[Non-political] News that makes you Laugh/Cry/Both...

[Kaelik]

My digression was in support of that, logically, we're not in a place that argues about game reviewers, we are in a place that argues about human rights including feminism and misogyny, and yet here we're talking about the quality of the game reviews of a feminist under fire largely from gross and quite disturbing misogyny. The rape and assassination threats. Where some people here are actually saying she should just risk it. That's incredibly fucking creepy. I do not approve. I think the important issue for Anita is in fact the death threats, and not her takedowns on youtube vids where the comments were full of rape jokes and death threats. That's technically illegal, yes, but the legal means of fighting that are essentially bullshit and unavailable, so fuck the law.

You should stop talking because you clearly have absolutely no idea what this conversation is about.

For fucking starters, Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian are different people.

[Leress]

Hold on Kaelik, I think tussock is talking about the videos where people are criticizing Anita's videos.

[DSMatticus]

I think the important issue for Anita is in fact the death threats, and not her takedowns on youtube vids where the comments were full of rape jokes and death threats. That's technically illegal, yes, but the legal means of fighting that are essentially bullshit and unavailable, so fuck the law.

For fuck's sake, Tussock.

Anita Sarkesian is the creator of Feminist Frequency. She receives harassment and threats for every single one of her videos, which is terrible. She released a video during the #GamerGate controversy, and the media picked up the harassment surrounding her latest video and attributed it to the #GamerGate movement as a whole "because." She is only relevant to #GamerGate insofar as an awesome example of the fact that the media response to #GamerGate is not reporting on the actual movement at all. It's "Fox News covers Occupy Wall Street" levels of bullshit.

Zoe Quinn is the creator of Depression Quest. Her ex-boyfriend, Eron Gjoni, came forward describing her infidelities with other industry figures. Someone uploaded a video on youtube about this, alleging corruption. It was taken down by a DMCA request in Zoe Quinn's name. These events were the start of the controversy that would later be dubbed GamerGate. She is relevant to the movement insofar as her censorship campaign and the decision of the media to defend her by labelling everyone critical of her for any reason whatsoever a misogynist. That is to say, her actions and the media response to them are what started this particular fire.

But more importantly than the fact that you don't know who's who, you are claiming that Alice would be ethically justified in using a false DMCA claim to have a youtube video uploaded by Bob removed because Clark made a threat in the comments. I can't and won't process that. It is a dark and terrible reasoning. It is the stuff of horrors. Also a blatant violation of civil rights.

I think it's a real thing that we are all here talking about Anita Sarkeesian because she (as an imperfect person, with imperfect arguments) was a target of mass misogyny.

Yes, Anita Sarkesian is a victim of harassment. Yes, if she had not been a victim of harassment she would be a completely unknown figure. Thank you for this lovely non-sequitur. "You've only heard of Sarkesian because she is a victim of harassment" is not at all a rebuttal of "Sarkesian is a shitty critic." It is so not at at all a rebuttal that in the exact same post Frank talks about how Sarkesian is a shitty critic he also talks about how Sarkesian is famous because she is a victm of harassment.

[Neeeek]

Zoe Quinn is the creator of Depression Quest. Her ex-boyfriend, Eron Gjoni, came forward describing her infidelities with other industry figures. Someone uploaded a video on youtube about this, alleging corruption. It was taken down by a DMCA request in Zoe Quinn's name. These events were the start of the controversy that would later be dubbed GamerGate. She is relevant to the movement insofar as her censorship campaign and the decision of the media to defend her by labelling everyone critical of her for any reason whatsoever a misogynist. That is to say, her actions and the media response to them are what started this particular fire.

You have a really weird way of defining the start of something.

Clearly, for Zoe Quinn to have made a DMCA request for the removal of whatever it is she (or someone in her name) asked to be removed, the thing would have had to already exist. So the start is very clearly before her request. So what you seem to consider the "start" is what is chronologically at best the response to an attack.

That said, Zoe Quinn is not a public figure by virtually any definition. She's a woman who wrote some code for a game. Which means publicizing facts about her life that she'd* rather not be public something she can totally sue you for. It's called "Public Disclosure of Private Facts", and truth is not a defense. Of course, the accusations are also not true, as the primary person she was accused of sleeping with for a good review never, you know, actually reviewed the game in question.

