How corporations percieve gamers

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Gethsemani:

Smithnikov:

I don't care how "corporations" perceive me now. It's no worse than how my own fucking hobby does.

As a woman in gaming this has been my stance for the last decade and a half or so. No matter what "media" or "the establishment" or "moral guardians" say about gamers, I've already heard worse about my own person from other gamers, due to my gender. So fuck that noise and grow thicker skin, if you can't even handle the fact that news media correctly reports on the non-existent monitoring of Discord servers, which allows hate groups to congregate there.

First of all this makes no sense. You have it backwards. When you are addressed personally by someone who tries to hold your gender/skin colour etc. against you, you basically were 'attacked' by a moron that decided that best course of action is to deploy self-defeat.
When you get labeled though collectively, have any semblence of individuallity or agenda removed and then attacked, it isn't all that sunny anymore. You will get dragged down, kicked around for someone elses (true) faults. Why should you let that go? If you don't object you just help to support that collective conflation.

Jamcie Kerbizz:

It's really simple here: NBCN (Microsoft owned) tries to push a smear campaign on Discord, direct competitor of Skype (also Microsoft owned). They do that at the expense of anyone who likes to play video games. They do that despite being one if not the biggest corporation involved in video game industry.

That's who you are to corporations.

And my whole point is, it's STILL higher ranked than what my fellow gamers think of me. Gamers turned on their own, and you're standing here demanding people like me and Gethsemenei ignore the shanks that came from people in our own circle in our back because some ignorant old men spout ignorant old man shit.

Not no more. Fuck that. You want us casual SJW bluepill cuck trash out of your hobby, well, some of us can take a hint and are willing to walk and not waste the breath defending you anymore.

Oh, while I'm at it, where the fuck was all this outrage at media smearing video games when it was right wing sources doing it?

Jesus, I fucking hate normies.

I don't see what's the problem here. It's not like someone will spot you in the streets and beat the shit out of you "GET HIM, HE'S A GAMER!"

RedRockRun:
Jesus, I fucking hate normies.

That's okay, we hate you too.

As much as I'm biased against Undertale and Homestuck fans, I can't help but admit that Rick and Morty fans are worse than them all yet still not as bad as Steven Universe fans.

Smithnikov:
[...] it was because those fuckers turned and devoured your own the second they thought you could make the place ideologically pure and a bastion for the right wing after decades of the satanic panic and the conservatives dragging Mortal Kombat before a senate hearing made it impossible.

As an aside, and just out of curiosity, when did Joseph Lieberman become a conservative?

To quote Wikipedia:

Senator Lieberman had been one of the first politicians to voice concerns over Mortal Kombat in 1993, and continued to be one of the most avid critics of violent video games. He later referenced the series and Doom in a 1996 statement, when he joined Kohl and the psychologist David Walsh in a campaign to inform Congress about the new wave of violent games such as Resident Evil.[19] During the 2000s, however, the controversy surrounding the series had wound down significantly. In 2006, Associated Press writer Lou Kesten wrote that Lieberman had remained "one of the video game industry's most persistent critic[s], but Mortal Kombat is no longer the flashpoint of the game violence debate. Its brand of mano-a-mano brawling is seen as kind of old-fashioned today, now that the likes of Grand Theft Auto are serving up the indiscrimate slaughter of innocent civilians."[20] TIME commented in 2012 that "the reason the 1992 classic remains seminal is because it broke an implicit taboo about what was okay to put in a game."[21]

I'm no fan of the whole gamergate mess, but the whole "Evil conservatives have been against gaming and now gamers are evil conservatives" line runs into a few problems, not the least of which is that many of the biggest names in the early anti-gaming hysteria -- Herb Kohl, Joseph Lieberman, and any number of others were also notable liberals. That's not to say there weren't plenty of conservatives out for blood, but saying conservatives dragged Mortal Kombat before the senate is at best overstating things, and at worst outright laughable given the names involved.

Myria:

Smithnikov:
[...] it was because those fuckers turned and devoured your own the second they thought you could make the place ideologically pure and a bastion for the right wing after decades of the satanic panic and the conservatives dragging Mortal Kombat before a senate hearing made it impossible.

As an aside, and just out of curiosity, when did Joseph Lieberman become a conservative?

