|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2014 9:50 pm |
  |
|
| evnvnv wrote: |
| Adilegian wrote: |
| Ymer wrote: |
| Adilegian wrote: |
| Looking into primary and secondary jingoism from GG led to a Twitter search for Cultural Marxism. After two degrees in liberal arts humanities disciplines, it's the first time I've heard that term outside of a casual mention during a review of propaganda in the Third Reich. |
Well duh!
| Ni Go Zero Ichi wrote: |
| "the Jews", who as we all know are responsible for spreading liberal values such as those espoused by The SJWs as part of their plot to emasculate western civilization |
|
Yep! I just didn't expect this observation to be reinforced so immediately after my initial Twitter search for #CulturalMarxism. |
I saw a talk by an otherwise decent translator of Chinese poetry who stopped just short of rambling off in this direction for absolutely no reason. The "theory wars" live on in the dusty corners of the halls of academia. |
Seems like the right place and time for R Kelly!
http://www.theonion.com/articles/villainous-syllabus,32492/
_________________
 |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2014 11:37 pm |
|
|
| mauve wrote: |
yeah uh TB finally went completely unhinged.
though I think he's learning that showing a tough face and giving strong opinions is a bit different when it's about something people actually give a shit about. |
I'm kind of surprised that I've gotten this far, paying attention to GG's relevant bits, and I've never heard of this person.
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2014 7:37 pm |
|
|
Much in the vein of Spelunky (and also in Cave Story as lenox reminded me in IRC), I am down with using puppies or kittens in the Damsel-in-Distress role. I think that the mechanic can feel less retrograde if it were de-gendered.
Also you get Max Pathos because puppies~.
EDIT: IRC's bot grobyk is on board.
| IRC wrote: |
14:36 Adilegian See, puppies are very good things to put in videogames.
14:36 grobyk give you the first tolstoy of videogames. |
DOUBLE EDIT: grobyk is coming through today.
| IRC wrote: |
14:38 Adilegian grobyk I posted about grobyk
14:38 grobyk someone posted |
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2014 8:26 pm |
|
|
| Dracko wrote: |
| http://antinegationism.tumblr.com/post/102060021846/gamergate-harassment-death-threats-anti-gg |
Physical injury and death: the only kinds of pain that exist.
By this metric, his own act of complaint has no merit, outside of the claim that people have pre-died because of the non-damage rendered unto him.
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2014 5:50 pm |
|
|
| Dracko wrote: |
The best part of these things is the barely concealed contempt he has for the gaming expert next to him. |
I was made happy by the celebratory shout of "I killed two guys!"
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2014 7:43 pm |
|
|
| Ni Go Zero Ichi wrote: |
| That said, it was a dumb/unprofessional joke to make |
Based on what I've seen from Mattie, she's been distancing herself from videogames generally since the start of GG. Her response to the whole phenomenon generally is "I'm not getting paid to put up with this bullshit, so I'm not doing this anymore." And I don't blame her.
So I get the sense that a few different things are happening here. Mattie is a self-identified radical, so I don't think that she's pulling any punches when it comes to her actual thoughts or her jokes, which always have some measure of commentary in them. On top of that, she's also distancing herself from videogames, which have proven to her experience to be a one-way avenue to sharing social space with some godawful human beings.
On the other side, GG appears so desperate to validate their own narrative of "people in videogames have conflicts of interest, which have corrupted games right down to their very souls" that they're going after very easy targets. They went after someone whose involvement in videogames dropped because of their actions -- and they went after her because they ignored or failed to read context surrounding a joke -- and they went after her by having her removed from participating in a left-leaning videogame event.
Meanwhile, they are bending over backward to ignore the context surrounding Michael Morhaime's implied conflation between harassment and GamerGate's reputation. Beyond the apparent interest in validating the later internal narrative that they are anti-harassment, they likely have incentive to construe his comments as in line with their (purported) identity because they cannot possibly hope to scratch Morhaime's reputation through their sea lion tactics.
