But you haven't addressed my real point, which is that targeting a specific demographic is a viable marketing strategy. Regardless of how homoerotic you found Top Gun, it was undeniably targeted at the male demographic and equally undeniably played very well in that demographic, because its subject matter and presentation (i.e. badasses in supersonic fighter jets) played directly to the particular interests of that demographic. It got dudebros excited to go see it. I don't think they were nearly as excited to go see The Lion King.
It's OK for one movie or video game to be aimed directly at a certain audience.
It's stupid for a huge portion of video games to alienate women who would otherwise gladly play them. Combined with some of the people these games attract, there's a range of games where women who want to play the games are being pushed away by both some of the content of the games and the attitudes of some of the people who play them.
It's OK for one movie or video game to be aimed directly at a certain audience.
It's stupid for a huge portion of video games to alienate women who would otherwise gladly play them. Combined with some of the people these games attract, there's a range of games where women who want to play the games are being pushed away by both some of the content of the games and the attitudes of some of the people who play them.
I don't disagree with any of this. Hell, I'd go further and say that it's not OK for one movie or video game to be aimed directly at the audience you describe that actively pushes away a broader audience - if you make something aimed at misogynists by appealing to their misogyny, you're very much in the wrong. (Although you have the right to do it, and I'll still fight on your side if the other side starts making noises about legal action against you.)
But when we talk about this stuff, we've got to be careful about the narrative we're creating. Because it's always easier to paint in broad strokes, it's easy to give the impression that any "guy movie" is bad and wrong and misogynistic. "MovieBob" Chipman did a good video this year about the misuse of the Bechdel test - pointing out, as you do, that the test is properly an indicator of an overall, industry-wide trend, but too often is taken at face value as an indicator that a particular movie is sexist because that takes less nuanced thinking to comprehend. Similarly, BatterysRevenge's argument of "broad audience good, narrow audience bad" is oversimplifying and incorrect.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I find it odd that people mention Top Gun as a prime example of marketing to white males age 18-35 because it is possibly the most homoerotic mainstream action movie I've ever laid my eyes on. Something that would be more suitable would be something like The Terminator, Red Dawn (80s), or Die Hard...basically any movie bankrolled by the DOD. And a lot of action movies are bankrolled by the DOD, and I'm not quite sure that without these subsidies from the government they'd be as successful. Because it costs a lot of money to blow up a MiG fighter, and the audience they're aiming at wants explosions.
If we're going to nitpick irrelevancies, I should remind you that no actual MiGs were harmed in the production of Top Gun (or any other aviation movie I'm aware of). Firstly, because the aircraft "playing" MiGs were really Northrop F-5 Tigers; and secondly, because all explosion shots were of course accomplished with miniatures.
Also, the military didn't have anything to do with The Terminator or Die Hard, and I'm not even sure about Red Dawn.
But you haven't addressed my real point, which is that targeting a specific demographic is a viable marketing strategy. Regardless of how homoerotic you found Top Gun, it was undeniably targeted at the male demographic and equally undeniably played very well in that demographic, because its subject matter and presentation (i.e. badasses in supersonic fighter jets) played directly to the particular interests of that demographic. It got dudebros excited to go see it. I don't think they were nearly as excited to go see The Lion King.
And you're arguing with me over something you agree with me, which is that a product needs to be quality to make money. Judge Dredd was a terrible movie aimed toward a male demographic and was a box office flop. For every blockbuster there's probably 10 terrible movies produced by major studios aiming to certain demographics.
Usually if a movie features real jets and it doesn't involve stock footage, it's bankrolled partially by the DOD. It is discussed in the documentary "Why We Fight." They lend weaponry but have pretty strict control over how the military is portrayed and in some cases blacklists certain parts of the movie. Some have expressed great dismay that the military has this amount of control over Hollywood movies, but it is what it is.
And you're arguing with me over something you agree with me, which is that a product needs to be quality to make money.
Erm, no, I think it's safe to say that a movie does not have to be good to make money.
Not to mention a movie can be of great quality and still be targeted toward a particular demographic. Indeed, many quality movies have failed because they weren't targeted toward a particular demographic.
