Jump to content
Roderick

Feminism

Recommended Posts

I remember seeing that tweet just under a friend of mine reporting they were going to watch Muppet Treasure Island, so there was some weird synchronicity there.

 

:tup:  :tup:

 

Edit: Also, if that smudboy guy shows up in your mentions, just ignore him. He believes that both Anita Sarkeesian and Global Warming are scams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you do, Syd! Hello!

Hey Ben! It feels good to start making use of this account after I let it idle for nearly a year. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, those tweets by her where she gleefully says they 'accidentally killed an exploitative startup's website' and other hostile things seem to still be there. To me it that seems pretty convincing evidence that she did attack them, and directed hate towards the FYC because she apparently misunderstood the rules regarding transgendered participants. Or maybe she still hates them even after the rules have been expressed more clearly, that's also a possibility. As for the Indiegogo hacking, yeah at worst it could've been one of her followers, but I never thought it was her personally or sanctioned by her. I'm not focusing on that incident.

It's just her attitude towards the whole thing in her tweets that grates on me. She's attacking them saying things like "FUCK YOU PAY ME" and "You don't need anyone's permission to make your games". Which is true of course, but not everyone is in her position, already being an indie game developer, having funding and a bunch of contacts in the industry.

I thought of a comparison today: I'm currently working on my masters thesis. I searched for a number of months for a company that would hire me for a project, so I could get a salary and work experience while writing my thesis. I have no useful contacts in the relevant field and my CV is not very impressive, so I had no luck. Then I asked the university for a topic, which they gladly provided. However, they would provide no funding and there's only a small cooperative interaction with an outside company, who might also not provide any funding, that's yet to be seen. However, I still get to finally graduate and once I do, I'll have that admittedly weak contact into the industry.
Now if someone, who already works in the industry and has a good number of contacts, started attacking the university and the company, trying to shut down the project because it "oppresses and exploits him" and "PAY HIM FUCK YOU", I'd hate their guts.
(If your knees are jerking and the urge to type "You straight white man are comparing yourself to the hardships of women?!" is overtaking you, calm down. I'm not equating them, it's just a comparison trying to illustrate why I feel how I feel).

Here's two potential positive outcome endgames I thought of, there's probably more:
1) Should ZQ express remorse or explain her point of view more clearly, if she's so inclined to in the first place, at how she targeted the FYC, she could be OK in my book.
2) If her Rebel Jam turns out to be real fantastic, 100% non-oppressive and guaranteed to bring huge success to all participants, she'll also be OK in my book.
Once more details about Rebel Jam emerge, and if the donations no longer go to her personal account, I'd consider donating to the game jam.

(Do I also need to be even more crystal clear that I don't think she's somehow accountable or obligated to apologize to me or any other person? I think I do.)

I still stand by my current view on her, but either of those scenarios would be sufficient for me to change my mind. Is that fair?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't make me comfortable to say that game devs make content and they don't.

 

Content yes, games no. Tim Schafer said was that anyone who wanted to make games should watch TvWiVG:WABD2 (as I believe the cool kids are calling it). I think it would be nice if people who upload video of themselves talking about or playing games to YouTube also had a broader critical understanding of how games work, but they aren't the core audience Schafer is thinking about.

 

Although on the plus side the #IStandwithJonTron hashtag is inspiring some amazing comedy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck, I'm going to have to change my avatar now that having an anime-ish avatar is the new online fedora. Fuckin' hate avatars.

 

I thought of a comparison today: I'm currently working on my masters thesis. I searched for a number of months for a company that would hire me for a project, so I could get a salary and work experience while writing my thesis. I have no useful contacts in the relevant field and my CV is not very impressive, so I had no luck. Then I asked the university for a topic, which they gladly provided. However, they would provide no funding and there's only a small cooperative interaction with an outside company, who might also not provide any funding, that's yet to be seen. However, I still get to finally graduate and once I do, I'll have that admittedly weak contact into the industry.
Now if someone, who already works in the industry and has a good number of contacts, started attacking the university and the company, trying to shut down the project because it "oppresses and exploits him" and "PAY HIM FUCK YOU", I'd hate their guts.

