Jump to content
Roderick

Feminism

Recommended Posts

I know people who identify as bibliophiles, or cinephiles, or for whom golfer is a dominant part of their self-identity.  But I agree that gamer carries a significantly different type and volume of information along with it. 

 

 

 

For some reason this reminded me of the Male Novelist Joke, poking fun at how seriously the budding (and sometimes actually successful) male author takes himself.

As people have said the average movie goer does not call themselves a cinephile though, that's really just the most hardcore of the hardcore, and arguably a very specific subset of the really deep-in-it group. I think some of this is a function of games being a young and small industry. It's normal to go see a movie. Everyone watches movies. And not everyone reads books but everyone has to read books in school and stuff, so as a result it's not unusual to be a person who reads books or watches movies. But games aren't that way, though I think it's largely changed in the last 5 years with mobile gaming. Personally I dislike the self identification with one's consumption, because it seems to overly limiting. 

 

I don't see how abandoning the term "gamer" will do anything to stop this toxic environment, but I do remember that this seems to happen every time trolls from a certain group do something horrible, people just want to abandon the "group" as if that will somehow make the bad people go away.

 

It feels like we want to distance ourselves from the problem instead of confronting it.

 

I remember pretty recently when many people wanted to abandon the term nerd after some awful harassment in a con, instead they started the "Cosplay is not Consent" campaign, which seems to be helping, at least people are now more appalled when a creeper tries something with a cosplayer, which is a step in the right direction.

 

I don't even know how to start a campaign, but I'm pretty sure it's better to make the MRA man babies aware that we will stand for their atrocious conduct instead of telling people to stop using a word, seriously, the MRA won't magically go away if we stop using the term "gamer".

 

I hadn't thought of that actually. Yeah definitely not a good idea to just use this as a way of distancing ourselves from the problem. 

 

 

Yeah, that, and the whole "hey, I'm wearing my baseball cap backwards, I've done some kick flips on my BMX, I've turned my chair around to sit with my bare arms resting on what would normally be the back. Time for real talk, bros" junior pastor feel. In his need to be liked and accepted by the young men he appears to feel he's addressing, he uncritically repeats anything that he thinks might dispose them favorably towards him.

Like, was Totalbiscuit just "asking everyone to calm down"? Oh, actually, no, he was taking the opportunity to talk about how corrupt and nepotistic games journalism was (in contrast with YouTubers) and how terrible DMCA claims were, in a way that was likely to, and indeed did, help a whole bunch of anime avatars to feel validated in their attacks on Zoe Quinn. Not malicious, but hardly uncomplicated. And was he "shouted down"? How do you shout down a guy with millions of followers, again?

And why would you describe Phil Fish as "perennially highly-strung" when talking about him getting doxxed and his financial records shared over the Internet? What would be a "low-strung" response to that? You do it because you want to show the audience that, underneath this short-sleeved clerical shirt and collar, you're one of them.

Likewise, why mention how much you didn't like Depression Quest? And Dungeon Keeper and Sim City - hey, kids! EA are just the worst, right? Then the dropping of knowledge of some cool indie games by some cool game dev chicks - hey, they ain't no Zoe Quinns! Why ain't Kotaku covering them?*

 

So, yeah. All of the above, basically. Its need to be liked, as a text, means it parrots what it thinks its audience wants to hear - Phil Fish is a loon! Zoe Quinn makes bad games! Games journalism is corrupt! And its ultimate advice, "ignore Quinn" is just kinda shitty. "Don't harass Quinn", yes. But she isn't some sort of Nathaniel Hawthorne adultress, who the villagers should turn their backs on. Maybe "pay attention to the fact that Zoe Quinn is, no matter what she did, now getting death threats and round-the-clock harassment, and is going to PAX with genuine fear for her safety. So, you know, don't harass Quinn, don't talk about what a bad person she is and how she is destroying gaming, but also don't ignore Quinn"?

 

The guy's heart is in the right place, I'm sure. But, yeah.

 

* Also, Emily Short? Really? The most famous and successful interactive fiction writer of the last 15 years is your women in gaming deep cut? Oy.

