Hey so I'm the dissenter, I really appreciate getting the right to speak.
I'm one of those people that think maybe we can improve game journalism. Something like a consumer advocacy group, would probably be preferable to an angry mob though.
If you have some questions or complaints, I'll try to answer them.
If you have some questions or complaints, I'll try to answer them.
Okay. Do keep in mind, this is not intended to be hostile towards you - I know you're just another person, as it were, and none of this is strictly your fault, I'm just interested in your opinions.
I've noticed something - for a movement that's about Ethics and standards in the Gaming press, why is it that literally nobody seems to know the first thing about what journalistic ethics actually entail? Or, for that matter, seems to have noticed that reviews are not journalism, they're opinion?
Why does this movement manage to miss glaring ethical breaches (Even at sites that the movement HATES), but then pretends it's winning when someone uncovers the fact that - gasp - members of the press talk to each other and ask advice/opinions about what they're writing?
If you don't support the vile actions of some parts of the movement, why do you still associate with it? You can fight for what you believe in without it, and by supporting that group you are lending tacit support of the extreme elements that do things like, oh, threaten to bomb feminist lectures for an easy example, no matter how much you might protest that you don't support such things.
If it's about Ethics and not about being anti-feminist with ethics as a paper mask to guard against the hurtling duststorm of hatred that is Gamergate, why has Gamergate latched on to primarily anti-feminists, right-wingers and grossly unethical shitbags as their voices in this? People like Christina Hoff Somers(Anti-feminist, and a member of the same Right-wing think tank that architected a lot of Bush Administration policy), or Milo Yiannopoulos(Famous in the Fleet Street press for being a misogynistic right-wing twit with delusions of grandeur, who hated gamers until he saw the opportunity to push an agenda)?
How much of the movement, would you say, is aware that the entire thing is based off a complete fiction, something the internet made up whole cloth?
If it's about ethics, then why the obsession with "Social Justice Warriors", which dominate a large part of the discussion? For that matter, why did it suddenly branch out to attacking Anita Sarkeesian, who has literally nothing to do with gamergate's stated goals?
Someone I'm casually acquainted with is both a member of the Gaming press, and initially offered some tentative support of Gamergate, agreeing with their stated points. The next bit of involvement she had was that her face was plastered on the usual "THIS IS THE FACE OF THE ENEMY AND IT'S US VS THEM" posters that gamergate put out. So, if she agreed with GG(Note the past tense), and was ethically in the clear herself, then what possible reason was there to throw her out as one of the faces of "the enemy", if it wasn't just being it's a woman who writes about games?
For that matter, if it's about ethics rather than hating women, why does the data pretty explicitly say that GG attacks women multiple orders of magnitude more often than they even bother talking to any male gaming journalist?
What is your opinion on the GG conspiracy theories? For example, that Anita Sarkeesian was going to stage a false flag at a large industry event, then declare gamers forbidden or some such garbage I can't bother looking up before I've had my first cuppa for the day. Or any of the other wild predictions that have been made, and then quickly swept under the rug when they failed to come true?
That's all I can think of right now. I might have something else later.
Out of interest I went to r/KotakuInAction and just for kicks I wanted to find what they were writing about the whole Shadows of Mordor fiasco, which showcases some actual problems between publishers and the press.
Anyway, I found this thread, discussing an article on Polygon finds a certain scene in the tutorial of Shadows of Mordor jarring. The scene is when stealth mechanics are taught to you by sneaking up on your wife to steal a kiss, which doesn't quite gel with what the mechanic is used for throughout the entire rest of the game: murder.
I could see this as a maybe valid criticism you can agree or disagree with, but nevertheless completely irrelevant to ethics in games journalism. Instead it is as far as I can tell the fourth most commented-on thread on that subreddit about Shadows of Mordor by starting out with calling the author a "White Knight" (revealing more about the guy calling him a White Knight than the author himself) and Polygon as a whole a pit of "dumbassery", while of course completely missing the point of the entire article.
nobody seems to know the first thing about what journalistic ethics actually entail?
