Gamergate - OP updated 27 October

[Simulacrum]

...

I get people are emotionally hurt by the tragedy, but what we are seeing game journos and even developers using the tragedy to push their ideology, it's disgusting.

I don't think they're trying to push an ideology, honetly. At least not consciously. I think they're just trying to seem like cool guys to their peers. Which to me makes it much worse. That means they'd happily support anything, as long as it was popular.

Personally, I always hated these guys, even when they were defending gaming. You could tell in their style of argumentation that they were all empty-headed imbeciles who were just parroting the talking points among their peers, who, if you got them talking about something like killing chilren in videogames (for example, in context of skyrim mods that let you do that), would suddenly do a complete 180 and condemn you as a violence-against-children suppproting probable paedophile etc. (though it was rarely that openly vitriolic).

You could see the same shit in nearly all the loudest opponents of "racism", who couldn't give you a coherent definition of what racism was to save their lives. I'm not at all surprised that being openly racist towards whites is as accepted within these particular groups as it has become. It's because they were never opposed to racism in the first place - I doubt they even understand what it actually means or why it is wrong. They just say that they are because that's what's popular among their peers.

And that's when you realize... nothing has changed. All these things we like to think that, as a society, we have progressed beyond, aren't things we have progressed beyond at all. They're just not very popular right now. But if they, somehow, came to be popular again, you wouldn't see some deep, ideologically or intellectually motivated opposition towards it, at least not to any greater degree than was the case in the past. You'd just see exactly the same shit as happened back then happening all over today.

Luckily, our institutions make it hard to go backwards on this, but institutions can be changed as well, over time; language can be reinterpreted, laws can be changed. Lots of people are quite openly already fine not just with racism (against the right kinds of people; an obviously moving target), but the suppression of speech (for the greater good), and a super-powerful surveillance apparatus beyond even the wildest dreams of the stasi (and why would you oppose it, unless you have something to hide?), etc.

... ah well. At least it'll be interesting to see how far things escalate before people realize that they've been putting their own balls in the vice along with those of their acceptable targets.

[Deleted]

I think Gawker shutting down was a win condition for everyone, hopefully next we see Breitbart follow them.

I stand corrected from my previous reply...

The Verge must disappear from the face of earth.

[dope_danny]

The best comment i've heard from the industry has been the one people dont want to hear: "Video games and other niche media are scapegoated because no one wants to acknowledge that the US has a very real mental health problem." and that aint wrong. Theres a harsh stigma in the U.S that you cannot admit mental problems or you are forever 'broken' so instead of getting help people just get worse till they get ideas like "go shoot up a nightclub" and they sincerely think thats a logical, rational thing to do.

The media is quick to find any and all scapegoats because the truth is far simpler and bleaker: if you looked after the mentally ill a lot of these shootings would never have happened.

But people seem terrified about better mental health care flagging them as "one of them" like its the fucking X gene from marvel comics or something, so easier to avoid the issue and try and blame something each time another crazy person shoots up a club or school.

-and the fact that such an act is no longer called 'crazy' shows the bloody climate around these things.

Its a strange situation where all the people pulling a jack thompson are the types so eager to tell everyone they "self diagnose as on the autism spectrum" like its a fashion statement but you try to find people in the states talking about the complete lack of real mental health care and you find damn near nothing but silence.

- - - Updated - - -

I get people are emotionally hurt by the tragedy, but what we are seeing game journos and even developers using the tragedy to push their ideology, it's disgusting.

I dont think its anything so self motivated. Its vulgar clickbait milking a tragedy for pageviews.

[unholytestament]

It's actually considered offensive to call something crazy. Hell, there was a stupid uproar over the movie Suicide Squad since those characters are all considered criminally insane and that might be offensive to people with mental health problems.

But that will get labeled off-topic.

The media always looks for a scapegoat. A long time ago it was the Beatles, Elvis Presley's swinging hips, Rock and Roll, Heavy Metal, comic books, Dungeons and Dragons, and so on and so forth. It's a tired old rhetoric and it's really funny when there are people who think they're enlightened yet they push this bullshit.