Judge Dredd was a terrible movie aimed toward a male demographic and was a box office flop. For every blockbuster there's probably 10 terrible movies produced by major studios aiming to certain demographics.
Which does not mean that aiming a movie at a target audience cannot be a sound decision.
But you haven't addressed my real point, which is that targeting a specific demographic is a viable marketing strategy. Regardless of how homoerotic you found Top Gun,
Can I interject that Tony Scott said it was about 'a man's struggle with his homosexuality'?
Obviously not everyone understood that, and I doubt it would've done so well if everyone understood it, but it's important to remember we're not talking postmodern slashfic here.
But yeah, there is a problem with this.
Oh, funny story, I know an Idle No More activist whose favorite Magic card is Lantern Kami. And he plays football. Funny how stereotypes are, huh?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
Channers are deliberately, perpetually, maximally, vitriolic and distasteful as a way to shield themselves from marketers and schoolmarms. This allows them to discuss mundane topics like video games and anime while insulating themselves from certain aspects of broader “normal” culture like inauthenticity, pervasive branding, or perpetual outrage (channers might seem angry all the time, but this is in part a way to drown out “outrage cues”). In contrast SJWs are cultural imperialists who are hypersensitive to transgressions against their own cultural norms, even within completely foreign groups. Meanwhile they attach little importance to their own transgressions against the rules, values, or laws of the non-SJW communities they operate in.
SJWs escape consequence for their behaviour through “backroom” networking with local community leadership and or public shaming to outside communities. If you’re reading this, it’s likely because you’ve noticed your community leadership has suddenly and arbitrarily started enforcing unstated rules imposed by outsiders, while giving certain maligned members exemption from community rules.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
Many assertions, not much evidence to back them up. It's a striking contrast when he goes into the well-documented issues in Wikipedia editorship - he cites concrete examples there, but then just has to wave his hands and say, "SJWs are like that too." It's as if I wrote an exposé on a particular congressman's sex scandal where all the evidence is for another congressman's sex scandal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Do you really evidence that sjws are horrible "people" (can you even call them human)?
Everybody is human, no matter what side they're on. If you cannot see the patent hypocrisy in dismissing the humanity of SJWs at exactly the same time you're complaining that they dismiss the humanity of others, then I don't know what else to say to you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I thought this was about ethics in games journalism or maybe someone's sex life what do these people opinions have to do with any of that?
As above: I don't agree with this argument against SJWs, but I'd say that a high-profile guy in gamer culture is allowed to make statements like this without getting called out on it does imply a double standard, seeing how others have been roasted for much less.
That and the hypocritical way that image is using peoples deaths to score political points is impressive.
Seriously? That's the thing that bothers you about that image?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
That image uses the tragedy at charlie hebdo as a blunt instrument to use against people the creator doesn't like.
And so is the person he's using it against. Do you not realize this? Can we please just call a general all-around yes-this-means-you moratorium on using the Charlie Hebdo murders as a political soapbox?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Not evidence that SJWs in general are horrible people.
All of the high profile sjws that have come up in the last few month are at best con-artists (quinn, wu, sarkeesian etc.). These people also get paid several thousands of dollars through patreon for the things they do. So I would conclude that they have approval of "the general sjw public". The only thing that really separates sjws from religious nuts (aka all believers) is that sjws have yet to go on a crusade and slaughter several million people.
I thought this was about ethics in games journalism or maybe someone's sex life what do these people opinions have to do with any of that? That and the hypocritical way that image is using peoples deaths to score political points is impressive.
Macintosh tweeted about this. He made it political. When somebody says something about something it becomes political. Nothing can be done to make it "not political" or less political.
As above: I don't agree with this argument against SJWs, but I'd say that a high-profile guy in gamer culture is allowed to make statements like this without getting called out on it does imply a double standard, seeing how others have been roasted for much less.
Seriously? That's the thing that bothers you about that image?
I would not call any of those people high profile people in gamer culture.
That image uses the tragedy at charlie hebdo as a blunt instrument to use against people the creator doesn't like. It wasn't made to call these people out on what they said but because they are against gamer gate, that is why it was posted in this thread after all. So no, it is not just the hypocrisy, the cynical use of other peoples deaths is pretty awful to.
