Post: #76

(09-13-2014 09:36 AM)DetlefMourning Wrote:  

(09-13-2014 02:27 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  Completely ignoring them is the same as accepting their current push to dominate every bit of society and every male space. You think they're gonna leave you alone? That's what the video game nerds thought. And the sports guys.

Anything you like to do, including sex, is going to be ruined if these people have their way. Don't believe it? Ask the college students who got kicked out of school and tarred as rapists for having drunken sex.

This isn't a harmless fad.

First off, Anita Sarkeesian posts dumb youtube critiques of Call of Duty. That's not the same thing as college administrators afraid of getting sued and altering their student code of conduct to placate feminists. You can say 'Well, it's the same crowd in either case," but more time and energy should be spent on reforming how rape allegations get handled, than gathering digital pitchforks with mobs for some idiot on youtube whining about video games. I'm not saying don't fight to make the world a better place. I just happen to believe that when you have a roach problem, killing individual roaches is 2 percent of the job. You have to clean your house to get rid of the problem. Anita Sarkeesian is a roach.

The problem really isn't Sarkeesian's videogame critiques. Her critiques are predictable feminist fare and sorting through the bias and insufferable snarky attitude you'll even find some valid criticism. After all, white knighting for female sex objects is no more red pill than it is feminist.

The problem is her marketing strategy, her response to criticism, and her media enablers. It's her blatant dishonesty, stereotyping "misogynists," and the fact that mainstream media has made her the poster child for online "bullying" that the manosphere seems to care about.

Post: #77

(09-13-2014 11:17 AM)Blaster Wrote:  The problem is her marketing strategy, her response to criticism, and her media enablers. It's her blatant dishonesty, stereotyping "misogynists," and the fact that mainstream media has made her the poster child for online "bullying" that the manosphere seems to care about.

That's why I think she should be ignored. She's not changing anybody's mind on video games. So let her prattle on. Even the legitimate strident criticism gets lumped in with the abuse, and the controversy and the attention just furthers her career. We should stop giving her the opportunistic platform of victimhood that is so lucrative for her.

Post: #78

Anita's an adviser for the game "Mirror's Edge 2", so her toxic influence isn't restricted to her talking shit on youtube.

Post: #79

(09-13-2014 10:30 AM)DetlefMourning Wrote:  

(09-13-2014 09:45 AM)The Reactionary Tree Wrote:  Dont ignore the SJW crowd. Instead, destroy them.

Like it or not, they run the social climate in this country. And attacking them head on directly when the mainstream media is behind them 100 percent is futile. They have a much bigger bullhorn and they get to intercept and interpret for others what comes out of your bullhorn.

It reminds me of how after 9/11 and in the run-up to the Iraq War, anybody expressing doubts about the wisdom of invading Mesopotamia, or questioning aspects of the military response to 9/11 got branded a pussy, or worse, perhaps a traitor or fifth columnist. There was no room for nuance. There was no such thing as principled anti-war opposition, at least according to the mainstream news. That's not how anti-war opposition is perceived today.

I think this social justice bullshit will play itself out at some point in a similar manner, and since any energy expended or directed at it in the short to medium term is futile, we should be focusing more on building something for whatever will come after it.

I am inclined to agree with you somewhat. There are certain areas of the culture in which a red pill offensive would be annihilated instantly. However, there are other parts of the culture where we can be successful. I think gaming is one of those areas.

Me personally, I dont play video games anymore. I havent played any games in a while actually. I have no interest in gaming whatsoever anymore. However, I will gladly join team Gamer in order to battle these leftist SJWs pricks. Anywhere we can intervene to battle political correctness, cultural marxism, SJWs, we should do that. It is a cultural conflict and simply doing nothing is a form of aiding the enemy.

While gaming is a small and meaningless battlefield in the great cultural war, it is one where we can be successful because there is a lot of resistance to the SJW crowd from gamers.

We need all the male space we can get because when you look at the world around you, there are very few communities where men are allowed to be men. Those communities (like RVF and the manosphere) are frequently demonized. So if we can save gaming from leftist assholes then we only help ourselves.