To quote Wikipedia:

Senator Lieberman had been one of the first politicians to voice concerns over Mortal Kombat in 1993, and continued to be one of the most avid critics of violent video games. He later referenced the series and Doom in a 1996 statement, when he joined Kohl and the psychologist David Walsh in a campaign to inform Congress about the new wave of violent games such as Resident Evil.[19] During the 2000s, however, the controversy surrounding the series had wound down significantly. In 2006, Associated Press writer Lou Kesten wrote that Lieberman had remained "one of the video game industry's most persistent critic[s], but Mortal Kombat is no longer the flashpoint of the game violence debate. Its brand of mano-a-mano brawling is seen as kind of old-fashioned today, now that the likes of Grand Theft Auto are serving up the indiscrimate slaughter of innocent civilians."[20] TIME commented in 2012 that "the reason the 1992 classic remains seminal is because it broke an implicit taboo about what was okay to put in a game."[21]

I'm no fan of the whole gamergate mess, but the whole "Evil conservatives have been against gaming and now gamers are evil conservatives" line runs into a few problems, not the least of which is that many of the biggest names in the early anti-gaming hysteria -- Herb Kohl, Joseph Lieberman, and any number of others were also notable liberals. That's not to say there weren't plenty of conservatives out for blood, but saying conservatives dragged Mortal Kombat before the senate is at best overstating things, and at worst outright laughable given the names involved.

So got any names of the conservatives that were speaking up for the gaming side at those hearings?

Wintermute:
I don't see what's the problem here. It's not like someone will spot you in the streets and beat the shit out of you "GET HIM, HE'S A GAMER!"

Well thank god! All is well. Lets be serious though.

I got cut, stabbed and beaten 'in the streets' as you put by 2 skinheads for being a gypsy (I am not, just had slightly darker skin and brown eyes). I got beaten and clubbed like a friggin seal on the street by 10 drunken brits for being 'a fucking french and a frog' (again I am not, I was just first time in UK and my grasp of English was really poor).

I don't actually see either of the cases I was beaten as 'a huge problem' cause these incidents were just morons trying to exert power in a group on someone else. You know, to make their miserable lifes feel a bit better. Unless there's a police making sure they don't have any opportunity, they'd find another way to vent frustration on different person they could assile.
Now if in media and in general social consensus it would be seen as it's a normal or even good thing that: f-ing gypsy got his ass kicked and/or it's great that brits valiantly made frenchie almost lose his teeth then I'd say that this is a problem.

Again, why seek such outlandish excuses for corporate BS? What Microsoft did is wrong. What is being perpetuated by media here is wrong. That simple.

Smithnikov:

Jamcie Kerbizz:

It's really simple here: NBCN (Microsoft owned) tries to push a smear campaign on Discord, direct competitor of Skype (also Microsoft owned). They do that at the expense of anyone who likes to play video games. They do that despite being one if not the biggest corporation involved in video game industry.

That's who you are to corporations.

And my whole point is, it's STILL higher ranked than what my fellow gamers think of me. Gamers turned on their own, and you're standing here demanding people like me and Gethsemenei ignore the shanks that came from people in our own circle in our back because some ignorant old men spout ignorant old man shit.

Not no more. Fuck that. You want us casual SJW bluepill cuck trash out of your hobby, well, some of us can take a hint and are willing to walk and not waste the breath defending you anymore.

Your whole point is grabbing your ear reaching out and over your head, instead of just lifting your hand up.
Why do you bring up 'ranks'? Are you conditioned to recognise a single aspect of reality at the time? What's the point?
Are you trying to tell me just because you were offended by few of the people you will turn on all people you feel that are collectively associated with them? Where's a sanity in this? And what's with that derogatory tirade at the end?

I don't want You or anyone out of playing video games. I'd love more people enjoy this hobby just make sure people actually do that, enjoy games. Not try to push political agendas, corporate BS or other criminal grade activities under cover of gaming. Which in turn then gets used to deviously confalte hobby with that shit.

Smithnikov:

RedRockRun:
Jesus, I fucking hate normies.

That's okay, we hate you too.

Why is this a thing? I get where it comes from, I just don't get this specific bit. It wasn't even that funny a bit in the show.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Smithnikov:

RedRockRun:
Jesus, I fucking hate normies.

That's okay, we hate you too.

Why is this a thing? I get where it comes from, I just don't get this specific bit. It wasn't even that funny a bit in the show.

+1
also is that the correct definition (source: urban dictionary)?

"Normie" refers to people who use popular social media and believes the popular opinion. They don't think for themselves, if something is considered "ok" they'll do it, even if it makes them monsters- they care more about the opinion of the projected "standard" of society than any actual values or beliefs.

