Get in the Hog if you want to live!

 
User avatar
Sarge
Wheelman
Wheelman
Posts: 8458
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:00 pm
Title: Retired Admin
Gamertag: HWM Sarge
Tumblr: bengiyo
Location: New Orleans
Contact:

#GamerGate Discussion

Mon Oct 27, 2014 2:47 pm

Staff Note: This is the only thread where we will allow discussion of this topic. Normal site rules regarding the discussion of politics has been lifted for this post exclusively. Otherwise, please treat each other with respect and do not launch personal attacks on each other.
We are monitoring this thread.

Original Post from the Front Page:

We, the staff of HaloWheelmen.com and the Wheelmen clan have discussed this matter privately for weeks before deciding that our silence on this matter translated to silent support. For weeks, we declined to officially discuss this matter on the grounds that we do not allow discussion of politics or religion on our forums. However, the #GamerGate movement does not represent any political ideology, and has instead become an open conflict for the future of gaming itself. Thus, we make it clear here:

We do not support #GamerGate.

Our rejection of the #GamerGate movement and the various aims its supporters claim to support stems from the straightforward ideals upon which this community was founded:

“The Halo Wheelmen (HWM) is a community established to foster the ideals of good gaming with a focus on one of the most effective weapon in Halo history, the Warthog. To encourage the continuation of friendly ideals within the gaming community we have established a formal Code of Conduct as a guideline for acceptable interactions within our own community as well as within the Match Making environment. No matter if you are in Match Making or on the Forums you should always be respectful. We feel the gaming experience is supposed to be enjoyable for everybody, not just a select few."

Members of this community come from different cultural, ethnic, gender, sexual, and national backgrounds. This community aims to provide a safe and fun space for everyone to engage in equally. We cannot support a movement that views criticism of media as a threat to said media, answerable with extreme harassment and threat of violence. We do not support a movement that claims to protect the freedom of expression at the expense of the right to expression of underrepresented demographics within said medium.

Discussions about what constitutes a game, who games are made for, how games affect people, and what metrics we use to measure and discuss games are just a few worthwhile discussions to have as gaming continues to become a common activity millions of consumers engage in regularly. However, the idea that critics and developers should “deal with” hostile harassment to exist as part of the medium is not something this community supports.

“We feel the gaming experience is supposed to be enjoyable for everybody, not just a select few.”

~The Staff

HWM BrickFungus
HWM il Duce
HWM Sarge
Image
1/2 of the BR Leech Octagon Hall of Fame
 
User avatar
il Duce
Legendary Wheelman
Legendary Wheelman
Posts: 3089
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 7:03 pm
Title: Drinking Coach
Gamertag: HWM il Duce
Location: Denver, CO

Re: #GamerGate Discussion

Mon Oct 27, 2014 9:00 pm

Image
 
User avatar
Valkyrion
Ground Pounder
Ground Pounder
Posts: 419
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 2:56 pm
Gamertag: HWM Valkyrion
Location: The Habitable Zone of Sol

Re: #GamerGate Discussion

Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:50 am

I don't think I can contribute much more to this discussion, to be honest. I support the site's position on this matter.
 
User avatar
Sarge
Wheelman
Wheelman
Posts: 8458
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:00 pm
Title: Retired Admin
Gamertag: HWM Sarge
Tumblr: bengiyo
Location: New Orleans
Contact:

Re: #GamerGate Discussion

Tue Oct 28, 2014 9:22 am

Beyond our statement, something I was to directly reject is the idea that politics has no place in games. Owen Grieve wrote a great piece titled "Game Design Is Always Political I'm Not Even Exaggerating Here" that I'm going to paste a few excerpts from.

One of the popular memes causing certain members of the gaming community to shit the bed right now is the idea that political ideologies are being inserted into games by critics and journalists who are looking to push an agenda. It's a naive point of view, but I've found that just saying that to people doesn't make for a convincing argument. As an experiment, I'm going to explain how I reach that conclusion.

To begin: Understand that, in real life, there is no such thing as objective neutrality. Everything that everyone does, at all times and places, occurs within some kind of political context - even if you're stranded alone on a desert island, the absense of society still contributes towards this context. You can assume you will not be arrested for scrumping the odd coconut, for example.

When people say they have a 'neutral' political stance, what that usually means is that they've adopted a centrist position within their particular political environment. It's a kind of local neutrality, perhaps, but not a true global neutrality; a position between two, more extreme camps, not an absense of position. People who believe they have no political ideology are in fact so fully immersed in their ideological environment that they don't even realise it's there - the defining features of their political views seem so obvious to them that they assume they are some kind of natural standard. To reiterate: There are no natural standards.