Post: #80

Are you sure its a meaningless battlefield? It rakes in more money than Hollywood and affect more than millions of people. To win against SJW, you would need to take them on in culture, education and politics at least. They dominate the first two and to a degree the third.

Post: #81

More money than Hollywood? Are you sure about that?

In terms of it being meaningless, perhaps I was being a bit harsh. It does affect millions of people all over the world.

I just see that bigger cultural battles being fought in places like government, the media, college campuses, and the corporate environment. In those areas, it would be impossible for politically incorrect messages such as ours to penetrate those areas of the culture.

The NFL is a big one and look what happened to it. They allowed women & gays to start infiltrating and now everyone is getting suspended all the time, we have to celebrate the gay players, we have to wear pink for the month of October. We have to make the game safer by banning hard hits and certain forms of tackling. They are sissyfying the sport.

Post: #82

I may or may not be. But this is up there.

http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2614915

93 billion last year. That's more than the newsprint though.

Post: #83

DetlefMourning, your criticism is totally off-base. You're basically saying that these SJWs are complete non-factors and should be ignored.

I'm sorry, but have you been living under a rock for the past few years? The progress that these people have made pushing their agenda in that short time period is absolutely unbelievable. To call them a non-factor is simply to be completely out of touch with reality. Far from being a non-factor, at this point in time they are the predominant social and cultural force in the West.

The idea that "she is not changing anyone's mind, so we shouldn't give her attention by attacking her" is asinine. First of all, what makes you think she isn't changing anyone's mind? Because she isn't changing yours? Solipsism much? Also, you have to realize that SJWs like Anita are less interested in making direct converts than they are in projecting an image that social justice is the mainstream political ideology of the West. She isn't trying to convince you with logic, she is simply trying to be the loudest voice in the room. The danger is that the younger generation (and especially non-red pilled beta males) will grow up blindly accepting these SJW values as being the default correct worldview, simply because that was the dominant ideology being pushed when they were young and impressionable. This is currently what is happening, and its why the SJWs place such emphasis on pushing their politics EVERYWHERE. They are simply trying to project the idea that social justice is a fait accompli and there's no use fighting or disagreeing with them because they already won.

Secondly, the entire reason these people have had such enormous success in pushing their ideology is because of people like you, who assume they are not really a threat and certainly not worth the effort of opposing. By silently acquiescing to the expansion of SJW politics into every sphere of society (now even into video games and athletics) you are essentially giving it your endorsement. SJWs rely on the majority of people being silent either out of fear or apathy. They are a small minority that is only able to push their ideology because they are extremely adept at infiltrating organizations and gradually pushing more and more social justice issues. Their tactic is to slowly boil the frog. You're the frog being boiled, and you don't even realize it. "Hey, this water is pretty nice and warm. I really don't see the big deal or why you guys want to turn the heat off or jump out of this pot. Seems like a lot of trouble for nothing."

Third, the idea that we are better off "pursuing men's issues" and "not making things personal" is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. You need to understand that these people are your enemies, whether you realize that or not. They hate you, and everything you stand for. They hate traditional Western society and culture. They are willing to fight dirty to accomplish their goals, as we've seen over and over (the subject of this thread being just a small example). The idea that the manosphere is anything BUT a reactionary movement is completely absurd. Our politics are confrontational and personal by necessity. We are men. We don't win sympathy from our opponents by weakness and compromise. That is the path to destruction (it's also the path the West has been walking for decades). What is needed is a strong, uncompromising counter-reaction that attacks our ideological enemies directly and relentlessly.

The way to gain traction is not through appealing to the moderate masses, but through stirring up a small but fervent radical base that is willing to fight straight down to the gates of Hell. That is how revolutions are accomplished. Men with moderate views simply do not care enough one way or another. They will go along with whatever happens. It is always the small group of radicals fighting on each side, with the moderates joining in with whichever group seems to be ascendant at the time.

The reason that Anita Sarkeesian and other SJWs must be opposed is not to save ourselves from their toxic ideology. It's to save all the young men and women who otherwise wouldn't know any better and would swallow that bullshit hook, line and sinker for lack of a clear alternative. We have that alternative, and we have the advantage of being able to speak the truth rather than lies. We should be bold, direct and unapologetic doing so, and certainly should not sit quietly by while SJW poison slowly permeates every last area of society.

