…strawman. I never claimed you supported gamergate. I don’t even claim that Jophiel supports it. I stated that your “nobody” argument doesn’t wash. And it doesn’t.
Justin, this thread was started by a gamergater in the BBQ Pit. If you don’t want to pit Gamergate, then go post in the gaming forums. There are gamergaters here: they not only started the thread, but they have participated in this thread and called people really nasty names. I’m on topic here. I don’t know what your problem is.
This post is far more obnoxious than anything Banquet Bear has said. Nothing in your last couple of posts makes it look like you’re one of the adults doing the talking.
She said: *I often say I’m a video game culture writer, but lately I don’t know exactly what that means. ‘Game culture’ as we know it is kind of embarrassing – it’s not even culture. It’s buying things, spackling over memes and in-jokes repeatedly, and it’s getting mad on the internet.
It’s young men queuing with plush mushroom hats and backpacks and jutting promo poster rolls. Queuing passionately for hours, at events around the world, to see the things that marketers want them to see. To find out whether they should buy things or not.** They don’t know how to dress or behave.** Television cameras pan across these listless queues, and often catch the expressions of people who don’t quite know why they themselves are standing there. *
I said: socially malformed mouthbreathers in Pikachu hats buying the latest games like sheep and speaking in memes
Well, she did say “Mushroom hats” instead of “Pikachu hats” so I guess you got me there.
…she never used the word “socially malformed mouthbreathers in Pikachu hats”, those are literally your words, not hers. She did use the word “hats” though, so I’ll give you that. She doesn’t criticise their intelligence. She doesn’t call them sheep. She is talking about a specific group: in her words “These obtuse shitslingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers”. I don’t know how you could get more specific than that.
Yeah, I bolded where I got those parts from although I phrased them differently.
If that’s the hair you need to split to feel better (“She said they don’t know how to dress or behave, not that they’re socially malformed!”) then I suppose that’s that. You can keep pretending that you just have no idea why her column would have drawn more ire than some random dope on Tumblr. Must only because she’s a female, of course… :rolleyes:
…I’m a gamer. My first games system was the Atari 2600. I actually played the head stretching game ET. Yars Revenge is one of my favourite games ever.
There was nothing written in that article that was aimed to offend me. There was nothing in that article that did offend me. If you did more than read just the headlines and the opening salvo, it would become clear that she was not attacking the every day typical gamer, but the toxic variety, the obtuse shitslingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, and the childish internet-arguers. If you aren’t one of those, then she wasn’t talking about you. Gamesutra is a website aimed at game developers: not at gamers. The message was you don’t need to cater to these toxic people. And she is right. These toxic people have made the lives of several people actual living hell the last two months. Today they spent the day attacking and harassing Arthur Chu. Who knows who they are going to attack tomorrow.
Did it raise your ire? If it did, well I’m sorry. I read editorials every day that raise my ire, that offend me, that make me shake my head.
But it is not normal behaviour to still be absolutely fuming mad over an article two months later, to the degree that you are doing everything possible to not only destroy the life of the writer of the article, but also of the place where the article was written. The people that are still fuming mad aren’t the average gamer. They are fanatics.
After all this time, you still really don’t have a clue what is driving gamergate. These aren’t trolls. They are actually some really screwed up people doing some pretty screwed up things. Dan Golding is as much a “random dope on tumblr” as Felicia Day is a “random dope on tumblr”, or in other words, you don’t know what you are talking about. It really is about time you actually found out what gamergate is really about. Because as I said to you weeks ago: your passive aggressive apologism for a movement that is actually hurting real people is growing tiresome.
…seriously guys: stuff like thisis just absolute insanity. Does the gaming industry need to cater to these people? Absolutely not.
Do you really think we don’t know that?
And how am I being obnoxious, Left Hand of Dorkness? This constant lecturing by people who jump into this thread seemingly at random is getting old.
Yeah, yeah… same here. I wasn’t personally fired up by the column but I can easily understand where other people are. The people who keep defending it with “Golly gee, I can’t see anything there at all!” make me think that they’re either lying or operating on some level of mental blockage that I can’t even comprehend.
But, again, yeah sure… absolutely no reason why the two authors would garner different reactions. Let’s just ignore the content and the setting and the media and then it must all be about gender.
But thanks for the lecture and it means a lot coming from someone with a fifty yard blind spot whose trying to explain to me how to see the big picture.
Addressing the topic of the thread is not “lecturing.” If you aren’t one of the miscreants involved in Gamergate or defending it, then the criticisms don’t apply to you.
