Yes, but I have seen so many different examples of singular lunatics (Hundreds over this past 8 months) that it tends to serve a point when you see one of the fringe crazy conspiracy posts because it gets tons of upvotes or replies.
Yes, but I have seen so many different examples of singular lunatics (Hundreds over this past 8 months) that it tends to serve a point when you see one of the fringe crazy conspiracy posts because it gets tons of upvotes or replies.
The "fringe" isn't even just tacitly supported with GG. It is the movement.
None of them have ever raised a legitimate specific concern worthy of serious consideration.
Rym, I was unaware of twitter happenings as I did not have an account until a couple of months ago. In addition, I figured (correctly in this case) that it would be a shit show most likely because you cant hold a discussion in 140 characters.
While Gamergate started with those events, and now that I read that article and read Axel's post and past posts within this thread I have to agreed that it started negatively. My timeline of events was how i perceived it at the time. I never read the full text of Gjoni post, nor do I defend anything to do with Gamergate.
X is dead may be a "standard headline" however I feel that the posting of so many stories, especially the few that actually attempted to back up that claim got people upset who knew nothing about the original event.
Clamped down is the wrong word. However, the mistake in remaining silent for so long on the matter combined with possible banning of people simply trying to discuss the matter (no idea if the banned users were looking for understanding or posting flaming piles of garbage).
Semantically there is anti-GG. There is GG, there are those who know about GG and think it's stupid/ridiculous/etc. and there are those who have no clue what any of this shit is about. I said anti-GG as a shorthand for everyone else who knows about it and knows it was founded in bullshit.
I will read the wikipedia article when I have time at work.
X is dead may be a "standard headline" however I feel that the posting of so many stories, especially the few that actually attempted to back up that claim got people upset who knew nothing about the original event.
How many stories?
What do you mean "back up the claim?" The claim that "gamers are dead?" What do you think those articles were saying by stating that "gamers are dead." What do you think was the crux of those articles?
You realize that they were about how the pop culture image of "gamers" is basically socially maladjusted misogynistic dudes who take surprising umbrage with basic criticism, right?
Irrespective of all other factors, one fact remains: if you say negative things about gamers, people who fit the above description descend upon you en masse. The fact is that this stereotype actively reinforces itself. So many shitheads heed that call
If it weren't a fair stereotype, then how does this keep happening? Thousands and thousands of isolated incidents? A few people with a massive bot network?
Shitheads appear en masse out of "gamer" culture if provoked in the slightest, far more than with literally any other human media ever conceived. Aggressive shitheads. Harassing shitheads.
The fact is this happens regularly. I say this as a gamer, a games journalist, and a game creator: lots of gamers are absolute shitheads, and a lot of criticism about "gamer culture" is perfectly fair.
I guess I haven't noticed how awful "Gamers" are because I just don't hang around with assholes or play games with assholes. I'm not gonna get all self-hating/self-effacing about a bunch of angry aspie jackoffs, but will certainly acknowledge that they are jackoffs.
I mean, my experience on forums, my experience studying game development, my experiences on Reddit and Twitter and Tumblr and Youtube...It doesn't take a lot for me to see that the gamer culture at large is sufficiently shitty. It's not about self-hating, I didn't do anything wrong in this scenario, it's about looking at the community how it is and knowing that their behavior is unacceptable.
Also, aspie? Seriously? You're bringing aspberger's/mental illness into it? That has nothing to do with it. I don't identify with the diagnosis, but a doctor did diagnose me with it at some point, so I still find it offensive.
You can find it offensive and I'm sorry that you feel that way, but the guys I've run into in my life who really WERE clueless jerks (and typically also gamers) were also BIG TIME on the spectrum. In my experience there's certainly a correlation and it certainly makes sense. Is it causative? I dunno about that, but social difficulty certainly can translate to saying stupid offensive shit (a la Gamer Gaters) and not understanding why you're wrong because the explanations revolve primarily around "soft" skills.
I think it's an unfair generalization, and an oversimplification. It also ignores the vast amount of people who aren't doing this unintentionally because they don't get it, and who are actually malicious jerks. There's more of them than you'd like to imagine.
So what you're saying is that when someone tars an entire group of people based on a relatively superficial commonality that happens to be convenient conversational shorthand, that's maybe sort of a dick move?
I can guarantee I have put significantly more time into looking into this than you have. I'm not proud of that, but it's still true.
I fucking posted on the /r/rpg subreddit today on a story about a crazy jerk who blamed SJWs for getting him kicked out of somewhere. I commented that people who rave about SJWs are usually pretty unhinged, and within an hour someone had commented that I was a Gamerghazi asshole and that SJWs do ruin shit.