I think a lot of this argument from tone though. I know that sometimes people say things and it comes off patronizing or corny and they're just trying to communicate something, so I think it's better to try and focus on the content of the message rather than the tone. I think your interpretation of what he was saying was a little uncharitable. 

Also how can you not say Phil Fish is "perennially highly-strung"? I fucking respect the hell out of Phil, I personally empathize with his frustration, and I love his work, but the dude is going to bust a blood vessel someday and die. He's not a stable personality. That's some of why he's so good I'm sure but I don't think it's an inaccurate way to describe him. 

Also is the title of that Slate Article a reference to Rilke's "Letters to a Young Poet"? That would be interesting. Rilke is cool. 

 

 

I've been a bit annoyed at the people who are saying stuff like, "I'm on the SJW side, but I'm still disappointed that some feminists are getting petty and making fun of the appearance of these MRAs". Frankly, if I was being harassed by as many people as these people are, I don't think I could keep it together 100% of the time. Making fun of what baldy and erotic fictionman look like feels good and I don't particularly blame anyone who is under fire for chomping at that low hanging fruit.

It's understandable why people respond like that under pressure, but that doesn't mean it's the best way to go about things. Maybe I'm just too much of a pacifist or something but I believe that turning the other cheek, meeting violence with love is the best policy. It's understandable. People are hurting and fearful, and fear leads to hate but people can't give into that hate because it just makes shit worse. I was reading this article earlier this week by a former neo-nazi and he talked about his experience and why he changed, and it wasn't because people made a really good Baldy Zinger on twitter. So what's more important to you? Is it more important that things get better, that peace is made and people are changed, or is well-fed self righteous satisfaction more important? 

Dude does look like a Red Pill Magician though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think most of the mockery centers around the way these dudes present themselves, which I think is an extremely unflattering representation of their personality which they chose to present to the world. The fact that this is how they choose to present themselves is incredibly telling, even beyond how fun it is to make fun of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's understandable why people respond like that under pressure, but that doesn't mean it's the best way to go about things. Maybe I'm just too much of a pacifist or something but I believe that turning the other cheek, meeting violence with love is the best policy. It's understandable. People are hurting and fearful, and fear leads to hate but people can't give into that hate because it just makes shit worse. I was reading this article earlier this week by a former neo-nazi and he talked about his experience and why he changed, and it wasn't because people made a really good Baldy Zinger on twitter. So what's more important to you? Is it more important that things get better, that peace is made and people are changed, or is well-fed self righteous satisfaction more important? 

Dude does look like a Red Pill Magician though. 

 

I feel like you're literally 100% missing the point of what I'm saying. Is it not unreasonable to expect ask of someone to meet violence with love when they are met with violence by thousands of people? 24 hours a day? 7 days a week? Effectively forever? Not every popular feminist is harassed to that extent, but a lot of them actually truly are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like you're literally 100% missing the point of what I'm saying. Is it not unreasonable to expect ask of someone to meet violence with love when they are met with violence by thousands of people? 24 hours a day? 7 days a week? Effectively forever? Not every popular feminist is harassed to that extent, but a lot of them actually truly are.

I have a bad feeling I'm going to sound like a hack, but yes I do think that is what we ought to be doing. I'm not 100% pacifist, and I understand why people are hurt and scared, but I also believe that we have to do the right thing. This is going to make me sound like a hack, but MLK was actively stalked and harassed by the motherfucking FBI and he didn't crack. Reformers and activists have gone before us who have experienced much greater hardships and they didn't lower themselves to tit-for-tat. I also understand there are legitimate arguments against strict non-violence, there are times where that sort of thing can be manipulated to preserve the status quo, but I think it's still a pretty good default policy. And yes, I understand that using the language of non-violent resistance may seem a little overblown when talking about people bickering on twitter, but the attitude of peace is still one I think is fundamental to both situations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think mockery is one of the most valuable tools at our disposal though. And, since their appearance is to some degree a manifestation of their ideals of masculinity, that's fair game. I might refrain, though, from mocking things which they have less control over -- their bone structure, follicular deficiencies, etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a bad feeling I'm going to sound like a hack, but yes I do think that is what we ought to be doing. I'm not 100% pacifist, and I understand why people are hurt and scared, but I also believe that we have to do the right thing. This is going to make me sound like a hack, but MLK was actively stalked and harassed by the motherfucking FBI and he didn't crack. Reformers and activists have gone before us who have experienced much greater hardships and they didn't lower themselves to tit-for-tat. I also understand there are legitimate arguments against strict non-violence, there are times where that sort of thing can be manipulated to preserve the status quo, but I think it's still a pretty good default policy. And yes, I understand that using the language of non-violent resistance may seem a little overblown when talking about people bickering on twitter, but the attitude of peace is still one I think is fundamental to both situations. 