Pointing out the politics of game development, he breaks down how this affects the Battlefield franchise:

Spoiler: show
Battlefield 4 is a big-budget commercial game developed in Sweden by DICE (in collaboration with other businesses around the world), and published by EA. It exists to make money and, consequently, raise stock value. There are some other motivations behind its creation - 'tech demo for the Frostbite engine' springs to mind, and if you keep working your way down the list you'd eventually reach some sincere artistic intention - but first and foremost it is tentpole product which drives profits. How do politics influence its design?

  • Sweden's liberal free market economic context means (in short) that people need salaried jobs to pay rent and taxes, buy food, and so on. Recruiting these people to work on a game requires that you pay them - you can't just draft a hundred programmers and artists to work on your personal project for free. It costs a lot of money to hire enough people to make a game as polished as Battlefield 4 ($100 million, apparently), which means only an organisation with a large amount of money to begin with (such as EA) can afford to do it. Without passing any moral judgements, this is an obvious barrier to entry - only a large corporation like EA could afford the development and marketing budgets afforded to Battlefield 4. That whole section of the market - your Grand Theft Autos, your Battlefields, your Call of Dutys - are an exclusive members-only club for well-funded developers.
  • Related to that, the only reason EA would spend all that money would be if they expected to make a great profit from the game (otherwise they'd lose money, weaken their position within the market, and most likely lose stock value). The development of a game as expensive as Battlefield 4 fully relies on (EA's reading of) market conditions - they would not make a game like this if they did not believe the audience exists.
  • The plot of Battlefield 4's singleplayer campaign is (firstly: terrible, secondly: irrelevant to the play experience, but thirdly:) about a squad of brave American soldiers defending truth, justice, and the American way. I actually played through the game just a couple of weeks ago, and I still couldn't follow it... some rogue Chinese general was trying to start a war with the US in order to force some kind of military coup in Beijing? There were some Russians involved, somehow? I understood what I was doing, but I had no idea why any of it was happening - there was no real sense of the narrative extending beyond the limits of the game itself. Assuming the general's plan succeeded and he took control of the Chinese government, he would immediately have to deal with World War III kicking off as a result of his actions - are we to believe he thinks it's worth that hassle? And when you kill the guy and put an end to his plans - which have already sparked airstrikes and ground battles between the global superpowers in public arenas like Singapore - the game seems to imply that the whole conflict just comes to an immediate halt? Really? Really! And I suppose the UN declares it an official 'lost weekend' and everyone just shrugs off the thousands of military and civilian deaths? Anyway, the crux of the matter is that good, honest GIs save the world from devious foreign aggression. Again, not to make any moral judgements, but it's clear that a story like this is primarily written to appeal to a target audience of Americans and Europeans, and the political content of the story reflects the prevailant sentiment of these regions - you don't play as a rogue soldier trying to leak information about systematic human rights abuses within the military, for example, because military criticism (no matter how valid) is often considered distasteful and 'unpatriotic' in many of these countries.
  • In broader terms: The whole premise of the game as a military fantasy, in which players pretend to be soldiers and run around fighting in wars, relies on certain prevailing attitudes towards war. There is no real possibility space within the game to negotiate a ceasefire. There is no representation of pacifist ideology, or at least Swiss-style 'neutrality', because that would water down the shooty-man experience and - ultimately - risk lowering sales. The game is designed for an audience who are satisfied with, at least, the concept of fighting in a war. The games industry certainly contributes to this culture, but it did not create it.
  • Battlefield 4's DLC release schedule is much longer and more detailed than most games, with a steady drip of minor content (eg. customisation options) coming every week, and packs of new multiplayer maps (which are the real meat) being released every two months or so. The content of these expansion packs continues in much the same vein as the rest of the game, but the timing of their release is another expression of the game's capitalist conception - metrics show that a significant proportion of gamers sell their games on the secondary market (ie. eBay, trade-ins, etc) after about a month, which devalues the product in the primary market (ie. buying new copies from retail, digital services, etc). It has become standard practice among AAA game developers - which you can implicitly interpret as "developers who can afford it" - to announce DLC release dates before the main game comes out, as a way of persuading players to at least hold onto their copies of the game for a few more weeks. A crystal clear example of this in action is Battlefield 4's China Rising DLC, which was released about two months after launch but given free to anyone who pre-ordered the game. This incentivises players to both pre-order the game (ensuring strong Day 1 sales and generating free marketing buzz around the number of copies sold) and keep hold of it for at least two months in order to access their free bonus content, which stalls second hand sales, encouraging more primary sales, etc, etc. I'm starting to flog a dead horse here, but it's important to understand this: The release schedule for Battlefield 4's expansions, the resource investment being put into developing each of those expansions, and so on, are all determined as a direct result of DICE/EA's profit-maximising capitalist ideology.
  • Seriously, those shortcut kits. For those who don't play Battlefield: The different player classes in the game come with a huge list of unlockable weapons and equipment which slowly become available to the player as they play more games and earn experience and level up. However, EA/DICE have released some premium puchase items which unlock all of this stuff immediately, for pretty much the same cost as a whole new game. I'm not going to try and second-guess the intentions of the designers, but it should be obvious that a profit-maximising company has, at least, an incentive to make this unlock chain longer and more boring, to try and nudge players towards shelling out money to skip the grind.
I could go on.

