How does one dox someone who's address and name are already known? Also would you rather me use "cunt" instead? I use asshole and dick for men, one of which was actually fired during the whole Price thing but was for some reason not covered and Price being fired was blamed on misogyny, weird right? Almost like the media has an agenda...
Her address wasn't publicly know before it go doxxed...
Posting someones address online, phone calling their family and threating to kill them is usually considered doxing.
And I would prefer you to stop using gendered insults for both sexes.
But this is one of the, uh, "death threats" she received via email:
That's, uh, ya. Very "credible" as a death threat right there...
Anonymous idiots on the internet who lie and don't use spellcheck aren't exactly rare. If it was a false flag by Anita, it would be have been more credible.,
After all, I have it on good authority she's a machiavellian master planner who understands 4chan well enough to pull off complex schemes that successfully manipulated them into make her one of the most famous people on the internet. (Sarcasm).
Here. And
here.
. Do ya even have eyes? Can ya read what his videos are titled? Or read descriptions? Do the bare minimum of fact checking ffs.
Here's their chat. Which is what they called it. It was a multi person live chat, not a two person debate.
On it Sargon treats Spencer with more respect than he does "cultural marxists", and the have civil disagreements where they focus on their mutual enemies. And a reminder that Richard Spencer said Sargon of Akkad to be a great entry point back when gamergate was happening.
should oppose identity politics. Nazis are identity politics too! And modern day feminism isn't about equal rights bar places like saudi arabia. It's about power and one of the "feminists" that was elected into a leadership position has admitted such.
Citation on everything about Feminism.
In the USA for example left identity politics is a reaction to right wing identity politics. Using institutional racism to maintain defects racial segregation means that classic liberals and people who want to improve society are going to class. And since the Republican Party and it's base is out hurt minorities, putting aside your differences and working together against your common enemy is a pretty basic idea. I'd prefer an internationalist cosmopolitan world to one with identity politics, but sadly nationalists and social conservatives are powerful enough that you have to chose a side.
And Sargon of Akkad chose to ally with UKIP and Richard Spencer.
Far as I know, no one has specifically gone after female creators bar Zoe Quinn, and she has done some unethical things. She didn't deserve the harassment and threats, but it's the internet, everyone with publicity receives those, right and left.
...
Uh, no. That was it's main target. Like, they went hard after this stuff. Just... look at r/KotakuInAction and do a search for that stuff. You'll find plenty there.
Gamergate started out as a movement called the Quinspiracy made for the sole purpose of attacking Zoey Quinn. The founder effect results in this entire attitude infecting the rest of the movement. And since this group of idiots also hated Anita Sarkisian, they decided the movement should also focus on attacking her. And this basically doomed the movement from the start, since it started a war on two fronts and created a theatre of war where the type of people who hand out harassment and threats became the face of the movement.
If GGs main target was the video game industry, why were they wasting time going after peoples like Anita and Zoe? I mean, there was video game companies paying for prostitutes to reward game journalists for giving them good reviews, so why start a war with potential ideological allies in the middle of planning to taking on a billion dollar industry?
He's not exactly saying this. He's trying to get across that most games don't refer to real world politics when made. Most games, when they have a gay character, don't go "See, he's gay and that's normal! But look how hated he is by everyone not the main character! Do ya get it? Geeeet iiiitttt?"
Most games just... have a character who is gay. And that's it. Which is a good thing, even if you do care about that type of thing, because it normalizes the concept. Pointing it out and extolling it... just makes it abnormal. It makes it the other. Treating it as just a thing makes it normal and accepted.
But anyway, that is what he's referring to when he says they aren't really all the political. I would call Watch_Dogs a rather political game myself, not because of the characters in it but because of the message. Letting corporations control everything and letting them have all of your data is, well, bad.
That's good writing. Which is exactly the people advocating for such characters want. Because as you just said, it normalises the concept. The concept your criticising is called tokenism. And token character are not liked.
The people extolling is a symptom of the culture war. When the concepts become normalised and don't result in a constant conservative gamer backlash, people will promptly stop caring.
I also agree with you on games being political because of the message. Aka the same thing that makes popular profit driven movies political. Which is exactly what I was referring to:
Most video games are purely entertainment, not intended to make any point, so unless there's a very blatantly political statement, like the anti-immigration lines from DOOM: Eternal's trailer, don't read in political messages into something from a medium that is expressly and primarily entertainment.