Reviews may be opinion, but writing a review based on perks received rather than the quality of the game is lying. I don't want to spend money on a game just because the company making it knows how to win people over. This is a problem in every industry even politics. I think gamers feel betrayed because they thought they were above this.
If you don't support the vile actions of some parts of the movement, why do you still associate with it?
I believe in creating an organization supporting long term goals of gamers. It shouldn't be Gamer Gate, and it shouldn't be called that either. Though it's about as difficult as convincing Feminists to call themselves something else.
why has Gamergate latched on to primarily anti-feminists, right-wingers and grossly unethical shitbags...
The opposite is true. These 'shitbags' threw GG a bone which was gladly accepted. Angry people who feel unrepresented are easy to manipulate.
Republican has become a dirty word on the internet, hasn't it?
How much of the movement, would you say, is aware that the entire thing is based off a complete fiction, something the internet made up whole cloth?
All movements have a sparking point. People really want to hate Zoe Quinn regardless of the allegations of unfaithfulness. GGs already suspected game reviewers of being paid off. That's true. I can't deny that GG is full of masogony, but no one can deny that Game reviewers are paid to improve scores.
why did it suddenly branch out to attacking Anita Sarkeesian, who has literally nothing to do with gamergate's stated goals?
Miss Sarkeesian is a bit of an enigma. Yes I watched all of her videos and found them lackluster at best. However the industry piles on awards and titles to her. She shows up in every publication and even made it to The Colbert Report. Yes she's a victim of threats but so was Jack Tompson and no one listened to him.
So, if she agreed with GG(Note the past tense), and was ethically in the clear herself, then what possible reason was there to throw her out as one of the faces of "the enemy", if it wasn't just being it's a woman who writes about games?
I don't know who she is or what she said, so I can't really offer anything. Most likely she wrote something on twitter that people took out of context. A lot of that happens. Twitter is a horrible conversation tool. Remember what happened to JohnTron?
...why does the data pretty explicitly say that GG attacks women multiple orders of magnitude more often than they even bother talking to any male gaming journalist?
I don't think that's true. There's plenty of focus on any publications that posted those "Gamers are Dead" articles.
I'm stumped as to why feminists even got involved in the first place.
What is your opinion on the GG conspiracy theories?
I used to live with a father who was a serious conspiracy theorist and I still don't understand it myself. These people find evidence in everything and from living with one I find myself very paranoid about unusual things in media. I think it's the closed nature of these communities that leads to them all believing in the insanity. It's a lot like a cult, really not healthy.
I also don't really know where the hate for Zoe Quinn comes from. She makes games that are intentionally not fun and Hideo Kojima once said that games can not be art unless they're not designed to be fun. I support games being art. I still don't think I'd want to play her games though. It's not personal.
nobody seems to know the first thing about what journalistic ethics actually entail?
Reviews may be opinion, but writing a review based on perks received rather than the quality of the game is lying. I don't want to spend money on a game just because the company making it knows how to win people over. This is a problem in every industry even politics. I think gamers feel betrayed because they thought they were above this.
But that's a separate issue entirely. Journalism deals with news and reviews deal with opinion. You aren't asking for ethics in games journalism, you're asking for ethics in game reviews.
I also laugh at the idea that gamers thought that their industry was somehow above paid/coerced reviews - as far as I can tell, that has always been the case.
The opposite is true. These 'shitbags' threw GG a bone which was gladly accepted. Angry people who feel unrepresented are easy to manipulate.
Republican has become a dirty word on the internet, hasn't it?
They threw a bone to GG, but it's not the bone-throwers who decided to pick it up, carry it around, and go for the jugular of anyone who tried to take it away. GG could(and should) have told them to fuck right off, which clearly did not happen.
Not really, regarding republican becoming a dirty word, but it has become associated with extreme conservatisim, thanks to the Libertarian and Tea Party movements, along with Bush, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney, and so on. Not unjustifiably so, considering that the most prominent figures of that side of politics tend strongly towards being complete assholes, idiots, bigots, or usually some combination of all three.