*well, really, a reasonable person, and by that I mean "that's the legal standard" not "Zoe Quinn is a rational person". Though, she seems to be pretty reasonable in my experience.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Regarding the Zoe Quinn takedown thing, is there evidence she had videos criticizing her taken down?

I just remember a few years back that Youtube took down all the My Little Pony vids because someone impersonating Hasbro asked them to. And the person spelled "Hasbro" wrong. I don't think Youtube really checks who asks them to take videos down is my point.

[Koumei]

Well, the accusations that it was her who did so was publicly made. And she... has not answered on that matter, that I know of. One way or another. And let's face it, one answer to "Did you do this thing?" carries no negative baggage, and the other one is an admission of guilt to something you're actually not allowed to do by law. It's the kind of thing where not answering is pretty damning.

You are right though that youtube are very lazy/overworked and basically anyone can get anything taken down for any reason.

[DSMatticus]

You have a really weird way of defining the start of something.

Zoe Quinn is the creator of Depression Quest. Her ex-boyfriend, Eron Gjoni, came forward describing her infidelities with other industry figures. Someone uploaded a video on youtube about this, alleging corruption. It was taken down by a DMCA request in Zoe Quinn's name. These events...

If someone describes three events and then begins the next sentence with "these events," fuck it I'm tired you're dumb etcetera etcetera next paragraph.

That said, Zoe Quinn is not a public figure by virtually any definition. She's a woman who wrote some code for a game.

Zoe Quinn has been a significant figure in social media since at least early 2014, when she got into a Twitter fight with The Fine Young Capitalists. During this exchange and in its aftermath, she and TFYC both contacted and were contacted by journalists, because their twitter fight was itself news worthy within the industry. Amusingly, it was during this twitter exchange that Maya Kramer (Zoe Quinn's PR agent) published some of Matthew Rappard's (figure behind TFYC) personal contact info which Zoe Quinn retweeted to her followers. Matthew Rappard claims having received a death threat as a result.

You really need to understand that yes, the people you are defending are victims, but they are also malicious and irresponsible victimizers, and the former does not excuse the latter.

It's called "Public Disclosure of Private Facts", and truth is not a defense. Of course, the accusations are also not true, as the primary person she was accused of sleeping with for a good review never, you know, actually reviewed the game in question.

I don't think there's any court on the planet which would declare that allegations of journalistic corruption aren't a legitimate public interest. This is entirely separate from the question of whether or not there exists a court which would declare that the allegations were both false and actionably negligent or malicious. It is also the case that facts which have already been made public are not liable, and so this would only ever apply to Eron Gjoni. But I am absolutely 100% certain that these are matters for a court to decide, and not to be resolved by individuals filing false DMCA claims. It's almost like there's some burden of proof that must be met before you can punish someone for their speech, let alone silence them. Annoying how that works.

Regarding the Zoe Quinn takedown thing, is there evidence she had videos criticizing her taken down?

Youtube does not require any verification and automatically rules in favor of complaints unless your channel is under a network large enough that it gets special status. It is complete and total bullshit.

The only evidence is that:
1) It was done in her name, and
2) it happened alongside a bunch of other acts of censorship which absolutely were her (articles being taken down because she contacted their hosts, reddit's mass purge), and
3) her close friends and supporters have viciously attacked people on twitter for as little as "I don't know if it was her, but if it was, then that's bullshit," and
4) she has spent months pointedly not responding to inquiries from figures both large and small.

It was almost certainly her. Given that it was done in her name and those close to her will label you a misogynist for statements as benign as explicitly conditional condemnations, if it wasn't her it is incredibly remiss of her not to come forward and clear the air. Her supporters dragged John Bain's name through the mud and even threatened him with false DMCA claims of their own if he dared to review their games (no, really, at least one developer actually fucking did that, and yes that is also illegal) simply for suggesting that if it was her then she was in the wrong for having done so. And even if you dismiss the DMCA takedown, it is still true that all the other bullshit happened, and it was not a respectable request to "stop threats and harassment," it was an insane request to "stop people on the internet from talking about me... because some of those people are threatening and harassing me."

