InsaneBoredGame joined on Aug 26th, 2010, since that has made 858 posts that are still accessible today, 15 of which are threads. Helping shape the community, InsaneBoredGame has given 1078 upvotes, and was last online on Jan 21st, 2017.
I'll admit the objectification thing is off topic (I only really talked about it in response to a comment of people accusing Bayonetta of being sexist and it kinda took off from there).
Here you are, hitting the same points, without basis, and ignoring once more the questions I have addressed to you mulitple times. You are repeating a monologue I have heard so many times I'm beginning to wonder if people aren't being brainwashed. Zoe Quinn is not relevant. Apart from the question I asked you in my post neither I nor Helly brought her up. You did. You're the one that keeps pointing your finger at the scandal. Nobody is denying that it happened. Nobody is denying that it got people's attention, but she is not the driving cause behind GamerGate.
I apologize for the ad hominem beforehand. Same thing for the repetitiveness.
The thing with all movements, is that they're defined by their moment of inception, GamerGate especially, since with all the misogyny, hate-fling, and denials of others being "actual GamerGate", it's the only reliable thing that can tell us what the movement was meant to be.
The first tweet using the hashtag was by Adam Baldwin (of Firefly, Fullmetal Jacket, and other fame).Sorry, this media content cannot be displayed.
In it, are links to two youtube videos by InternetAristocrat, aptly titled "Quinnspiracy Theory: The Five Guys Saga" and "Quinnspiracy Theory: In-N-Out Edition" respectively.
In it we've got the usual stuff: Five Guys jokes, "I don't care what kind of person she is but I'm going to spend this entire video calling her out", and how her relationship with Nathon Grayson (a journalist who didn't even review her game and has Kotaku's investigation pretty much clear him ) obviously means she's been sleeping around for good publicity.
Of course, he does talk about Ethics and why they're needed. To quote Mr. InternetAristocrat,
“Gaming Journalism has reached a low point over the last five years. It started with pieces that had nothing to do with gaming or game reviews, nothing to do with software or hardware, nothing to do with events or expos. It started to travel off into the areas of social justice and feminism and opinion pieces and op ads that had nothing to do with gaming. It started to have authors who were writing pieces condemning the gaming audience as being sexist and misogynistic, as being racist and bigoted, as being overly violent rapists.”
What I'm getting out of this is that, simply put, Mr. InternetAristocrat wants feminism, social justice, etc out of his gaming news. So does Adam Baldwin. So does GamerGate.
They don't want to hear about how this game is sexist, how that game objectifies women, or how countless about shooting the "other" (be they middle eastern or russian) is problematic. This video (the five guys one) calls for change while condemning it. Talks about their voices being silenced while they champion silencing others. Complains about them being oppressed by accusations of oppressing others.
Hypocrisy? Hell yeah. Sexism? Also yeah.
They are long 24ish minute videos, the first one which ends up bioling down to a rage filled rant of this.
“How do I know? Maybe Zoe Quinn fucked Phil Fish. They seem to have been at a wedding together. Phil Fish seems to know her quite well, and judging by Zoe’s behavior and the favors she’s curried, it’s really not far out of the ballpark for me to say that perhaps Phil Fish is defending her because of a relationship. Hell, what about Patrick Klepek? Remember those conventions they did together and the speeches in the Internet is Serious Business? Who knows, maybe Patrick slept with her. In fact, given that this is the reality of how these people behave, they have no separation as professionals. Let’s says that Steven Tolito of Kotaku had sex with Anita Sarkeesian. Why not? You’re letting somebody on staff at Kotaku, who has a sexual relationship with somebody he writes about and you don’t have any problem with that. So judging from that, I guess you wouldn’t have a problem doing it yourself. So, maybe Steven is having sex with Anita. Maybe that’s why Kotaku keeps writing all those articles. It all makes sense now.”
Please feel free to defend this statement. I don't feel the need to comment on it. Y'know besides the whole implication that no man would care for feminism unless if he was getting sex out of it.
