I'd like to think she actually does believe everything she says, and genuinely wants positive change in the industry. Besides which, I think she's famous enough now that she'll be able to make money giving lectures, writing articles, etc, regardless.

That's who I'm assuming he means.

Regarding Intel:
After reading the news article, actually, I'm not sure how big a deal this really is. I don't like Feminist Frequency, but it doesn't sound like Intel are actively supporting it. Just partnering with it.

Ah, so I dreamed up that Kickstarter campaign? Oh well, I guess ripping YouTube footage from other people is expensive work, and she just wanted to cover her expenses. BTW, shouldn't the entire series be done and available on DVD by now? I also must have dreamed up all those lectures she has been giving. Lectures which you can book from her for money.

But no, she wouldn't possible be in it for the money. I mean, it's not like she had any precedent experience with telemarketing scams or anything, right?

You know, there was a time when actually oppressed people were fighting for their rights. Those people were being treated like animals, they were given barely enough money so they could live long enough to be of use as working force. Those people were the the peasants, the working class, an occupied indigenous population or racially segregated groups. They didn't have much, but they put their heart into it, they fought with their bare hands against impossible odds. They didn't whine how oppressed they were, because the punishment for that was death. They went out and did things. They are the real heroes of history. They were fighting for a better world for their children to live in. They were fighting for not being treated as things. They were fighting for not having to give away their children as war-slaves to die in the occupators army. They were fighting for not having to starve while the nobility was sick from obesity.

These SJW "activists" are just spoiled rich brats who have never had it rough in their lives and never learned any useful skill in their live. All they have is their worthless degrees in social, women's, communication or gender studies, which they got financed by their rich parents. I bet they wouldn't even know how to hold a hammer properly.

"Zoe Qinn?" - for some reason reminds one of Dick Cheney. Both of them will just NOT go away! X-D

Ignoring them sounds nice and simple, but the problem with this is are not the little one blogging on Tumblr, it's the big one who can actually pass laws like the recent "Yes means No" law in California. Or how about the three students whose public reputation was crushed by a rape allegation that turned out to have more holes than Swiss cheese (none of the events she describes actually happened). But the university idiots (including professors) had been brainwashed to instantly take any claim by a woman 100% seriously. This is the sort of thing that can ruin a person's life forever. Furthermore, it also ruins the credibility of actual victims, who might be brushed off as just looking for attention as well.

Legalizing murder? Wow. What's next?

Sommers assesses gamergate to be a cultural war and expressly utters the conspiracy theory that a "feminist police" was out there wanting "the male dominated video game culture to die". As such, she furthers the idea that only activism would "save" video games. That is exactly the bullshit that brings people up in arms, and none of it is true. The military jargon in her video (her call to a fictitious feminist army is: "stand down") adds quite a bit to tone and intent.

I'm sad to say, she employs an everyday rabble-rouser rhetoric.

We were looking for "hatemongers", and that's unfortunately what Sommers is. If you research her life, it doesn't come as a surprise as well. Her feminist days are long past. She creates hate and that has been her intent, in diverse topics, for decades now.

No, you didn't understand it. You neither understood the intent of the series nor the clear implication of the modest original Kickstarter goal. You did not understand what happened after the Kickstarter started, why it happened, and what the result inevitably was. Mostly, you did not understand who is at fault for the massive success of the Tropes vs. Women series. You have no small part in this.

To put it as bluntly as possible, once more: Anita Sarkeesian has no ready made applicable-everywhere recipe as a "solution" to the misogyny problem in video games, hence she's not selling one. Thankfully.

If you're looking for a 'solution', the sole statement "can we have less of that please" must suffice. Bit hard to sell.

The success of the series is founded on the massive harrassment that started during the Kickstarter campaign (not just after the first video). I could tell you what I think of the people who would now bring forward the argument that through some ready made marketing scheme, poor lonely unsuspecting gamers in their 30s and 40s were coerced into harrassing Sarkeesian excessively and repeatedly, hence bringing her success according to plan. But I'd rather not.

The term "SJW" has no meaningful connotation or denotation, which means that the entire rest of your post sounds like hyperventilating aggressive gibberish to me, I am afraid. I am unwilling to talk about what "Social Justice Warriors" are doing or not doing just as much as I am unwilling to discuss what harm there is in "killer games". Both terms are conceived to be pejorative; the mindset for using both terms and the blanket statements that comes with it are literally exactly the same.

It's ironic how you call someone a hate monger in a post so filled with hate.
I highly suggest you read some of her actual work. She supports herself quite well and backs up her allegations with facts. Unlike most of the radical feminists of today...

And the reason she debunks these radicals is to promote what she considers real feminism creating equality for women as opposed to punishing men for things they aren't actually doing...

Way to be stuck on semantics. So she's not selling a ready-made solutions (follow these ten easy steps), she's selling the service of working on a solution. That still does not change the fact that there is no real problem to be solved.