People really want to hate Zoe Quinn regardless of the allegations of unfaithfulness.
Just to be clear, you do know I mean the part where the internet(or, I suppose, proto-gamergate) made up that she was screwing reviewers for good scores, yeah? Not that she was unfaithful, most don't seem to care about that.
GGs already suspected game reviewers of being paid off. That's true. I can't deny that GG is full of masogony, but no one can deny that Game reviewers are paid to improve scores.
No, but you can be asked to prove it, which hasn't actually happened in the majority of cases - in fact, the last two cash-for-comment scandals that came up regarding devs were actually regarding youtubers like Totalbiscut(who, to his credit, didn't play ball as far as I'm aware) because they're easier targets.
Not to mention, judging by the opinions of a large sample of the gaming community, the majority of the reason people assume that reviewers are being paid off is because their opinions disagree with the opinions of the people making the accusation. Speak to just about anyone who has been in the industry press for some time, and they'll tell you about how they've been being accused of being bought by companies for literally every review since the primary medium for these things was print-only. I've also spoken to members of the industry press who I know for a fact were not paid off, and yet, people were constantly claiming that they had hard evidence(which usually amounted to "This review score was too high, because I think this game sucks") that they were paid off.
Have there been occasions where it's happened? Yes, absolutely - Remember why Giantbomb was founded? Is it happening as frequently as is alleged by gamergate? Absolutely not.
Miss Sarkeesian is a bit of an enigma.
I think you'll find she's pretty fuckin' up-front, dude. Doesn't exactly mince words when it comes to what she's about.
Yes I watched all of her videos and found them lackluster at best. However the industry piles on awards and titles to her. She shows up in every publication and even made it to The Colbert Report.
Yeah, her videos aren't that good. But, she's the one making something like that. You'll find other professionally made videos of that type few and far between.
As for "Piling on awards and titles", her pile stands at Two. Two awards. A GDCA ambassador award - Justified, as she's certainly doing a lot in terms of outreach, with an audience of millions - and another Ambassador award from the 2014 Women in Gaming Awards, which also makes total sense, with being a woman in gaming, doing a serious amount of outreach. Titles? The industry hasn't really piled titles on her either, in fact, I can only think of one industry outlet that came close to titling her anything, and that's Gamasutra pointing her out as one of the defining things in gaming for that year - again, fair enough, considering the massive deal her videos have become.
The reason she made it on the Colbert Report is essentially because dumbshits keep attacking her for an entirely reasonable message. Turns out, when someone with a reasonable message is relentlessly attacked by a large group, people tend to take notice, and reach out to them, because there's a story there.
Yes she's a victim of threats but so was Jack Tompson and no one listened to him.
That's because what he was saying was absolutely insane, and provably false. The reason people are taking Sarkeesian seriously is because she actually has a lot of legitimate points to make, even if I don't particularly think she makes them terribly well.
And as for nobody listening to Jack Thompson - When he called Sarkeesian a censor, Gamergate sure as hell listened, and the groundswell of support before they realized they were barracking for Jack Thompson and quickly backpedaled was glorious to behold.
Most likely she wrote something on twitter that people took out of context. A lot of that happens. Twitter is a horrible conversation tool.
No, she did not. She wrote a blog post about how GG has some legitimate points, and how she's watching to see where it goes, and after that she primarily left well enough alone.
Remember what happened to JohnTron?
Yep! Which also has literally nothing to do with anything here. What, you think this is some fuckin' childeren's game of tit-for-tat, that one cancels out the other?
There's also quite a bit of doubt that it actually came from the anti-gg crowd, on account of the almost satirically sterotypical SJW-style language, the inclusion of Mr Rogers on the list, and the fact that JonTron was on the list at all - Gamergaters assumed he was a supporter, not the anti-GG crowd, who were largely ignoring him at that time.