 

The thing about Martin Luther King, Jr. is that the violence won, in a way. He was killed, his movement was hijacked, and his dream was derailed. So yeah, I fully believe that reasoned discourse, built around non-violent principles, is an essential component of being a kind, good, and progressive person, but I also do not want to deny people their anger. We shouldn't have to be saints to have things change for the better. If there is rhetoric claiming that the moment any member of an oppressed group succumbs to their urge to retaliate against the violence of their oppressors, then they have proven themselves to be less than worthy of not being oppressed, then that rhetoric is in the service of keeping those people down. Demanding that people be superhuman in order to weather attacks on their very humanity really just isn't the way forward, in my considered opinion.

 

I also resent the notion that responding with the smallest bit of mockery to a torrent of abuse and harassment somehow puts us all on the same level. There is just no way that you can draw a moral equivalency between occasionally joking about the apparent hygiene of misogynist assholes and persistently posting graphic descriptions of female mutilation to an anonymous twitter account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 think a lot of this argument from tone though. I know that sometimes people say things and it comes off patronizing or corny and they're just trying to communicate something, so I think it's better to try and focus on the content of the message rather than the tone. I think your interpretation of what he was saying was a little uncharitable. 

I read it and had the same exact take.  He's taking their claims at face value and his ultimate conclusion is "nah, you're totally right, this Zoe chick is bullshit."

 

I have a bad feeling I'm going to sound like a hack, but yes I do think that is what we ought to be doing. I'm not 100% pacifist, and I understand why people are hurt and scared, but I also believe that we have to do the right thing. This is going to make me sound like a hack, but MLK was actively stalked and harassed by the motherfucking FBI and he didn't crack. Reformers and activists have gone before us who have experienced much greater hardships and they didn't lower themselves to tit-for-tat. I also understand there are legitimate arguments against strict non-violence, there are times where that sort of thing can be manipulated to preserve the status quo, but I think it's still a pretty good default policy. And yes, I understand that using the language of non-violent resistance may seem a little overblown when talking about people bickering on twitter, but the attitude of peace is still one I think is fundamental to both situations. 

Tone policing sucks, man.  People are allowed to have reactions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a reminder that baldy is literally a domestic violence creep who went to court for beating his ex and got away with it with a self-defence plea. No denial he did it, and has since tweeted ~jokes~ about beating women basically daily.

There is no amount of mockery for this festering turd on canada's ass that is too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing about Martin Luther King, Jr. is that the violence won, in a way. He was killed, his movement was hijacked, and his dream was derailed. So yeah, I fully believe that reasoned discourse, built around non-violent principles, is an essential component of being a kind, good, and progressive person, but I also do not want to deny people their anger. We shouldn't have to be saints to have things change for the better. If there is rhetoric claiming that the moment any member of an oppressed group succumbs to their urge to retaliate against the violence of their oppressors, then they have proven themselves to be less than worthy of not being oppressed, then that rhetoric is in the service of keeping those people down. Demanding that people be superhuman in order to weather attacks on their very humanity really just isn't the way forward, in my considered opinion.

 

I also resent the notion that responding with the smallest bit of mockery to a torrent of abuse and harassment somehow puts us all on the same level. There is just no way that you can draw a moral equivalency between occasionally joking about the apparent hygiene of misogynist assholes and persistently posting graphic descriptions of female mutilation to an anonymous twitter account.