Macintosh is the guy who writes the scripts for feminist frequency. FF is a curator on steam that pushes ***** gameplay design with it's ***** agenda.
The only thing that really separates sjws from religious nuts (aka all believers) is that sjws have yet to go on a crusade and slaughter several million people.
I'm sure that sounded impressively damning in your head. But trying to compare some people you don't like to mass murderers falls flat when your own point of comparison is that they haven't committed mass murder (or indeed any violent crime at all). You have quite inadvertently reminded us all just how petty this whole Gamergate *****storm is.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
As above: I don't agree with this argument against SJWs, but I'd say that a high-profile guy in gamer culture is allowed to make statements like this without getting called out on it does imply a double standard, seeing how others have been roasted for much less.
Seriously? That's the thing that bothers you about that image?
I would not call any of those people high profile people in gamer culture.
You wouldn't call the writer and producer of Feminist Frequency, a guy sponsored by Intel, to be a high profile person?
That image uses the tragedy at charlie hebdo as a blunt instrument to use against people the creator doesn't like. It wasn't made to call these people out on what they said but because they are against gamer gate, that is why it was posted in this thread after all. So no, it is not just the hypocrisy, the cynical use of other peoples deaths is pretty awful to.
If this was the only such collage, sure. However, there are pictures aplenty of MacIntosh showing his contortionist skills by sticking his foot further and further up his mouth. It's not so much: "look at this horrible person for making fun of this tragedy" as it is "look where the monkey *****ted this time".
Not evidence that SJWs in general are horrible people.
All of the high profile sjws that have come up in the last few month are at best con-artists (quinn, wu, sarkeesian etc.). These people also get paid several thousands of dollars through patreon for the things they do. So I would conclude that they have approval of "the general sjw public".
Sure. So if they are, as you describe, con-artists, how do you know that your regular SJW is a horrible person, and not someone caught in the web of, as you described these people, con-artists?
The only thing that really separates sjws from religious nuts (aka all believers) is that sjws have yet to go on a crusade and slaughter several million people.
Macintosh is the guy who writes the scripts for feminist frequency. FF is a curator on steam that pushes ***** gameplay design with it's ***** agenda.
Are we now supposed to be upset about Steam curators? I'm not sure how much more faux outrage I can sustain here.
[/quote]
Illakunsaa, you're kind of hitting all the stereotypes of GG. It's amazing to watch.
What I would, and have in the past argued, is that it's an issue because of the double standard at play here. Gamers are told to be less racist, sexist people, to make gaming more inclusive. However, that point is then immediately undermined by people going saying we should take an example from Sarkeesian et al.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
Macintosh is the guy who writes the scripts for feminist frequency. FF is a curator on steam that pushes ***** gameplay design with it's ***** agenda.
Are we now supposed to be upset about Steam curators? I'm not sure how much more faux outrage I can sustain here.
Also I just checked the FF steam curator page, the overlap between games she's pushing and games I've played is Portal, Portal 2 and Thomas Was Alone. None of these are what I'd call bad games.
Unrelated to my reply, but Zoe Quinn's site Crash Override is finally public. It's supposed to be an anti-harassment resource and help centre, but apparently they're being intermittently hacked right now so it's basically a contact email and some pretty graphics.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
Unrelated to my reply, but Zoe Quinn's site Crash Override is finally public. It's supposed to be an anti-harassment resource and help centre, but apparently they're being intermittently hacked right now so it's basically a contact email and some pretty graphics.
the dim bulbs of Gamergate have already started thinking of ways to derail the effort.
Amazing objectivity they have there.
Also:
Crash Override wants to help survivors of Gamergate and harassment.
Kekkest of keks. The hypocrisy of this statement is beautiful.
Macintosh is the guy who writes the scripts for feminist frequency. FF is a curator on steam that pushes ***** gameplay design with it's ***** agenda.
Are we now supposed to be upset about Steam curators? I'm not sure how much more faux outrage I can sustain here.
This is not flaming, I'm going to genuinely try to engage with you here. Why do all of my interactions with SJWs feel like a lesson in passive aggressiveness? Why... for example... what is it about SJWism where every interaction is like a know-it-all college professor, talking down to you, lecturing you, explaining what you're allowed to think/feel/believe, etc. and never actually engaging in a two-sided discussion? God's honest truth, that is my experience and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't more than a little bit sick of it.
