Okay, I guess I have a few things to respond to, some being in rather dated posts so feel free to ignore me if you feel like you have already responded to any points I make:
@OP: Well written and a great read from a perspective I don't often think about. However, unfortunately it loses much of its potency by the fact that you cannot name names. I of course don't blame you, but its hard to really get behind what you say without any concrete examples. I always expect bad things to be happening, but without specifics I can't really for a specific opinion. So, for now, my opinion will remain general, that the media should be taken with a grain of salt and that certain sites should be avoided.
Skidonti said:
I agree with this statement, but I don't think it applies to a lot of the controversial discussion happening around gaming in the last few months/years. I don't think your position is wrong, but I feel like this is an issue in discussion. Where is the right place to bring up criticism? There appear to be a fair number of internet users of the opinion that there is no correct venue to criticize gaming's social impact/what it reflects about us. Whereas I think gaming media is the appropriate place to do it.
People on the internet really like to seek out any criticism that exists and make it their problem. For example, on any set of metacritic reviews for a well liked movie and see where all the comments are (probably the few negative reviews).
|
Do you remember when Phil Fish made those comments about Japanese video games and got attacked by pretty much everyone? Do you remember when Inafune made similar comments about Japanese video games and got attacked by pretty much no one?
The difference is twofold:
1. The perspective: Fish was on the outside looking in while Inafune was on the inside. This means that Inafune had perspective and he was trustworthy in that perspective. Fish's comments felt like mud being slung around while Inafune's felt like genuine concern for the industry.
2. The wording: Fish's comments were pretty darn harsh and shallow, saying things like Japanese games are "Fucking terrible" and saying to the man who asked him the question about the state of the Japanese video game industry "your games just suck". Inafune on the other hand said things in a much more nuanced way, and explained himself in a way that showed a way forward instead of just blanket condemnation.
Now, as for the issue at hand, I see many of the same problems. Many of the figureheads for these sexism debates are people outside the industry like Anita Sarkeesian who have a very shallow and "outside" view of the issue. Her perspectives aren't fresh or intersting, they just feel like general attacks out of principle, instead of anything important or weighty. Then we have all of the people inside the gaming media who rose up against GamerGate by posting a torrent of "Gaming are dead" articles which just felt like attacks and pissed off more people than it actually spoke to.
How do we get around this? Well, we talk. Without accusations and without a platform. We talk on forums and in comment sections, without either side feeling like they belong to some team in a war. Part of the reason GamerGate turned so harsh is because they were ignored or attacked by every media outlet, nobody was willing to have a conversation. If sites want to talk about these issues, they shouldn't do it from a soapbox and talk down to the readers or attack anyone, they should make it a discussion where both sides are involved...
However, this goes against what Tachi said in the OP. The media isn't looking for well rounded, open and honest coverage, they want sensationalism and rage and a war...
whiteknight101 said:
However. The right of any citizen to have an opinion and express that opinion is imperative in a democratic society. The right to disagree by means of threats and harassment, on the other hand, is non-existent. Let's be clear that this is the "angry bear" you're talking about here.
And let's take note that it is in fact not a bear or an animal at all. It's an anonymous internet mob, made up of a number of human beings. Each with absolute control of how they choose to go about things. The problem here is that these individuals who make up "the bear" got their idea of online morals from anonymous imageboard culture - where anonymous threats and harassment are embraced and a non-issue, due to:
1) On an anonymous imageboard you have no identity unless you choose to have one, and no one can do you harm beyond saying mean things. Mean things which anyone can shrug off with the next post, since every new post gives them a new identity.
2) This means that on anonymous imageboards, internet isn't serious business. Internet is a magical kingdom where you're free to threaten, harass and be a jerk in general.
So the problem we're having here is basically that people grew accustomed to these "rules" of anonymous internet posting, and now they have a sense of absolute entitlement to embrace mindless mob behaviour (including threats and harassment). Failing to realize that these "rules" don't apply to their interaction with public persons (e.g. Sarkeesian) who are exercising their democratic right to make their opinions known.
Threatening and harassing Sarkeesian - through twitter, phone calls or whatever - is serious business. 4chan rules are no longer in effect.
The rules that apply are the rules of democratic society. Everyone has a right to make their opinion known. Anyone has a right to disagree. This right to disagree does not include a right to threaten and harass. This holds true notwithstanding whether the person you disagree with is reasonable or not. Arguing, as you Tachikoma seem to be doing, that the right to make your opinion heard without being threatened and harassed is revoked if your opinion is stupid enough, is - yes! - ipso facto victim blaming. That's got nothing to do with gender politics, or left and right, or whatever. That's a core tenet of democratic society.
|
(general statement about harrassment)
Nobody advocates harrasment, however it is a fact of internet life. If you make any sort of controversial content on the internet, you will get harassed, regardless of which side of the debate you fall on.
This isn't news, and this certainly doesn't further any agenda. Trying to say "I got harrassed, so this just proves my point that gamers are misogynists" isn't a valid argument and it isn't helping anyone. Harrasment sucks, but the only thing that it tells you is that there are some shitty people on the internet. Nothing more.
You are free to make whatever comments you want to, but if they are controversial, you will get harrassed and you shouldn't be surprised or try to make some kind of news story out of it or further your agenda.