@Fever
But active more or less antiGGers more or less almost always conform to a set of untruths. Like limited hypocritical thoughts like Sarkeesian's. According to her, NO female character can be sexy. At the bas, that is a delusional idea in itself. And building a theory when the foundations are BS isn't gonna do jack for the medium. Would you ever hear antiGG saying to form your own opinions? Such behavior like turning on Brianna Wu for talking to Brad Wardell IS a sign of cult behavior. When has antiGG ever said ''you find out which is good for you'' instead of ''this is correct; you must do it''?

EDIT: lets not downrep people; people!

Personally I've always advocated strong, 3 dimensional female characters, sexy or not, even IF there's inevitably some fan-service involved I'm fairly stoked that Tank Girl's coming back, for instance
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/332295438/21st-century-tank-girl-a-book-by-hewlett-and-marti/description
I don't hang on every word that comes out of Sarkeesian's mouth, I just think she has a right to be heard without being harassed and while some of her ideas are interesting I certainly don't agree with all of them

In regard to Woo / War I guess some people don't believe the sleazy allocations against him are entirely false especially in light of the fact that he supports a movement that is seen as 'misogynistic' like GG. Note I'm not saying I would have turned on Woo personally, I can just see why it happened without the need for the explanation that anti-gg is a hive-mind

Well then you won't fair too well in a social justice mob. Don't forget the level of hateful stupidity Antia's ilk are capable of. I recall MacIntosh saying Geralt being cold and detached is something to be shamed, but the game celebrates it in TW3. That motherfucker basically said extroverts>introverts and feelzy people>thinking people. That doesn't sound too inclusive considering that saprophyte basically said people with those personality traits; who fall into I_T_ in the Myers Briggs personality classification, should be ashamed of being so. And I won't be ashamed just because that remora-leech-parasite said so.

People cannot believe a person who was the victim of a revenge sexual harassment suit is a rapist unless something is screwing with their heads. Not saying cult; but something, which may include a cult ;D

[RANT ALERT RANT ALERT]

[BUT I WANT TO SUM UP MY IDEAS ON #GAMERGATE AS A WHOLE]

Can i be honest? I've been involved in this on twitter for a while, and what I have witnessed is an extreme openness to all kinds of people. I really wonder 'how can this be seen as the most vile misogynistic racist homophobic group in history?'.
I've seen straights, gays, trans, men, women, asians, blacks and whites. I've had short talks with people with autism (of which I happen to have a mild variant myself as well),anxiety and depression.

What could be seen as the evil thing by SJW is that in fact, everyone is treated equally. How could this be seen as bad? Well, not the fact there is no actual discrimination, but that there is no special treatment. PoC in #gamergate don't demand all whites to hate themselves and their pasts. Minorities don't get special treatment. Men aren't told to stop having different opinions about anything. Men aren't told they are to blame for every suffering any woman has. White cis men are not told they need to keep their stinking face shut, are not allowed to talk and should either constantly throw mea culpas or just off themselves for simplicity. (Because 'every dead white cis men makes the world better right?)

In #gamergate, we are in the first place humans. Humans with a different melanin level or different chromosomes. But we are humans first and foremost, so we treat everyone in it as humans. Everything else is secondary.

And yes, many in #gamergate stand against where it has just been taken to f-ing far.
When people start claiming they are not to be seen as human but lion and that this is 100% normal, that if you feel like you have a different heritage than you have, you suddenly do. When people behave like 19th century prudes who crack down at exposed belly button (or "navel") and act like this promotes sexual harassment.

When rich privileged kids start acting like they are the most oppressed person ever and that any white male, even one who grew up in poverty, is super privileged compared to her, that does annoy and piss of a decent amount of people in #gamergate.

When the hobby in which many have found their only home is declared dead and if you dare deny that you are a racist misogynistic abuse rape-approving MONSTER. Yeah that pisses people off.

The fact they thought they could get away with that shows how journos had become drunken with power and developed a superiority complex. They believed if they declared them dead, gamers would be intimidated and scutter back to their caves crying in fear of the almighty journos.
"Gamers don't have to be your audience, we are the only part of your audience you should care about"

When because you think games shouldn't have their content removed because one or two people might dislike it and journalists should disclose their relationships, you get named a rape approver, future terrorist, future abuser, #gamergate will stand against that.