We have two potentially ambiguous statements by individuals of different statures in videogames, and GG's bastions of morality have chosen to validate the powerful and deprive the marginalized.
There's choice involved here, and the decisions fall in favor of the action that will not make their organized efforts appear as toothless as they actually are against individuals with a great deal of power in the videogame industry. They're still going after indies because, as more mainstream voices identify GG as a harassment campaign in its most evident effects, they're losing the power to matter even via their emails to advertisers. (And, really, anyone who pays passing attention to their public profession of preferred tactics will know that they are deliberately presenting themselves as a larger group of individuals than they actually are.)
This is sort of dovetailing away from the original point, but I wanted to give some context for why I think that Mattie's Twitter communications isn't really as bound by professional self-representation as social media from other people involved with more mainstream outlets are.
EDIT: IGF's response is awful because it validates GG as having a "side" to consider -- and, later, because it avoids acknowledging that it made a choice to erase GG as a force that exerted influence on their decision. Again, there's choice involved. They chose to allow GG to influence their festival and then did not mention GG, in part, I suspect, because admitting that GG influenced their decisions validates a "movement" that I (without numbers) strongly suspect that most participants in IGF find despicable and morally compromised.
_________________
Last edited by Adilegian on Mon Nov 10, 2014 7:58 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 2:17 pm |
|
|
| evnvnv wrote: |
Yo that was the dumbest thing I've ever read |
Someone plundered a dictionary in order to avoid context.
I'd hate to break to this person that acknowledging the persistence of bias has existed well before postmodernism became a self-conscious idea.
This reads like my own bias against deconstruction after I left undergrad before I knew how deconstruction is and has been practiced. It's more about process than conclusions, except insofar as process is the purpose, much like counseling therapy.
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 3:04 pm |
|
|
| miaou wrote: |
If that guy just chose to stop lending his time and energy to a thinly veiled hate mob that list would immediately vanish. That's the reason people don't like you, buddy. |
Yeah. For all of the talk about tactics and PR that goes on in the GG echo chamber, there is a significant lack of awareness about the state of their hashtag's PR.
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 8:02 pm |
|
|
Rails against prejudices and stereotypes about gamers. Self-identifies gamers as nerds.
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 8:03 pm |
|
|
| mauve wrote: |
| in 10 years a lot of these people are going to look back on what they did and facepalm for it |
Yeah, they'll be in their early 20s.
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 10:33 pm |
|
|
| schroeder wrote: |
| evnvnv wrote: |
| Gamers are not specifically burdened or privileged by the institution of government.... yet |
Oh aren't they? |
As I recall, GG individuals were quick to burn her away as possibly being a visible representative of GG. I'm kind of surprised that they pushed away a potential token female ally as a real life Not Your Shield.
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 9:08 pm |
|
|
| miaou wrote: |
| The pernicious thing about his video is that it's going to be received as some kind of checkmate against the SJWs because 'see! a woman does agree with us!' Good shit-stirring, bro team. |
Yeah. I don't think anyone is lacking self-justifying, internally-oriented media, and neither are they lacking filtering mechanisms to interpret external media as supporting their "side," if that's how they choose to articulate their relationship to others. If they're capable of working the Intel reversal on Gamasutra into a validation of their effectiveness, I don't think there's much outside of individual revelations that will swerve GG from reifying their internal narratives.
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 8:34 pm |
|
|
| analogos wrote: |
everyone's relationship with everything is an improbable confluence of intangible horseshit and let's be kind to each other
hope that helps cya |
quit forcing your ideas on me, also nietzsche and incidentally heidegger
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2014 1:53 am |
|
|
| schroeder wrote: |
| If only they would actually use that list. |
It's funny. This was a mimicking tactic in response to the GG-block list for people being harassed by GG. The difference is precisely what you wrote: GG doesn't actually use this list. I'm pretty sure it is and only is a shitlist to indicate who's under suspicion.
