gamers might be white males, then you could be right. Though it begs the question why. Because girlz just don't like games? - Candycrush excluded, but seriously, no one should be playing Candycrush, male or female! Or maybe because of other more complex reasons.

 

[Akratus]

I provided those as examples of the harassment and sexism in place at the start of the movement. I also provided links to the many forms of harassment published by Sarkeesian, by Quinn, by Wu and others. I provided links to summaries of the 4chan logs, clearly displaying orchestrated harassment. Forgive me for not providing those links again: I am not too interested in hunting all that stuff down, because apparently you'll just forget about it anyway.

That you want to continue to believe that all of that is unrelated to GamerGate is your business. But the issue is not that I'm misinterpreting or misrepresenting people's viewpoints. It's that you think those people don't represent GamerGate. That's fine. But that's not what Walpknut is doing: what he thinks those texts say is not remotely what they say.

But the thing is: I don't deny that those parts of gamergate you link to, insofar as they CAN be linked to gamergate. (most death threats can not)
I just see the positive effects of gamergate outweighing the bad. I also don't see things as more than a minority until proven to be so.

 

[Buxbaum666]

What kind of proof would you accept?

 

[Akratus]

Anything conclusive. If you say GamerGate as a whole is a hate group, or misogynistic, or sexist, some anecdotes, tweets, screenshots and a video ain't gonna cut it.