Gamers have been demonized for ages. In the past we were seen as hippie leftists when far right tried to get us shut down. These same leftist hippies are now named ultra right wing conservative MRAs because we defend against the assault from the far left.

I read a tweet recently I truly love and I will use in real life as well: "Ideologies are like the pH scale, got to far on either side and it's pure poison."

.

Oh and when people say we only hate on women who do stuff, you are intentionally and actively ignoring how much we stand against bullshit spread by men. We do not dislike people like Anita and Wu because of their gender, we dislike them because of their bullshit.

Oh, y'know I didn't read all the 'gamers are dead' articles but I don't think ANYONE was saying 'Gaming is dead' quite the opposite, that gaming has become so pervasive and mainstream that the 'gamer' identity has become meaningless
It's like the old Bill Hicks bit - "It looks like we got ourselves a reader"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwkdGr9JYmE
that joke only works because being called a 'reader' like its some strange 'other' thing and indicates that the person saying it doesn't read

"Oh so you're one of those people who watches movies are you?" would be equally as weird, currently you could substitute 'gamer' into either sentence and they wouldn't work but probably come closer to working than they once did

'Your private little geeky boys club has opened up it's membership policy while you weren't looking and EVERYONE's joined now!' is more what I think they were getting at

Not, again, that I necessarily agree I just don't think anyone was declaring the hobby dead, that, to me, was a glaring misnomer in an otherwise well argued post

Would it be acceptable if I was a newspaper journalist and wrote articles like ''All newspaper readers are coffee sipping wake-up-at 8:00 armchair experts who can't do anything good so they write to express opinions on newspapers to think they're better than us''? Would it be acceptable (not mentioning ethical) behavior for a journalist?

If yes, then that's what is happening here.

If no, take it a few steps further and get into S&M

Similarly, although law applies to everyone, what if a president killed someone? Would they be treated in the same manner as a common murderer?

There is a difference between ethics and being unethical and logic and being illogical. And when people write clickbait articles to profiteer of their audience while insulting them; no-one can say they don't have a right to be upset.

Yeah, but they were't talking about 'all people who play video games' they were talking about 'gamers'
Yes!

(gamers don't have to be your audience was one and that sounds a tad more negative doesn't it?)

What I believe is that it was more that the culture of the "gamer" was going to die or should die.
You see, there is a slight difference between gamers and gamer culture (which i could also refer to as the enthusiasts, fanatics fans,...).
Of course nothing says you can't cross over, i wouldn't dare. But its like there is a difference between people who watch the bigger soccer matches of the World cup, and those who knows the name, history and traits of nearly every player in the scene, predicting matchups, getting enraged when a player transfers, can identify the tactics plays used in a blink in the matches etc.

I believe the articles wanted to say the second should not be allowed to go on.

Ok I WILL sound entitled here, but the articles feel in a way like you are playing with your friends, imagining you are storming some imaginary castle and suddenly the mom of one of your friends approaches and tells you you should let his nice (who dislikes medieval fighting and thinks people should not pretend fight) join and (this is the important part!) you have to change your game so she enjoys it too.
Now i'm not saying you should not let his niece join, but if she doesn't like the game you are playing, should you change it? And what if your sister, the towns top Kendo player, then joins and want more physical activity and more pretend fighting, what now? At this point one could ask themselves if it is even possible to please everyone at the same time. Again, not saying they can't join, but perhaps its better for them to join when you and your friends are already doing something that they like. Or perhaps if some of your friends want to play pretend cook as well, they can play with his nice while you and the others slay a dragon.
But should your friend group be declared dead/should best die real quick to have others form a new one with many you don't know? No gradual getting to know and becoming part, but forced injection?

TL;DR: Having more kinds of games is great, having more kind of gamers is great, but should the gamers as they existed just disappear or dissolve? Wouldn't it be better if more groups raised that would then melt into one big playing club?

And this for the best of both, because if someone tells you you should let person A join a game and act like hes a close friend, noone n the group will like him. It has the exact opposite effect.