These people exist, they exist en masse, and they are not just socially inept. They are legitimately conspiratorial racist, sexist, homophobic, and/or transphobic assholes, and trying to tie that into the Autism spectrum in any way is just plain ridiculous.
I must concede the point about the articles in regards to "gamers are dead" (shorthand) as I cannot find the article I was thinking of referencing and its possible that I came into the article with too much bias to read it clearly.
It sounds ridiculous but I had not considered it in those terms in regards to the quantity of incidents. Part of me wishes I could make the claim it was some conspiracy, but obviously there is something broken.
I don't want to surrender the term gamer to trolls and misogynists.
The quote regarding GTA in the article Rym linked bothers me because I thought it had already been decided that gameplay has no real correlation to IRL action, so what does it matter within the context of the game that it may encourage you kill people(which I'm not sure I even agree that the game does).
I am indeed being condescending to someone who casually uses the term "aspie" to describe a group of people and thinks it's okay.
Aspberger's syndrome is a disorder, it's part of the Autism spectrum, and conflating that with people who are jerks is just plain insulting. In trying to downplay the actions of a very dangerous group of people, you related them to a group of people who are in no way inherently bad or terrible. Both of these things are so simultaneously shitty that yeah, I decided to respond with insults in kind. Is that great? No. But it's where I'm at right now.
I'm not a huge fan of any hobby or interest being the sole identifying aspect of someones personality. People like the gamergaters, long before gamergate was a thing, is one of the reason I don't like the term gamer.
See, you add in the clause about gamers sucking. I just said the culture sucks. That doesn't mean gamers suck. That would be me calling out 95% of this forum and myself as sucking.
You are doing exactly what so many people do. Criticizing gamer culture is not a slight against every gamer. The culture is not controlled by every person and every person does not reflect it, but if you ask people outside of gaming about stereotypes they perceive, then you get a lot of really awful shit. The sum total of gaming interactions combines to be something that has a negative impact on the world, no matter how many Child's Play's and fundraising we do.
Also, using the term "aspie" facetiously does not get you a free pass. And "aspies" are not comparable to "gamers" in any way. One is a goddamn hobby, the other is a mental disability. Making fun of people who game as a hobby, which I didn't actually do, is not the same as using a pejorative term for people who have a mental illness. It's quite frankly unacceptable, and your defense of it is beyond pitiful.
How many gamers have to be perceived as doing something for their actions to reflect gaming culture which is a reflection of the whole. All gamers make up gaming culture so to state that the majority (51%+) feel/think a certain way paints with an awful broad brush.
And if its a minority of people I'm not sure it can be stated to be a part of gaming culture as a whole.
In addition, comparing assholes with people who have a legitimate illness gives them an out I'm not prepared to let them have.
Using the term "aspie" is not a point. It is a contested word and ultimately, as someone who is not on the spectrum (or at least has not indicated or expressed a place on the spectrum) nor referring to people who are known to be on the spectrum for sure, you are being relatively offensive in doing so. Your continued defense of it is baffling, as you didn't make some grand or notable point. Gamergate is just "the usual aspie gamer crowd?" And I'm bad for saying that the sum total of gamer culture (BTW, not the same thing as 51+% of gamer culture) is negative? Jeez.
Huh, I started typing out a response and realized you are correct Axel. I mistook sum total as being the average which it isn't. The average could be positive but with enough assholes yelling loud enough it could drag the total to the negative.
Dude. I made a point about mass categorization leading to basically inevitable offense and dilution of the message. And here you have pretty much a perfect microcosm of that in this thread.
Treating the whole thing as if the example was entirely an earnest attempt to offend is just a lazy argument tactic and I can't take you seriously at all. Your summation of the last page or so of comments makes me think you need to read them again. I'm done for tonight.
Comments
I just think that the death blow for this sort of shit can't be "Look at this one singular lunatic! He's a lunatic!"
How can you kill that which has no life?
None of them have ever raised a legitimate specific concern worthy of serious consideration.
While Gamergate started with those events, and now that I read that article and read Axel's post and past posts within this thread I have to agreed that it started negatively. My timeline of events was how i perceived it at the time. I never read the full text of Gjoni post, nor do I defend anything to do with Gamergate.
X is dead may be a "standard headline" however I feel that the posting of so many stories, especially the few that actually attempted to back up that claim got people upset who knew nothing about the original event.
Clamped down is the wrong word. However, the mistake in remaining silent for so long on the matter combined with possible banning of people simply trying to discuss the matter (no idea if the banned users were looking for understanding or posting flaming piles of garbage).
Semantically there is anti-GG. There is GG, there are those who know about GG and think it's stupid/ridiculous/etc. and there are those who have no clue what any of this shit is about. I said anti-GG as a shorthand for everyone else who knows about it and knows it was founded in bullshit.