This is not flaming, I'm going to genuinely try to engage with you here. Why do all of my interactions with SJWs feel like a lesson in passive aggressiveness? Why... for example... what is it about SJWism where every interaction is like a know-it-all college professor, talking down to you, lecturing you, explaining what you're allowed to think/feel/believe, etc. and never actually engaging in a two-sided discussion? God's honest truth, that is my experience and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't more than a little bit sick of it.
I'm confused. Am I supposed to be among the SJWs? I don't think I am.
I'm also not sure what more you want to be said about a steam curator. Are we supposed to have a serious discussion about whether a page that recommends a handful of reasonably popular games is "push[ing] **** gameplay"? If you have some reason why this is true, I'd be happy to discuss it. But I don't think there's any discussion to be had with someone like illakunsaa, who just seems to be blindly angry about anything he thinks is the enemy.
Macintosh is the guy who writes the scripts for feminist frequency. FF is a curator on steam that pushes ***** gameplay design with it's ***** agenda.
Are we now supposed to be upset about Steam curators? I'm not sure how much more faux outrage I can sustain here.
Also I just checked the FF steam curator page, the overlap between games she's pushing and games I've played is Portal, Portal 2 and Thomas Was Alone. None of these are what I'd call bad games.
I agree with you those games are not bad. However, it's still stupid. Let's just keep away from the curator list not being about what are good games, but games which fit her narrative. They write this:
"Games with dynamic or well designed female characters. As well as emotionally impactful games with an emphasis on themes of cooperation, empathy or social justice."
Portal/portal two: Glados is a computer modelled after a stereotypical *****, focussing in her harassment on your weight, mosstly. That sounds rather un-social justice like. You could make an argument that Glados in Portal 2 is a decently designed character, but in Portal? Not a chance. It's not about the characters at all, and Chell being female is never brought up or actually matters. Calling her well-designed would be laughable.
Mirror's Edge. I really like the game, despite it faults. However, you cannot say that Faith is a well-designed female character. And while the gameplay was good, but it wasn't emotionally impactful, and certainly didn't emphasize on cooperation, empathy or social justice. Furthermore: it actively goes against what she's been preaching: the imprisoned sister is very obviously a damsel in distress.
I will give her some of the picks as being similar to what she layed out (Thomas was Alone, for example). However, the list feels very shallow, and with so few games on there, I feel its a mark against that she has three such weak entries.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
Portal/portal two: Glados is a computer modelled after a stereotypical *****, focussing in her harassment on your weight, mosstly. That sounds rather un-social justice like. You could make an argument that Glados in Portal 2 is a decently designed character, but in Portal? Not a chance. It's not about the characters at all, and Chell being female is never brought up or actually matters. Calling her well-designed would be laughable.
In fact, I'd argue that Chell is a fine example of one of FF's "Tropes vs. Women in Gaming"; namely, the "Ms. Male". Basically, Anita thinks it's bad female representation if all you change about a character is the gender.
(Also, I'm sort of miffed at why Joss Whedon supports her, when every single original female character he's ever created has fallen afoul of one of FF's "Tropes vs. Women".)
In fact, I'd argue that Chell is a fine example of one of FF's "Tropes vs. Women in Gaming"; namely, the "Ms. Male". Basically, Anita thinks it's bad female representation if all you change about a character is the gender.
As far as Portal goes, if nothing else it's a reversal from the usual skewed ratio of male to female characters in games. You're right, that doesn't change much, except that the default is still to have male main characters, even if that interferes with the creative vision of the designer.
@Tiax: maybe Gordon Freeman? They both use physics-based weapons and don't talk? Honestly I think the trope is about character design, eg details where the gender-neutral character is automatically coded male but the female version of that character has to have details like hair-thingies or otherwise be non-default like Smurfette and the Smurfs or Pacman and Ms. Pacman or whatever.
If it works like that, Chell doesn't fit the trope.