All of this stuff really just boils down to "EA are a large company trying to succeed in a capitalist system". I think the obviousness of this statement is the main reason why nobody stops to question what effect it has on games - it's often considered normal, neutral, a pre-requisite even.


I know most of you don't even approach how passionate I am about media criticism, but one of my favorite critics is FILM CRIT HULK. Hulk has a meltdown about a month or so ago and considered quitting the entire persona and writing about this kind of stuff. However, an outpouring of fan love strengthened his resolve and he's going to keep on keeping on. He wrote an extremely long piece "ON DESPAIR, GAMERGATE, AND QUITTING THE HULK." It is one of the most personal deconstructions of everything wrong with the #GamerGate movement and how it affects people.

He wrote on the idea of 'sides'

Spoiler: show
THE MAIN THING THAT THOSE WHO FEEL BETRAYED ASK HULK TO DO IS "LOOK AT BOTH SIDES."

WELL, THE FIRST TIME HULK SAW THE "GAMERGATE" TAG POP UP ON TWITTER HULK CURIOUSLY BEGAN INVESTIGATING IN EARNEST. AGAIN, HULK CAME INTO THIS WHOLE THING WITH GENUINELY NO ILL WILL AND WITH THE SAME DESIRE TO HAVE PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS AS ALWAYS, AND GIVEN THE INTENSITY OF THE CLAIMS HULK WAS HONESTLY WORRIED ABOUT A HUGE JOURNALISTIC BREACH THAT HAD POSSIBLY EXACERBATED THE ENTIRE ISSUE... BUT THE ONLY PROBLEM WAS THAT THERE DIDN'T SEEM TO BE AN ACTUAL BREACH. EVERYTHING REPORTED COULD BE DISMISSED WITHIN A HALF SECOND. EVEN WORSE, THERE WAS SUCH AN UGLINESS TO THOSE FIRST ATTACKS. THE IRE DIRECTED AT ALREADY-FREQUENT TARGETS LIKE SARKEESIAN AND QUINN WAS UNDENIABLE, AND AROUND THEM, AROUND THE WHOLE ISSUE ITSELF WAS JUST THIS MAELSTROM OF VEHEMENT TALKING POINTS, ALL UNDER "POSITIVE" WORD USAGE REGARDING JOURNALISM AND ETHICS. BUT THE IRE IS ALL THAT REMAINED. AND THE THING THAT WAS CLEAR FROM RIGHT THEN, OTHER THAN THE COMMONALITY OF THE FEMALE TARGETS, WAS HOW THERE WAS SOMETHING SO IMMEDIATELY EVASIVE ABOUT THE POINT OF ALL OF IT. AND ANY ATTEMPTS TO CONVERSE ON THE MATTER WERE SO MET WITH WHAT WE CALL "REFRACTIVE TACTICS." PUT IT LIKE THIS: SINCE THEY WERE THE ONES USING THE "POSITIVE LANGUAGE," ANY ATTEMPTS TO DISMANTLE THE MERITS OF GAMERGATE ITSELF COULD BE EASILY CONSIDERED NEGATIVE AND ATTACKING. AND EVERY TIME THEY COULD BE CALLED OUT ON SOMETHING PROBLEMATIC, THEY COULD ARGUE WITH "NO TRUE SCOTSMAN" LOGIC, ETC. SO HERE WE HAD A MOB UNDENIABLY ATTACKING WOMEN AT THE CENTER OF THE INDUSTRY AND THEY TURNED ANYONE WHO BROUGHT THIS TO LIGHT INTO A MONSTER WHO WAS ATTACKING THEM PERSONALLY. AND IN TRUTH, HULK WAS NEVER ATTACKING ANYBODY. NEVER ONCE. HULK WAS CRITICIZING THE MOVEMENT ITSELF AND ITS APPARENT AIMS. BUT THAT DIDN'T MATTER. IT ALL GOT WRAPPED UP IN THE SAME THING...