Post: #84

(09-13-2014 12:29 PM)scorpion Wrote:  Third, the idea that we are better off "pursuing men's issues" and "not making things personal" is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. You need to understand that these people are your enemies, whether you realize that or not. They hate you, and everything you stand for. They hate traditional Western society and culture. They are willing to fight dirty to accomplish their goals, as we've seen over and over (the subject of this thread being just a small example). The idea that the manosphere is anything BUT a reactionary movement is completely absurd. Our politics are confrontational and personal by necessity. We are men. We don't win sympathy from our opponents by weakness and compromise. That is the path to destruction (it's also the path the West has been walking for decades). What is needed is a strong, uncompromising counter-reaction that attacks our ideological enemies directly and relentlessly.

Very well said.

"Live and let live" isn't a very good approach if your enemies still want you dead.

Post: #85

(09-13-2014 11:51 AM)DetlefMourning Wrote:  She's not changing anybody's mind on video games.

She may not be changing anyone'd mind on video games, but she he is promoting negative stereotypes of men, male gamers, and anyone who might dare disagree. She IS changing people's minds about that. She's planting ideas that may not have existed before or she is confirming and strengthening latent prejudices.

Quote:So let her prattle on. Even the legitimate strident criticism gets lumped in with the abuse, and the controversy and the attention just furthers her career. We should stop giving her the opportunistic platform of victimhood that is so lucrative for her.

We aren't driving the controversy. Ignoring her won't do anything about the crowds who believe everything she says uncritically, donate to her campaigns, invite her to speak, write sympathetic articles in mainstream publications, demonize amorphous populations of "internet misogynists," and so on. And we have seen that If she has no actual critics to demonize she will simply invent them and people will believe her.

Her lies are damaging far beyond the scope of videogames, that's why she must be exposed.

Post: #86

I wrote about this here. Groups that embrace Marxism & Alinksy's Rules for Radicals cannot be reasoned or negotiated with. Whether it's FARC or Feminism (exceptions made for Paglia and a few others) they view peace as an excuse to rearm, and hold themselves to no standards whatsoever in the struggle. FARC will employ child soldiers, sell drugs, and burn down villages to win Columbia, and the media constantly paints the government as reactionary for not bending over. Sarkeesian will lie and manipulate to her hearts content, selling out her supporters as well as destroying the video gaming culture at large.

There's something dark on her face. If you know what to look for, it's the same thing that Elliot Rogers had shining through. I'm not sure what happened to her exactly (though some of the people I've spoken with, who knew her before she was Feminist Frequency have some suspicions), but at some point somebody told her that she was worthless, and she believed it. She amputated her soul, and now she's one of the people who wants to see the world burn.

Her influence thus far has been palpable. As others have noted, she's a consultant for EA Games on Mirror's Edge 2, she speaks at large conferences, and she's talented enough at NLP and Feminist talking points that most people who listen to her think that she has a point, even if it might be slightly exaggerated. It takes an extensive knowledge of the games in question, as well as Feminist rhetoric in general to see through her; heck, most Gamers won't be familiar with every game she critiques, and an uncritical eye would assume that her errors that they notice were honestly made.

Her methodology is provoking attacks on herself to prove her victimhood - the same way FARC will have a platoon of child soldiers attack the government, so that the government can be painted as murderers. Taking her face-on is the wrong strategy; but at the same time, simply boycotting magazines will be insufficient. That'll win us a battle, but it won't do anything to change the strategic situation of the war. The Ailinksyite ideologues will be able to remuster, and start their campaign over again, this time with a new label and cause of agitation.

The clownfish is a creature that hides amongst venomous coral, and lures its enemies in with its bright colours, and then feasts upon them when they're paralyzed. That's what she's doing. So how do you fight against a creature like that? You don't - you destroy the coral reef that it lives in.

This is the same battle we've seen in Academia, Journalism at large, Politics, Hollywood, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. In most cases these people are so well embedded that they're nearly impossible to oust; the only people who can even attempt it are high-level academics or politicians, who've already been forced to engage in a lot of hypocrisy to get where they are, or have major popular support due to outside factors, like Ronald Reagan - but even then, they're limited in how far they can go, they have to maintain face.