[Gruffertus]

I don't think it's that odd, if you've been reading about what looks like a horrific slaughter, to feel odd about going to work if your work is going to involve a lot of simulated guns. I'd feel more suspicious if you didn't feel odd about that!

Also worth pointing out that personal feelings on twitter, even by journalists, aren't articles and articles aren't legislation. I know that this is what you guys do, is blur these distinctions as much as possible, but still worth saying.

Besides, criticism as a marketable product is but a very recent development.

Not sure about this - the Times Literary Supplement, to pick the first one off the top of my head, started in 1902.

[Deleted]

EA isn't the problem.

EA is a soulless parasitic company that only cares about making money.

They've fallen already (they took sides against Trump in the political arena). Like I said, women have the most spending power in the west.

Don't worry about EA. Just keep an eye on it.

Preferably with some popcorn. Bane is going to pay them a visit.

The definition of sexism isn't the problem.

If negative portrayals of women in fiction and games that can be purchased freely are regarded as "sexist" then government censorship can be enforced.

The real definition of sexism is to regard one sex as inferior. Have you ever heard certain women tell men that they are redundant? Etc.

You have no solutions.

I have provided gamers solutions already: support developers who aren't corrupted by this dark agenda, and make sure you continue to have huge amounts of spending power.

If those things are absent then say goodbye to your industry.

My favorite companies are doing great btw. Ask mister Edge here. > I love that avatar. That happy-go-lucky smile gets me every time.

[Gruffertus]

dope_danny's comment - obviously there are a lot of people on the left who care a lot, and are pretty angry, about the standard of mental health care (and health care in general) in the US - but this is only ever brought up by the right as "STFU about gun control, this is about mental health". And then the day after the legislation gets killed by the NRA, nothing else again about mental health care.

[unholytestament]

I don't think it's that odd, if you've been reading about what looks like a horrific slaughter, to feel odd about going to work if your work is going to involve a lot of simulated guns. I'd feel more suspicious if you didn't feel odd about that!

How is a healthy recognition of the difference between fantasy and reality suspicious?

Also worth pointing out that personal feelings on twitter, even by journalists, aren't articles and articles aren't legislation. I know that this is what you guys do, is blur these distinctions as much as possible, but still worth saying.

This seems to imply we can't criticize something until it's actually being made into law. Surely you see the folly in that line of thinking.

[Strangebrew]

I don't think they're trying to push an ideology, honetly. At least not consciously. I think they're just trying to seem like cool guys to their peers. Which to me makes it much worse. That means they'd happily support anything, as long as it was popular.
.

I dont think its anything so self motivated. Its vulgar clickbait milking a tragedy for pageviews.

You're both right probably, but it's still just as disgusting and it's sad to see that is what game journalism has turned into, and it's something i will fight against with claws and teeth, and i will drag these people out into the light as much as i can for everyone to see their insanity.

I have provided gamers solutions already: support developers who aren't corrupted by this dark agenda, and make sure you continue to have huge amounts of spending power.

It would be easy for me to support developers i want to support if they didn't get butchered during "localization" by a bunch of hipster moralists.
Look at Criminal girls 2 and SMTxFE as of right now, i'm not going to support the censorship the games are put through.

Alternatively i can learn Japanese and start importing games directly from Japan, but that's not something i have time to nor can afford to right now, nor is it that simple when you have consoles like WiiU being region-locked.

[urasim]

dope_danny's comment - obviously there are a lot of people on the left who care a lot, and are pretty angry, about the standard of mental health care (and health care in general) in the US - but this is only ever brought up by the right as "STFU about gun control, this is about mental health". And then the day after the legislation gets killed by the NRA, nothing else again about mental health care.

This isn't a debate about gun control. They're pointing out how stupid those people are. Video games aren't creating killers. They aren't even saying they want a gun ban. They want to hold video game companies responsible. How fucking disgusting.

What's funny about these tweets is that these same assholes, and their brainwashed followers, constantly said they aren't Jack Thompson, yet they go around and use the same exact arguments as Jack did when he was trying to ban games.

What's the difference between Jack Thompson and the regressive left?

[nextormento]

Not sure about this - the Times Literary Supplement, to pick the first one off the top of my head, started in 1902.

