GamerGate thread

[ronin sparthos]

Regarding inclusivity in media, take for example that new movie Maze Runner and why it annoyed me after a certain point:

Spoiler: show

The movie was, for a long period of time, about a whole camp, full of dudes and only dudes for, I think, several years. At no point in the movie was it ever implied that any of the dudes there got together neither sexually or romantically. Even if you don't believe in 'gay while in prison', statistically, someone there should have been gay or at the very least bi. It annoyed me because homosexuality, in real life, is always bursting at the seems in any place where people of only one sex congregate. To straight people this might seem irrelevant, but to someone who is LGB it just looks like straight-washing. In the minds of a lot of straight people, LGBT people don't exist or they shouldn't exist, so when they make media it seems that the existence of LGBT people is really the last thing they consider if ever at all. What this does is create this really weird situation where media presents worlds where only straight people seem to exist. Which is not only false, but it also gives one the impression straight people wish LGBT people didn't exist. I honestly found it very annoying, but I can understand why straight people wouldn't care or why even some gay people might not care either. They're used to it.

I see your point as it overlaps alot with portrayals of minorities in media but Maze Runner isn't a good example.

Maze Runner was more an indictment on the unoriginal nature of Hollywood than anything else. You could literally sit through the film and paint by numbers the checklist of tropes they strung together for a YA audience. The movie wasn't even playing up romance moreso screaming into your face at a 100 decibels that they're trying to emulate the success of Hunger Games, Harry Potter, Divergent et al. Betcha can't wait to see what happens to the two empty protagonists you've had to suffer through over an hour and half! They're blander than Elmer's Glue but fuck you, we have your ticket money.

The movie didn't even touch on the relationships of the characters living in the maze. The plot was too busy setting itself up for more important things like merchandising, omgmechaspider toys and *insert generic supermodel lab chick here* delivering a monologue that you'll need to check back in on two years on the plot.

[ronin sparthos]

Part of more accurate representation of LBGT characters is a matter of exposure. As more people identify openly as LBGT then writers and screenplay will begin to reflect the real experiences that make it into our fictional media since they'll likely have met someone LBGT prior to putting pen to paper. If you don't live in a city, what are the odds you've met someone transsexual in cornstalkville, USA?

(Lived in a city my whole life, still pretty clueless on the 'T' category of LBGT.)

The more actual interactions you have with a of a group of people, the less likely you're to pull from the gutter of stereotypes.

[NynJa]

The thing is: there isn't any evidence of any questionable end products from her sleeping with any of those guys. She didn't get any reviews from them nor anything even resembling a puff piece. What Zoe (and the men too) is ethically muddy in principle, but no actual tangible result has been observed. Aside from that, I think that many women would much rather leave this between Zoe and her ex because chiding Zoe for it sounds like slut shaming.

yeah, she just conveniently opened her legs to a good number of important people (a couple of which that were married) in the field she wants to get involved with, nothing unethical about that at all, nothing that would prompt people to consider foul play there, nope not at all.

[Ksandra]

yeah, she just conveniently opened her legs to a good number of important people (a couple of which that were married) in the field she wants to get involved with, nothing unethical about that at all, nothing that would prompt people to consider foul play there, nope not at all.

For real though, who gives a shit she did this?

I am trying to understand why we care about her lack of morals? She owes us nothing. I think it fair to be upset over journalistic integrity because there is this idea that journalists should be honest with their readership, but she is not a part of that. She wasn't the journalist. I really cannot muster any fucks to be upset at this woman in regards to her getting the D from several places.

[Kibble]

yeah, she just conveniently opened her legs to a good number of important people (a couple of which that were married) in the field she wants to get involved with, nothing unethical about that at all, nothing that would prompt people to consider foul play there, nope not at all.

It's not about ethics in video game development, it's about ethics in game journalism.

[Ksandra]

On another note: Chris Kluwe has voiced up against gamersgate:

https://medium.com/the-cauldron/why-...f-a7e4c7f6d8a6

He has an interesting take on the gamers are dead idea:

Thus, when I see an article titled “Gamers are dead,” referring to the death of the popular trope of a pasty young man in a dimly lit room, it fills me with joy, because it means WE FUCKING WON. So many people are playing games now that they are popular culture...

You slopebrowed weaseldicks with zero reading comprehension and even less critical thinking skills who think an article claiming “Gamers are dead” is something bad? Fuck me sideways with a sandblaster.

I am totally using weaseldicks until I get bored with it.