What's going on in Gaming and tech is different, however; there's a real opportunity here, not just to defend games, but to make a palpable blow against the subversives amongst us. This whole Zoe Quinn scandal caused the masquerade to drop briefly, and they exposed their true face to the world; there's something legitimate to attack them on that can't be denied without fabricating the facts.

But facts? They're whatever the establishment says they are. Academia's decided that nobody but PhDs have the facts, and to be a PhD you have to toe the line. The media, whether it's CNN or Fox, are playing off of the same data sheet. Gaming and tech, however, are not so monolithic.

I agree that writing attack-articles on most feminist nonsense is - at best - entertainment for the manosphere, a bit of advertising for your blog, but futile endeavours in and of themselves. Take-downs of Anita's bad logic might get a lot of views, but they don't accomplish anything. The documentary we're trying to do goes in an entirely different direction, and embraces the fact that the medium is the message.

1. Deny the enemy resources.

These SJWs don't actually care about the people they claim to represent. You guys all know this, I don't need to elaborate. We'll be speaking to plenty of people who've been harassed by the SJWs despite being members of officially protected groups, people that we (Jordan and I) and the RoK readership might disagree with on a number of topics, but whom we'd never attack - and show that the SJWs have attempted to destroy their lives.

2. Attack where the enemy is weakest.

The direction we're taking is to expose this systemic corruption; we're not arguing Anita's points, we're pointing out the hypocrisy of herself, and anybody who touches her, or Zoe Quinn, or Adria Richards. Sarkeesian isn't our intended target, she's just the causus belli to marshal our argument. We're going to be exposing anybody who's supported her lies, and make her a toxic commodity - to make people think twice before they ally with an SJW in the future.

3. Control the Battlefield.

Go check out the Wikipedia page for Sarkeesian; there's no mention of criticism, because there have been no 'authoritative' critiques. Put simply, it doesn't matter how well Thunderf00t disproves her arguments, or how well any of us write about these topics online. The US Supreme Court might recognize us as journalists, but the MSM, Wikipedia, and Academia dismiss anything we write as hearsay. With a documentary that all changes; suddenly we have something that demands acknowledgement on IMDB, and Wikipedia, that also reaches a larger audience of non-gamers. By exposing Sarkeesian et al, we expose the methodologies of the people who do this in other realms. The public becomes a little bit more aware of these disingenuous manipulators, and it becomes that much harder for them to do what they do.

We have a major opportunity to win a strategic victory here; to get a voice out there that isn't Fox or CNN, and which undermines their dominant narrative. That makes high-level journalists fear for their careers, in the same way that we've made low-level journalists shut down their twitters. That points out the hypocrisy of not recognizing the blogosphere as legitimate journalism.

I'll be honest, it's a bit frustrating that we're having so much trouble getting traction for this, especially when Sarkeesian earned 160,000 despite being a complete unknown (Jordan and I have reputations to protect, and if we weren't confident that we could make this thing, we wouldn't be trying). The video at the start of this has 20,000 views; if half of the people who'd watched it donated a buck a month to our Patreon for the 5-month filming period, we'd be able to start filming TODAY. Instead we're seeing a lot of 'suspicion' from GamerGate people, which is nothing but laziness and slacktivism at the end of the day; none of it is honest worrying.

Incidentally, that short film that you guys helped me get the votes for? That'll be available online in the next week or so. It's not perfect, but it turned out pretty well for a budget of $10,000. I've shown it to some of my friends who've worked in Hollywood, and it's managed to impress them.

Post: #87

(09-13-2014 10:06 AM)DetlefMourning Wrote:  We should stick to stridently criticizing these people's ideas instead of making it personal.

Once again, for clarification, if the person's idea is, "It's ok to lie for personal gain." We could attack that and that would fall within what you discussed, right? Because, I don't think lying is acceptable in life.

Trust me, there are times when I want to engage in something and pull back because I know it isn't the path. I am not always, trying to fight for the sake of fighting, that makes no sense. But this sack of shit is a liar and took money based on that. Among all her other flaws.

