|
Jack of Hearts posted:That it was overrun with reactionary idiots isn't really in question. But games media is poo poo, and there were reasonable amounts of non-white non-male gamers who decided to be publicly outraged for reasons which approximate plausibility. (Not that the outrage was justified, but that it wasn't artificial.) 
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:02 |
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:That it was overrun with reactionary idiots isn't really in question. But games media is poo poo, and there were reasonable amounts of non-white non-male gamers who decided to be publicly outraged for reasons which approximate plausibility. (Not that the outrage was justified, but that it wasn't artificial.) Sloppy writing on internet weblogs about children's toys: the most pressing object of rage for today's people of color.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:That it was overrun with reactionary idiots isn't really in question. But games media is poo poo, and there were reasonable amounts of non-white non-male gamers who decided to be publicly outraged for reasons which approximate plausibility. (Not that the outrage was justified, but that it wasn't artificial.) Yes, I too consider "some rear end in a top hat making poo poo up about his ex-girlfriend" to be a reason which approximates plausibility.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
Yo, I am not a gamer. I own exactly one game that's less than three years old.Jack Gladney posted:Sloppy writing on internet weblogs about children's toys: the most pressing object of rage for today's people of color. Uh...no. But I don't presume to command what people can get outraged about. Some people are nerds who really really care about games. Do you want to defend the objective merit of every strong opinion you have? Technogeek posted:Yes, I too consider "some rear end in a top hat making poo poo up about his ex-girlfriend" to be a reason which approximates plausibility. I suspend all judgement about this and make zero claims because I don't care. Although maybe you care about it and you've gained access to lots of evidence and you can reasonably demonstrate a case in one direction or another. In which case, lol.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
Why must we take GamerGate at face value. Why do you have to give them the benefit of the doubt? If the American Family Association claims to be promoting "stable families that are good for raising children," would you take their outrage, their arguments at face value? I don't think you would. I think you would call bullshit when they spent 99% of their time actively trying to prevent gay people from creating stable families. Would you take white supremacist outrage about "white genocide" at face value? Again, I don't think you would. I think you would read the 14 words, understand what they are saying with your brain, and conclude it's warmed-over neo-nazi propaganda. Somehow with GamerGate, though, you think they should be given the benefit of the doubt like they're arguing in good faith. GamerGate was never about games. It was about a bunch of guys being very aggressively not interested in hearing what people with extra X chromosomes had to say about their toys. You can tell this because of the figures they decided to wrap into their conspiracy theories as they spiraled out of control. There were people having their "video game journalism ethics" called into question who had loving gotten fired for exercising proper ethics. There were people being called unethical that pissed a lot of people off when they talked about unethical relationships in European gaming press and Geoff Keighley doing the Halo 4 interviews. GamerGate never gave any fucks about ethics, and to believe they did means you basically don't actually know anything about games press. Anyone with knowledge of the actual industry could look at their list of "unethical" journalists and conclude they had their heads up their asses. The "well.. they're talking really loud so maybe they have a point" angle is really only argued by people who agree with the movement in question, but are too cowardly to voice affirmative support due to it not being socially acceptable. ErIog fucked around with this message at 06:40 on Feb 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
JaggyJagJag posted:I would disagree with the second part. A cursory glance at GamerGate shows a very broad and diverse demographic. Same reason as this.  Phyllis Schlafly has a whole career built around opposing women's right to work for equal pay and telling women the best thing for them is to be barefoot and pregnant, cooking and cleaning (ie, do the opposite of career-woman Phyllis Schlafly). Because there's a good living to be made and a lot of approval to be gotten for a member of an oppressed class who is willing to reinforce the fictions used by those on top to stay in control. Milo is willing to sell out his fellow LGBTs for a quick buck and a pat on the head as "one of the good ones" so conservatives can read his work and go "You see Mildred, the gays don't even want marriage. They like being outcast as the perverts they are, it's the best thing for 'em and it's best for us too. See how liberalism has made this gay so unhappy, that's liberalism."