So yeah, that's what GamerGate stared out as, and that's what I feel GamerGater still is. A misogynist harassment campaign. Now, the general regard for the doxxers and the ones sending out rape threats is that they aren't "Actual Gaters" (because that is so easy to say and less of a bother than actually policing your own movement or switching to a structure that doesn't make their voices that loud) but I suppose anyone who said anything sexist isn't an "Actual Gater". Like this InternetAristocrat guy whose videos kinda started this thing off or Milo Yiannopoulos who stated that "We shouldn't be apologising for having fewer women in a sector in which men naturally perform better".
And of course can't forget wonderful 8-chan which stood by the poor oppressed gamers.Sorry, this media content cannot be displayed.
Now, if you're in it for just wanting better journalism, good for you. Just please realize who else you stand with when you wave that GamerGate banner of yours. Because honestly, compared to sexism, I don't give a fuck about butthurt over clickbait or unacceptable insults to the gamer identity.
Gaming Journalism doesn't matter when people are terrified of returning to their own homes.
And yes, I still maintain that Anti-GG is a stance against GamerGate, not a movement. I dislike Obama because of the thing with drone warfare and another person dislikes because they don't believe the poor should be able to afford healthcare.
A movement is a call for change, against the status quo, not a disapproval of a movement.
I'll repeat it again so...
With Bayonetta, objectification and the male gaze are problems. I'll repeat that sex-positivism is one thing but having her fall out of the sky to land in a position where the camera just kinda pans over her legs and butt? It's cheap, and encourages players to view her more as a sex object (the whole passiveness versus being a sexuality reclaiming woman), instead of the interesting character she is.
Sex positivity doesn't equal objectification. A woman owning her sex vs objectification is the active vs passive thing. A woman who owns her body may actively flaunt it, using gestures to draw attention or whatnot.
An objectified woman falls into these poses unaware, sometimes uncomfortable and ridiculous but meant to appeal.
(The landing after fall for example... )
(This is going to be Kill la Kill all over again, isn't it?)
How exactly can you brand GamerGate a sexist movement which bullies women and insists on ensuring no women ever picked up a controller or plays a gamerwhen we have people like @Cenica running around waving support for the movement?
What of it? What she does is completely up to her, her reasons are her own, and I don't believe that it makes the GamerGate movement any less sexist. I don't know Cenica that well, barely to be honest, and cannot speak or make any judgments regarding her.
Simply put, I maintain that GamerGate is sexist (and continues to be so) because it arose from the Quinn thing (whether you want to deny it or not) and the hashtag was first used by Adam Baldwin to link two different youtube videos about Quinn by the InternetAristocrat guy.
I went through the videos (hell of a lot of extrapolation they did there) and one of them ends up becoming a paranoid rage filled rant about how "everyone is fucking everyone" and how hypocritical it is or whatever.
The fact is that they whine about "SJW like Sarkeesian who are ruining everything" and yeah, I believe that it's sexist. I've spent a while scrolling through twitter and this thread and the fact is that an overwhelming majority of GamerGate believes that gaming news shouldn't have things pointing out how sexist a game it or whatnot in gaming journalism. That they are your enemies instead of the harassers who send out rape threats in your own movement.
The fact is that people like Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu, and Anita Sarkeesian are dismissed as "professional complainers" when they speak up about harassment.
The fact is, that despite calling for change and ethical revision, a majority of GamerGate want things, and I quote InternetAristocrat "to be like five years ago", when it wasn't the norm for people to speak up about sexism in the industry, when people just accepted that you had to stare at Meryl's ass like a creep to tell how she walked.
The fact is that dismissing women's concerns about sexism, saying that it wasn't meant to pander to them, is sexist.
There are no leaders in GamerGate. It is a movement of individuals.
Which is one of the problems here. Since it has what I like to call "no fucking organization", it's far too easy for anyone to defend it by claiming anyone with a problematic opinion isn't really part of GamerGate. The way I see it, is by simply continuing to use the hashtag (which I'll repeat was first used in a post about Quinn), you stand with those people, ally yourselves with them, taking advantage of the messes they make, the aura of fear they create.
It's a bunch of individuals and by refusing to put one overall authority, it only welcomes more assholes.