 
Okay, but if Zoe Quinn is using "FUCK YOU PAY ME" like everyone else uses "FUCK YOU PAY ME", then your comparison would be more apt if instead of getting a masters, you were doing it for the potential that the university would put you in their newsletter. You're doing academic work, and in return you get a qualification, and that's the deal you've made, with the expectation that your masters will help you get a job. Which isn't a safe assumption, anyway, because of exactly the thing Zoe is talking about: the games industry is new enough that academic qualifications aren't anywhere near as valuable as a game portfolio, and the tools to make an impressive game portfolio are free. You don't deserve to work for 'exposure' because you don't need to be known to participate. There's a whole discussion to be had about how most poor people have little time or energy to be able to make a game, but that's well out of scope and it's not reasonable for the industry to single-handedly fix poverty.

This is exactly what I was saying earlier about people reading arrogance into Quinn because you've been told she's arrogant and you're trying to confirm that - 'fuck you, pay me' has connotations that aren't going to come across unless you're willing to dig deeper, and you won't be willing to dig deeper if you're going in with preconceived ideas.

 

(If your knees are jerking and the urge to type "You straight white man are comparing yourself to the hardships of women?!" is overtaking you, calm down. I'm not equating them, it's just a comparison trying to illustrate why I feel how I feel).

Your gaslighting can just fuck right off, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Younger viewers may also not get that "Fuck you, pay me" is a quote from Goodfellas:

 

 Business bad? Fuck you, pay me. Oh, you had a fire? Fuck you, pay me. Place got hit by lightning, huh? Fuck you, pay me.

 

The point being that people will often have very good reasons, from their perspective, not to pay you, and if you accept those reasons as valid then they won't. So, if I'm offered 8% of the net profit on a project that will only turn out net profit after everyone else involved in the project has been paid, I think it's OK for me to examine how I feel about that. If I'm an independent developer, and I have an interest in how people are paid for their work, that's going to be of interest to me.

 

In the same way, professional journalists often advise aspirants not to work for free. That's partly self-interest, in the sense that it devalues the coin of their own labor. But it's also trying to warn them of a very common business practice, which is to try to persuade people who don't have a lot of experience in business that they don't need to be paid, or that they will be paid at some point in the future.

If someone goes into this with their eyes open, then cool. But "with their eyes open" here means understanding what everyone else involved is being paid, what the bonus structure is, what the net profit is likely to be at various different sales points, how much of the money being raised is going to salary and how much to marketing. This is all stuff I'd want to know about a project where I was getting points and everyone else was getting salary. I haven't seen any indication that that information is being made available to potential candidates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The connection between Zoe Quinn making critical tweets and Fine Young Capitalists ending their game jam is so tenuous and shouldn't warrant this extensive discussion. It's all hearsay championed by those are already inclined to think the worst of Zoe Quinn (And let's pause for a moment here and think about why people may be inclined to think the worst of ZQ. Hint: it starts with an M- and ends with an -society predisposes all of us to distrust women and be more critical of their ambitions than if they were men which is why we keep seeing these overblown accusations being tossed at ZQ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the way Tim Schafer taunts the people that are cross with him. It reminds me of Raz taunting his opponents in Psychonauts or the kids at Whispering Rock taunting each other. I feel it's in that same spirit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just her attitude towards the whole thing in her tweets that grates on me. She's attacking them saying things like "FUCK YOU PAY ME" and "You don't need anyone's permission to make your games". Which is true of course, but not everyone is in her position, already being an indie game developer, having funding and a bunch of contacts in the industry.

I still stand by my current view on her, but either of those scenarios would be sufficient for me to change my mind. Is that fair?

 

 

I think you're overstating the argument a bit.  Based on what you say here the most you could really accuse her of is having a conflict of interest.  That same allegation could be leveled at any competitor who is vocal about their competition.  For example this guy who runs his own conference and is quite critical of E3.  Those aren't his posts, but he made the story thing and expressed similar opinions at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Should ZQ express remorse or explain her point of view more clearly, if she's so inclined to in the first place, at how she targeted the FYC, she could be OK in my book.

 

Wat?  Please, explain something to me.  Why is it you're willing to devote this time to analyzing Quinn's place, role and actions, but you don't appear to have applied any critical thought to the FYC?  The FYC should be apologizing to a lot of people, and explaining their project better, not trying try to surf a tidal wave of hate to fund their sketchy ass project.  How is it that you keep treating them as not deserving of criticism?  What it looks like is you are giving them a free pass, just...because?  Because it's convenient?  Because it justifies how you feel about Quinn?

 

Tell you what, I'll seriously consider your posts about this if you show me why the FYC campaign is trustworthy and credible.  Is that fair?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's two potential positive outcome endgames I thought of, there's probably more:

1) Should ZQ express remorse or explain her point of view more clearly, if she's so inclined to in the first place, at how she targeted the FYC, she could be OK in my book.