...BECAUSE GAMERGATE IS NOT ABOUT ETHICS OR JOURNALISM - IT WAS BUILT ON A LIE AND IT WAS PROPAGATED BY A BROADER MISUNDERSTANDING OF HOW BOTH OF THOSE DISCIPLINES ACTUALLY WORK. DESPITE WHAT MANY HAVE COME TO BELIEVE, THERE IS NO WIDESPREAD PROBLEM IN GAMING JOURNALISM (ESPECIALLY WITH REGARDS TO ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH INDIE DEVELOPERS). IN FACT, THERE IS A PRETTY DECENT ARGUMENT TO BE MADE ABOUT THE WAY THE AAA DEVELOPERS TRY TO CONTROL MEDIA OUTLETS, BUT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE FOLKS BEHIND GAMERGATE DO NOT SEEM AS INTERESTED IN THAT ISSUE (THOUGH WHEN YOU BRING IT UP, THEY SAY THEY ARE, THEN PROCEED TO DIRECT ZERO IRE THAT WAY AND INSTEAD CRITICIZE PEOPLE SPEAKING UP ON MISOGYNY... AND IF YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT A MOVEMENT IS REALLY ABOUT, LOOK AT WHO THEY ARE REALLY TARGETING / THE EFFECT). SADLY, THIS CRIPPLING ACTION ONLY HELPS SHOWCASE THAT PERHAPS THE BIGGEST CRISIS IN GAMES JOURNALISM IS THAT IT NEEDS TO FIND A WAY TO SUPPORT EVEN MORE QUALITY WRITERS THAN THE ONES THAT EXIST (AND ARE UNDERPAID) - AND IT NEEDS AN AUDIENCE THAT DOESN'T ACTIVELY HARASS THEM FOR A VARIETY OF HORRIFIC SOCIAL REASONS / MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF HOW JOURNALISM ACTUALLY WORKS.


On their tactics:

Spoiler: show
BUT WHEN IT COMES TO GAMERGATE, FINDING ANY SINGLE KIND OF POINT TO LOCK ONTO IN TERMS OF THE VIEWPOINT IS IMPOSSIBLE. REALLY. IT'S LIKE TRYING TO TANGO ON QUICKSAND. EVERY TIME YOU GO BEHIND THE CLAIM YOU HIT ANOTHER LIE, ANOTHER THING SOMEONE WILL SAY YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND. AND UNLIKE ANY ORGANIZED GROUP, THERE IS NO CENTRAL ETHOS TO REFERENCE AT THE CORE. WHICH JUST MEANS ALL ORGANIZATIONAL STATEMENTS OR INCLINATIONS CAN BE DISAVOWED. THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE MOVEMENT IS ACTIVELY HARASSING WOMEN? "NOPE! THEY'RE JUST THE MINORITY AND NOT PART OF WHAT WE'RE REALLY ABOUT." FOR ANYTHING THAT CAN BE USED TO REVEAL GAMERGATE FOR WHAT IT IS AND WHAT IT IS DOING IS NOT PART OF THE TRUE MOVEMENT. THOSE HARASSERS? THEY ARE JUST MINORITY TROLLS. NEVER MIND THAT HULK CAN TELL YOU FROM THE HUNDREDS OF RESPONSES THAT'S NOT THE CASE. POINT OUT THAT THE MOVEMENT IS ONLY FREQUENTLY TARGETING WOMEN? "NOPE! IT'S ABOUT ETHICS AND THAT'S INCIDENTAL." IN THIS ENVIRONMENT, ALL DISAGREEMENTS BECOME PERSONAL ATTACKS. IT ALL BECOMES A MOVING GOAL POST. THE "TRUTH" OF VIRTUALLY EVERY SINGLE STEP IS A SHADOW OF SOMETHING THAT CANNOT EVEN BE CONCEIVED, MAYBE EVEN BY THE PERPETRATORS THEMSELVES. BECAUSE THE ONE THING HULK CANNOT GET ANY SINGLE ONE OF THEM TO DO IS OUTLINE SOMETHING POSITIVE THEY ARE ACCOMPLISHING THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT SEEM LIKE THEY ARE TRYING TO ERADICATE FEMINIST INFLUENCE IN GAMING. INSTEAD, THEY JUST CLING SO DESPERATELY TO THE THOSE POSITIVE WORDS THEY SAY THEY REPRESENT AND LASH OUT AGAINST ANY AND ALL THREATS. THE END RESULT IS YOU CAN'T EVEN GET TO THE NUGGET OF DISAGREEMENT ON THE WORLD VIEW. THERE IS NO WORLD VIEW. THERE IS ONLY THE ATTACK AND THE RESPONSE.