HOWEVER - I disregard this as just foolish conspiracy-talk, since there's zero evidence that this is the case, just people having hunches. Just as the talk of various Anti-gg people faking their own doxxing is foolish nonsense without any evidence.
I don't think that's true. There's plenty of focus on any publications that posted those "Gamers are Dead" articles.
Those "gamers are dead" articles were pretty bullshit, though - however, a lot of the focus I've seen is regarding collusion and how they were supposedly coordinated through industry mailing lists, coupled with tantrums about the idea that people are disassociating from the label "Gamer" because of Gamergate. Very rarely do I see anyone making any worthwhile points regarding it, and really, the best bit I've seen about it came from someone who was both Anti-GG and a member of the press.
I used to live with a father who was a serious conspiracy theorist and I still don't understand it myself. These people find evidence in everything and from living with one I find myself very paranoid about unusual things in media. I think it's the closed nature of these communities that leads to them all believing in the insanity. It's a lot like a cult, really not healthy.
I'll admit, I found them incredibly interesting, much as I do other conspiracy theories. They even hit, note for note, a lot of the same points as other modern conspiracy theories - False flag accusations, shadowy cabals controlling everything from behind the scenes, large groups of people being attacked by the "Powerful few", big events where they fool all the sheeple, etc, etc.
People really want to hate Zoe Quinn regardless of the allegations of unfaithfulness.
Just to be clear, you do know I mean the part where the internet(or, I suppose, proto-gamergate) made up that she was screwing reviewers for good scores, yeah? Not that she was unfaithful, most don't seem to care about that.
Actually if you look at links on Depression Quest's Wiki page it says she told the BBC that she was cheating on her boyfriend but that it wasn't to improve game review scores.
Yep! Which also has literally nothing to do with anything here. What, you think this is some fuckin' childeren's game of tit-for-tat, that one cancels out the other?
No What I was saying about him is that he was recently quoted out of context from twitter. I was saying that it is really common for people to use out of context Tweets to attack people.
Yes she's a victim of threats but so was Jack Tompson and no one listened to him.
That's because what he was saying was absolutely insane, and provably false. The reason people are taking Sarkeesian seriously is because she actually has a lot of legitimate points to make,
How is "Videogames make kids into murders." Any diffrent that "Video Games make kids grow up accepting rape" ? The real difference is Jack Tompson was a Laywer who used research, even though it was wrong, and Sarkeesian is a media critic, who never uses research.
Miss Sarkeesian is a bit of an enigma.
I think you'll find she's pretty fuckin' up-front, dude. Doesn't exactly mince words when it comes to what she's about.
As long as that word is patriarchy. She can say that one all day.
Actually if you look at links on Depression Quest's Wiki page it says she told the BBC that she was cheating on her boyfriend but that it wasn't to improve game review scores.
I'm sorry, I must not have been clear enough - The fact she cheated on her boyfriend isn't in dispute. As you point out, she admitted to that much. The part that was made up by the internet was that it was for review scores, which was the accusation that really put the match to tinder when it comes to Gamergate. Even Gonji himself didn't make that accusation, and he sure as hell had an axe to grind.
Also, just between us blokes - You might want to excise the word actually from your speech. Even if it's justified, around this issue, people are gonna mock you for it. I like to think myself above that sort of thing, however. I mean, I'm not, but I like to think I am.
No What I was saying about him is that he was recently quoted out of context from twitter. I was saying that it is really common for people to use out of context Tweets to attack people.
Since I'm a big old softy, I won't press you on it - but if that's what you mean, it's generally to your benefit to be explicit. Don't worry, it won't bother people - there's a big difference between treating people like they're stupid, and simply making yourself clear. Ambiguity is the enemy, in these matters
As long as that word is patriarchy. She can say that one all day.
Don't start acting a fool now, when you're not doing badly all things considered. There's problems with her videos, sure, but talking about the patriarchy isn't it, especially since she doesn't really whip that one out too often. You said you watched her videos, so don't go pissing in my pocket and misrepresenting them.
