apparently I'm no longer a European central person (US left = europe central-right).

And Tims position is weird since Brütal legend basically is everything Anita despises.


But why do i even bother. You don't seem open to the discussion anyway.

1.What is a submissive consumer? Who decides who is and is not a submissive consumer? What are the characteristics of a submissive consumer?
2.What constitutes an actual misogynist? Who is an example?
3.There is only one feminism? So the brave people fighting for equality of education and opportunity in Afghanistan and matriarchy bless Mother Sarkeesian belong in the same class? An experienced equality fighter and an inexperienced and older and wiser are so ''equal'' in feminism?
4.How can the ignorance of an article that has only been out for a few days on a guy's twitter (which is the center for all learned academic activity nowadays) be called proof for stating a community is out for blood? This is paranoia on your part. And you weren't worried when Wu's band of hipster plebs wanted crush gamergate skulls?

OK, so it's zealotry, anti-GG has convinced itself that GG in THE DEVIL - Hey why are you guys being conciliatory and trying to see both sides with THE DEVIL, Hey Wu, WTF, why are you sitting down with THE DEVIL for a cup of tea and coming away saying that he's actually an OK guy - what a betrayal! Hey, excuse me UNICEF, are you aware that you are accepting donations from THE DEVIL? - and that's what bothers you the most

But what bothers ME the most are still questions like
Was the Quinn episode about 'Ethics' or slut shaming?
If Quinn had made a free, low tech game called 'Kill ALL the Zombies, Yeah, Yeah' would she still have been doxed - is GG as much about a reaction against 'Arty' games as much as anything else?
Should Anita be made to STFU or should she be allowed to formulate and express whatever options she likes whether you agree with them or not? Is the reaction against Anita for amongst other things, pointing out that Peach is a damsel and a McGuffin as ridiculous as it would be if MatPat caught a bunch of heat for pointing out, amoungst other things, that mario is a sociopath?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WMSQNVhMqA
If GG IS about 'ethics' why don't they make a fuss when EA and Ubi do crazy bullshit like the Mordor incident or lying in preview footage a la Watch_Dogs and a whole bunch of other less-than-ethical things that go on?

You say you're just an observer but by presenting a one sided argument like you did above ^ you are supporting GG.

Look at it this way - Richard dawkins can be a huge, obnoxious cock sometimes but it doesn't matter what dickish stuff he gets up to, it's not going to make me believe in God just to go against him!

Just because people are schitzing out and having a holy war against something that, to me, looks like a pile of horseshit, doesn't make me think that it doesn't smell like a pile of horseshit!

No; no-one has anything about ''arty'' games. Games like Metro 2033 and Dpression Quest are both art; and that is an objective fact.
A damsel in distress is a mechanic of story-telling designed around medieval gender roles. It is no more harmful than observing other medieval traditions like recreating a knights' tournament or singing Ring o' Roses. The theory of Mario as a sociopath is a theory. There is no evidence to support that anyone involving in its creation wanted to make him as he is. ALSO; just remember the parts Mat Pat skipped over. A game is a business that is based on investment from investors. The company running the game will depend on the money from these investors to meet the budget of making the game. Its is common knowledge that these investors have power over what the game conveys. Thus; in an ultra money minded ultra greedy corporate world; NO WOULD EVER AGREE TO INTENTIONALLY MAKING MARIO MENTAL. So either the developers had one rogue among them for ALL THE TIME THE MARIO GAMES WERE DEVELOPED who saw to it Mario was secretly crazy or this is just circumstantial evidence that was presented convincingly.
EA and Ubi themselves do their own debacles. THere is nothing a journalist can do to be corrupt when a trailer is pre-rendered. EA and Ubi aren't journos; they're making their PR companies do this; and receive salt from critics for doing so. Many boycott them but many also buy their favorite games from them since EA as a whole isn't responsible for a good BF4 trailer. If anything; it shows how dumb journalists are at not countering the companies aggressive PR.

honestly there was already pretty serious fuss about that before and aside from gg.

hell, half of the musical /v/ made is about despicable practices.


and no one would have cared how many dudes quinn slept with...had there been no cases of conflict of interest involved.

One doesn't exclude the other. There was definitely both involved although from what I gathered, the slut shaming came mostly from female bloggers, the guys mostly just looked up the nude pics she posed for in the past and argued whether they are hot or not. That's what guys usually do and wasn't any different there.

