Gamergate? Toxic masculinity? Ready Player One?

[john]

Could say the same about Ready Player One.

[Werthead]

2 hours ago, Proposition Dirk said:

Gamergate had some valid criticisms and some good and well-meaning proponents, like Total Biscuit. And there are alternative readings of the whole thing that should be heard as well. I think it is a lot like the topic of who started WWI: a messy business and not that much worth considering.

No.

Gamergate was about a guy who was dumped by his girlfriend, couldn't remotely handle it and got a bunch of internet randos to harass her rather than manning up and getting on with his life. A little while later another dude blundered into the situation and said it was really about "ethics in gaming journalism". Because he was a vaguely well-known actor from a couple of geek shows, a bunch of people listened to him and believed that was really the case, obfuscating the real cause of the controversy. People who joined the argument later on therefore got confused about what the hell was going on.

You can tell the whole thing was BS though from the chronology of events (which we went through here on the board in near-realtime) and from the fact that these "concerned voices" were absolutely nowhere to be heard when GameSpot was blackmailed by EA into sacking a journalist who gave Kane and Lynch a bad review in 2007 and when Bethesda started pulling some very shady shit to force outlets to ignore the bugs in their games and give their games glowing review (but letting it be known it was fine to slag off New Vegas because they could then stiff Obsidian on a bonus payment linked to Metacritic scores). In contrast a game developer releasing a game for free on the Internet and later having a brief fling with a games journalist who never reviewed her game is a complete and total, garbage non-story.

[mormont]

The use of 'well-meaning' as a defence is particularly asinine, I'm afraid. It does not buy anyone a pass for repeating lies or enabling harassment. 'Well-meaning', in this instance, amounts to 'assumed they were on the right side and never stopped to think'. You might as well replace it with 'lazy and dumb'.

[Simon Steele]

3 hours ago, Werthead said:

No.

Gamergate was about a guy who was dumped by his girlfriend, couldn't remotely handle it and got a bunch of internet randos to harass her rather than manning up and getting on with his life. A little while later another dude blundered into the situation and said it was really about "ethics in gaming journalism". Because he was a vaguely well-known actor from a couple of geek shows, a bunch of people listened to him and believed that was really the case, obfuscating the real cause of the controversy. People who joined the argument later on therefore got confused about what the hell was going on.

You can tell the whole thing was BS though from the chronology of events (which we went through here on the board in near-realtime) and from the fact that these "concerned voices" were absolutely nowhere to be heard when GameSpot was blackmailed by EA into sacking a journalist who gave Kane and Lynch a bad review in 2007 and when Bethesda started pulling some very shady shit to force outlets to ignore the bugs in their games and give their games glowing review (but letting it be known it was fine to slag off New Vegas because they could then stiff Obsidian on a bonus payment linked to Metacritic scores). In contrast a game developer releasing a game for free on the Internet and later having a brief fling with a games journalist who never reviewed her game is a complete and total, garbage non-story.

I remember the real time play by play. I couldn't keep up, and I remember having so much trouble figuring out what was going on. You're absolutely right, people stepped in and began obfuscating rather quickly. So quickly, that, for me, I just couldn't parse what the hell was going on (at the time). And I think this might have been part of the point. It allowed the real sickness of the culture to go remain under the surface.

Edited April 8 by Simon Steele

[Proposition Dirk]

I saw a bunch of timelines of GG. Even the heavy opposing GG ones couldn't agree on 'a' timeline. But whatever, a mess is a mess.

Black Panther is not a good movie and (barely) not a bad. I understand why it is popular. Nothing wrong about that, just not a good movie. You can say, I am hyped about that movie because it is significant in this and that way, but you really can't say that it is a good movie. No snobbery there.

Edited April 8 by Proposition Dirk

[mormont]

Black Panther is a good movie.

Huh. Turns out I can say it.

 

[Proposition Dirk]

Lol! Yeah! Case in point!

 

[mormont]

I mean, there is a difference in that I can provide a justification of my opinion based on the contents of the film, citing expert opinion, and discuss at length the film's merits, whereas you seem to think repeating the words 'not a good movie' several times will do.

[polishgenius]

1 hour ago, Proposition Dirk said:

I saw a bunch of timelines of GG. Even the heavy opposing GG ones couldn't agree on 'a' timeline. But whatever, a mess is a mess.

The basic timeline of GG isn't confusing. It kicked off with the letter from the guy about his ex girlfriend- that's unarguable fact. Where any disagreement comes in is if you genuinely believe that it and the 'movement' it kicked off was about genuine concern over ethics in gaming journalism or just an expression of bitterness and mysoginy, but if you believe the former at this stage you're being, at the very generous best, wilfully ignorant tbqh. Yes, some people did start genuinely trying to talk about that side of it, but anyone doing that was no longer gamergating and tying it in with that name was only doing the mysoginysts a favour. Like Mormont said, within a very short while of the thing starting and the term being coined it should have been apparent to anyone doing the most basic research that trying to link it into positive change was downright negligent no matter how good the intentions might have been.

 

 

1 hour ago, Proposition Dirk said:

Black Panther is not a good movie and (barely) not a bad. I understand why it is popular. Nothing wrong about that, just not a good movie. You can say, I am hyped about that movie because it is significant in this and that way, but you really can't say that it is a good movie. No snobbery there.

I mean, this is pretty much the definition of snobbery.