2) If her Rebel Jam turns out to be real fantastic, 100% non-oppressive and guaranteed to bring huge success to all participants, she'll also be OK in my book.

Once more details about Rebel Jam emerge, and if the donations no longer go to her personal account, I'd consider donating to the game jam.

(Do I also need to be even more crystal clear that I don't think she's somehow accountable or obligated to apologize to me or any other person? I think I do.)

I still stand by my current view on her, but either of those scenarios would be sufficient for me to change my mind. Is that fair?

 

 With all due respect, why should anyone give a shit who is OK in your book? Just like someone said before, what I'm reading is "she deserves it," but now with the caveat, "here are some demeaning and impossible standards by which she could be redeemed." 

 

Tell you what, I'll seriously consider your posts about this if you show me why the FYC campaign is trustworthy and credible.  Is that fair?

Alternatively, your next post could be genuinely fabulous, 100% well thought out and it could guarantee success for this forum and all of its posters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2) If her Rebel Jam turns out to be real fantastic, 100% non-oppressive and guaranteed to bring huge success to all participants, she'll also be OK in my book.

 

How is this relevant in any way? TFYC are openly trying to hold a contest where people are to be rewarded so "guaranteeing to bring success" should be part of that reward, not a halfhearted revenue share thing for a single participant. The Rebel Jam is going to actually be a game jam where people are just trying to make games. The outcome of a game jam is not fully produced games ready to sell. It's experience, portfolio building, networking, etc. No promises made, from what I can tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When this started, I assumed TFYC were some well meaning but naive guys. Since then, I've found out they're actually a bunch of libertarian shites who froth about Ayn Rand being "basic research!1!"

 

2) If her Rebel Jam turns out to be real fantastic, 100% non-oppressive and guaranteed to bring huge success to all participants, she'll also be OK in my book.

 

Sounds like a solid set of criteria! As the past few weeks have amply demonstrated, absolutely no one will have any sort of agenda to pick on it.

 

:naughty:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:naughty:

We have the weirdest fucking emoticons. It's like fucking pinea**le all over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes reading a MRA thread is like fucking a *********.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have the weirdest fucking emoticons. It's like fucking pinea**le all over again.

 

You're just being opinionated in a way that is different from me.

 

 

Edited: This is my favorite thing the forum does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was annoyed when I wanted to type that legitimately once but then I was more amused than annoyed so I stopped caring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sit down children and let me tell you a tangential tale of times long past when people liberally peppered their posts with :eyebrow: and :chaste:. One day Chris Remo had enough and replaced the image files of those two smileys with  :naughty: and :innocent:. Sometime later when we learned our lessons the olden smileys were given back to us, but with different shortcodes. The End.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, those tweets by her where she gleefully says they 'accidentally killed an exploitative startup's website' and other hostile things seem to still be there. To me it that seems pretty convincing evidence that she did attack them, and directed hate towards the FYC because she apparently misunderstood the rules regarding transgendered participants. Or maybe she still hates them even after the rules have been expressed more clearly, that's also a possibility. As for the Indiegogo hacking, yeah at worst it could've been one of her followers, but I never thought it was her personally or sanctioned by her. I'm not focusing on that incident.

Those tweets at most seem to be "evidence" that she didn't like the way they were running their jam.  Saying you accidentally killed a website after linking to it means 'lol their website fell over from the traffic' not 'lol I got someone to use leet skillz and arrange a DDOS'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Content yes, games no. Tim Schafer said was that anyone who wanted to make games should watch TvWiVG:WABD2 (as I believe the cool kids are calling it). I think it would be nice if people who upload video of themselves talking about or playing games to YouTube also had a broader critical understanding of how games work, but they aren't the core audience Schafer is thinking about.

Ah, sorry, I was specifically responding to the quote in Tegan's post. There are a few youtube 'celebrities' who brighten my day a lot, so I don't like seeing them indirectly shit upon just because someone has a beef with JonTron.

Maybe that's just the way I read it, in the context of a conflict between JonTron and Tim Schafer. Maybe I'm off-base. I've seen a few bits of seemingly nasty anti-youtuber sentiment popping up in my timeline though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bv5fxwVCEAEOoZx.png

 

Quote -- from the Sarkeesian Effect patreon

Photoshop -- Chris

Beyonce -- Beyonce

 

Could someone explain the connection to Beyonce to me? I don't get it. :/

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

×