[Koul]

Kluwe is lulz He was bitching on twitter about how he wasn't doxxed at all but Felicia Day was therefore everyone is sexist. Brah, you weren't doxxed because your article was obvious trolling and looking for a reaction. He was fishing so hard for rage and people that understand what trolling is/how it works also know how to .. y'know. ignore it. Try harder next time.

[NynJa]

Yeah, sure, his idea is valid...if you subscribe to the theory that all gamers are 40 year old neckbeard virgins who weigh 300 pounds living in their grandmothers basement

[RKenshin]

Regarding inclusivity in media, take for example that new movie Maze Runner and why it annoyed me after a certain point:

Part of me sympathizes with and understands the issue and concern, and even agrees... but another part of me feels like this is too close to sounding like a sort of affirmative action for a form of art. At least when you start looking at things case-by-case, and specifically on the matter of inclusion.

If the author doesn't feel it's necessary to their story, then it is their right to not include it (regardless of whether it should be obvious). You certainly also have a right to be upset and annoyed by it as well.

But, inclusion is a tougher point to argue than misrepresentation. It's one thing to say "X book/author is wrong because they portrayed LBGT character in an offensive manner", it's a tougher point to say "X book/author is wrong because they didn't include LBGT characters when they had clear opportunity to do so/should have."

[Ksandra]

Yeah, sure, his idea is valid...if you subscribe to the theory that all gamers are 40 year old neckbeard virgins who weigh 300 pounds living in their grandmothers basement

uh no. He is subscribing to the theory that people used to THINK of gamers as 40 year old neckbeard virigins who weigh 300 pounds living in their grandmothers basement.

Do you disagree this was a stereotype of gamers?

He is saying that stereotype is going away.

[Ksandra]

Part of me sympathizes with and understands the issue and concern, and even agrees... but another part of me feels like this is too close to sounding like a sort of affirmative action for a form of art. At least when you start looking at things case-by-case, and specifically on the matter of inclusion.

If the author doesn't feel it's necessary to their story, then it is their right to not include it (regardless of whether it should be obvious). You certainly also have a right to be upset and annoyed by it as well.

But, inclusion is a tougher point to argue than misrepresentation. It's one thing to say "X book/author is wrong because they portrayed LBGT character in an offensive manner", it's a tougher point to say "X book/author is wrong because they didn't include LBGT characters when they had clear opportunity to do so/should have."

You highlight something I forgot to address.

Kuya are you mad at the movie or the author?

Because the movie is based on a book. Does the book have gays in it? If so and they took it out for the movie, then I can understand being upset at the filmmakers. If not, then I don't htink they should just put it in the movie when it's not from the book for the hell of it.

You could be upset with the author for not addressing this in his novel, though.

[Koul]

Regarding inclusivity in media, take for example that new movie Maze Runner and why it annoyed me after a certain point:

Spoiler: show

The movie was, for a long period of time, about a whole camp, full of dudes and only dudes for, I think, several years. At no point in the movie was it ever implied that any of the dudes there got together neither sexually or romantically. Even if you don't believe in 'gay while in prison', statistically, someone there should have been gay or at the very least bi. It annoyed me because homosexuality, in real life, is always bursting at the seems in any place where people of only one sex congregate. To straight people this might seem irrelevant, but to someone who is LGB it just looks like straight-washing. In the minds of a lot of straight people, LGBT people don't exist or they shouldn't exist, so when they make media it seems that the existence of LGBT people is really the last thing they consider if ever at all. What this does is create this really weird situation where media presents worlds where only straight people seem to exist. Which is not only false, but it also gives one the impression straight people wish LGBT people didn't exist. I honestly found it very annoying, but I can understand why straight people wouldn't care or why even some gay people might not care either. They're used to it.

Here's my stance on LGBT in media. It shouldn't matter. My favorite gay character is probably Dumbledore and the reason is is because his sexuality never plays a role, as it shouldn't. It doesn't define him at all. One thing I hate in TV shows is when there's a gay character and then they go to a party/gym/hospital/whatever and voila another single gay character and they're totally for sure compatible. Mabye it's because I've dealt with this irl but just because I meet a fellow gay doesn't mean we're going to be bff and go dancing to britney that night and be thuper happy and have adoption babies! Having gay characters instantly latch onto one another is more offensive to me than not having them at all. And I think you're stressing out way too much about movies/media. Regardless if someone wants to admit it to themselves or not, everyone knows gay people exist and will always exist. It just seems attention-whorey to want gay characters in a game/movie/show to further let people know we exist.

[Kuya]

You highlight something I forgot to address.

Kuya are you mad at the movie or the author?

Because the movie is based on a book. Does the book have gays in it? If so and they took it out for the movie, then I can understand being upset at the filmmakers. If not, then I don't htink they should just put it in the movie when it's not from the book for the hell of it.