 

Thanks for saying it better (and kinder) than I was planning on saying it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also resent the notion that responding with the smallest bit of mockery to a torrent of abuse and harassment somehow puts us all on the same level. There is just no way that you can draw a moral equivalency between occasionally joking about the apparent hygiene of misogynist assholes and persistently posting graphic descriptions of female mutilation to an anonymous twitter account.

 

I don't think anyone can realistically imply something so obviously disparate, but I do feel there is a point to staying resolved against the disorderly. You mention that hate beat MLK, but I don't know its fair to say that in the global society we all exist within any one life is more important than a given philosophy. People die. Worse, people are killed. We can't let fears of these things dull our arguments, we can only hope that we manage to say something worth saying before we are forced into silence.

 

Edit: Further optimistic rantings

 

We are on the winning side of this fight, but we need to be able to endure the war before we can say its over. All these hateful people can hope to do is create fear to participate in the conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much every time a white person uses Martin Luther King as an example of the importance of polite, principled, gently-gently protest, I find this passage, from "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" springs ineluctably to mind:

 

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

 
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
 
In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills.
 
Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.

 

Here I find it, again, highly appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone can realistically imply something so obviously disparate, but I do feel there is a point to staying resolved against the disorderly. You mention that hate beat MLK, but I don't know its fair to say that in the global society we all exist within any one life is more important than a given philosophy. People die. Worse, people are killed. We can't let fears of these things dull our arguments, we can only hope that we manage to say something worth saying before we are forced into silence.

 

Edit: Further optimistic rantings

 

We are on the winning side of this fight, but we need to be able to endure the war before we can say its over. All these hateful people can hope to do is create fear to participate in the conversation.

 

I agree about being on the side of history and all that, but I am not interested in a "victory" for feminism, civil rights, and LGBTQ rights that is predicated on the suppression of legitimate thoughts and emotions among the oppressed. Sure, let's take the high road if we can, but if at times, under the hailstorm of hate and abuse that waits for us there, we need to step down from it for a little while and vent a little spleen, I think that's okay. It's natural, all of us being human, to be angry or sad or whatever. It doesn't compromise our ideology, much as the slavering trolls of the internet, in their love affair with the idea of "hypocrisy," are dying for us to believe that it does.

 

Pretty much every time a white person uses Martin Luther King as an example of the importance of polite, principled, gently-gently protest, I find this passage, from "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" springs ineluctably to mind.

 

I was actually going to post earlier from the same thing, courtesy of the article I linked in the Ferguson thread:

 

You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling, for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to so dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

 

The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

 

Actually, I think that vocal opposition, including criticism and even mockery, of misogyny is just the kind of "nonviolent tension" that King had in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that, and the whole "hey, I'm wearing my baseball cap backwards, I've done some kick flips on my BMX, I've turned my chair around to sit with my bare arms resting on what would normally be the back. Time for real talk, bros" junior pastor feel. In his need to be liked and accepted by the young men he appears to feel he's addressing, he uncritically repeats anything that he thinks might dispose them favorably towards him.

 

I read that Slate article and it was really bugging me and I was trying to put together why in words.  This is pretty much spot on.  Thank you for coming up with precisely the thing that I couldn't quite express.

 

I've had this lingering thought as this whole situation drags on, and I can't help but compare Kotaku and their new anti-Patreon policy to the whole mess with Shirley Sherrod being forced to resign from the USDA a few years ago.  A firestorm starts over a controversy that ends up being bullshit, but while things are shaking out, a group makes a decision to act hastily in the name of being able to say they've done something, and in the process makes a boneheaded and easily avoided mistake.  That Slate article just brings it back to my mind again because it's the process of events that happened with Shirley Sherrod, now with the added bonus of mirroring where the decision to act didn't calm things down at all and instead just served as justification for everything that happened before.  "See, I was right, because <Kotaku/the USDA> wouldn't have done anything if nothing was wrong!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not interested in a "victory" for feminism, civil rights, and LGBTQ rights that is predicated on the suppression of legitimate thoughts and emotions among the oppressed. Sure, let's take the high road if we can, but if at times, under the hailstorm of hate and abuse that waits for us there, we need to step down from it for a little while and vent a little spleen, I think that's okay. It's natural, all of us being human, to be angry or sad or whatever. It doesn't compromise our ideology, much as the slavering trolls of the internet, in their love affair with the idea of "hypocrisy," are dying for us to believe that it does.