Smithnikov:
Oh, while I'm at it, where the fuck was all this outrage at media smearing video games when it was right wing sources doing it?

The outrage was largely on gaming forums such as the Escapist. Dunno if you were here back (at least before 2008-9 when I was just lurking) then but the forums were very unified on the issue against the right-wing moral busybodies.

How corporations see gamers? The answer is very simple. We are whales, we are dolphins. We are fat, ambulatory wallets or mewling babies with our fingers directly in our parents' wallets and checkbooks. We exist only to give them money.

That is the entirety of it.

Kyrian007:
How corporations see gamers? The answer is very simple. We are whales, we are dolphins. We are fat, ambulatory wallets or mewling babies with our fingers directly in our parents' wallets and checkbooks. We exist only to give them money.

That is the entirety of it.

That's correct but they push it a step further with pieces like that. Microsoft actually promotes public contempt towards their own clients.

Imagine pharma corporation (ruthless enough?) sponsoring their media outlet to run hate campaign on women that buy birth control pills that they produce. Calling them evil, child murdering, junky who-es etc. Then signal it could be because of supplements they use.
All just because they run study and it turn out that these women prefer explicitly diet supplement of the competitor, not theirs.

Edit.
As outrageous as it sounds this may even have merit when measured in expected profit:
generating controversial material, which a lot of religious nut jobs will jump on coupled with people who will try to push them back and defend women = profitable to your media outlet;
smear campaign directed at product of your competitor should cut down its sales and give breathing space to yours = profitable;
if corporation already has sudo-monopoly on the pills, any women in need will crawl back for them anyway = minimal if any decline in sales.

Wintermute:
I don't see what's the problem here. It's not like someone will spot you in the streets and beat the shit out of you "GET HIM, HE'S A GAMER!"

Well, if you were more specific about it, like "Get that guy, he's a Bubsy fan!", then you may have more luck :P

maninahat:

b) I don't even know what Discord is.

Really? It's a text and voice chat app targeting gaming. Think TeamSpeak or Ventrilo, but free, centralized and with an actually decent web version too. They've started costing Skype users as well, having fairly recently added video chat and screensharing.

They've gotten a lot of heat recently because the Unite the Right rally used a private Discord server to coordinate between groups.

Jamcie Kerbizz:

First of all this makes no sense. You have it backwards. When you are addressed personally by someone who tries to hold your gender/skin colour etc. against you, you basically were 'attacked' by a moron that decided that best course of action is to deploy self-defeat.
When you get labeled though collectively, have any semblence of individuallity or agenda removed and then attacked, it isn't all that sunny anymore. You will get dragged down, kicked around for someone elses (true) faults. Why should you let that go? If you don't object you just help to support that collective conflation.

You do realize there's no difference, right? Doesn't matter if it some guy talking to me in person or a bunch of guys on a forum online that tell me "Gamer Girls not real". The issue was never with me as an individual, it was with the fact that my gender was not the right one and so I had to answer for all the stereotypes that gamers had about women who are into gaming. It was the collective labeling of "gamer girls" as posers, gold diggers and fakes.

Gethsemani:

Jamcie Kerbizz:

First of all this makes no sense. You have it backwards. When you are addressed personally by someone who tries to hold your gender/skin colour etc. against you, you basically were 'attacked' by a moron that decided that best course of action is to deploy self-defeat.
When you get labeled though collectively, have any semblence of individuallity or agenda removed and then attacked, it isn't all that sunny anymore. You will get dragged down, kicked around for someone elses (true) faults. Why should you let that go? If you don't object you just help to support that collective conflation.

You do realize there's no difference, right? Doesn't matter if it some guy talking to me in person or a bunch of guys on a forum online that tell me "Gamer Girls not real". The issue was never with me as an individual, it was with the fact that my gender was not the right one and so I had to answer for all the stereotypes that gamers had about women who are into gaming. It was the collective labeling of "gamer girls" as posers, gold diggers and fakes.

Never called you all these names and I am a gamer, so your points on collective labelling fails if you want to twist it this way. However as I said the difference is being able to respond and being able to take responsibility for what you do as an individual.
Given your example, these idiots may have had an experience in which they got scammed by a guy pretending to be a girl and asking for favours or actual woman taking advantage of that they would be stupid enough to give her things or do her favours in hopes of god knows what.