Post: #88

(09-13-2014 11:51 AM)DetlefMourning Wrote:  She's not changing anybody's mind on video games.

Clearly she is. As Seboist pointed out, she is acting as an adviser to Mirror's Edge 2. While I am not much of a gamer, I do recall the first Mirror's Edge being a pretty popular title.

She may not be changing the minds of hardcore male gamers but she sure is changing the minds of the people producing the video games.

Post: #89

(09-13-2014 02:04 PM)The Reactionary Tree Wrote:  

(09-13-2014 11:51 AM)DetlefMourning Wrote:  She's not changing anybody's mind on video games.

Clearly she is. As Seboist pointed out, she is acting as an adviser to Mirror's Edge 2. While I am not much of a gamer, I do recall the first Mirror's Edge being a pretty popular title.

She may not be changing the minds of hardcore male gamers but she sure is changing the minds of the people producing the video games.

And given that there is a vast disconnect between what gamers like and believe and the gaming press that is part of the PC left, what gamer is going to want to buy a game that reflects the sensibilities and preferences of Anita Sarkeesian in the long run? I don't play video games anymore. My console has been gathering up dust for years. But I can't imagine that Electronic Arts or some of these studios can stay in business for the long run without giving gamers what they want.

Post: #90

The reason the people on the right will never be successful in political battle is because they do not know what they are going up against.

People on the right want to act as statesmen and argue on the ideas. That would be fine & dandy if men on the right were dealing with other statesmen. However, the leftist is not a statesmen. They are revolutionaries. They dont want to argue about ideas. They want to destroy you and everything you stand for. They dont care how they do it either. Read Rules for Radicals by Alinsky. They use personal attacks, lies, corruption, deception, etc in order to win. It is about destroying opposition with the left, not discussing ideas.

The leftist is a rat.

And how do we get rid of rats?

Do we ask the rat to politely leave? No. We exterminate them.

Post: #91

(09-13-2014 02:10 PM)The Reactionary Tree Wrote:  The reason the people on the right will never be successful in political battle is because they do not know what they are going up against.

People on the right want to act as statesmen and argue on the ideas.

Let's be fair, that isn't true. Plenty of people on the right want to fight and destroy stuff. I think if we want to be statesmen we must acknowledge our own flaws as well.

Post: #92

You also better believe that people like Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian would gladly relish in destroying the lives of any of the men on this forum. If they had the power to dismantle men like Roosh, Aurini, Forney, Mike from D&P, or Victor from B&D, they would. Heck, I'm sure some of their supporters would love to see those guys dead.

You shouldnt feel bad about destroying your enemies. Their hearts do not bleed for you.

Post: #93

(09-13-2014 02:10 PM)The Reactionary Tree Wrote:  The reason the people on the right will never be successful in political battle is because they do not know what they are going up against.

People on the right want to act as statesmen and argue on the ideas. That would be fine & dandy if men on the right were dealing with other statesmen. However, the leftist is not a statesmen. They are revolutionaries. They dont want to argue about ideas. They want to destroy you and everything you stand for. They dont care how they do it either. Read Rules for Radicals by Alinsky. They use personal attacks, lies, corruption, deception, etc in order to win. It is about destroying opposition with the left, not discussing ideas.

The leftist is a rat.

And how do we get rid of rats?

Do we ask the rat to politely leave? No. We exterminate them.

Word. Ben Shapiro has an excellent video discussing the tactics that right-wingers need to embrace:

Post: #94

(09-13-2014 02:14 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  

(09-13-2014 02:10 PM)The Reactionary Tree Wrote:  The reason the people on the right will never be successful in political battle is because they do not know what they are going up against.

People on the right want to act as statesmen and argue on the ideas.

Let's be fair, that isn't true. Plenty of people on the right want to fight and destroy stuff. I think if we want to be statesmen we must acknowledge our own flaws as well.

As John C. Wright said:

Quote:The reason why there is no such thing as a “Political Correctness” among the Conservatives is that Conservatism is a political theory of limited government & the Rights of Man, not an ideology serving as a substitute religion absorbing all aspects of life.