EDIT: I found a summary of the relevant video. The trope does work in a Ms. Pacman/Smurfette kind-of-sense and I don't think Chell fits that definition. She's pretty distinct, and also wears an orange prisoner-ish uniform rather than a dress or a bow. If she wore a Half Life style Hazard Suit but it was pink rather than orange, she'd count.
the dim bulbs of Gamergate have already started thinking of ways to derail the effort.
Amazing objectivity they have there.
Here, have a link to the 8chan/gamergate topic where members of gamergate are trying to come up with ways to derail Crash Override, as well as trying to find ways to hijack the organization's branding. Sample quotes:
Samefagging just to say that maybe we should **** out some blatantly fake endorsements of the SJW squad here.
>"Someone called me a "******" on the interwebs. Thankfully, @Crashoverdrivenw had my back and broke into their house and committed aggravated assault! Now the cis-scum is in a coma and I couldn't have asked for a better response!
>"I was diagnosed with cancer and given only three weeks to live. I contacted @Crashoverdrivenw and they hacked the cancer right out of my body! I can't thank them enough for my new lease on life!"
>"I was having an issue with my ISP and gave @Crashoverdrivenw a call. For a nominal fee, they took my money and ran! I'm glad I supported such a great company!"
>>232629
Alright… Okay.. Deep breaths. Time to calm the **** down and get to business.
Collusion and conspiracy are the name of the game. It's ******* fishy that these professional do nothings are suddenly putting together all this stuff overnight after being so quiet, but it doesn't look great for them. Zoe still hasn't delivered on her scam jam and she hasn't done a single thing that looks like indie game development at all. Whatever reputation she tried to create as an indie game dev is crumbling because of her own actions.
Here's how we turn this around, though. Let them run wild and use it against them.
They want to stop harassment and tell people to change their ******* privacy settings and not share their personal information in unsecure places? Groovy. PERFECT, even. Let them do that.
They want to claim we're all out to get them, but if this gets them to smarten the **** up and take some precautions and act with a little common sense, then that's great. Anything that gets them to shut up with the accusations of GG harassing people, which we don't do in the first place.
If we can get the GG anti-harassment patrol to start sending everyone their way, pro or anti, then we'll get to see their real colors. If they really care about this *****, then they need to support everyone, regardless of their allegiances. If they start turning away or even attacking people coming to them for help, it will destroy their public image.
Never encourage donations, but if someone claims GG is harassing them or that they are somehow a victim, we turn this back on them, and have pro-GG people offer condolences and suggest that they see if CON can help them.
>Sorry that had to happen to you. If you need some help, these people say they have professional counselors on hand to talk.
OR, as an alternate idea, we beat them at their own game by scouring twitter's community guidelines to find what constitutes harassment and use that to inform people on how to document and report harassers, thus negating any positive effect they might have.
The issue here is that they want to get famous for being an organized, professional force against GamerGate, because they are perpetuating the lie that we are some kind of roving twitter harassment army, attacking people at random. However, they can't come out and say that they are JUST against us, because that makes them an antagonist.. and doesn't really do any good dispelling their image as wealthy privileges brats trying to control the media because they feel entitled to do so.
/baph/ also has a topic about burning Zoe Quinn's support network and sending nudes pictures of her to her parents, because of course they do. Said topic is celebrated in the /gamergate/ topic I quoted, despite gamergate obviously having nothing to do with harassment. Fair warning: /baph/ has threads full to bursting with gory images. Go looking if you want but it's an unpleasant board and I'm not linking to it directly.
Also:
Crash Override wants to help survivors of Gamergate and harassment.
Kekkest of keks. The hypocrisy of this statement is beautiful.
What's so kekworthy about this? Also, isn't kekkest chan-slang?
It's stupid for a huge portion of video games to alienate women who would otherwise gladly play them. Combined with some of the people these games attract, there's a range of games where women who want to play the games are being pushed away by both some of the content of the games and the attitudes of some of the people who play them.