A position on a movement would be an opinion. This was a counteraction. It is an action. Not a stance. The age of the tag...I'm really not sure how that is relevant? Or the size of the movement? Still not relevant.
It is when you claim that GamerGate and StopGamerGate2014 are equivalent. The GamerGate tag is filled with "do this and change this", the StopGamerGate2014 tag right now has "what the hell is wrong with you people, you doxxed Felicia Day."
Exactly....did you even read the articles where it says she has received this type of harassment prior to being involved in her war on GamerGate? They are not GamerGaters...if you've ever seen the pic stating what GamerGate is about, which has been posted multiple times in this thread I'm sure, then you would see the part about not condoning harassment.
And just by that, all GamerGate harassment can be handwaved, can't it? "If there's harassment it's obviously not GamerGate because there was harassment before and because we said it's not about harassment." It doesn't matter who does what, who is associated with what, you can just plug your ears and just say that they aren't actual GamerGate.
It must be really convinient to refuse any kind of leadership so whenever anyone big says something horrible you can just accuse someone else of not really getting it.
The GamerGate hashtag is comparable to a flag. Anybody can use it. Multiple people who are AntiGG are using it. Supporters have no control what the flag is pasted on. It can be used by anybody.
A flag people chose to use. A flag that they choose to make this open. A flag that was first waved after the Quinn thing, no matter how irrelevant you make it, and so sets the standard for what us "misinformed" can only judge as it's intended function.
A flag that's associated with horrible people, that keep getting handwaved away because "they're not really part of our cause" and the war against clickbait is obviously far more important.
Uh...StopGamerGate2014 is a movement as well. A movement meant to stop GamerGate supporters and all their "evil" deeds. I would call that social. Both have individuals involved without much of a leader. They are equivalent.
Considering that StopGamerGate2014 is a relatively new tag, it's far from being on the same scale as GamerGate. And "a movement to stop a movement" is wordy nonsense. I maintain that it's a position on a movement.
1 Stop talking about Zoe Quinn. She's not relevant to GamerGate and the only people making her relevant are misinformed people like you who keep bringing her back up, pointing fingers at her, and saying she's the cause of GamerGate. 3 The movement didn't start because of Zoe. Get your facts straight. While the scandal involving her had a lot of gamers asking questions, it was really the media blackout in response that ticked people off.
So are you saying that the creation of the GamerGate hashtag has nothing to do with her? Because from what I've heard, from the stuff on the op post, it implies that the hashtag was created in response to the incident.
4 GamerGate is not about sexism. Yes, it might be a big issue within the gaming industry but it's not what the GamerGate movement or focus is about. The only reason it is brought up is because a few well-known feminist have been actively trying to insert themselves in the argument, were harassed, and quickly pointed fingers at GamerGate even though they lacked in solid evidence tying the movement to the crimes. They were the loudest voices so when people started largely arguing with them they cried, "attacks" and "sexist misogyny."
You have a movement. A woman complains against the movement and is doxxed and bombarded with rape/death threats. Obviously, this movement has nothing to do with it.
But, of course, it's so much easier saying that those people "aren't actual GamerGate" isn't it?
5 StopGamerGate2014 is just as much of a movement as GamerGate is. So whatever you say for one goes for the other as well. GamerGate was created to call out corrupt journalist and sites. StopGamerGate2014 was created to demonize GamerGate supporters.
Yeah, no. A movement is something that calls for political and/or social change. GamerGate qualifies. Talking shit about a movement doesn't make a movement, nor does it bring it up to any level of equivalence where "whatever you say for one goes for the other".
GamerGate doesn't care for Zoe Quinn's sex. A fact she appears to refuse to accept. GamerGate only cares for what she did, not for who she is. If Hitler were a woman we'd hate her no less than the male version.
This is not the 18th Century, attitudes towards people today are driven by that persons actions and not gender.
Are you seriously comparing a woman's relationship with a journalist who didn't even review her game to the systematic murder of hundreds of thousands of people?
Sexism is dead? You're kidding me, right? If she was a man, she wouldn't have an entire movement start because of allegations (because that's all they were at the time) that she slept with a number of journalists. And it's not only that. Sexism exists.