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:12 pm |
|
|
| Takashi wrote: |
| Adilegian wrote: |
| schroeder wrote: |
| If only they would actually use that list. |
It's funny. This was a mimicking tactic in response to the GG-block list for people being harassed by GG. The difference is precisely what you wrote: GG doesn't actually use this list. I'm pretty sure it is and only is a shitlist to indicate who's under suspicion. |
The same algorithm is used to calculate both lists, with different participants.
SJWautoblocker built up 123K+ names on that blocklist, including me (yay).
Currently the GG blocker targets 9952 accounts. |
Thanks for letting me know! I guess it's a credit to GG's pedantry that I found it plausible that this was a hand-culled list.
| Dark Age Iron Savior wrote: |
| Well, when you figure out how, we'll all be ready to try it. |
Probably the best way is a multi-faceted approach. You learn this when working in education and also when being taught to proselytize. Probably the latter is the more relevant approach since both getting someone to a point where they feel then need religion and getting someone to see their own privilege are alike. There's a lot of overlap in the type of perspective change needed in each instance. You also see this in New Atheist explanations of the importance of a "Four Horsemen" approach to pulling people away from religion because some people are more easily convinced by sympathy, others by persuasion, others by bullying, etc.
At any rate, different people require different approaches for either opening them up to new ideas or to affirming their identification with those ideas. Both are necessary tasks because, while the first step is about opening someone up to new ideas, the follow-through is about maintaining the identity that emerges as the result of accepting a new set of assumptions for interpreting events around you. I think that the video works to show how familiar experiences are significantly different for women, and it also works, on my end, to affirm what I already accept as true from my personal relationships with women who play games.
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 3:20 pm |
|
|
| MattCD42 wrote: |
| Most of this just sounds like there's a few dicks ruining it for everyone. |
My wife has run women-only guilds specifically because this is a problem that's near universal for women who game online.
We used to have an Animal Crossing town together on the Wii, and we opened the doors to network sharing for a few days. The interactions when I was the main player and when she was the main player were night and day.
This isn't competitive gaming. This is fucking Animal Crossing, and dudes talked to her about their dicks. This is an actual problem, and it actually revolves around gender.
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2014 8:45 pm |
|
|
| boojiboy7 wrote: |
| Adilegian wrote: |
| MattCD42 wrote: |
| Most of this just sounds like there's a few dicks ruining it for everyone. |
My wife has run women-only guilds specifically because this is a problem that's near universal for women who game online.
We used to have an Animal Crossing town together on the Wii, and we opened the doors to network sharing for a few days. The interactions when I was the main player and when she was the main player were night and day.
This isn't competitive gaming. This is fucking Animal Crossing, and dudes talked to her about their dicks. This is an actual problem, and it actually revolves around gender. |
yeah, it's sadly NOT a FEW dicks at all. It's A VERITABLE FUCKTON. |
Also there was the dude audibly masturbating.
Not CoD. Not WoW. Animal Crossing: City Folk.
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2014 5:15 am |
|
|
I saw RiffTrax's presentation of Santa Claus tonight.
One scene has Santa looking through his magic telescope at three boys preparing to be naughty. Santa says, "Let's see what naughty children are up to!"
Mike Nelson: "Hey, they're doxxing videogame designers!"
I think I was the only person in the theater cackling. Good show keeping the material current, and thanks for the implied swipe at GG.
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2014 3:25 am |
|
|
| MattCD42 wrote: |
| evnvnv wrote: |
| MattCD42 wrote: |
| being black, mexican, idian, or whatever |
The fact that "white, male, straight" are not included in this spectrum is like half of the point of the original article. |
They could be. I think you're missing my point. |
I don't think they are in any frequently hurtful way.
If you mean otherwise, I don't think we're getting what you mean. Can you clarify?