And hey, if that's her thing, so what? She's not vile and hateful for the most part, like some feminists I could name and certainly have previously. She's standing up for what she thinks and believes(Which also isn't vile or hateful), while being attacked by a huge number of people. What she's chosen to do isn't easy, and she's seeing it through. It doesn't matter if you don't agree with what she says(I know I've made no secret of my dislike of her work), the fact she's doing it despite the undeniably harsh opposition she's faced and will face in future is worthy of respect.
Looks like the newbie has unlocked the "Get schooled by Churba" achievement.
Hey, dude deserves some credit, he's standing up pretty well, even if he's admittedly not getting a real full-court press. I'd even say he's standing better than anyone else I've discussed the whole thing with thus far.
Comments
I'm one of those people that think maybe we can improve game journalism. Something like a consumer advocacy group, would probably be preferable to an angry mob though.
If you have some questions or complaints, I'll try to answer them.
But if they start condoning goobergator's actions, then you can light the pitchforks.
I've noticed something - for a movement that's about Ethics and standards in the Gaming press, why is it that literally nobody seems to know the first thing about what journalistic ethics actually entail? Or, for that matter, seems to have noticed that reviews are not journalism, they're opinion?
Why does this movement manage to miss glaring ethical breaches (Even at sites that the movement HATES), but then pretends it's winning when someone uncovers the fact that - gasp - members of the press talk to each other and ask advice/opinions about what they're writing?
If you don't support the vile actions of some parts of the movement, why do you still associate with it? You can fight for what you believe in without it, and by supporting that group you are lending tacit support of the extreme elements that do things like, oh, threaten to bomb feminist lectures for an easy example, no matter how much you might protest that you don't support such things.
If it's about Ethics and not about being anti-feminist with ethics as a paper mask to guard against the hurtling duststorm of hatred that is Gamergate, why has Gamergate latched on to primarily anti-feminists, right-wingers and grossly unethical shitbags as their voices in this? People like Christina Hoff Somers(Anti-feminist, and a member of the same Right-wing think tank that architected a lot of Bush Administration policy), or Milo Yiannopoulos(Famous in the Fleet Street press for being a misogynistic right-wing twit with delusions of grandeur, who hated gamers until he saw the opportunity to push an agenda)?
How much of the movement, would you say, is aware that the entire thing is based off a complete fiction, something the internet made up whole cloth?
If it's about ethics, then why the obsession with "Social Justice Warriors", which dominate a large part of the discussion? For that matter, why did it suddenly branch out to attacking Anita Sarkeesian, who has literally nothing to do with gamergate's stated goals?
Someone I'm casually acquainted with is both a member of the Gaming press, and initially offered some tentative support of Gamergate, agreeing with their stated points. The next bit of involvement she had was that her face was plastered on the usual "THIS IS THE FACE OF THE ENEMY AND IT'S US VS THEM" posters that gamergate put out. So, if she agreed with GG(Note the past tense), and was ethically in the clear herself, then what possible reason was there to throw her out as one of the faces of "the enemy", if it wasn't just being it's a woman who writes about games?
For that matter, if it's about ethics rather than hating women, why does the data pretty explicitly say that GG attacks women multiple orders of magnitude more often than they even bother talking to any male gaming journalist?
What is your opinion on the GG conspiracy theories? For example, that Anita Sarkeesian was going to stage a false flag at a large industry event, then declare gamers forbidden or some such garbage I can't bother looking up before I've had my first cuppa for the day. Or any of the other wild predictions that have been made, and then quickly swept under the rug when they failed to come true?
That's all I can think of right now. I might have something else later.
Anyway, I found this thread, discussing an article on Polygon finds a certain scene in the tutorial of Shadows of Mordor jarring. The scene is when stealth mechanics are taught to you by sneaking up on your wife to steal a kiss, which doesn't quite gel with what the mechanic is used for throughout the entire rest of the game: murder.