WHICH, IN CASE YOU ARE UNAWARE, IS THE STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE FOR CULTS, BEHAVIORAL PROGRAMMING AND MORE ORGANIZED ORGANIZATIONS LIKE SCIENTOLOGY.

NOW... IF ALL THIS TROUBLE WERE JUST RELEGATED TO THE TOWER OF BABEL VERSION OF THE INTERNET, THEN THIS WOULD NORMALLY BE NO PROBLEM. THE POTENCY OF OUTSIDER OPINIONS ARE MOST OFTEN HELPED BY THE FACT THAT THEY DISORGANIZED, DISTANT AND SEPARATE. BUT THE PROBLEM WITH THE POTENCY OF GAMERGATE IS THAT ALL THOSE WHO FERVENTLY ARGUE THAT THIS IS NOT ABOUT SEXISM ARE THEN SOMEHOW ABLE TO BIND THEIR EFFORTS INTO A FIST TO ATTACK FEMALE DEVELOPERS / FEMALE WRITERS INSTANTLY, ALONG WITH THE COMPANIES THAT SUPPORT THEM ON ANY LEVEL... AND HULK'S PRETTY SURE THAT MANY OF THEM DON'T EVEN REALIZE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE TAKING PART OF.

YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND HOW PROBLEMATIC THIS IS. IT'S ALMOST THOUGHT TO BE IMPOSSIBLE. WHAT HAS ESSENTIALLY HAPPENED IS THAT WE HAVE TAKEN A CULT BEHAVIORAL APPROACH TO DISCUSSION AND PHILOSOPHY - NORMALLY A REALLY DIFFICULT THING TO INSTILL INTO PEOPLE AND REQUIRES ISOLATION, DIRECT PROGRAMMING AND FULL-ON CULTURAL SEPARATION - AND TURNED IT INTO SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN CASUALLY LEARNED ON THE INTERNET'S PROVERBIAL STREETS THROUGH THE ORGANIC PROCESS OF BEING A PART OF VIDEO GAME'S MOST TOXIC SUBCULTURE.

THIS IS ONE OF THE SCARIEST THINGS HULK HAS EVER SEEN.

Regarding the good people caught up in all of this:

Spoiler: show
WHICH BRINGS US TO THE CRUX OF THE PROBLEM WITH THE GOODHEARTED SOULS. WHEN YOU CRITICIZE GAMERGATE, THEY THINK YOU ARE CRITICIZING THEM.

THEY THINK YOU ARE CALLING THEM A MISOGYNIST. AND HULK SWEARS TO YOU, THAT'S NOT THE CASE AT ALL. HULK IS SIMPLY CRITICIZING THE IDEA OF WHAT GAMERGATE INESCAPABLY ADVOCATES. AND WHEN THEY GET OFFENDED AT THE IMPLICATION OF BEING CALLED A MISOGYNIST, THEY DO LITERALLY THE MOST UNHELPFUL THING POSSIBLE AND THAT IS TO DIRECT ALL IRE AT THOSE WHO THEY THINK ARE CALLING THEM MISOGYNISTS, WHICH DOES NOTHING BUT HELP SILENCE THE VOICE OF THOSE SPEAKING UP ABOUT MISOGYNY AND EMPOWER THOSE WHO ARE ACTUALLY MISOGYNIST AND FORWARD THEIR AGENDA OF TAKING MORE POWER IN THE SOCIAL SPACE. WHICH JUST TIES INTO HULK'S LARGER FEELINGS ABOUT ANY SOCIAL CONVERSATION. IT'S NEVER ABOUT "YOU" AND WHAT YOU SUPPOSEDLY ARE (BECAUSE IN THE END WE'RE MOSTLY JUST HUMANS TRYING TO DO OUR BEST), IT'S ABOUT THE THINGS YOU SAY AND DO AND HOW THAT PROPAGATES A POSITIVE SOCIAL EFFECT OR A NEGATIVE SOCIAL EFFECT. BUT JUST AS HULK HAS ARGUED MANY TIMES, WE HAVE SUCH A DIFFICULT TIME SEEING OURSELVES AS ANYTHING BUT A PERSON IN A MOMENTARY INTERACTION. AND SO WE ONLY LIKE TO DEBATE THE FAIRNESS OF THAT MYOPIC INTERACTION ITSELF. WE ARE SO DAMN BAD AT SEEING OURSELVES AS PART OF A LARGER TREND / SYSTEM. WE ARE SO BAD AT SEEING WHAT WE ARE ACTUALLY ADVOCATING ON THE WHOLE.