Sexism is why there was immediate frothing hatred. Sexism is why we have a wage gap in the US. Sexism is why the most common plot device is still "kill off the female character for mangst". But, I digress.
Wasn't Bayonetta created by a woman, hard to make an argument about devs being male sexists making their ideal woman when the dev in question is a woman.
I maintain that if one took the script, the plot from Bayonetta, it wouldn't be sexist. With Bayonetta, objectification and the male gaze are problems. I'll repeat that sex-positivism is one thing but having her fall out of the sky to land in a position where the camera just kinda pans over her legs and butt? It's cheap, and encourages players to view her more as a sex object (the whole passiveness versus being a sexuality reclaiming woman), instead of the interesting character she is.
And yeah, there's no rule that because the dev was a woman, it can't be sexist.
StopGamerGate2014 is a movement and as such it can be held accountable for its own activities and criticized as such, this claim "They're not a movement" and "The actions of the individual do not represent the majority" coming from their mouthpieces is what can only be described as an ironic echo. Your claim Anti - GamerGate isn't a movement and thus is immune from criticism for its actions strike a very similar tone of Destructoid's "We are not journalists" post which seems to be their own "Get out of jail free pass" for their unprofessional conduct and bias towards GamerGate.
Anti-GamerGate is what it says on the label. Anyone against GamerGate, for one reason or another. There is no common social or political issue (besides the fact that everyone kinda believes GG is bullshit). It isn't organized.
StopGamerGate2014 is a fairly new tag and looking through it, despite the hashtag name, pretty much exists to call out GG. People say "I'm with GamerGate" or "I'm against GamerGate". Anti-GG is a position on a movement, not it's own movement.
All things considered, Quinn is a bad person...and no one cares whether she's a man or a woman. She was just the breaking point.
But she, as a person, is irrelevant. Her gender, which you seem to harp on a lot, is irrelevant
Please tell me that the angry mob, that everything else would be exactly the same if it was a blog post about someone claiming their ex-boyfriend slept around for good reviews on a Name Your Price/Free game.
The thing with Fine Young Capitalistsis that its among arguments that were added in later, saying "See look whatever we said was fine because she did bad things". The thing was that they were added as defenses, instead of the primary argument.
Actual GamerGaters were scolding them the whole way, literally not being able to do much else.
What constitutes as an actual GamerGater? By refusing to have some kind of leadership, one can't honestly say that this is real or this isn't. By being relatively undefined, except "something something gaming ethics using the hashtag something", exact platforms are generally undetermined.
I've seen plenty of people whining about how "SJWs are ruining game reviews by pointing out instances of sexism". Is that an actual GamerGater? Or is the actual GamerGater someone else?
(As for the Bayonetta thing, I personally don't think that the characterization or narration is sexist but the male gaze is overdone and a bit too much. There's a difference between someone being sex-positive and owning their sexuality and having gratuitous shots of her breasts and ass 24/7.)
There is no handwaving about this. If anything, you are actively waving away all the legitimate points to get stuck on one specific, irrelevant woman who happened to be the unfortunate person to break the camel's back.
Because GG, simply put, is a movement. Anti-GG is not. Anything demanding change, giving out criticism, is liable to also be criticized.
The more I read about this, the less the "That's not really Gamergate" makes sense.
Whether the focus has shifted from Quinn or not, it started with her. Whether it's your reason or not, you joined a movement that began as a harassment campaign, as a witch hunt.
And for what? Because you felt insulted when an article spoke down to gamers? Because you felt that enthusiast media should work like a news outlet? Because gaming sites institute the utterly horrible practice of having more interesting headlines so their articles can get read?
Point is, if you willingly join a bunch of misogynistic assholes because of "games", because your feelings being hurt are the greater evil, don't complain about being misunderstood.
If you can handwave away any criticisms with "it isn't really about that", but consider any attacks on gamers, and questions on whether your favorite is morally sound, unforgivable, well, I actually don't know what to say to that.
Just that waving your banner of oppression is hypocrisy at it's finest.
Farris is probably neither a lake in Norway nor a Final Fantasy pirate. Blond. Likes spicy food.