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Why must we take GamerGate at face value. Why do you have to give them the benefit of the doubt? No one is obligated to take anything at face value or give anyone the benefit of the doubt. But inasmuch as gaming media is worthless and corrupt by all accounts, as a nerd, I sympathize with the idea that a bunch of fellow nerds who liked games decided to object online. Even from the start maybe the majority was reactionary MRAs and other weirdos. But as an inclusionary leftist I don't believe in this sneering chauvinism. "Oh, you think the gaming media is poo poo? Be purged!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:No one is obligated to take anything at face value or give anyone the benefit of the doubt. But inasmuch as gaming media is worthless and corrupt by all accounts, as a nerd, I sympathize with the idea that a bunch of fellow nerds who liked games decided to object online. Even from the start maybe the majority was reactionary MRAs and other weirdos. But as an inclusionary leftist I don't believe in this sneering chauvinism. Ethics was never anything but a mask to fool overly-charitable types like yourself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 06:50
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:No one is obligated to take anything at face value or give anyone the benefit of the doubt. But inasmuch as gaming media is worthless and corrupt by all accounts, as a nerd, I sympathize with the idea that a bunch of fellow nerds who liked games decided to object online. Even from the start maybe the majority was reactionary MRAs and other weirdos. But as an inclusionary leftist I don't believe in this sneering chauvinism. "Oh, you think the gaming media is poo poo? Be purged!" Haha so your backpedal of "who cares anyway" failed and now you're trying "i'm a leftist i have good reasons!" If nerds really gave a poo poo about game journalism there might have been some kind of organized backlash in the 30 years that games journalism has sucked. Somehow, for some odd reason, the catalyst was allegations of infedelity and then women having opinions. It's not rocket science. Pope Guilty posted:Ethics was never anything but a mask to fool overly-charitable types like yourself. Ethics was the most reasonable and well-fitting post-hoc rationalization to justify the ongoing anger and activisim. Nobody really knew what gamergate was about, 'ethics' just sort of metastasized as the most agreed upon reason.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:Ethics was never anything but a mask to fool overly-charitable types like yourself. Aw, hell. I was in the middle of the Nicomachean Ethics, too. Time to go back to Nietzsche, huh?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Aw, hell. I was in the middle of the Nicomachean Ethics, too. Time to go back to Nietzsche, huh? i'm too busy studying deep philosophical issues to care about this one too much i wonder what the next feeble excuse will be
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
JaggyJagJag posted:I guess growing up people tend to just say LGBT so I assumed they were one unified ccoalition. Can anyone shed light on why a gay man would say the things he does? I assumed as someone who heard similar bigoted rhetoric his whole life he would be more sympathetic. It's an uneasy coalition, and transgender is a weird thing to lump in with L/G/B because it's not an issue of sexual attraction. So a lot of gay people do not identify at all with the trans movement because it's something they've not experienced. It's similar to how a lot of straight people couldn't identify with the experiences of gay people(and maybe still can't in some ways). Wanting to be a different gender and having sexual attraction to the same gender are very different experiences. Until Obama announced his support for gay marriage there was debate in the black community over that issue. Gay rights activists were comparing it to miscegenation laws, but that argument did not gain traction with a lot of black people. Some of them had trouble identifying with the comparison. One of the strategies of the anti-gay organizations, before the tide of public opinion became stronger, was to exploit gay marriage as a wedge issue in the black community in order to get votes. Experiencing discrimination or being stigmatized by society is not a universal rallying call because it takes work to identify with experiences that are not your own. Religion can also play a role in which values you believe should be protected in society. It's possible to be a religious person in America that didn't agree with miscegenation laws but also doesn't support gay marriage due to the particular brand of religion they follow. LGBT is an aspirational acronym that shows what a lot of people want the movement to be, but is not necessarily reflective of the goals of individual efforts. Trans-activists sometimes worry that the T part of LGBT could be jettisoned if it was politically unhelpful to the aims of LGB people. ErIog fucked around with this message at 06:58 on Feb 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:
He's making a joke wherein he interprets my post as being about ethics as a field. It's a funny joke. Relax, chill, and have a chuckle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