 

That is actually very well considered. I do believe there is room for ventilation, but what I guess I hadn't considered was your final point. All I can say in my defense is that any expression should be clarified as argumentative, if there are any people in the middle ground, if their morality doesn't inform their vote than we shouldn't allow any incidental immaturity from our part cloud our arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that Slate article and it was really bugging me and I was trying to put together why in words.  This is pretty much spot on.  Thank you for coming up with precisely the thing that I couldn't quite express.

 

I've had this lingering thought as this whole situation drags on, and I can't help but compare Kotaku and their new anti-Patreon policy to the whole mess with Shirley Sherrod being forced to resign from the USDA a few years ago.  A firestorm starts over a controversy that ends up being bullshit, but while things are shaking out, a group makes a decision to act hastily in the name of being able to say they've done something, and in the process makes a boneheaded and easily avoided mistake.  That Slate article just brings it back to my mind again because it's the process of events that happened with Shirley Sherrod, now with the added bonus of mirroring where the decision to act didn't calm things down at all and instead just served as justification for everything that happened before.  "See, I was right, because <Kotaku/the USDA> wouldn't have done anything if nothing was wrong!"

 

This is a really unfortunate circumstance.  Kotaku is basically saying they don't want to deal with the issue by banning patreon contributions entirely, which you correctly point out can seem like a validation of one's worldview.  Back in college I remember reading a book about a theory for treating depression that believed a mindfulness based approach was the only true solution.  The authors contend that depression is essentially self-perpetuating, where people ascribe their bad luck to some character flaw, which then makes it worse.  The first half of the book was an in-depth breakdown of why oddities occur in conversation.  Mostly the authors focused on what we commonly know as "nothing fights" which are the result of a person responding to their perception of another's action rather than the act itself.  This then goes back and forth where each actor responds to the other based on the perception of the other's previous action, which to me perfectly describes some of the behavior we've seen.  

 

What worries me most about some of the reaction to the MRA side of things is that some of these people, as horrible as their opinions and actions are, might be suffering from depression or some kind of social anxiety in an environment where there is no one that is able to really force them to take a step back and see the issue from another perspective, as a therapist would.  Not to mention the plethora of others reinforcing their beliefs, and possibly inflaming any potential underlying issues.  I would hope someone respected by both sides could take an impartial stance (meaning only ask clarification-type questions), but this doesn't really seem to be possible in the maelstrom of twitter.

 

Edit: Ultimately that is what I think the intent of the slate article was, misguided as some of the language may have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I firmly believe Letter From A Birmingham Jail is one of the finest pieces of writing in the 20th century.

 

What worries me most about some of the reaction to the MRA side of things is that some of these people, as horrible as their opinions and actions are, might be suffering from depression or some kind of social anxiety in an environment where there is no one that is able to really force them to take a step back and see the issue from another perspective, as a therapist would.  Not to mention the plethora of others reinforcing their beliefs, and possibly inflaming any potential underlying issues.  I would hope someone respected by both sides could take an impartial stance (meaning only ask clarification-type questions), but this doesn't really seem to be possible in the maelstrom of twitter.

 

I know a guy, who I strongly suspect is part of the 4chan lynch mob by this point, who has an undiagnosed mental illness and is convinced that everyone else is crazy. We've tried convincing him that he needs help, but he refuses to get it. It's quite sad; we basically had to cut off contact and change the locks on my friend Belinda's doors. So I think there's a limit to the amount of compassion you can extend; some people are beyond help.

 

Recently he accused me creeping on one of my friends in a way that would have been wildly out of character had it happened (the supposed witnesses remember nothing of the sort). Looking back on, I'm secretly pleased my first reaction was to identify and correct my behaviour rather than assume he was making shit up. 

 

 

I don't know if it's worth giving Slate a lot of credit, they're not above trolling for hits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I come to the thread bearing some good news. Albeit not in the realm of video games (but fuck that, this topic spans everything right?).