[Darth Richard II]

9 hours ago, Proposition Dirk said:

Gamergate had some valid criticisms and some good and well-meaning proponents, like Total Biscuit. And there are alternative readings of the whole thing that should be heard as well. I think it is a lot like the topic of who started WWI: a messy business and not that much worth considering.

 

What I am really flabbergasted about is, how in the nine hells anybody can say that Black Panther is a good movie is way beyond me. But I also think that the only superhero movie worth thinking about is The Incredibles...

https://i.imgur.com/DKUR9Tk.png

Edited April 8 by Darth Richard II

[Darth Richard II]

Black Panther is an AMAZING movie, actually.

[Proposition Dirk]

Although the comment with definition of snobbery was a little tongue in cheek I urge you to look up the definitions for it and than try to hurl that on me again. ☺

Yeah, I repeated myself with the not good movie and didn't provide arguments. That is lazy, that's true. But I think, looking at the movie and hunting it through various critical lenses, like pacing and dialogue and character development or just plain editing, that are more or less commonplace, it is very unlikely to find it in the amazing department, and for my taste, in the good. But my biases against superhero movies shine through here, I admit that.

GG is a quagmire. It started as you say and it spun into nasty and vicious attacks which even continued as people voiced that there were some legit concerns. For those despicable attacks alone GG will always be remembered as a bad thing. Rightly so. But there were those voices and they tried to do good, but were also attacked, often with the same vitriol as the other side, and that discussion wad and still is genuine and has it's merits. And don't forget the gaming media here, which had a dubious role in it as well. And for that discussion GG had an important role that was dwarfed by the hate and stupidity and most important of all: toxic tribalism.

[Simon Steele]

Well either way, I guess this is an example of the problem still existing. If Gamergate started because of a male journalist sharing personal info about a significant other to shame her, then I'm not sure how ethics ever got attached to the movement that started. That sounds like "nice-guy" syndrome ethics and a bunch of "nice guys" who just have had enough.

[Darth Richard II]

6 hours ago, Proposition Dirk said:

Although the comment with definition of snobbery was a little tongue in cheek I urge you to look up the definitions for it and than try to hurl that on me again. ☺

Yeah, I repeated myself with the not good movie and didn't provide arguments. That is lazy, that's true. But I think, looking at the movie and hunting it through various critical lenses, like pacing and dialogue and character development or just plain editing, that are more or less commonplace, it is very unlikely to find it in the amazing department, and for my taste, in the good. But my biases against superhero movies shine through here, I admit that.

GG is a quagmire. It started as you say and it spun into nasty and vicious attacks which even continued as people voiced that there were some legit concerns. For those despicable attacks alone GG will always be remembered as a bad thing. Rightly so. But there were those voices and they tried to do good, but were also attacked, often with the same vitriol as the other side, and that discussion wad and still is genuine and has it's merits. And don't forget the gaming media here, which had a dubious role in it as well. And for that discussion GG had an important role that was dwarfed by the hate and stupidity and most important of all: toxic tribalism.

False.

[Simon Steele]

I don't usually like Forbes, but this article is a response to the backlash. I think a quote from one of the people who cite Gamergate issues with Ready Player One illustrates some of my reservations:

"For supporters of Gamergate, the movement represents a call back to the old, pure days of gaming, meaning when games were overwhelmingly made by white men for other white men. Watching Ready Player One, Gamergate fans will likely feel validated. In a virtual world filled with diverse players, it is the young, white man who is the only true champion, just as they have always suspected."

? Pure old days of gaming and white creators? My "pure old days" of gaming were when Nintendo was King of the living room. Those weren't white programmers. I guess white men as heroes is valid, but that's valid of most mediums of entertainment until people pushed for inclusion. When we see cases of excellent story telling (Wonder Woman) surpass some of the old models, we see how far new stories can take us. Doesn't mean I have to hate Superman now too. Though I do hate the current iteration of Superman. Sorry, I digress.

[Darth Richard II]

He might be referring to PC gaming.

 

Edit: Also, you take the word white out of that sentence and it applies to console gaming too.

Edited April 13 by Darth Richard II

[briantw]

23 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

? Pure old days of gaming and white creators? My "pure old days" of gaming were when Nintendo was King of the living room. 

Nintendo.  And Sega.  Who were then joined by Sony.  

[briantw]

2 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

He might be referring to PC gaming.

 

Edit: Also, you take the word white out of that sentence and it applies to console gaming too.

I mean, he could, but GamerGate was by no means a PC-specific thing, so referring solely to PC gaming wouldn't really make any sense.

[karaddin]

The problem there is that you're assuming that the view held by GG of gaming having been the domain of white boys is actually an accurate one, rather than an ahistorical view that they hold as true despite the fact that minorities have been in gaming from the beginning. It's also not the very early days that really spawns this view - it's the gaming of the 90s when that perception of gaming really started to coalesce, not the early days of the 70s/80s.

I mean, the thing you have to bear in mind is that a decent chunk of them (not all of them by any means, but the most easily convinced to jump on the outrage bandwagon) aren't even old enough to have been part of that era of gaming. What they believe about it becomes a reality of its own.

[Simon Steele]

1 hour ago, Darth Richard II said:

He might be referring to PC gaming.

 

Edit: Also, you take the word white out of that sentence and it applies to console gaming too.

I thought on this, but isn't RPO all about the nostalgia of console based 80s games?