ErIog posted:It's an uneasy coalition, and transgender is a weird thing to lump in with L/G/B because it's not an issue of sexual attraction. So a lot of gay people do not identify at all with the trans movement because it's something they've not experienced. It's similar to how a lot of straight people couldn't identify with the experiences of gay people(and maybe still can't in some ways). Wanting to be a different gender and having sexual attraction to the same gender are very different experiences. I'm a fan of the term "Gender and Sexual Minorities" (GSM) since it's a big umbrella and explicitly references the position of those groups in society.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:I'm a fan of the term "Gender and Sexual Minorities" (GSM) since it's a big umbrella and explicitly references the position of those groups in society. Doesn't this have exactly the same problem as LGBT, though? It's putting 2 things together that seem from an outside perspective like they fit together even though they have separate experiences, separate grievances, and a to certain extent separate demands from society. Sometimes their viewpoints can even be at odds with each other. For instance, drag, as a mostly gay cultural phenomenon, is somewhat of a minstrel show from the perspective of some trans people. Do gay men care if they can mark a W on their license? I don't think that they do. I think working together toward mutual benefit in society is a really powerful and great thing. However, umbrella terms like GSM or LGBT assume a shared set of values in a way that can create really damaging misunderstandings if people are not very careful in how they go about constructing their movements. This was a real problem within the women's equality movement. There was an assumption of shared values between white women and minority women that led to real rifts when it turned out those values didn't precisely line up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Haha so your backpedal of "who cares anyway" failed" I'm not actually sure how you've derived that. Popular Thug Drink posted:and now you're trying "i'm a leftist i have good reasons!" Ah, right, I failed to clarify. I'm a leftist who has arbitrary reasons pleasing to my psyche, which happen to be vaguely in accordance with the reasons pleasing to people who claim to be leftists. Of course, left and right are absurd constructs not applicable since the French Revolution. Popular Thug Drink posted:If nerds really gave a poo poo about game journalism there might have been some kind of organized backlash in the 30 years that games journalism has sucked. I dunno, PC Gamer was pretty good in the 90s. There were demo discs, and it correctly named TIE Fighter as the best game of all time. Popular Thug Drink posted:Somehow, for some odd reason, the catalyst was allegations of infedelity and then women having opinions. It's not rocket science. Well, hell. I've been lighthearted to this point, but this has real merit. It's a fair hypothesis. My contrary hypothesis is that the outrage of nerds over gossip provided the spark for a larger process. Popular Thug Drink posted:Ethics was the most reasonable and well-fitting post-hoc rationalization to justify the ongoing anger and activisim. Nobody really knew what gamergate was about, 'ethics' just sort of metastasized as the most agreed upon reason. Or gossipy bullshit served as the catalyst for a nerd outrage reaction that was overdue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Same reason as this. Hell, Milo's hardly the first one. Finding and highlighting LGBT "good ones" has been a part of the conservative playbook for a few years now. It's been the launchpad of several careers already, such as Robert Oscar Lopez, who is a self-identified bisexual who was raised by two moms and has an obvious, extreme hatred for them. While he writes articles for numerous right wing websites, oftentimes about how the gay community as a nasty, terrible place full of bad people, he also writes explicit gay erotica. Or Matt Moore, a self-identified gay man who struggles against his "sin", who nonetheless was spotted on grindr while writing columns for Barbwire, a site that advocates re-criminalizing sodomy. Neither of these men are paragons of integrity, and Lopez's rants border on actual insanity, but they fill a niche that the anti-gay side needs in this point in time. Barbwire has openly advocated for making sodomy illegal again, and defended the Arizona pastor that called for the execution of homosexuals, and Moore was able to get away with his "disobedience" by essentially shrugging his shoulders and saying "oops!" Conservatives realize that they need the self-loathing LGBTs on their side, and are willing to put up with any amount of baggage just to get the "See, even THEY don't want special rights!" reaction from their base. also shut the gently caress up about video games jesus loving christ
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 07:14
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Or gossipy bullshit served as the catalyst for a nerd outrage reaction that was overdue. If they were so outraged over ethics then why did they go after Jeff Gerstmann who was notably fired for giving a bad review to a game that was being advertised? I don't even know why I'm responding to you. You're basically concern trolling. GamerGate would never in a million years have led to more ethical games journalism by going after the people they were choosing to go after. ErIog fucked around with this message at 07:20 on Feb 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Well, hell. I've been lighthearted to this point, but this has real merit. It's a fair hypothesis. My contrary hypothesis is that the outrage of nerds over gossip provided the spark for a larger process. occams razor that poo poo nerds have finally stood up to the awful collusion between big developers and game reviewers by harassing the poo poo out of small time independent game producers or nerds have huge unresolved women problems and lash out when women seem to encroach on their hugbox identity-forming hobby
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