But when we talk about this stuff, we've got to be careful about the narrative we're creating. Because it's always easier to paint in broad strokes, it's easy to give the impression that any "guy movie" is bad and wrong and misogynistic. "MovieBob" Chipman did a good video this year about the misuse of the Bechdel test - pointing out, as you do, that the test is properly an indicator of an overall, industry-wide trend, but too often is taken at face value as an indicator that a particular movie is sexist because that takes less nuanced thinking to comprehend. Similarly, BatterysRevenge's argument of "broad audience good, narrow audience bad" is oversimplifying and incorrect.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
And you're arguing with me over something you agree with me, which is that a product needs to be quality to make money. Judge Dredd was a terrible movie aimed toward a male demographic and was a box office flop. For every blockbuster there's probably 10 terrible movies produced by major studios aiming to certain demographics.
Usually if a movie features real jets and it doesn't involve stock footage, it's bankrolled partially by the DOD. It is discussed in the documentary "Why We Fight." They lend weaponry but have pretty strict control over how the military is portrayed and in some cases blacklists certain parts of the movie. Some have expressed great dismay that the military has this amount of control over Hollywood movies, but it is what it is.
Not to mention a movie can be of great quality and still be targeted toward a particular demographic. Indeed, many quality movies have failed because they weren't targeted toward a particular demographic.
Which does not mean that aiming a movie at a target audience cannot be a sound decision.
Can I interject that Tony Scott said it was about 'a man's struggle with his homosexuality'?
Obviously not everyone understood that, and I doubt it would've done so well if everyone understood it, but it's important to remember we're not talking postmodern slashfic here.
But yeah, there is a problem with this.
Oh, funny story, I know an Idle No More activist whose favorite Magic card is Lantern Kami. And he plays football. Funny how stereotypes are, huh?
On phasing:
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
https://www.notehub.org/2014/12/30/to-begin-with-a-note-on-language-im-goin
Channers are deliberately, perpetually, maximally, vitriolic and distasteful as a way to shield themselves from marketers and schoolmarms. This allows them to discuss mundane topics like video games and anime while insulating themselves from certain aspects of broader “normal” culture like inauthenticity, pervasive branding, or perpetual outrage (channers might seem angry all the time, but this is in part a way to drown out “outrage cues”). In contrast SJWs are cultural imperialists who are hypersensitive to transgressions against their own cultural norms, even within completely foreign groups. Meanwhile they attach little importance to their own transgressions against the rules, values, or laws of the non-SJW communities they operate in.
SJWs escape consequence for their behaviour through “backroom” networking with local community leadership and or public shaming to outside communities. If you’re reading this, it’s likely because you’ve noticed your community leadership has suddenly and arbitrarily started enforcing unstated rules imposed by outsiders, while giving certain maligned members exemption from community rules.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Not safe:
http://i.imgur.com/4OC7l2L.png
Not evidence that SJWs in general are horrible people.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
As above: I don't agree with this argument against SJWs, but I'd say that a high-profile guy in gamer culture is allowed to make statements like this without getting called out on it does imply a double standard, seeing how others have been roasted for much less.
Seriously? That's the thing that bothers you about that image?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
All of the high profile sjws that have come up in the last few month are at best con-artists (quinn, wu, sarkeesian etc.). These people also get paid several thousands of dollars through patreon for the things they do. So I would conclude that they have approval of "the general sjw public". The only thing that really separates sjws from religious nuts (aka all believers) is that sjws have yet to go on a crusade and slaughter several million people.
Macintosh tweeted about this. He made it political. When somebody says something about something it becomes political. Nothing can be done to make it "not political" or less political.
Macintosh is the guy who writes the scripts for feminist frequency. FF is a curator on steam that pushes ***** gameplay design with it's ***** agenda.
Are we now supposed to be upset about Steam curators? I'm not sure how much more faux outrage I can sustain here.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You wouldn't call the writer and producer of Feminist Frequency, a guy sponsored by Intel, to be a high profile person?
If this was the only such collage, sure. However, there are pictures aplenty of MacIntosh showing his contortionist skills by sticking his foot further and further up his mouth. It's not so much: "look at this horrible person for making fun of this tragedy" as it is "look where the monkey *****ted this time".
[/quote]
Sure. So if they are, as you describe, con-artists, how do you know that your regular SJW is a horrible person, and not someone caught in the web of, as you described these people, con-artists?
Oh, that's just painful to read.
[/quote]
Illakunsaa, you're kind of hitting all the stereotypes of GG. It's amazing to watch.