What? The only time I used ''gamer'' was in responding to htown's opinion about gamers. And its better than saying people who play video games right?

Also, a rare-ish(maybe) non trash op-ed article from Reaxxion : http://www.reaxxion.com/9237/how-zoe-quinns-insanity-birthed-gamergate-mascot-vivian-james Quite an interesting read.

Well, it's NOT normal, obviously, but people love it for the party atmosphere, much like any other movie like it that has a cult following. I think it's part of its charm. Like The Big Lebowski.

Also, for the record, I didn't say titty ninjas are normal, I said a normal person can look at them and separate fiction from reality without anyone feeling the need to thought police them. Honestly, it's NOT the norm in every case of a female character and I don't believe that every writer goes into production on a game thinking of how they can exploit women with their fictional representations. Especially considering they're not real. I think that's where the disconnect is happening, because a lot of radfems are arguing this shit as if its representation in Cosmo, which is photographers taking real life women, then heavily editing them to present them in a certain way. The other is primarily all based on fiction, fictional representations and predominantly fantasy driven designs, fashions, etc.

I'd also argue that it'd be no different than a man walking into a Barnes and Nobles and demanding that every bodice ripper romance novel feature less Fabio influenced body types and male characters in them be more three dimensional. Now, you could also argue that gaming isn't quite the same audience anymore, and I'd agree with you, but I think the heart of the matter stays the same. Artistic fettering is bad on either side. I may dislike walking simulators and vignette games for their brevity and lack of interactivity, but I'm not their audience, and that's okay. You may not like pandering games, but YOU'RE not their audience and that's okay too.

I think the disconnect happens because people who simply cannot understand difference of opinion and preference.

This is exactly why Anti-GG is full of shit...
Only Gamergate...get real...
You missed where Anita blames toxic masculinity for school shootings? Or her claims how the world would be more peaceful with women in charge. The only part I agree with Gilozard on is one side claims they are "better" than the other. And that is her side....

That argument was just laughable...but hey you proved how full of shit the Anti's are. Congrats!
C'mon now. Let's go back to discussing the "Gamers Are Dead" articles now...
How many months old arguments do you want to dredge up?
Leigh Alexander made it very clear what she felt about the typical gamer at conventions....shit-slinging basement dwelling neckbeards with no social skills.

But somehow, you claim, we don't understand what she really meant by that....again...get real....

Hi Fever,

First, I want to say if something I said went too close to the bone, it was largely unintended. The first part of what I posted referred to the dialogue Rwarehall and you were having, but the second half was generalizations. This is not to say I am sorry, in fact if you see yourself in what I described, then I am rather pleased than unhappy. Please note the conditional statement ok?

The reason I assume I might have touched a nerve is because, as I also detailed further via PM, I see hardly any relation between your reply and my post. You actually open up some interesting tangents, which I'd be glad to discuss further, but probably not in this thread.

So, to not leave your reply without answer, and now that I have cooled my temper somewhat and the storm of replies to you subsided, here's what I find objectionable in your post:
1 - you imply not advocating thread lock is enough tolerance. Constantly even, so maybe occasional attempts are fine? :) What a low barrier that is mate...
2 - you strawmen positions on entitlement and segregation and imply selfish motives motives to me pretty much out of thin air
3 - you hyperbolically state we or I are: trying to take over the whole forum, wanting you (singular and plural) out of the thread, and fans of Reaxxion... this last one is a shooting offense to me in particular, as I'd never post anything so short as a reaxxion article :P

I think to suggest that only a "stereotypical gamer" would like those games either involves a serious misunderstanding of the notion of a "stereotypical gamer" or involves making some fairly broad assumptions about "non-stereotypical gamers" and the games they should play.

Then what is the stereotipical gamer? There is no such a thing, at least not in tastes. And certainly gamers are still the audience of game devs. We will always be. You may twist as much as you want the things said by the different "gamers are dead" articles, but the whole core of their argument is the same. They see the average gamer, the mainstram gamer, as inferior and uncultured, as unworthy and as an audience that deserves no respect or care. That is wrong and thta won't change. But maybe I am wasting my time by engaging in discussion with you, there are many signs that imply you have made your mind and you are adamant on changing your views.