 

If anyone doesn't keep up with news from the world of sports, the NFL had a problem this past year regarding a player (Ray Rice) hitting his then-fiance (now wife) and dragging her out of an elevator when she was unconscious. Terrible things happened in the aftermath. First, the team made his fiance apologize for "her part" in the incident (it was captured fully on tape). That would be the Baltimore Ravens. This has not been remedied.

 

The NFL came down with its punishment like a month ago, and it was a two-week suspension. The public was furious as shit and at the time the NFL was all, "rules are rules!" Which it was the written rules at the time of the punishment being given to Rice. Just for contrast, marijuana possession (or use, I forget which) give you a four-week suspension.

 

Today, the NFL commissioner sent out a letter to all teams informing them of a huge change to the player conduct rules of the NFL, specifically about the domestic violence thing.

 

- On first offense, the player in question will get a six week suspension with no pay minimum. Depending on the circumstances of any given incident, like weapon used or severity of the violence, etc, the six weeks will be extended to be longer.

- On second offense, the player is banned for life from the league.

 

What I don't know about the ban is if it's a ban on playing or if it includes being a staff member for any teams / the NFL commission.

 

Either way though, this is a vast improvement on that shitty punishment they had going in their rules. Ideally, nobody would be hitting their spouse in the first place like this.

 

Edit - Oh I forgot, the article link: http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-commentary/article/11425377/nfl-implements-domestic-violence-penalties?src=mobile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good to see them take a hardline stance on his finally. 

 

The new rules apply to all NFL employees, not just players.  So it applies as equally to a star quarterback as it does an assistant coach.  And one would presume office personnel as well, given how it is worded.  The lifetime ban can be appealed after one year. 

 

It's automatically applied upon conviction or a guilty plea, but may also be applied in other cases at Goodell's discretion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw another one of those "SJWs to avoid" lists floating around. And it made me wonder, do these people think that everyone except the journalists and developers that have spoken up is on "their side"? That it's a small secret society that work together to ruin video games by letting women in?

 

Because there's only really two groups in the professional games industry: Those who have spoken up, and those who are afraid to because of the backlash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the Fine Young Capitalists guy offered something of a peace treaty. Not a great one but its a thing. http://www.thefineyoungcapitalists.com/PeaceTreaty

 

Grudging.  For some reason, grudging is the word stuck in my head after reading that. 

 

Also, he's still a total shithead for needing to get in a final dig in the last line.

 

Because perhaps by getting past this issue journalists will finally cover not only what TFYC is about, but also the incredible achievements women have accomplished in the industry, instead of a narrative that only points them as victims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I've seen these here yet. Someone just posted this on the Double Fine forums:

 

 

Seems TFYC are making a series of short videos celebrating certain women in the industry, called "Vivien James Presents - Women In Game Design".

 

It was probably unintentional, but the editing choice at 2:10 comes across as hugely sarcastic!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the harassment spreading to the much more well-known Anita Sarkeesian, and people like Joss Whedon and Tim Schafer getting involved on the opposing side, may have caught TFYC off-guard. There's an rather self-pitying statement on their web site which, reading between the lines, suggests that they were so excited to be getting funding for this pet project that they hadn't really considered the long-term consequences of having their professional brands associated with the part of the Internet that harasses and threatens to mutilate women. They are now, it seems, continuing to try to get the money but also want to try to separate themselves (or himself, as appears increasingly the case) from the Zoe Quinn situation. Which is of course the only reason they have any funding at all.

 

Fulsomely complimentary YT videos is a pretty weird response, but then TFYC has zigged a number of times when one might have advised zagging, so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw another one of those "SJWs to avoid" lists floating around. And it made me wonder, do these people think that everyone except the journalists and developers that have spoken up is on "their side"? That it's a small secret society that work together to ruin video games by letting women in?

 

Because there's only really two groups in the professional games industry: Those who have spoken up, and those who are afraid to because of the backlash.

 

I'm really glad these lists exist.  Not only are they an excellent example of how completely ridiculous "their side" is, it's also starting to become a curated list of people to respect and follow.  It's like they're doing all the work for me.

 

I really hate the game where we label people and use that label to define them, but is there a name for the collective anti-SJWs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×