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2014 5:48 am |
|
|
| username wrote: |
| I think the argument would be that a racist/sexist/etc would use these terms because they have hate for said race/sex/etc while this ... class of person would use said terms due to hate for opinions/beliefs/plain opportunity. Whether you want to subscribe to that or not is another manner but I know at least some people who are generally cool towards people of various races/genders/creeds who when suitably angered will use any term available to them. I'd consider it to be a flaw to be sure yet I also think it'd be going too far to label them as racist/sexist/bigoted. |
I suggest an alternative model from a racist/non-racist dichotomy. It is probably more productive to assess racism (and other biases) in terms of more and less. People can be less racist as they mature and work toward being less racist, but they're never free of inherited racism.
Case in point: if you are using race as a grounds for insulting someone, then you are speaking from within racism.
Probably a better way of dealing this will be to accept that we are all racist and the difference exists in terms of degree rather than in terms of not being racist.
To use another example: most of us are aware that the environment is a concern. We have different levels of engagement. Many recycle; some recycle and minimize power usage; others do both of these and use alternative energy resources like electric cars. These are degrees of environmental consciousness as exhibited by how far people are willing to engage the problem in action.
The other side is equally true: each person on that spectrum is hurting the environment. Even someone using an electric car, et al, still participates in an economy and society that exploits the environment for non-sustainable social/material pursuits. You can acknowledge and even pursue dissent from the general accepted level of engagement, but you're still commected to the problem.
Same with racism, sexism, etc. You can be less racist by actively confronting your biases and challenging your assumptions in action, but that dude who decided to trash talk a black player because he is black just spoke out of racism. The resources were well prepared before that social interaction even occurrd, and we oversimplify greatly when we reduce racism to intent (which we can never verify) even when someone engages in historically hurtful rhetoric inherited by all.
None of us get to control that influence. Mitigating it is the best we can do. Excusing the failures of others to mitigate their racism robs you of your victories over yours.
_________________
Last edited by Adilegian on Tue Dec 09, 2014 3:03 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2014 6:15 pm |
|
|
| misadventurous wrote: |
| okay, cool -- we can make a distinction between real racists and occasional racists. what's the point? |
I think the point is assessing character rather than consequences of actions. The latter matters more as far as external history goes. Overlooking the former in favor of the latter ignores personal history, efforts to grow and change, etc. People can have racist ideas without knowing that they are racist ideas, and I think we only help each other along when we can detach a person's ideas from who they are.
Ideological and incidental racism contribute toward the same effect. It's more accurate to distinguish between the two. In the context of Winning Hearts And Minds, too, I think that folks are probably more likely to self-scrutinize if we don't essentialize racism by calling them racists. When it's in the water, binary descriptions aren't accurate, and it's better approached by degrees. I think it's accurate to identify someone who's incidentally racist as less racist than, say, someone in the Klan.
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2014 7:24 pm |
|
|
| 8128 wrote: |
| Adilegian wrote: |
| misadventurous wrote: |
| okay, cool -- we can make a distinction between real racists and occasional racists. what's the point? |
I think the point is assessing character rather than consequences of actions. The latter matters more as far as external history goes. Overlooking the former in favor of the latter ignores personal history, efforts to grow and change, etc. People can have racist ideas without knowing that they are racist ideas, and I think we only help each other along when we can detach a person's ideas from who they are.
Ideological and incidental racism contribute toward the same effect. It's more accurate to distinguish between the two. In the context of Winning Hearts And Minds, too, I think that folks are probably more likely to self-scrutinize if we don't essentialize racism by calling them racists. When it's in the water, binary descriptions aren't accurate, and it's better approached by degrees. I think it's accurate to identify someone who's incidentally racist as less racist than, say, someone in the Klan. |
sometimes looking at things this way seems healthy
other times it's incredibly difficult to look at things this way
i find myself leaning toward the latter a lot lately |
I understand. Maintaining a healthy appreciation for complexity is very difficult when spurred toward justifiable indignation.
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
Adilegian
Rogue Scholar
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Location: Q*Bert Killscreen Nightmare
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2014 2:45 pm |
|
|
Freedom of speech.
Trigger warning on that.
_________________
|
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