FOR THE GOOD YOUNG SOULS, IT IS SIMPLY A FAILURE TO SEE "THE NET EFFECT" OF WHAT THEY ARE DOING... WHICH IS AS ACHINGLY HUMAN AS IT GETS...

...THUS, EVERY ATTEMPT TO BROACH THE CONVERSATION AND SAY TRUTHFULLY THAT "EVERY PRO GAMER-GATE TALKING POINT IS BUILT ON A FALSE PRETEXT, PREDICATED ON FIXING SOMETHING THAT ISN'T EVEN BROKEN" AND RIGHTFULLY EXPRESSING THE INSANITY OF THIS SITUATION IS TO DO NOTHING BUT PROMPT CALLS OF BEING AN INSENSITIVE JERK. THEY COME AT YOU AND "ASK WHY CAN'T YOU BE REASONABLE AND CIVIL?" OR "WHY CAN'T YOU SEE THE OTHER SIDE?" AND YET THEY DON'T SEE THE ARGUMENT / MISSION OF THAT THEY ARE BEING SO CIVIL / RESPECTFUL ABOUT IS JUST DOWNRIGHT Pineappling POISON (IT'S LIKE THE PHRENOLOGY MONOLOGUE FROM DJANGO UNCHAINED WRIT LARGE). THERE IS LITERALLY NO WAY TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION IN A CIVIL WAY BECAUSE THERE IS NO REAL WAY TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE TOPIC ITSELF. THE POINT OF GAMERGATE ITSELF IS NOT CIVIL, NO MATTER HOW MUCH IT WANTS TO BE. IT'S LIKE SAYING, "LET'S A HAVE POLITE AND RATIONAL DIALOGUE ABOUT CLEANING UP WASHINGTON POLITICS, AND I'M SUPPORTING THIS GROUP THAT IS HARASSING CONGRESS TO DECLARE THAT BLACK PEOPLE CAN NEVER BE PRESIDENT AGAIN! BUT REALLY, THAT'S NOT A RACIST THING - THIS IS JUST ABOUT CLEANING THINGS UP BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I SAY IT'S ABOUT. PLEASE LET'S HAVE A RATIONAL CONVERSATION! WAIT, WHY ARE YOU ANGRY??? THAT'S OFFENSIVE!"


On the totality of the evil we've been staring into the abyss of lately and how we move past:

Spoiler: show
SO HERE'S THE QUESTION HULK KEEPS GOING BACK TO AFTER ALL THAT:

... HOW THE Pineapple DO YOU RECONCILE IT?

REALLY - ISN'T THAT THE ONLY QUESTION HERE? HOW DO WE SPIN LIFE, WITH ALL ITS TANGIBLE HORRIBLENESS, INTO SOMETHING GOOD? HOW DO WE LOOK AT THE MOUNTAINS OF HOPELESSNESS? HOW DO WE STARE AT THE VOID AND COME OUT OKAY?

YOU KNOW... THERE WERE PEOPLE WHO MADE FUN OF THE ENDING OF THE LAST SEASON OF TRUE DETECTIVE AS BEING SOME GOOFY, OVERLY SIMPLE LESSON THAT SUDDENLY CAME AT THE END OF THEIR MOODY BAYOU NOIR. THE ENDING IN QUESTION HAS RUST AND MARTY, REELING FROM NEAR DEATH, CONTEMPLATE THE HORRORS OF THE WORLD AS THEY LOOK UP AT THE NIGHT SKY. THEY COMMENT THAT THEY SEE SO MUCH DARKNESS ABOVE AND JUST THESE LITTLE BITS OF STARS, TRULY SENSING JUST HOW LITTLE LIGHT EXISTS OUT THERE IN THE UNIVERSE. BUT THEN RUST TALKS ABOUT HOW MANY OF THOSE STARS DIDN'T EXIST BEFORE. AND HOW MUCH MORE TOTAL DARKNESS THERE USED TO BE. IN HIS WORDS, HE RE-WRITES THE NARRATIVE OF ALL OF IT. HE PROCLAIMS SOMETHING CRUCIAL, PERHAPS UNSEEN: "THE LIGHT IS WINNING." MANY FOUND THIS ALL TO BE NOTHING MORE THAN A CHEESY BIT OF SENTIMENT FOR AN OTHERWISE GRISLY AND PSYCHOLOGY-LADEN SHOW. BUT WHEN YOU STARE AT THOSE VOIDS FOR REAL (JUST AS RUST LITERALLY DID IN THE MOMENTS JUST BEFORE, BY THE WAY) THEN THOSE EXACT KIND OF BANAL PLATITUDES BECOME THE THINGS THAT GIVE YOU THE MOST COMFORT. POSSIBLY JUST BECAUSE IT'S THE ONLY HOPE WE REALLY HAVE AGAINST THE DARKNESS. AND RUST PREFACED THE ENTIRE STATEMENT TOO: "IT'S ALL ONE STORY... LIGHT VS. DARK."