One of the things outside the power of the limited government is the power to define true and false. We conservatives believe truth is true and that lying is a sin. Our politicians lie, but they break the code they claim to uphold when doing so.

This is in sharp, obvious, stark contrast to Political Correctness. The name ‘Political Correctness’ MEANS you define your truth according to what your leaders say is true. Before the revolution these leaders are the newsmen and revolutionaries and masterminds, the intellectuals and academics whose books you read and whose thoughts you parrot. They define true and false, not reality.

Are there people on the Right who lie? Of course they are; but they're violating their principles in doing so, and we should be calling them out. The manosphere's been living up to that standard; we've been fairly effective in ousting 'game bloggers' who can't get laid to save their life, and "Red Pill Women" who are merely attention whores.

When the Left lies it's an embracing of their principles - even though the average Democrat doesn't realize this.

Post: #95

(09-13-2014 11:52 AM)Seboist Wrote:  Anita's an adviser for the game "Mirror's Edge 2", so her toxic influence isn't restricted to her talking shit on youtube.

There you go.

I wondered on here the other day if SJW's were simply looking to the gaming industry as a lucrative revenue source, since their degrees are worthless outside of academia.

In which case I would expect this process to happen:

1. Create the cultural belief that games and gamers have a problem with women.

2. Create a culture of fear that punishes any developer who isn't SJW-approved with negative reviews and ostracisation within the industry.

3. Hold yourself up as an expert on what female characters should be.

4. Extort Charge developers with a consultancy fee so their games 'won't have a problem'.

This is simply about Feminists creating a problem to financially-benefit themselves.

If gamers don't want this process to continue by validating it, they need to boycott 'Mirrors Edge 2', no matter how badly they think they want to play it. Send a clear message with their purchasing power, otherwise the content of each game will have to be pre-approved by a bunch of egg-sucking moral scolds, who are paid handsomely for doing so.

Post: #96

(09-13-2014 02:09 PM)DetlefMourning Wrote:  I can't imagine that Electronic Arts or some of these studios can stay in business for the long run without giving gamers what they want.

Gamers already hate EA. She's not attacking EA. She's attacking "gamer culture," gamers themselves, and non-compliant males in general, using them as scapegoats to rile up her feminist audience.

What concerns me is that riled up audience. Sarkeesian doesn't care about them. They're merely useful idiots. So long as their pitchforks aren't pointed at her, she's happy to collect their sympathy dollars. Just because they aren't going to "ruin gaming" doesn't mean they won't cause a lot of damage if left unchecked.

Post: #97

(09-13-2014 03:29 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(09-13-2014 11:52 AM)Seboist Wrote:  Anita's an adviser for the game "Mirror's Edge 2", so her toxic influence isn't restricted to her talking shit on youtube.

There you go.

I wondered on here the other day if SJW's were simply looking to the gaming industry as a lucrative revenue source, since their degrees are worthless outside of academia.

In which case I would expect this process to happen:

1. Create the cultural belief that games and gamers have a problem with women.

2. Create a culture of fear that punishes any developer who isn't SJW-approved with negative reviews and ostracisation within the industry.

3. Hold yourself up as an expert on what female characters should be.

4. Extort Charge developers with a consultancy fee so their games 'won't have a problem'.

This is simply about Feminists creating a problem to financially-benefit themselves.

If gamers don't want this process to continue by validating it, they need to boycott 'Mirrors Edge 2', no matter how badly they think they want to play it. Send a clear message with their purchasing power, otherwise the content of each game will have to be pre-approved by a bunch of egg-sucking moral scolds, who are paid handsomely for doing so.

This is a silly reason to boycott a game, especially if the game is good. If Sarkeesian is actually good at helping developers portray more interesting and compelling female characters, fighting her there will just make us look bad. That's not a zero-sum game. The battle needs to be fought at steps 1 and 2.

Post: #98

(09-13-2014 05:36 PM)Blaster Wrote:  This is a silly reason to boycott a game, especially if the game is good. If Sarkeesian is actually good at helping developers portray more interesting and compelling female characters, fighting her there will just make us look bad. That's not a zero-sum game. The battle needs to be fought at steps 1 and 2.