This seems to be a weird tactic to shut down criticism. “I’m personally not one of those Gamergaters so how dare you come into this thread about Gamergate to criticize Gamergate.”
The last paragraph in his post was directed at me. This was what I was referring to.
Funny to be told I “don’t have a clue” by someone who takes the articles and says “I plum dunno why anyone would have been upset by that!”
If that’s honestly the way he feels, he doesn’t really have much more he can tell me because he’s operating from such a giant blind spot that its crippling to his arguments.
Because the moron in question posts things like this:
[QUOTE=Banquet Bear]
Do you know why I called you a “pathetic passive aggressive gamergate apologist” Jophiel? Its because you keep posting shit like this. Its pathetic. Its passive aggressive, and you are constantly apologising for the gamergate movement. There is no rational or excusable reason for why Quinn, Alexander and Sarkeesian have been targeted and singled out by gamergate. Quinn and Sarkeesian are not journalists. They have all been outspoken, but so has Chris Kluwe. If you can’t see that the response has been disproportionate, then I can only suggest you aren’t looking hard enough.
[/QUOTE]
He’s calling out people in this thread who are discussing Gamergate and lumping them in with those supporting Gamergate. He’s acting as if we’re all sitting around wondering why Quinn, Alexander, and Sarkeesian have been targeted when we all know why. And he’s acting like we don’t know why men haven’t received a similar backlash.
Who knows what’s in Jophiel’s mind, but the actual words he wrote have the following salient effects:
To normalize bad gamergater behavior by inaccurately depicting it as of a piece with other behaviors aimed at other game designers prior to the gamergate stuff
To shift focus from solving the problem of death threats to solving the “problem” (which to reiterate s/he did not actually successfully established as a problem) of people caring about bad behaviors only when they may reflect misogyny.
Jophiel may be a great person whose heart is in exactly the right place, who knows, but the actual things Jophiel is doing in this thread are of a kind that has pernicious effects.
He also laughably just said " I don’t even claim that Jophiel supports it.". I’m just a pathetic apologist but no one is saying I support it. Sort of like “She just said they don’t know how to dress or behave, not that they were socially malformed!” 
It’s no big deal. I’m just talking about it. If other people want to get all huffy and make themselves look silly and hyper-defensive to the point of acting ridiculous over it, that’s on them.
Alright, I guess I can see that. While still thinking Gamergate is horrible, Jophiel is occasionally using the “everybody on the Internet is an asshole, so what’d you expect” argument. And that definitely does not apply here. Gamergate is so far above and beyond that.
Yeah, that was odd. Someone directly asked if the death threats thing was new, I directly answer them by citing an article showing that it wasn’t “new” and a bunch of people flip out that this must mean I’m defending the death threats.
And then Banquet Bear argued (and from where I’m sitting right now, appears to have argued successfully) that it is misleading to equate the two things you equated. By answering the question as you did, you implied that the “new” is relevantly the same as the “old,” when in fact they’re not.
It’s as though someone had asked many years ago whether the whole wi-fi thing was new, and you had answered by saying “not really, we’ve been able to transmit information from computer to computer for quite a while now,” citing wired connections in support of your answer.
It’s plenty fine if you have a different opinion or conclusion about the article. The point where people start flipping their shit and throwing around “Gamergate apologist!” for not seeing things identically was a bit much.
Seriously, I’m sure within the circle of the converted you’re all convinced that your arguments are grand but, looking in, a lot of this thread is just embarrassing nonsense. No, it doesn’t come within miles of the many moronic Gamergate arguments but that’s just damning the thread with the faintest of praise.
Straight up, to me, most of the embarrassing nonsense in this thread has come from you–and almost all of the rest of the civilized world appears to see it my way. So yeah, your judgment on what’s embarrassing? Faulty.
To be clear, you cited an article where people say horrible stuff about game designers, but very rarely mentioned where they lived etc. A few times that happened, but again: rarely.
Now we’ve got a case where a bunch of women are targeted, and repeatedly they’re targeted by calling them whores, threatening to rape them, calling their parents and telling their parents that their daughters are whores, and so on.
And you think that it’s “too bad we had to wait until we could tie it to misogyny before we got a hundred articles and a billion Tweets about it.” As if there’s no difference here, as if the misogyny is not a terrible problem.
Yeah, that’s pretty pathetic. Yeah, that does do a lot to try to deflect the attention from the misogyny that powers Gamergate. Yeah, it’s accurate to call you an apologist, despite your insincere stance of being an objective disinterested judge.