...You don't read detailed political messages into garbage-tier soaps on broadcast television, do you?...
Games mostly exist to entertain, not to be profound art. Much like television and movies. They're commercial products first and foremost, and often solely.
And the thing is, people have been reading messages from television and movies for a long time. The recent movie Black Panther for example.
Video game storytelling largely is, and should be, to tell a story to sell a franchise of games, not to make artistic or political points.
Hence why I mentioned Frozen being political in Japan. It was made to further the Disney brand and yes, it did make a very minor political statement that statement was intended to be a meta-commentary on previous Disney movies.
Making a story to sell a vidoegame franchise can similarly end up being political. Modern Warfare puts ideas in their games and asks political questions about the ethics of militaries (the false flag nuking, the airport level, allowing the player to realistically torture people for information). (
LINK). And I believe Grand Theft Auto does something similar about crime in the USA.
Just because a video game was made to sell a game franchise doesn't stop them making political points. And you can bet the people writing the games are putting actual effort into their craft.
They're for-profit companies on deadlines to keep getting money, they don't have the privilege to speak their minds if the public doesn't like it. For many of them, it's one flop and they're fucked. So they dig for every single scrap of market appeal they can, and the moment they trust the journalists, they end up fucked because they're pandering to a vocal minority that largely doesn't serve as customers.
Video game writers and developers are treated horribly by the industry. And they do appeal to every scrap of market appeal they can. However video game journalists have nothing to do with this, since they're paid shills who give games good reviews in return for future access and/or money. Video game journalists aren't the ones in charge, let alone making suggestions to the writers, that's the actual corporate executives and managers who are in charge and decides what games get made and who the target audience is.
Market appeal is determined by statistics and surveys, not by video game journalists talking to writers. Management calls all the shots, decides what games to green light use safe predictions based on past sales.
It's awe inspiring that even under such a system, the people still manage to create art.
Of course the issue comes from when a group demands that all games be made for them and them alone, blaming society's ills on games their opponents tend to like.
But applies just as much to Gamergate. They don't want games to made if those games won't appear to them, attack anyone who tries to do so, and insists that "sjw's", feminists and "cultural marxists" are responsible for all societies ills.
Anita did this, misrepresenting what games were asking you as the player to do(you do not in fact get points for killing civilians, let alone get points for killing strippers).
I agree Anita is overrated and made mistakes in her views. The problem is all she did was apply basic feminist film theory to video games. She wasn't saying anything new and was never a credible threat. Do you view feminist film theory as an threat to hollywood movies?
The Gamergate decide to make attacking her a core point of their movement. Which made her into a martyr, made them the aggressors and showed the movement attacking someone who wasn't part of the gaming industry and had nothing to do with ethics in gaming journalism.
And then you have attacking people because they... Honestly I don't even know what was going through these people's heads:
https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/224400/Gamers_dont_have_to_be_your_audience_Gamers_are_over.php
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/art...he-Gamers-Image-is-Dead-and-We-Should-Bury-It
https://kotaku.com/we-might-be-witnessing-the-death-of-an-identity-1628203079
Honestly, since when is attacking an entire sub-culture the right thing to do? It's an
easy thing to do, as shown by whenever a politician attacks said sub-cultures for whatever has recently gone wrong(shootings, hippies, decrease in church numbers, a fucking forest fire...) but... isn't the media supposed to be better than that? They're supposed to shine the light of truth on what politicians don't want you to see, not do... that. Attacking your own audience is just disgraceful, and rather stupid.
All of those articles have "Gamer" in quotes for a reason. The flaws they critiquing were real flaws in contemporary gaming culture, which were amplified by being channel through 4chan. And having a decentralised movement based on 4chan with a public faces like Milo made it worse.
(He though gamers were trash before he joined the movement, did so purely to attack leftists and get attention, and somehow become 10% of the movements favourite celebrity). GG had an image problem from the start, and the media didn't have a lot to work with. And one side having actual public leaders that use intellectual arguments and are under constant attack by sexist shitposters made image problem this yet worse.
In the media's defence, video games weren't as mainstream back then, and they were trying to critique the problematic parts of the culture. Because teenage boys hurling slurs on the internet is a pain, and the idea of gamers being all boys club where locker room behaviour was acceptable did genuinely needs to die. The media was trying to sell papers and explain what was happening to a mainstream audience, and black and white moral battle over the soul of gaming was what both sides were claiming. And one side was far easier to explain than the other...