Sarkeesian doesn't have a single useful thing to say about narrative structure or female characters. Some of the bigger criticism of her have been that she's taken strong, heroic, and well-developed female characters and argued that they were nothing but a "girl in a fridge" or "a damsel in distress". I haven't played those particular games, but they're the sort of narratives where you tear-up at the heroism these ladies displayed.

Let me give you an example of the damage her sorts of narratives cause. In Dragon's Age: Origins there was a bisexual male character, with a background and character arc that included his sexuality. He was a well developed character.

In Dragon's Age: 2* EVERY character is bisexual without there being a story behind it. Having a distinct gay or bisexual character is too homophobic these days, and the last thing that Bioware wants to do is oppress all of those victims out there (all 12 of them)! Similarly, in Mass Effect 3* there's a character in a gay marriage, who isn't gay; they just jammed in this jarring nod to diversity for the sake of diversity.

This dilutes the narrative, and it's only the beginning. The actual diversity from DA:O is called hate, and ubiquitous drone-people is all that's allowed.

* Note: I haven't played either of the games in the second paragraph, this is what I've had reported to me by others who've played them - I could be wrong.

Post: #99

(09-13-2014 05:44 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

(09-13-2014 05:36 PM)Blaster Wrote:  This is a silly reason to boycott a game, especially if the game is good. If Sarkeesian is actually good at helping developers portray more interesting and compelling female characters, fighting her there will just make us look bad. That's not a zero-sum game. The battle needs to be fought at steps 1 and 2.

Sarkeesian doesn't have a single useful thing to say about narrative structure or female characters. Some of the bigger criticism of her have been that she's taken strong, heroic, and well-developed female characters and argued that they were nothing but a "girl in a fridge" or "a damsel in distress". I haven't played those particular games, but they're the sort of narratives where you tear-up at the heroism these ladies displayed.

Let me give you an example of the damage her sorts of narratives cause. In Dragon's Age: Origins there was a bisexual male character, with a background and character arc that included his sexuality. He was a well developed character.

In Dragon's Age: 2* EVERY character is bisexual without there being a story behind it. Having a distinct gay or bisexual character is too homophobic these days, and the last thing that Bioware wants to do is oppress all of those victims out there (all 12 of them)! Similarly, in Mass Effect 3* there's a character in a gay marriage, who isn't gay; they just jammed in this jarring nod to diversity for the sake of diversity.

This dilutes the narrative, and it's only the beginning. The actual diversity from DA:O is called hate, and ubiquitous drone-people is all that's allowed.

* Note: I haven't played either of the games in the second paragraph, this is what I've had reported to me by others who've played them - I could be wrong.

All true except for the bit about the character not actually being gay, a male player character can bang that dude.

Post: #100

(09-13-2014 05:44 PM)Aurini Wrote:  [quote='Blaster' pid='829605' dateline='1410647762']
This is a silly reason to boycott a game, especially if the game is good. If Sarkeesian is actually good at helping developers portray more interesting and compelling female characters, fighting her there will just make us look bad. That's not a zero-sum game. The battle needs to be fought at steps 1 and 2.

Sarkeesian is a toxic, self-interested idiot with no interest in gaming, and is simply using it as a tool to grab power for herself. Her videos show an utter lack of awareness of story telling and character function.

She herself is a classic female trope: the bitter moral crusader. Carrie Nation. If you're my age, and English, you would recognise her as Mary Whitehouse. If you're my age, and American, you would recognise her as Tipper Gore. You ever wonder why albums have warning labels on them?

If gamers allow developers to take her seriously, and define what can and can't be an acceptable female character, you will end up with a bunch of Mary Sue characters with no realistic human flaws, because any negative character flaw might be misogynistic. Basically, the chick from Twilight, but even more insufferably morally-correct. Expect 'beautiful' female characters to be uglied up.

And if gamers can't boycott one good game, in a world with 30+ years of gaming history to otherwise distract themselves with, they deserve the patronising moral lectures games will eventually dissolve into.

I doubt Gamergate will change anything. Gamers will buy Mirror's Edge 2 and keep her employed.