You could be upset with the author for not addressing this in his novel, though.

I wouldn't call it upset. I'd say annoyed. The movie is just one example in a larger scope of movies tending to ignore LGBT people exist, despite the fact that we're everywhere.

As for your question: I can be annoyed with both. A movie director is certainly not under any obligation to follow a book 100% (neckbeards not withstanding). And the book author is, of course, someone to be annoyed with as well. The thing is, I'm not exactly going to mount a campaign 'Mazegate", over this. I'm not even specifically annoyed with the director or the author. I don't expect straight people to remember or consider to include LGBT people in their stories. I would love it if that changed in the future, but I understand lots of people don't personally know queer people so it doesn't even come up, and others are actively hostile to the idea of queer people existing at all.

Like ruke said, authors and creative directors certainly are free to create how they see fit. And I am certainly free to air my grievances and discomforts with their creations. I think where the middle ground lies is in me respecting the author's agency over his work by not trying to strong arm them into changing their content via boycotts and trying to pull their sponsors. I can certainly explain to the authors why I think they should include LGBT people in media and they should certainly be inclined to listen to my, and other people's perspectives on inclusiveness of LGBT people in media.

It's an issue of perspective and proportionality. I'm not gonna burn books over someone not including LGBT characters. I am going to say something about it though. I'll save the book burning for authors who go out of their way to demean and belittle LGBT people though. Again, proportionality.

[archibaldcrane]

yeah, she just conveniently opened her legs to a good number of important people (a couple of which that were married) in the field she wants to get involved with, nothing unethical about that at all, nothing that would prompt people to consider foul play there, nope not at all.

Sure, you can consider foul play there.

But then when you don't find any - maybe move on. The lack of evidence of ZQ corrupting game journalism, while simultaneously being the flashpoint which began #gamergate, really doesn't help the "actually it is about ethics in videogame journalism" argument.

It would be like Obama birth certificate truthers saying "really this is about accessibility of government records".

[Ksandra]

I wouldn't call it upset. I'd say annoyed. The movie is just one example in a larger scope of movies tending to ignore LGBT people exist, despite the fact that we're everywhere.

As for your question: I can be annoyed with both. A movie director is certainly not under any obligation to follow a book 100% (neckbeards not withstanding). And the book author is, of course, someone to be annoyed with as well. The thing is, I'm not exactly going to mount a campaign 'Mazegate", over this. I'm not even specifically annoyed with the director or the author. I don't expect straight people to remember or consider to include LGBT people in their stories. I would love it if that changed in the future, but I understand lots of people don't personally know queer people so it doesn't even come up, and others are actively hostile to the idea of queer people existing at all.

Like ruke said, authors and creative directors certainly are free to create how they see fit. And I am certainly free to air my grievances and discomforts with their creations. I think where the middle ground lies is in me respecting the author's agency over his work by not trying to strong arm them into changing their content via boycotts and trying to pull their sponsors. I can certainly explain to the authors why I think they should include LGBT people in media and they should certainly be inclined to listen to my, and other people's perspectives on inclusiveness of LGBT people in media.

It's an issue of perspective and proportionality. I'm not gonna burn books over someone not including LGBT characters. I am going to say something about it though. I'll save the book burning for authors who go out of their way to demean and belittle LGBT people though. Again, proportionality.

I get what you are saying, I do. It just seems weird to air those grievances at the filmmakers first rather than the author. You are right filmmakers do not need to follow the book 100%, but I think most people ideally want a film to be as close to the source as possible when it comes to films.

Vary rarely are people happy with a book change, they are usually pissed about them, often unreasonably so (movies would be like 20 hours long if they put everything in the book in the film). So in that respects it is completely understandable (to me) that the filmmakers didn't add it in. Even if every last person on the production team was a gay outspoken LGBTQ advocate, I could see them not putting it in.


I also don't know how much the author had say in the film, sometimes they have a lot, sometimes they have absolute dick.

I guess I am just trying to give some perspective on it. idk.

I completely agree with you, though, that I think there needs to be more LGBTQ presence in movies and TV. But the more I think about it, ya in some respects we need to focus more on the authors than the directors. AN overwhelming majority of films are based on books. Once people start writing gay characters into their novels, they will start appearing more in films.

[Kuya]

Part of me sympathizes with and understands the issue and concern, and even agrees... but another part of me feels like this is too close to sounding like a sort of affirmative action for a form of art. At least when you start looking at things case-by-case, and specifically on the matter of inclusion.

If the author doesn't feel it's necessary to their story, then it is their right to not include it (regardless of whether it should be obvious). You certainly also have a right to be upset and annoyed by it as well.