I will read the wikipedia article when I have time at work.
What do you mean "back up the claim?" The claim that "gamers are dead?" What do you think those articles were saying by stating that "gamers are dead." What do you think was the crux of those articles?
You realize that they were about how the pop culture image of "gamers" is basically socially maladjusted misogynistic dudes who take surprising umbrage with basic criticism, right?
Irrespective of all other factors, one fact remains: if you say negative things about gamers, people who fit the above description descend upon you en masse. The fact is that this stereotype actively reinforces itself. So many shitheads heed that call
If it weren't a fair stereotype, then how does this keep happening? Thousands and thousands of isolated incidents? A few people with a massive bot network?
Shitheads appear en masse out of "gamer" culture if provoked in the slightest, far more than with literally any other human media ever conceived. Aggressive shitheads. Harassing shitheads.
The fact is this happens regularly. I say this as a gamer, a games journalist, and a game creator: lots of gamers are absolute shitheads, and a lot of criticism about "gamer culture" is perfectly fair.
Also, aspie? Seriously? You're bringing aspberger's/mental illness into it? That has nothing to do with it. I don't identify with the diagnosis, but a doctor did diagnose me with it at some point, so I still find it offensive.
I can guarantee I have put significantly more time into looking into this than you have. I'm not proud of that, but it's still true.
I fucking posted on the /r/rpg subreddit today on a story about a crazy jerk who blamed SJWs for getting him kicked out of somewhere. I commented that people who rave about SJWs are usually pretty unhinged, and within an hour someone had commented that I was a Gamerghazi asshole and that SJWs do ruin shit.
These people exist, they exist en masse, and they are not just socially inept. They are legitimately conspiratorial racist, sexist, homophobic, and/or transphobic assholes, and trying to tie that into the Autism spectrum in any way is just plain ridiculous.
Your second is WAAAAY condescending.
It sounds ridiculous but I had not considered it in those terms in regards to the quantity of incidents. Part of me wishes I could make the claim it was some conspiracy, but obviously there is something broken.
I don't want to surrender the term gamer to trolls and misogynists.
The quote regarding GTA in the article Rym linked bothers me because I thought it had already been decided that gameplay has no real correlation to IRL action, so what does it matter within the context of the game that it may encourage you kill people(which I'm not sure I even agree that the game does).
Aspberger's syndrome is a disorder, it's part of the Autism spectrum, and conflating that with people who are jerks is just plain insulting. In trying to downplay the actions of a very dangerous group of people, you related them to a group of people who are in no way inherently bad or terrible. Both of these things are so simultaneously shitty that yeah, I decided to respond with insults in kind. Is that great? No. But it's where I'm at right now.
Anyway, here's the thing Axel.
"Gamergaters suck"
Yep! No argument!
"Gamer culture sucks [and so by extension, gamers suck.]"
Nope, sorry! This is 1:1 just as offensive as calling 'em all aspies instead of gamers.
You are doing exactly what so many people do. Criticizing gamer culture is not a slight against every gamer. The culture is not controlled by every person and every person does not reflect it, but if you ask people outside of gaming about stereotypes they perceive, then you get a lot of really awful shit. The sum total of gaming interactions combines to be something that has a negative impact on the world, no matter how many Child's Play's and fundraising we do.
Also, using the term "aspie" facetiously does not get you a free pass. And "aspies" are not comparable to "gamers" in any way. One is a goddamn hobby, the other is a mental disability. Making fun of people who game as a hobby, which I didn't actually do, is not the same as using a pejorative term for people who have a mental illness. It's quite frankly unacceptable, and your defense of it is beyond pitiful.
And if its a minority of people I'm not sure it can be stated to be a part of gaming culture as a whole.
In addition, comparing assholes with people who have a legitimate illness gives them an out I'm not prepared to let them have.
Using the term "aspie" is not a point. It is a contested word and ultimately, as someone who is not on the spectrum (or at least has not indicated or expressed a place on the spectrum) nor referring to people who are known to be on the spectrum for sure, you are being relatively offensive in doing so. Your continued defense of it is baffling, as you didn't make some grand or notable point. Gamergate is just "the usual aspie gamer crowd?" And I'm bad for saying that the sum total of gamer culture (BTW, not the same thing as 51+% of gamer culture) is negative? Jeez.
Dude. I made a point about mass categorization leading to basically inevitable offense and dilution of the message. And here you have pretty much a perfect microcosm of that in this thread.
Treating the whole thing as if the example was entirely an earnest attempt to offend is just a lazy argument tactic and I can't take you seriously at all. Your summation of the last page or so of comments makes me think you need to read them again. I'm done for tonight.