I could see this as a maybe valid criticism you can agree or disagree with, but nevertheless completely irrelevant to ethics in games journalism. Instead it is as far as I can tell the fourth most commented-on thread on that subreddit about Shadows of Mordor by starting out with calling the author a "White Knight" (revealing more about the guy calling him a White Knight than the author himself) and Polygon as a whole a pit of "dumbassery", while of course completely missing the point of the entire article.
Republican has become a dirty word on the internet, hasn't it? All movements have a sparking point. People really want to hate Zoe Quinn regardless of the allegations of unfaithfulness. GGs already suspected game reviewers of being paid off. That's true. I can't deny that GG is full of masogony, but no one can deny that Game reviewers are paid to improve scores. Miss Sarkeesian is a bit of an enigma. Yes I watched all of her videos and found them lackluster at best. However the industry piles on awards and titles to her. She shows up in every publication and even made it to The Colbert Report. Yes she's a victim of threats but so was Jack Tompson and no one listened to him. I don't know who she is or what she said, so I can't really offer anything. Most likely she wrote something on twitter that people took out of context. A lot of that happens. Twitter is a horrible conversation tool. Remember what happened to JohnTron? I don't think that's true. There's plenty of focus on any publications that posted those "Gamers are Dead" articles.
I'm stumped as to why feminists even got involved in the first place. I used to live with a father who was a serious conspiracy theorist and I still don't understand it myself. These people find evidence in everything and from living with one I find myself very paranoid about unusual things in media. I think it's the closed nature of these communities that leads to them all believing in the insanity. It's a lot like a cult, really not healthy.
I also laugh at the idea that gamers thought that their industry was somehow above paid/coerced reviews - as far as I can tell, that has always been the case.
Not really, regarding republican becoming a dirty word, but it has become associated with extreme conservatisim, thanks to the Libertarian and Tea Party movements, along with Bush, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney, and so on. Not unjustifiably so, considering that the most prominent figures of that side of politics tend strongly towards being complete assholes, idiots, bigots, or usually some combination of all three. Just to be clear, you do know I mean the part where the internet(or, I suppose, proto-gamergate) made up that she was screwing reviewers for good scores, yeah? Not that she was unfaithful, most don't seem to care about that. No, but you can be asked to prove it, which hasn't actually happened in the majority of cases - in fact, the last two cash-for-comment scandals that came up regarding devs were actually regarding youtubers like Totalbiscut(who, to his credit, didn't play ball as far as I'm aware) because they're easier targets.
Not to mention, judging by the opinions of a large sample of the gaming community, the majority of the reason people assume that reviewers are being paid off is because their opinions disagree with the opinions of the people making the accusation. Speak to just about anyone who has been in the industry press for some time, and they'll tell you about how they've been being accused of being bought by companies for literally every review since the primary medium for these things was print-only. I've also spoken to members of the industry press who I know for a fact were not paid off, and yet, people were constantly claiming that they had hard evidence(which usually amounted to "This review score was too high, because I think this game sucks") that they were paid off.
Have there been occasions where it's happened? Yes, absolutely - Remember why Giantbomb was founded? Is it happening as frequently as is alleged by gamergate? Absolutely not. I think you'll find she's pretty fuckin' up-front, dude. Doesn't exactly mince words when it comes to what she's about. Yeah, her videos aren't that good. But, she's the one making something like that. You'll find other professionally made videos of that type few and far between.
As for "Piling on awards and titles", her pile stands at Two. Two awards. A GDCA ambassador award - Justified, as she's certainly doing a lot in terms of outreach, with an audience of millions - and another Ambassador award from the 2014 Women in Gaming Awards, which also makes total sense, with being a woman in gaming, doing a serious amount of outreach. Titles? The industry hasn't really piled titles on her either, in fact, I can only think of one industry outlet that came close to titling her anything, and that's Gamasutra pointing her out as one of the defining things in gaming for that year - again, fair enough, considering the massive deal her videos have become.