Her game didn't matter at all, it was too unimportant und uninteresting and since she didn't really code it herself but used tools for dummies, people just laughed at it first, but then they wondered, why this has gotten such a PR and that's what people made wonder if everything is koscher there, of course it wasn't.

The fact, that the charity organisations said, that they didn't get any of the money that was donated to/for Depression Quest for this purpose after someone actually did what the journalists where supposed to do and investigated didn't exactly help.

Her videos were discussed in my other (nerdy) board and most people just gathered arguments why her claims are total bullshit and then forgot about her. Her reappearance was so strong because she openly attacked gamers further, used the whole men-shaming to counter Quinn and didn't let go because she smelled money to be made (all this is her job after all).

Oh they did, I've read and seen shitstorm about those cases rightfully so and still wonder why people still bought Shadow of Mordor and Watchdogs. There are opportunists on all sides obviously, but I just hope that it did have a negative impact on the sales.

For the people who don't know about this stuff:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/9782-Shadow-of-Mordors-Promotion-Deals-with-Plaid-Social
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bwd55NvmHW8

The time for defending or justifying ourselves against those who may be offended by us is over.

Pandering to the AAA industry and pressing its standards on indies — what games they're supposed to make and what not — I'd say pretty submissive consumer. Only buying from Steam because "want all my games in one place" and "would lose track of my games if not", very submissive consumer. Thanking EA for microtransactions (yes, that was a thing), very submissive consumer. Issuing tweets like "Compared to people like that [Ken Levine] we critics, all critics, are garbage. There is no rung lower, learn some goddamn respect for your betters" — very, very submissive consumer (also, incapable critic).

A misogynist is a person who hates women. Davis Aurini passes the test with A++ marks and flying colors.

No, read my post again. Of course, some people calling themselves feminist aren't by any measure. Hoff Sommers, for example.

Thanks for the disdain for academics. In fact, academics were only just beginning to become interested in video games as an art form. Thanks to gamergate, you won't get any funding for studies in that medium any more, thank you very much for setting video games back 30 years, not worth the investigation. That's what gamergate has made out of my hobby, it's seen as too shit for scientific interest.

The falsification of gamergate history is extremely common, and I was only pointing out the very obvious. The hunt for Quinn and Sarkeesian had started way before Baldwin's tag was created. The attacks preceded the desperate search for evidence. And of course the same people set to work. I use the term witch hunt for that reason.

E.g. Adam Baldwin, Milo Yiannopoulos, Christina Hoff Sommers, Jordan Owen, Davis Aurini, John Bain, Daniel Vávra, Adrian Chmielarz, Karen Straughan, Daryush Valizadeh and quite a few others. Basically 90% of gamergate agitators.

Some of them were declared neutral right in this thread.

None of them would say they belong to the movement, while they continue to feed specifically gamergate with their hate.

because she doesn't just swallow whatever certain people tell her, actually does research and looks into the culture she is investigating?

i consider her a more of a feminist that the "muh soggy knee" pseudo feminist who actually just dislike men

No, she could still be a feminist even if she stopped downplaying some studies relying on other studies that do not have anything to do with what she's trying to investigate in the first place. But, no, "factual feminism" turns out to be mere US centric Republican propaganda, and I really want to keep the political angle out of this discussion, as you well know.

As to her thorough investigation into 'gamer culture', no traces of that investigation have surfaced to date.

which is the exact opposite of what you've been doing. you blame every other side argument for being propaganda

I just named five different influencing ideologies for gamergate, only one of which I called political.

Of course, anyone going the Social Justice Warrior conspiracy angle drags this into the political, that is very true.

Funny how "ethics in game journalism" isn't political, so gg needs the SJW to MAKE IT political. ;)

Ethics are inherently cultural, therefore political... which is not to say all ethics are equal... life and the universe being nuanced, what a mindfuck... for a presumed academic sophist (pun intended) you can be so naive mate...

Edit: Let me elaborate for the polis (pun intended). Gamergate is fundamentally a cultural struggle (per marxist terminology) between one constituency which desires social justice narratives (diversity, feminism, subjectivity, etc) to extend farther into gaming, another constituency which objects to the methods employed (lack of objectivy, corruption, etc). In this struggle both sides have to some extent perverted themselves - one by employing almost identical methods to their enemies, the second by sacrificing their ideals to effectively demonize the other.

Fucking tragic...

Not a single one of those people is neutral. Of the few that were even remotely neutral were pushed to the gamergate side by vicious attacks by SJWs for even trying to take a neutral stance.