Them being stupid enough to conflate their individual bad experience with conduct/presence of every women online suddenly looks very familiar to the way you collectively label all male gamers based on your experiences. If something like that works and I argue it's nonsense, it works both ways. You are right accussing all male gamers of things they don't do, because some did, they were right to accuse you of things you are not or did not do, because they met someone who does that.
You both perpetuate unfair stereotypes and are dicks to innocent people. You both try to, in advance, judge individuals based on their collective label you use to pass that judgement. Namely gender of video game player.

As people who can't spell?

Jamcie Kerbizz:
Never called you all these names and I am a gamer, so your points on collective labelling fails if you want to twist it this way.

You do realize how generalisations work, right? I mean, you must do since you did it with "corporations" in the very OP. So either you are being entirely disingenuous with this reply to me just to win a discussion, or you are not consistent with when you feel like allowing generalisations.

Jamcie Kerbizz:
However as I said the difference is being able to respond and being able to take responsibility for what you do as an individual.
Given your example, these idiots may have had an experience in which they got scammed by a guy pretending to be a girl and asking for favours or actual woman taking advantage of that they would be stupid enough to give her things or do her favours in hopes of god knows what.

Since when can't you respond to what media does? We live in the information age. There are social media coming out the wazoo of the internet, so this claim is preposterous. If you feel unfairly generalized by a media corporation, you can, quite literally, take it up with them directly just by going to Twitter or Facebook. You're just engaging in goalpost moving and setting arbitrary distinctions to not have to own up to the fact that generalisations are the same, no matter if I do it, you do it or NBC does it.

Jamcie Kerbizz:
Them being stupid enough to conflate their individual bad experience with conduct/presence of every women online suddenly looks very familiar to the way you collectively label all male gamers based on your experiences.

Which I never said anything about, so nice strawman. My point is about gaming culture in general, not male gamers, and how it (you included) has been fine with generalizing other people (women, for example), but get its' knickers in a twist the moment someone dares generalize gamers. I mean, even when that's not what's actually going on. The whole Gamers are Dead-debacle and this NBC story are only outrage worthy if you can't actually comprehend the message (GaD: "the stereotypical gamer doesn't exist, stop pandering to it", NBC: "Discord is used as a congregation place for white supremacists, due to lax moderation").

Jamcie Kerbizz:
If something like that works and I argue it's nonsense, it works both ways. You are right accussing all male gamers of things they don't do, because some did, they were right to accuse you of things you are not or did not do, because they met someone who does that.
You're both perpetuate unfair stereotypes and are dicks to innocent people. You both try to, in advance, judge individuals based on their collective label you use to pass that judgement. Namely gender of video game player.

This whole sentence makes me think that you weren't around for the "Fake Gamer Girls"-debacle. It featured nuggets like Felicia Day being called a fake gamer girl because she stated in an interview that she liked starring in Fallout: New Vegas because she was a gamer herself. Cue angry nerds getting outraged because someone as pretty as Felicia Day (no really, that was the argument) could never be a gamer.

But I'd like to go back to your second question, that I didn't have time to reply to before:

When you get labeled though collectively, have any semblence of individuallity or agenda removed and then attacked, it isn't all that sunny anymore. You will get dragged down, kicked around for someone elses (true) faults. Why should you let that go? If you don't object you just help to support that collective conflation.

This is only true if we assume that the group I belong to is not at fault at all. Which is not true with Gamers, for one. But more importantly, my vocational choice means I belong to a group of people that get blasted a whole lot (mental care professionals). The thing is, I can recognize that in my particular corner of psychiatric care things are pretty good. Our ward has good patient satisfaction and good patient outcomes, our self harm care is among the best in the country. But for all that, for all the good we do in our corner, I also know that the horror stories in media are true, because I know that the psychiatric care in some places is awful.

So when I see headlines about how shitty psychiatric care is and how little psychiatric staff care, I can breathe easy knowing that I am not included in that group and the best way to prove it is to keep doing a good job. "Gamers" would be a lot less agitated and less easily riled if they could just wrap their heads around this idea. If you aren't one of the white supremacists, the GamerGate conspiracy nuts, the rage monsters about game balance or the woman haters, then relax and enjoy the knowledge that you are not one of the idiots that people talk about when they talk about mouth breathing neckbeards.