Strangely in you list you forgot Chu, McIntosh, Kuchera, Biddle and plenty of others... and while it might be arguable for some names in your list for the others the only "mongering" they ever did was apparently disagreeing with your opinion.

The longer arguments would be better in another thread like this one,
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/the_zoe_quinn_scandal_highlights_how_gaming_journalism_is_corrupt_and_has_turned_to
instead of clogging the news thread.

In other news, wikipedia continues to show it's ugly side.
http://theralphretort.com/wikipedia-blocks-veteran-editor-for-being-pro-gamergate-off-site-1715/

What i truly hate is that for some reason the media only show angry stuff by pro GG. any aggression, biasing or hate from the other side is ignored as if it didn't exist.

i sued to find myself neutral in the whole GG case, but as events are unfolding i'm afraid i'm becoming pro.

This


That's basically what pushed me from being neutral to being pro. Although at this point I'm trying not to be involved at all, and I have no idea what GG has been up to over the last few months.

1.) No, she is "selling" absolutely nothing any more. The purchase has long been completed, the bills are paid, the product halfway delivered. At least if you think of Kickstarter donations as a purchase, which they are not.

2.) What Sarkeesian does is not "the service of working on a solution". The series is mainly concerned with categorizing the problem. The analysis is decidedly not solution oriented. The solution is the elementary task of game designers as storytellers.

3.) If you think there's no real problem to be solved, you must have missed the last quarter century in gaming completely. I didn't. There are misogynist tropes in prominent, particularly narrative oriented games. TvW isn't out to prove that. It is a fact that is meant to be understood before watching these videos – as a very basic prerequisite.

Gamergate tries to stop the inevitable progress in video game stories that is going on at a much faster pace in every other narrative medium, especially including books, movies and comics. There's nothing wrong with putting the finger on that simple fact.

Owen and Aurini are prime agitators. I am really uncertain whether they have done anything else in their lives. Not to hate on them, but I find their contributions to anything lacking the common sense of a four year old. You have, right in this thread, people posting Aurini's universal equal mistreatment of the sexes theory. He gets the prize for the most stupid thing anyone in the debate has said this last year.

As to Baldwin, I've been following his work for more than a decade; and I am absolutely certain that obscure political opinion and slutshaming is his way of life. Also, no hate intended. I am actually rather thankful for such a great reason never to regret the cancellation of Firefly.

Vavra is desperately trying to sell his game to gamergate people – the video game press didn't do his advertising for him, so he jumped on the bandwagon and called it a conspiracy. I'll save the hate for when he succeeds.

Bain started to unload his political bullshit on people due to gamergate, and he is continuously embarrassing himself with that. I do pity him most of all, because he was coerced into all this by what he thinks of as his "fans", but what's coming from his side is racism apologist and MRA crap, which is inexcusable.

Mason is one of the most hateful people I have ever seen in my entire life. Last I counted, he made 12 individual TvW "rebuttal" videos, neither of which very sensible between the hatefest parts; he was on the forefront of stating the "made up threats" conspiracy theory as fact. Should be charged with slander and pay until the end of day.

For Sommers, see above. You really don't need to dig out the Washington Post from 2000 to find her work being called "a work of neither dispassionate social science nor reflective scholarship; it is a conservative polemic.". That's what she is and only that. If she wants to redefine feminism, let her do that institutionalized.

And do I need to talk about Yannopoulos, really? He's abusing employees, he's abusing gamers, an all around dishonest man. Dig out his articles before gamergate and you'll find his abject hate on the gaming medium. More hate than Alexander has ever voiced towards present gamer culture, that much is certain. Accepting a journalist like Yannopoulos in the ranks of a movement that supposedly is about ethical journalism – there can be no greater irony.

No, because then I would also have to talk about Eron Gjoni as an extreme hatemonger.

2.) What Sarkeesian does is not "the service of working on a solution". The series is mainly concerned with categorizing the problem. The analysis is decidedly not solution oriented. The solution is the elementary task of game designers as storytellers.

Then you think, this is the point to make generalizations about games and the industry as a whole and mention the alleged intrinsic entrenched mysogynistic patterns in games, because you identified in some of the "tested" games (we have no idea how was this done) occurences of such a phenomenon? That is not scientific at all, that is aimed at causing uproar and heated discussion.

For saying this is a "general" problem I guess she would have to look at more games than the probably 0.36 %. Furthermore, she would have to only identify those patterns in the first step on the grounds of the perceived action alone, then there would have to be a quantification of some sort with a look at more games and if those patterns exist also. Allegations, probable implications of the existence of such patterns, blaming developers and patriarchy have no place in a categorization.

If it exists or not, if it is justified or not - the money flows on one side if you get people angry enough to side with you and on the other side it flows aswell for the opposition, when you can emerge as a voice. She herself said it is a business for her.