But, inclusion is a tougher point to argue than misrepresentation. It's one thing to say "X book/author is wrong because they portrayed LBGT character in an offensive manner", it's a tougher point to say "X book/author is wrong because they didn't include LBGT characters when they had clear opportunity to do so/should have."

Here's the thing though. As you increase the amount of LGBT characters in a given movie, game or book, the dangers of misrepresentation decrease.

Here's an example: Gone Girl

Spoiler: show

If the movie's sole female protagonist had been Amy, you could be justified in thinking the movie was misogynist and preying on every bad stereotype men have of women. She pathologically uses the men she dates and then accuses them of rape or murder. But Amy wasn't the only female protagonist in the movie. The male protagonist was practically surrounded by a varied cast of female characters, each with their own personality, agendas, strengths and weaknesses. There was Affleck's sister, the female detective, the woman he was cheating with, the woman who stole from Amy, the Nancy Grace clone, the female reporter. You had such a large and varied cast of female characters that you could get away with a few nasty females like Amy and Nancy Grace clone. And why shouldn't you? Bad women exist. They're real. Stereotypical women exist. So why shouldn't an author portray them? Bad people make a story interesting. And you can get away with female stereotypes, nasty, horrible women, much more easily, if you have a varied cast of females who are individuals in their own right.

I know some feminists think the movie was misogynist, but I disagree, and I know some other female feminists agree with me. I felt the movie was great for women, because there were so many individual and well developed female characters. You had an interesting story because you had the liberty of exploring dark subjects, a liberty provided to you by the sheer quantity of well developed characters. You can get away with having a character who's a stereotype, if you have others who aren't. You can easily destroy tokenization, by increasing the amount of characters you use.

Similarly, the more LGBT characters you have, the easier it is to avoid misrepresentation, because you're able to show the bad, the good, and everything in between.

[Voyage1970]

I see no problem with voicing concerns like that, but then you run the risk of people throwing in token gay or token transsexual people just for the sake of filling a quota. As RKenshin said, it's sounding an awful lot like affirmative action for media. There's also the possibility that even if the author wants to insert a LGBT character and actually develop them properly they don't know how to write that type of character well. They run the risk of alienating the people they wanted to connect with further just because their representation of the community wasn't up to par with the expectations.

If you are saying you want more LGBT representatives to contribute to media I am 100% for that. Adding new blood is never a bad thing, but the issue I have is expecting people who are not used to these scenarios to suddenly develop the ability to write/design characters outside of their own life experiences. Convince writers/developers to consult LGBT people on how a character would behave. Bring them into the process.

[Teryu]

Why the fuck would you ever want straight people to add LGBT people to their stories, 'just because'? Like when JKR decided that Dumbledore was gay for no reason other than to say "OH MAN LOOK HOW OPEN MINDED I AM, BUY MORE SHIT". Straight people putting an emphasis on character's sexuality doesn't add to the story, except that they make their entire character revolve around that aspect of them, and that alone. There was an article I saw recently about some game "Dragon-whatever" that was all about how one of the main characters was gay...ok so what? What does he do other than like other dudes? The entire article was just about that. I hadn't even heard of the game up til that point, but for some reason everyone freaks their shit in a good/bad way just because of their sexuality. What about the rest of the game? What kind of game is it? Are there going to be dragons in it?

tl;dr: Straight people shouldn't write LGBT characters because they know nothing about them or their experiences and never will, no matter how many LGBT friends they claim to have.

[Ksandra]

Why the fuck would you ever want straight people to add LGBT people to their stories, 'just because'? Like when JKR decided that Dumbledore was gay for no reason other than to say "OH MAN LOOK HOW OPEN MINDED I AM, BUY MORE SHIT". Straight people putting an emphasis on character's sexuality doesn't add to the story, except that they make their entire character revolve around that aspect of them, and that alone. There was an article I saw recently about some game "Dragon-whatever" that was all about how one of the main characters was gay...ok so what? What does he do other than like other dudes? The entire article was just about that. I hadn't even heard of the game up til that point, but for some reason everyone freaks their shit in a good/bad way just because of their sexuality. What about the rest of the game? What kind of game is it? Are there going to be dragons in it?

tl;dr: Straight people shouldn't write LGBT characters because they know nothing about them or their experiences and never will, no matter how many LGBT friends they claim to have.

Harry potter should have been a woman then. Rowling is a woman, she knows nothing about being a boy or their experiences and never will, no matter how many male friends she claims to have.

[Correction]

It's not about ethics in video game development, it's about ethics in game journalism.

Spoiler: show