ErIog posted:LGBT is an aspirational acronym that shows what a lot of people want the movement to be, but is not necessarily reflective of the goals of individual efforts. Trans-activists sometimes worry that the T part of LGBT could be jettisoned if it was politically unhelpful to the aims of LGB people. This politoons edit comes to mind. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:occams razor that poo poo The latter claim is obviously true. But the claim that started this argument was "Gamergate was always about conservatism." Maybe I just disagree because left and right aren't actually a thing post 17-whatever. e: It was a nerd thing, and nerd things are generally orthogonal to normal politics. Tacky-Ass Rococco fucked around with this message at 07:30 on Feb 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:The latter claim is obviously true. But the claim that started this argument was "Gamergate was always about conservatism." Maybe I just disagree because left and right aren't actually a thing post 17-whatever. Popular Thug Drink posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:The latter claim is obviously true. But the claim that started this argument was "Gamergate was always about conservatism." Maybe I just disagree because left and right aren't actually a thing post 17-whatever. reactionary then, whatever language is politically acceptable to you
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
ErIog posted:It's an uneasy coalition, and transgender is a weird thing to lump in with L/G/B because it's not an issue of sexual attraction. So a lot of gay people do not identify at all with the trans movement because it's something they've not experienced. It's similar to how a lot of straight people couldn't identify with the experiences of gay people(and maybe still can't in some ways). Wanting to be a different gender and having sexual attraction to the same gender are very different experiences. While it's true that homosexuality and transgenderism are distinct and separate phenomena, homophobia and transphobia spring from the exact same type of ignorance. Bigots don't make distinctions between gay and trans people, to them they're all just gross deviant fags. Hence it actually makes a lot of sense to form a coalition.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 08:14
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:reactionary then, whatever language is politically acceptable to you Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 08:15
|
|
|
The Dark One posted:This politoons edit comes to mind. The what-I-presume-to-be-original portions remind me of something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 08:19
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Thank you. Wait wait so you're fine with talking about politics on a reactionary-to-progressive axis, and that whole thing was you objecting to calling people on that scale rightist or leftist because you're mad that the gamer-gate participants aren't literally sitting in a debate chamber with a seating order based on political outlook? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 10:43
|
|
|
I think he's trying to say that video games and their players are exempt from normal political or sociological analysis, somehow
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 10:56
|
|
|
Starving Autist posted:While it's true that homosexuality and transgenderism are distinct and separate phenomena, homophobia and transphobia spring from the exact same type of ignorance. Bigots don't make distinctions between gay and trans people, to them they're all just gross deviant fags. Hence it actually makes a lot of sense to form a coalition. They don't make the distinction until they do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 10:59
|
|
|
computer parts posted:They don't make the distinction until they do. To add to this, there have been a lot of strides towards gay acceptance in the last few decades. There have not been those same strides toward accepting trans people. For people who were slowly convinced that gay people aren't duplicitous perverted mental cases, trans people are still a bridge too far. There has not been a trans version of Ellen. There has been no trans Will and Grace. The most high profile mainstream trans events have been Chas Bono on Dancing with the Stars and Chelsea Manning. Chas Bono was had a mixed reception, and Chelsea Manning was heavily politicized along political lines. For your average cis-gendered(I hate this term too, sorry) straight person, LGB being mixed with T is very confusing. You hear stuff like, "well, we have gay marriage now, doesn't that solve trans issues?" Well, it does and it doesn't. Am I going to be imprisoned for using a public bathroom? What if I get doxxed, and my employer chooses to fire me despite my having successfully lived as my preferred gender for years? Am I going to be hassled every time I have to show the ID where my gender doesn't match what I currently look like? These are issues gay people do not have, and there has not been any concerted effort to educate people. In my experience, bigots dislike gay people, but they have a unique separate visceral fear of trans people. They really don't like the idea that they don't have the power to decide another person's gender. They feel that gay people are sexual perverts, but they feel trans people are transgressing a much more fundamental biological "reality." They take it as a categorically different betrayal of the social order. Even well-meaning liberals often fall into the  trap where having a penis means you like <insert typically male-centric thing here>. They find the idea of someone being sexually attracted to the same sex a lot easier to understand. They do not understand what it's like to wake up every day in a body you feel does not represent yourself. It has not been explained to them.Then on top of all this you have people who think they understand because they know who Ru-Paul is, and that's just  all the way down.