So yes, Zoe Quinn is in the wrong. The only real debate is about how in the wrong she is. But it's honestly not that important anymore; the conduct of Zoe Quinn is inconsequential next to the conduct of the journalistic community which rushed to her defense. The John Bain lynch mob happened. I am not exaggerating or misrepresenting those events. He made a very long post boiling down "I have no idea about this Zoe Quinn bullshit, but if she did the DMCA thing, that is unacceptable. Also, yes, the industry as a whole is very corrupt," and the response was unified rage. When that unified rage came off as insane tribalism and earned them even more piles of scorn, they published a bunch of articles implicitly labelling all of their detractors as misogynists. And since then, they have reinforced that narrative simply by having a monopoly on the spotlights and shining them solely on examples of misogyny and harassment that reinforce the narrative.

If John Bain's position doesn't offend you but the response to it does, then welcome to the club. If you don't think being offended by their response makes you a misogynist, then welcome to the club. If you think "#GamerGate is just a bunch of misogynists, here are some screenshots, remember that the plural of anecdote is data" is an incredibly shady way to try and slander Bain and those like him by proxy, then welcome to the club.

Virtually the only thing #GamerGate agrees on is that their treatment at the hands of the media has been complete and total bullshit. And amusingly, that is the one matter on which they are without doubt correct.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I remember a friend of a friend on Facebook once said that no one ever complained about corruption in gaming jounalism before Gamergate, thus he believes it doesn't exist. I posted a link to this:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/ ... 2-Dog-Days

Which was a complaint about corruption in gaming journalism back in 2010. I was told I was being "stupid" to think he was being literal when he said "no one complained about gaming journalism before Gamergate". And my black list on Facebook got a bit longer that day...

[Koumei]

There was also a Penny Arcade comic about the corruption (go ahead and search for it, I'll wait). One of them ended up writing to the publisher of the game saying "Next time, please just send cash for a good review".

And I'm pretty sure the Metacritic thing was universally known. "We get paid more if it gets this magic number for the rating, so we'll ply them with goods to get that magic number."

[hyzmarca]

Yes, Anita Sarkesian is a victim of harassment. Yes, if she had not been a victim of harassment she would be a completely unknown figure. Thank you for this lovely non-sequitur. "You've only heard of Sarkesian because she is a victim of harassment" is not at all a rebuttal of "Sarkesian is a shitty critic." It is so not at at all a rebuttal that in the exact same post Frank talks about how Sarkesian is a shitty critic he also talks about how Sarkesian is famous because she is a victm of harassment.

It's worth remembering that if your goal is to make her less famous then complaining about her is the exact opposite of what you should be doing.

[Chamomile]

That would've been a great strategy back in 2012 when Tropes Vs. Women was getting off the ground. Here in 2014 she is already famous and refusing to discuss her is not really going to make a noticeable difference to that. Discrediting her as a reasonable or respectable voice in the discussion (because she is neither reasonable nor respectable) is something that can actually happen and which will have similar results.

[hyzmarca]

That would've been a great strategy back in 2012 when Tropes Vs. Women was getting off the ground. Here in 2014 she is already famous and refusing to discuss her is not really going to make a noticeable difference to that. Discrediting her as a reasonable or respectable voice in the discussion (because she is neither reasonable nor respectable) is something that can actually happen and which will have similar results.

All glory is fleeting. Refusing to discuss her can make a difference because fame has to be maintained.

[Leress]

In regards to Gamergate:

It has a more fun slant to Gamergate's message.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B57vWZnnk0

[DSMatticus]

Yes, Anita Sarkesian is a victim of harassment. Yes, if she had not been a victim of harassment she would be a completely unknown figure. Thank you for this lovely non-sequitur. "You've only heard of Sarkesian because she is a victim of harassment" is not at all a rebuttal of "Sarkesian is a shitty critic." It is so not at at all a rebuttal that in the exact same post Frank talks about how Sarkesian is a shitty critic he also talks about how Sarkesian is famous because she is a victm of harassment.

It's worth remembering that if your goal is to make her less famous then complaining about her is the exact opposite of what you should be doing.