He finishes with a commitment to sticking all this out:

HULK EVEN KNOWS THIS MAUDLIN ESSAY WILL BE EYE-ROLLED INTO THE STRATOSPHERE BY ADOLESCENT MINDS ACROSS THE COUNTRY, BUT HULK CAN ASSURE YOU IT'S THE ONLY THING THAT GIVES HULK SOLACE AMIDST THE NOISE, AND AMIDST THE VOID; IT IS THE ONLY THING THAT GIVES HULK SOLACE WHEN HULK BLINKS AND SEES THAT BABY WITH THE CRUSHED SKULL... BECAUSE AS SCARY AS IT IS, WE ACTUALLY CAN STARE INTO THE VOID, BUT ONLY IF WE DO IT WITH THE FULL CONFIDENCE OF EACH OTHER'S SUPPORT AND UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL ULTIMATELY BE OKAY.

WITH THAT... Pineapple QUITTING.

IT'S TIME TO GET BACK TO WORK.

<3 HULK
Image
1/2 of the BR Leech Octagon Hall of Fame
 
User avatar
Sarge
Wheelman
Wheelman
Posts: 8458
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:00 pm
Title: Retired Admin
Gamertag: HWM Sarge
Tumblr: bengiyo
Location: New Orleans
Contact:

Re: #GamerGate Discussion

Tue Oct 28, 2014 10:34 am

Everyone interested in some of the core things going on in GamerGate need to watch this episode of Folding Ideas:

"A look at Base Assumptions as a critical tool as applied to the GamerGate movement."
Image
1/2 of the BR Leech Octagon Hall of Fame
 
TCR Ghost
Contest Loser
Contest Loser
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2014 6:09 pm
Gamertag: TCR Ghost
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: #GamerGate Discussion

Thu Nov 06, 2014 12:53 am

True Capitalist Ghost here, thought It would be a good opportunity to at least try to red pill the modest gamers here on hwm. I can accept the leaderships stance on this issue, but I still feel there's merit for discussion especially when this is a two sided event. Or a war on cultural Marxism as /pol/ and the capitalist army would have me hear.

"GamerGate is a CONSUMER REVOLT born of the disillusionment in Gaming Journalism which proved to be corrupt and biased. A journalism that lies, actively offends their readers and stands unapologetic about their lack of ethics is no true journalism." (/gg/, 2014)

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipcWm4B3EU4[/youtube]

http://www.historyofgamergate.com/

The embers of annoyance have been brewing for years in this consumer base; Quinnspiracy was just the peterol, and gamejournospros death to gamers mantra was the catalyst.

I'll try to respond to any commentary, you may have after becoming versed in our perspective.

~Your host, the man they call Ghost
 
TCR Ghost
Contest Loser
Contest Loser
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2014 6:09 pm
Gamertag: TCR Ghost
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: #GamerGate Discussion

Mon Nov 10, 2014 9:16 pm

Sarge wrote:
Everyone interested in some of the core things going on in GamerGate need to watch this episode of Folding Ideas:

"A look at Base Assumptions as a critical tool as applied to the GamerGate movement."


 
User avatar
Sarge
Wheelman
Wheelman
Posts: 8458
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:00 pm
Title: Retired Admin
Gamertag: HWM Sarge
Tumblr: bengiyo
Location: New Orleans
Contact:

Re: #GamerGate Discussion

Tue Nov 11, 2014 2:12 pm

What’s so fascinating in the video you linked in response is that despite the constant disproving of minor points is that he never actually disagrees with the base assumptions of the GamerGate movement.

To emphasize, these are the following base assumptions of GamerGate that have not been disputed:
  1. There are no real problems with inclusion or representation in gaming.
  2. Any problems that do exist don’t matter because that’s just market economics appealing to the majority of players.
  3. The status quo is a natural state, thus any disruption is inherently artificial.

With this in mind, it’s hard for me to comment further on this in any sort of way that I think can get through to people holding these three base assumptions. I live in two different minority communities who play a lot of video games. We often lament how little opportunity we have in games to play as or interact with characters that reflect who we are. GamerGate and its supporters do not view us as gaming consumers, even though we’ve been playing games and purchasing content for decades.

We already have data that shows that more diverse films have been making more money. If you cannot see that there is a market out there that is willing to buy more content that includes them, then I don’t understand what it is you want that is defending the free market notions GamerGate continues to preach.