Very recent indeed.
I run with the luxury of not being specific. But when addressing cultural drift, I consistently label "recent" anything spanning from late XIX and modernism to today. When I want to address more specific trends I generally denote it so. Call it a licence, if you want, but I think my addressing of the subject is fair enough.
A. Pope predates it all by a few centuries, but I'd feel like splitting hairs at that point.

[dope_danny]

This isn't a debate about gun control. They're pointing out how stupid those people are. Video games aren't creating killers. They aren't even saying they want a gun ban. They want to hold video game companies responsible. How fucking disgusting.

What's funny about these tweets is that these same assholes, and their brainwashed followers, constantly said they aren't Jack Thompson, yet they go around and use the same exact arguments as Jack did when he was trying to ban games.

What's the difference between Jack Thompson and the regressive left?

Folks figured out they could start witchunts that would be popular and supported, look at the shitsorm about the ghostbusters cash in even after the sony emails leaked saying they were eager to get in on it and they would threaten murray with legal action if he wouldnt shill it. But to criticise that would be 'sexist' now. Because media isnt about cold hard facts, its not even really about political agendas or personal feelings either. We past that point already. Now its about repeating something enough that you hope enough people will believe its the truth or the truth gets forgotten.

People keep thinking its right vs left, i guess thats a product of a two party system or something, but really its just marketing and marketers pushing their own material in different ways that tug at easily influenced peoples heartstrings to use them as an audience that serves as a shield for all criticism and a personal army to rally for their next marketing payload strategies.

I mean shit not to be blunt but did you see mmochampions front page the other day? they dont even call the youtube marketers youtubers anymore but the industry term of "influencers", folks dont need to hide behind terms and politics anymore. People are slaves to marketing now. Thats all it is. Thats not a politics thing, that started in the 60's with the beef barons and the tobacco companies thinking up new ways to use -at the time- new media like television becoming a common household commodity to deliver targeted payloads of subliminal influence to indenture brand loyalty. Its been going on for 50 years and just because its current face in gaming is 'blank' studies college drop outs patronising people with damning articles ending in "and thats okay" doesnt make it some hard right or alt left boogeyman. Its marketers using the current zeigiests to push a product. Right now social justice is just a very easy way to get people behind you. Look at EA in the last couple of years.

Its all marketing at the end of the day. The fact that they can say identical stuff to old jack and be lauded for it shows how people stopped listening and thinking and just followed brands because they thought some group or another were 'the good guys'.

It always reminds me of the old Bill Hicks bit about "i agree with the puppet on the left, but i agree with the puppet on the right. But hang on, its the same guy controlling both puppets!" with this stuff. It sounds crackpot tinfoil stuff to mention things like tobacco and beef barons i know, but go check out books like 'The Omnivores Dilemma' or -bias though the documentary on the whole really is- super size me for an interview with a marketer talking about how they thought up candy cigarettes to indoctrinate people to having something between their lips reminding them of childhood and good times and see how scarily similar all the subversive marketing of 50 years ago is to the current internet journalism 'activism', its alive and well and behind a lot of the social justice machine.

Its just some clever marketers taking some easily influenced people that in their own way think they mean well and turning them into witch hunting cattle that respond only to buzzwords and simply no longer think for themselves, but think what 'influencers' tell them to think.

It was never about justice for anyone, thats just the current hook marketing uses.

[urasim]

People keep thinking its right vs left

-snip-

I'm a liberal fighting other leftists. Although, I do see that a lot. Where people will say "it's our side versus theirs". Gonna blame that on herd mentality, though.

Also, I can't lay the blame solely on the media. They're just individuals with opinions... It's the uneducated, credulous masses that's the problem. These "journalists" wouldn't have the reach they do if they weren't supported by people falling for clickbait.

[hrugner]

I don't think it's that odd, if you've been reading about what looks like a horrific slaughter, to feel odd about going to work if your work is going to involve a lot of simulated guns. I'd feel more suspicious if you didn't feel odd about that!

Yep, that's pretty fair. And if that's what we were seeing here then there'd be little reason to complain.