At this point, Sarkesian is famous and will continue to be famous because the media industry in which she is relevant wants her to be famous. The death threats aren't going to stop (because this is the internet), and they are going to receive the spotlight whenever it is convenient to shine the spotlight on them and because it makes for great clickbait.

[Kaelik]

It's worth remembering that if your goal is to make her less famous then complaining about her is the exact opposite of what you should be doing.

It is worth remembering that no has the goal of making Anita Sarkeesian less famous. Hitler is super famous. So is Ken Ham in biology departments.

[hyzmarca]

It's worth remembering that if your goal is to make her less famous then complaining about her is the exact opposite of what you should be doing.

It is worth remembering that no has the goal of making Anita Sarkeesian less famous. Hitler is super famous. So is Ken Ham in biology departments.

I had no fucking clue who Ken Ham is and could have gone the rest of my life without knowing if you hadn't mentioned him.

[...You Lost Me]

Are you part of a biology department?

[Leress]

Fuck...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IOBhmByNKc

[Kaelik]

Are you part of a biology department?

What are qualifiers. Those aren't real things. Also fuck you for saying the US is the largest country by population in North America.

Canada has way more land, and China has more people. And Russia is the biggest.

[Sam]

Anyway, having read it, I stand by my Fuck You.

Okay, I am really confused could you elaborate on why you still say that.

Yeah, fine.

She identifies some traits as being viewed by society as traditionally masculine or feminine. She notes that "strong women" are often presented as visually female but as having only "masculine" characteristics. Or worse, they have some (present as positive) masculine characteristics, but then also some (presented as negative) feminine characteristics, because they're not real men. And she objects to that.

But she points to characters like Buffy, who not only have both masculine and feminine characteristics, but have all of those presented as positive aspects of her character, as something to strive for.

Basically, she wants to see three things in future works:
1) more positive representations of female characters (ie, as protagonists, role models, important for who they are and what they do, etc)
2) more characters with "traditionally feminine" characteristics having those characteristics presented as positive (instead of those characteristics being nearly universal negatives)
3) more characters with "traditionally masculine" characteristics having those characteristics presented as negative (instead of those characteristics being universally positive)

I don't see how people are reading the paper to say that she's calling for female characters that lack all "masculine" characteristics (positive or negative), that she's endorsing the gender binary, or that she's embracing the idea that certain characteristics are male/female. Maybe it reads differently if you take specific lines out of context? I don't know.

[OgreBattle]

I remember a friend of a friend on Facebook once said that no one ever complained about corruption in gaming jounalism before Gamergate, thus he believes it doesn't exist.

Former EGM editor Dan "Shoe" Hsu was known for being one of the first guys to talk about corruption in games journalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Hsu

Hsu created a stir in the gaming industry in late 2005, when he wrote an editorial about the practice of gaming magazines and websites selling article and editorial opportunities to gaming publishers in exchange for advertising agreements. Citing an unnamed contact at a major game publishing company, Hsu refused to name the parties involved, but condemned those responsible for not maintaining journalistic integrity.[6] The matter was publicized further when Slashdot linked to a Games.net editorial response written by Chris Cook, a writer for game magazine GamePro, who admonished Hsu for not specifying which companies were involved in the practices that were alluded to.[7]

[Chamomile]

She identifies some traits as being viewed by society as traditionally masculine or feminine. She notes that "strong women" are often presented as visually female but as having only "masculine" characteristics.

As has been mentioned already: Sarkeesian apparently didn't think Inara or Cordelia had any place on her list of "strong female characters" despite being given equal or greater billing than Zoe and Jasmine in the shows themselves, and also the fact that they are absolutely positive portrayals of supportive characteristics and even female, although if Sarkeesian wanted to make a point about supportive traits being undervalued there was absolutely no reason to limit her scope to just women. Unless her point is that supportive female characters are subversive and progressive, in which case does she come from bizarro world or something?