The other major thing he seems riled up about is the idea that “’gamers’ are dead.” This seems to be a major point of conflict for GamerGate supporters, but I have yet to fully understand why the conversation about how the gaming market has expanded beyond the stereotype that gamers are just white, male, socially maladjusted recluses is a bad thing.

He also constantly focuses on how any sort of attacks on feminists working or commenting on games are the acts of individuals who have taken a personal offense to what those feminists (usually women) have done, but then says that he speaks for GamerGate and what GamerGate cares about. This hypocrisy itself cannot stand. You cannot align yourself with a movement and then disregard what members of said movement do as the work of individuals, an then talk about how the true movement rejects this and is instead a consumer revolt.

Speaking of consumer revolt, GamerGate seems incredibly upset about what it views as the disruption of the free market. I must ask once again, “How is games criticism a disruption of the free market?”

GamerGate discusses games. Feminists discuss games. White supremacists discuss games. Queer black intellectuals (hello) discuss games. Why is GamerGate itself threatened by the notion that gaming is a space open to others beyond straight white men?

Let’s focus on something else important now: economics.

Each game that comes out pays for the next game that development house is making. If Dragon Age flops, there will be no future Mass Effect. This is the way this has always worked. THQ is gone now because their games were not profitable.

GamerGate says it is focused on ethics in games journalism, but GamerGate never commented on the fact that publishers essentially use gaming news outlets as free publicity with their exclusive media deals. GamerGate does not talk about how the gaming news media grew out of gaming enthusiast blogging. GamerGate does not talk about the abusive policies publishers use against coders and programmers, or about anti-consumer policies of the publishers themselves. GamerGate does not talk about the rising development costs, the increased costs of networking infrastructure, or that the number of units sold to make games profitable continues to rise.

These are not the issues in gaming relevant to GamerGate. Feminist critique of games and websites giving them space are the real threat.

Moreover, GamerGate talks about wanting to defend the right of publishers and developers to make whatever content they want, but then they reject the gaming press itself that points out that the ESRB (like the MPAA) ACTUALLY affects what content can and can't go into games. AO games are not playable on consoles or on Steam. The ESRB can shut down a game by giving it an AO rating compared to an M. The ESRB, like the MPAA, is a secret organization of people that none of us elected that decides what content is good and bad in games based on cutscenes and short examples of gameplay.

Why is THAT not a threat to the free market?

Oh, right, let's get back to talking about how corrupt the gaming press is because it posted a video of Anita Sarkeeisian.

Women make up half the gaming population. When Infinity Ward added female soldiers to multiplayer, Activision said straight up that it was a highly requested feature and an acknowledgement of the players who were already there. People of color also play lots of video games.

GamerGate must realize that they are making the same mistakes comics made right when Marvel was facing bankruptcy. Continuing to focus efforts exclusively on one demographic is not a recipe to long-term success. Additionally, what evidence does GamerGate have that feminist criticism of video games has actually done any harm to the profitability of the gaming market itself. Rockstar gets a lot of criticism for GTA, but GTA still made record-setting money.

People are talking about games, and GamerGate is losing its mind. For a movement that claims to be defending the free market, it sure seems hell bent on silencing opposing voices.
Image
1/2 of the BR Leech Octagon Hall of Fame
 
User avatar
Thee MC
Ground Pounder
Ground Pounder
Posts: 600
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:48 pm
Gamertag: HWM MC
Location: New York
Contact:

Re: #GamerGate Discussion

Thu Dec 18, 2014 2:18 pm

I'm still new to the whole "movement". I play games that I enjoy, and that is the basis of which I play games. I don't let anything sway my decision other than the quality of the game, i.e., the amount of utility I receive from the playable game experience.

As I understand it, this whole movement is ridiculous. This is a minority force pretending to represent the majority. Silence does not, and should not, indicate submission into this belief.

This isn't a group that wants to engage in intellectual discourse about gaming and its association within journalism and politics. It's a group of people that like things the way they are and refuse to have, what they perceive is their (as though it belongs to them), entertainment under the influence of other representatives of the community. It's a group of stubborn people who are not willing to engage in a verbal discussion. Their voice is violence and threats.

Free market means free voice. Part of a free market, as a consumer, is taking everything in with skepticism and caution, be it word of mouth, news, journalism, etc. It's one thing to engage in discussion about the perceived ethics (or lack thereof) and agendas within journalism. It's completely another to use scare tactics, violence, and threats to get a point across.

This is just not the way that grown adults should conduct themselves, and most certainly should not represent any part of the whole that is "gamers", a label that is and always will exist. Just my 2¢.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
GZIP: Off