ErIog fucked around with this message at 13:08 on Feb 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 13:06
|
|
|
ErIog posted:To add to this, there have been a lot of strides towards gay acceptance in the last few decades. There have not been those same strides toward accepting trans people. For people who were slowly convinced that gay people aren't duplicitous perverted mental cases, trans people are still a bridge too far. There has not been a trans version of Ellen. There has been no trans Will and Grace. The most high profile mainstream trans events have been Chas Bono on Dancing with the Stars and Chelsea Manning. Chas Bono was had a mixed reception, and Chelsea Manning was heavily politicized along political lines. It's true that trans rights have been slower to win acceptance, but I'm not sure if this is due to inherent hostility or just the fact that trans people are relatively rare. I believe that increasing gay acceptance is in part encouraged by increased visibility, so naturally trans people will fall behind on that metric just because there aren't as many of them, and on top of that some amount of them live "stealth". There is still a long way to go, but I think gay and trans rights are on the same trajectory, even though gay rights have a sizable lead at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
ErIog posted:To add to this, there have been a lot of strides towards gay acceptance in the last few decades. There have not been those same strides toward accepting trans people. For people who were slowly convinced that gay people aren't duplicitous perverted mental cases, trans people are still a bridge too far. There has not been a trans version of Ellen. There has been no trans Will and Grace. The most high profile mainstream trans events have been Chas Bono on Dancing with the Stars and Chelsea Manning. Chas Bono was had a mixed reception, and Chelsea Manning was heavily politicized along political lines. Also trans folks get a lot of hostility because they threaten other people's sexual identity more or less by existing. As in, there's people who go into meltdown because they find someone attractive and then find out they are 'really' a dude. But obviously they can't like dudes because they're not gay, oh god I like that dude I'm turning gay loving TRANS BASTARDS MAKING ME GAY AAAAAAAAAA. Some people really do need to learn about the kinsey scale. And/Or stop defining the legitimacy of their existence based on who they find attractive. Again, not really something that cisgendered folks have a lot of trouble with, other than possibly gay people getting poo poo from very insecure people worried they will hit on them or something. So it doesn't come up as part of general LGB stuff. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Feb 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Crunch Buttsteak posted:Neither of these men are paragons of integrity, and Lopez's rants border on actual insanity, but they fill a niche that the anti-gay side needs in this point in time. Lopez actually claims that he used to be fit and ripped but was so insecure about the attention he would get from gay men that he purposely turned himself into an obese slob. It's telling that conservatives are willing to prop up such a clearly mentally disturbed individual as a spokesman just because he's a bisexual man who will say bad things about gays.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Although maybe you care about it and you've gained access to lots of evidence and you can reasonably demonstrate a case in one direction or another. In which case, lol. You could always ask Cowcaster about it if you really cared.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:No one is obligated to take anything at face value or give anyone the benefit of the doubt. But inasmuch as gaming media is worthless and corrupt by all accounts, as a nerd, I sympathize with the idea that a bunch of fellow nerds who liked games decided to object online. Even from the start maybe the majority was reactionary MRAs and other weirdos. But as an inclusionary leftist I don't believe in this sneering chauvinism. "Oh, you think the gaming media is poo poo? Be purged!"  . Anything legitimate they're doing is like tending to a hangnail while ignoring a gunshot wound, and even that's overshadowed by all the illegitimate bullshit around them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
I'm not sure it counts as an editorial, but the AP posted this thing a while ago on the guy behind the Chapel Hill shooting and it's just...baffling. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ed392e6110a341a9bbe00578ebfb0919/shooting-suspect-slams-religion-while-defending-liberty quote:Shooting suspect slams religion while defending liberty quote:In a news conference after her husband's arrest, Karen Hicks claimed to be as baffled as anyone about how a man who loves the Pittsburgh Steelers, the United States Constitution and dogs — especially his own black and brown mutt, Rocky — could have done something so vicious. She was adamant that the shootings stemmed from a long-simmering dispute over parking at their condo complex, not the victims' faith. quote:One of the victim's fathers, Namee Barakat, told the AP that Hicks also had visited his son's condo previously, flashing his gun as he demanded they stop using visitors' parking spots. Thanks for telling us that the guy who killed three people loves his dog that is crucial information
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Just a brave patriot defending his parking freedoms from evil mooselimb hordes 
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Just a brave patriot defending his parking freedoms from evil mooselimb hordes No, it was just a parking dispute.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
Actually, it's about ethics in parking spaces.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 07:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:02 |
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:Actually, it's about ethics in parking spaces.  Hey bro, this isn't some religious nut killer, he's a The lengths the media are going to rationalize him going bugfuck are pretty amazing. It's Trayvon levels of poo poo-flinging.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 17:38
|
|