Sarkeesian's own list of "strong female characters" (a loosely defined term which could absolutely include Cordelia and Inara according to definitions most people would agree with) does not consider a character to be "strong" unless they are defined by assertive character traits. But she also considers these character traits to be inherently masculine and that female characters who have them are only strong because they're being "like men." She is conflating supportive traits with femininity, and assertive or rationalist traits with masculinity. That is supporting the gender binary: A woman is not less of a woman for being assertive nor for failing to be supportive, so when a character like Faith has lots of assertive traits and few supportive traits, she is not, in fact, being unfeminine. She's clearly female and therefore everything she does is feminine by definition. Asserting that Faith isn't really being celebrated as a female because she lacks supportive traits is supporting the idea that supportive traits are inherently and exclusively feminine, and that is supporting the gender binary. It's seriously weird that I have to explain this to you or anyone else who has actually used that phrase, because that is what the gender binary is. What did you think that phrase referred to?

Sarkeesian gets away with her shell game the same way that your regular brand misogynists do, by using "masculine" as synonymous with "assertive" she can claim that celebrations of assertive women are duplicitous because they're still just celebrating "masculinity," and she relies on the built-in cultural assumption that assertiveness is innately masculine to be understood without actually coming out and saying that. Because, of course, once you start using words like "assertive" and "supportive" to divorce the traits themselves from the genders they've traditionally been assigned to, it becomes clear that she's supporting the gender binary by repeating the notion that the traits are inextricably linked to the genders they're traditionally associated with.

[...You Lost Me]

I don't see how people are reading the paper to say that she's calling for female characters that lack all "masculine" characteristics (positive or negative), that she's endorsing the gender binary, or that she's embracing the idea that certain characteristics are male/female. Maybe it reads differently if you take specific lines out of context? I don't know.

I cannot read your synopsis of her paper and not take away that she endorses the gender binary. I have no idea how you can't see it.

[DSMatticus]

She identifies some traits as being viewed by society as traditionally masculine or feminine. She notes that "strong women" are often presented as visually female but as having only "masculine" characteristics. Or worse, they have some (present as positive) masculine characteristics, but then also some (presented as negative) feminine characteristics, because they're not real men. And she objects to that.

Heroic women in science fiction and fantasy television shows have done much to represent strong, successful women in leadership positions. However, these female roles that are viewed as strong and empowered embody many masculine identified traits, maintaining a patriarchal division of gender roles.

Those are the first two sentences of her paper. Seriously, the first two. From the word go, she is claiming that women with masculine traits reinforce a patriarchical division of gender roles.

How can you not see the problem with this? It's a woman! If you show a woman with masculine traits, you are by definition undermining the notion that those traits can be correctly labelled masculine to begin with. That weakens the gender binary. It helps widen the set of traits it is socially acceptable for women to adopt.

Basically, it's what I said in this post:

So, let's play a little game. We're going to grant that leadership and courage are traditionally masculine traits and widely respected while expressivity and empathy are traditionally feminine traits and less respected. Now, let's consider four hypothetical movies:
1) Hero Man is a movie featuring a male lead who exhibits leadership and courage as well as a female supporting character who exhibits expressivity and empathy.
2) Hero Woman is a movie featuring a female lead who exhibits leadership and courage as well as a male supporting character who exhibits expressivity and empathy.
3) Supportive Man is a movie featuring a male lead who exhibits expressivity and empathy as well as a female supporting character who exhibits leadership and courage.
4) Supportive Woman is a movie featuring a female lead who exhibits expressivity and empathy as well as a male supporting character who exhibits leadership and courage.

Of those four, name the ones which reinforce the traditional gender binary.

Of those four, name the ones which reinforce the notion that leadership and courage are more respectable than expressivity and empathy.

You should notice that the answers aren't the same, which means from the word go Sarkesian's paper is a schizophrenic mess that doesn't know what it's trying to say. It is legitimately a call to tear down gender roles by placing the spotlight on characters who adhere to the gender roles expected of them. It's complete and total gibberish. Women assuming roles of leadership do not reinforce a patriarchical gender binary, and anyone who says they do is either an idiot or running a hit job on feminism while simultaneously trying to pass that hit job off as credible feminist thought. I'm going with the former, but it isn't really much consolation.

[Josh_Kablack]

Or do I need to switch back to team nihilist for a bit to let you yell at me?

This is the 'Den. We will yell at you regardless.