What I would, and have in the past argued, is that it's an issue because of the double standard at play here. Gamers are told to be less racist, sexist people, to make gaming more inclusive. However, that point is then immediately undermined by people going saying we should take an example from Sarkeesian et al.
Unrelated to my reply, but Zoe Quinn's site Crash Override is finally public. It's supposed to be an anti-harassment resource and help centre, but apparently they're being intermittently hacked right now so it's basically a contact email and some pretty graphics.
Art is life itself.
Amazing objectivity they have there.
Also:
Kekkest of keks. The hypocrisy of this statement is beautiful.
This is not flaming, I'm going to genuinely try to engage with you here. Why do all of my interactions with SJWs feel like a lesson in passive aggressiveness? Why... for example... what is it about SJWism where every interaction is like a know-it-all college professor, talking down to you, lecturing you, explaining what you're allowed to think/feel/believe, etc. and never actually engaging in a two-sided discussion? God's honest truth, that is my experience and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't more than a little bit sick of it.
I'm confused. Am I supposed to be among the SJWs? I don't think I am.
I'm also not sure what more you want to be said about a steam curator. Are we supposed to have a serious discussion about whether a page that recommends a handful of reasonably popular games is "push[ing] **** gameplay"? If you have some reason why this is true, I'd be happy to discuss it. But I don't think there's any discussion to be had with someone like illakunsaa, who just seems to be blindly angry about anything he thinks is the enemy.
I agree with you those games are not bad. However, it's still stupid. Let's just keep away from the curator list not being about what are good games, but games which fit her narrative. They write this:
Portal/portal two: Glados is a computer modelled after a stereotypical *****, focussing in her harassment on your weight, mosstly. That sounds rather un-social justice like. You could make an argument that Glados in Portal 2 is a decently designed character, but in Portal? Not a chance. It's not about the characters at all, and Chell being female is never brought up or actually matters. Calling her well-designed would be laughable.
Mirror's Edge. I really like the game, despite it faults. However, you cannot say that Faith is a well-designed female character. And while the gameplay was good, but it wasn't emotionally impactful, and certainly didn't emphasize on cooperation, empathy or social justice. Furthermore: it actively goes against what she's been preaching: the imprisoned sister is very obviously a damsel in distress.
I will give her some of the picks as being similar to what she layed out (Thomas was Alone, for example). However, the list feels very shallow, and with so few games on there, I feel its a mark against that she has three such weak entries.
In fact, I'd argue that Chell is a fine example of one of FF's "Tropes vs. Women in Gaming"; namely, the "Ms. Male". Basically, Anita thinks it's bad female representation if all you change about a character is the gender.
(Also, I'm sort of miffed at why Joss Whedon supports her, when every single original female character he's ever created has fallen afoul of one of FF's "Tropes vs. Women".)
Who is Chell a female version of?
@Tiax: maybe Gordon Freeman? They both use physics-based weapons and don't talk? Honestly I think the trope is about character design, eg details where the gender-neutral character is automatically coded male but the female version of that character has to have details like hair-thingies or otherwise be non-default like Smurfette and the Smurfs or Pacman and Ms. Pacman or whatever.
If it works like that, Chell doesn't fit the trope.
EDIT: I found a summary of the relevant video. The trope does work in a Ms. Pacman/Smurfette kind-of-sense and I don't think Chell fits that definition. She's pretty distinct, and also wears an orange prisoner-ish uniform rather than a dress or a bow. If she wore a Half Life style Hazard Suit but it was pink rather than orange, she'd count.
Here, have a link to the 8chan/gamergate topic where members of gamergate are trying to come up with ways to derail Crash Override, as well as trying to find ways to hijack the organization's branding. Sample quotes:
/baph/ also has a topic about burning Zoe Quinn's support network and sending nudes pictures of her to her parents, because of course they do. Said topic is celebrated in the /gamergate/ topic I quoted, despite gamergate obviously having nothing to do with harassment. Fair warning: /baph/ has threads full to bursting with gory images. Go looking if you want but it's an unpleasant board and I'm not linking to it directly.
What's so kekworthy about this? Also, isn't kekkest chan-slang?
Art is life itself.