The reason she made it on the Colbert Report is essentially because dumbshits keep attacking her for an entirely reasonable message. Turns out, when someone with a reasonable message is relentlessly attacked by a large group, people tend to take notice, and reach out to them, because there's a story there. That's because what he was saying was absolutely insane, and provably false. The reason people are taking Sarkeesian seriously is because she actually has a lot of legitimate points to make, even if I don't particularly think she makes them terribly well.
And as for nobody listening to Jack Thompson - When he called Sarkeesian a censor, Gamergate sure as hell listened, and the groundswell of support before they realized they were barracking for Jack Thompson and quickly backpedaled was glorious to behold. No, she did not. She wrote a blog post about how GG has some legitimate points, and how she's watching to see where it goes, and after that she primarily left well enough alone. Yep! Which also has literally nothing to do with anything here. What, you think this is some fuckin' childeren's game of tit-for-tat, that one cancels out the other?
There's also quite a bit of doubt that it actually came from the anti-gg crowd, on account of the almost satirically sterotypical SJW-style language, the inclusion of Mr Rogers on the list, and the fact that JonTron was on the list at all - Gamergaters assumed he was a supporter, not the anti-GG crowd, who were largely ignoring him at that time.
HOWEVER - I disregard this as just foolish conspiracy-talk, since there's zero evidence that this is the case, just people having hunches. Just as the talk of various Anti-gg people faking their own doxxing is foolish nonsense without any evidence. Then you're flat-out wrong.
Those "gamers are dead" articles were pretty bullshit, though - however, a lot of the focus I've seen is regarding collusion and how they were supposedly coordinated through industry mailing lists, coupled with tantrums about the idea that people are disassociating from the label "Gamer" because of Gamergate. Very rarely do I see anyone making any worthwhile points regarding it, and really, the best bit I've seen about it came from someone who was both Anti-GG and a member of the press. I'll admit, I found them incredibly interesting, much as I do other conspiracy theories. They even hit, note for note, a lot of the same points as other modern conspiracy theories - False flag accusations, shadowy cabals controlling everything from behind the scenes, large groups of people being attacked by the "Powerful few", big events where they fool all the sheeple, etc, etc.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29821050
"While the relationship happened, the review did not." No What I was saying about him is that he was recently quoted out of context from twitter. I was saying that it is really common for people to use out of context Tweets to attack people. How is "Videogames make kids into murders." Any diffrent that "Video Games make kids grow up accepting rape" ?
The real difference is Jack Tompson was a Laywer who used research, even though it was wrong, and Sarkeesian is a media critic, who never uses research. As long as that word is patriarchy. She can say that one all day.
Also, just between us blokes - You might want to excise the word actually from your speech. Even if it's justified, around this issue, people are gonna mock you for it. I like to think myself above that sort of thing, however. I mean, I'm not, but I like to think I am. Since I'm a big old softy, I won't press you on it - but if that's what you mean, it's generally to your benefit to be explicit. Don't worry, it won't bother people - there's a big difference between treating people like they're stupid, and simply making yourself clear. Ambiguity is the enemy, in these matters Don't start acting a fool now, when you're not doing badly all things considered. There's problems with her videos, sure, but talking about the patriarchy isn't it, especially since she doesn't really whip that one out too often. You said you watched her videos, so don't go pissing in my pocket and misrepresenting them.
And hey, if that's her thing, so what? She's not vile and hateful for the most part, like some feminists I could name and certainly have previously. She's standing up for what she thinks and believes(Which also isn't vile or hateful), while being attacked by a huge number of people. What she's chosen to do isn't easy, and she's seeing it through. It doesn't matter if you don't agree with what she says(I know I've made no secret of my dislike of her work), the fact she's doing it despite the undeniably harsh opposition she's faced and will face in future is worthy of respect. Hey, dude deserves some credit, he's standing up pretty well, even if he's admittedly not getting a real full-court press. I'd even say he's standing better than anyone else I've discussed the whole thing with thus far.