The rest of your comment of course is nonsense. Consensus building is part of the process that gets legislation passed. If someone's efforts at consensus building involve duping people into believing something that is completely false then I think people are justified in complaining about it. Then of course Twitter, if someone is tweeting that they believe the conspiracy theory that video games cause violence, expecting them to have any measure of rationality regarding the topic is irresponsible at the very least.

[erthwjim]

I don't think it's that odd, if you've been reading about what looks like a horrific slaughter, to feel odd about going to work if your work is going to involve a lot of simulated guns. I'd feel more suspicious if you didn't feel odd about that!

I'd think about it for a second and then realize, holy shit, of the millions of people that game, one person, that may or may not game, has committed an atrocious act, where the rest of gamers are pretty much par for the course having done nothing. Then I'd move on with my life and realize that gaming has nothing to do with real world violence and there is not even a correlation between the two. Or perhaps you're asking me to reflect on everything else he does in his life, like his religion, his nationality, his hobbies... but that would be wrong wouldn't it? so why is it ok to dissect gaming as a result of tragedies?

[Gruffertus]

I think I missed the part where what I said had anything to do with whether the shooter was a gamer?

[Simulacrum]

I don't think it's that odd, if you've been reading about what looks like a horrific slaughter, to feel odd about going to work if your work is going to involve a lot of simulated guns. I'd feel more suspicious if you didn't feel odd about that!

No, that's crazy. It shows that they're unable to distinguish fantasy from reality, and even to do basic compartmentalization if they can't distinguish fantasy from reality. If one's mind genuinely associates not-real violence with real violence, then they probably have some kind of personality disorder. As a non-psychologist, I'd speculate that it's something like fantasy-prone personality disorder or paranoid personality disorder ('sup McIntosh). In either case, it's not an example of a healthy mind, but of something which they should be ashamed of and probably seek at least some treatment for if they lack the self-insight or mental fortitude to deal with themselves.

Sadly, our popular culture currently exists within this strange state where people genuinely compete with one another to be the one that seems most afflicted by some kind of mental health problem, so the enabling of and even reveling in these kinds of disorders is becoming increasingly normalized even outside of the few safe havens of insanity these people have always taken shelter in. It's pretty disturbing, to be honest.

[erthwjim]

I think I missed the part where what I said had anything to do with whether the shooter was a gamer?

I didn't say that either, I said I wouldn't need to reflect on gaming because it has nothing to do with what happened. It's a tragedy, and gaming doesn't need to be dissected as a result. And even if he was a gamer, the same thing would still stand true. But people like those linked earlier apparently feel a shooting is the best time to reflect about the treatment of guns in a fictional form of media and you say it's odd if someone did not make that same connection and reflection? I'm telling you what I think people that don't make the connection between gaming and a shooting would think to themselves. So tell me, given the ratio of gamers that are killers in real life to those that are not killers in real life, why again would it be odd to not think about these things?

[unholytestament]

I think I missed the part where what I said had anything to do with whether the shooter was a gamer?

Seemed to me everyone was talking about "game journalists" blaming gaming for violence. The prospect of the shooter being a gamer was just a nebulous notion, not the keystone of any arguments.

[Gruffertus]

No, that's crazy. It shows that they're unable to distinguish fantasy from reality, and even to do basic compartmentalization if they can't distinguish fantasy from reality.

That is not what it shows! It's possible to distinguish reality from fantasy and still have one affect what you're looking for from the other.

I mean, if you're hardcore down the rabbit hole of "What media you consume has no effect on you, no none ever, never", then I can see the confusion, but that's not really how most people work.

I didn't say that either, I said I wouldn't need to reflect on gaming because it has nothing to do with what happened. It's a tragedy, and gaming doesn't need to be dissected as a result. But people like those linked earlier apparently feel a shooting is the best time to reflect about the treatment of guns in a fictional form of media and you say it's odd if someone did not make that same connection and reflection?

I'm saying that it would be odd if they don't make that connection - they whose job is your leisure. I'm sure there's plenty of gamers who thought "maybe I'm not in the mood for a FPS today" on Sunday - but the context for games journalists (particularly those heading into E3) is different.

Seemed to me everyone was talking about "game journalists" blaming gaming for violence. The prospect of the shooter being a gamer was just a nebulous notion, not the keystone of any arguments.

That would be erthwjim's comment you are looking for there.