Not everything has to be taken personally, especially when large groups of people are generalized. The thing is that generalizations happen for a reason. A lot of psychiatric care is sub-par or actively bad, a lot of gamers are raging assholes and women have typically not been very interested in gaming for the last 2 decades. Just accepting that exceptions exist (I am a gaming woman, who delivers good psychiatric care and ain't a raging gamer asshole) can take you a long way to mellowing out about generalisations.

Jamcie Kerbizz:

Are you trying to tell me just because you were offended by few of the people you will turn on all people you feel that are collectively associated with them?

S'what the gaming community did. It's what those people who mugged you did. And you went at length explaining how it was okay.

Where's a sanity in this?

I was raised to take a hint and not hang around where I'm not wanted.

And what's with that derogatory tirade at the end?

The frustration of something you love and cherished and was your anchor to sanity for so long turning on you and considering you the enemy all of a sudden.

I don't want You or anyone out of playing video games. I'd love more people enjoy this hobby just make sure people actually do that, enjoy games. Not try to push political agendas, corporate BS or other criminal grade activities under cover of gaming. Which in turn then gets used to deviously confalte hobby with that shit.

Then help get your fellow gamers to knock it off with shit like calling people who didn't play Dark Souls (or similarly shit rationale) "cuckolds" or "casual trash".

Jamcie Kerbizz:

It's really simple here: NBCN (Microsoft owned) tries to push a smear campaign on Discord, direct competitor of Skype (also Microsoft owned). They do that at the expense of anyone who likes to play video games. They do that despite being one if not the biggest corporation involved in video game industry.

That's who you are to corporations.

Please provide proof that this is a deliberate attempt from MS to smear Discord. RIght no hat you have is a video (that has a lot of flaws) and that two services are owned by the same corporation. Since mega corporations are so big, different parts of it are pretty autonomous and act according different principles. The video doesn't mention Skype or anything to say that Discord was the cause of the issue adn rather seems to focus on the problems that gaming community may have with the "alt-right" (which needs a lot more of study, numbers and sustainability) but in no way it is proven beyond doubt that it is a direct attack on Idscord, and may be taken rather as a problem with internet anonimity in certain services.

Smithnikov:

Jamcie Kerbizz:

Are you trying to tell me just because you were offended by few of the people you will turn on all people you feel that are collectively associated with them?

S'what the gaming community did. It's what those people who mugged you did. And you went at length explaining how it was okay.
I never said what they did is ok, I said it isn't the problem that community needs to be bothred with. They have police. It's their work, problem to deal with. Either way your comparison doesn't work. I don't run about this forum calling anyone who admits that they are from UK racist and chauvinistic bastards because of their nationality. You do in turn keep personal grudge about insult that you take out on anyone you feel that associates with someone who offended you.

Where's a sanity in this?

I was raised to take a hint and not hang around where I'm not wanted. I had that same lesson. However perhaps because I had to 'fit in' to numerous communities in my life I also know not to hold responsible entire community for wrong doing of few individuals. That is insanity to do so long term. In the end you alienate yourself from pretty much anyone based on false presumption that they are all the same = bad.

And what's with that derogatory tirade at the end?

The frustration of something you love and cherished and was your anchor to sanity for so long turning on you and considering you the enemy all of a sudden.

I don't want You or anyone out of playing video games. I'd love more people enjoy this hobby just make sure people actually do that, enjoy games. Not try to push political agendas, corporate BS or other criminal grade activities under cover of gaming. Which in turn then gets used to deviously confalte hobby with that shit.

Then help get your fellow gamers to knock it off with shit like calling people who didn't play Dark Souls (or similarly shit rationale) "cuckolds" or "casual trash". I am not personally big on dark souls nor competitive games i.e. shooters and sports games. I like Souls but the latter bore me. The whole crass, attitude and shit talking also isn't something I enjoy but there's plenty other games. I also don't mind someone dropping on me 'git gud' line. If I like the game and have time eventually I do good at it. Don't you think that holding all pepople in gaming responsible for this niche is rather silly?
Pretty much any game provides means to mute idiots. That's much more generous than adequate possibilities IRL.
People who toss insults your way, mock your language in discussion when you're clearly foreign to it, flat out try to spew derogatory terms on you hoping something would stick, all such people are rather already flaccid when it comes to their potential to procure a cohesive argument and if you don't let insults stick, they won't. I'll admit that in my case it could be a lot easier - since on the way from hearing/reading the word, to looking it up in dictionary, I have plenty time to cool off. And then my first thought is, hey I learned new word.

Also why add 'fellow' gamers? People that enjoy gaming are so diverse I don't really need to be fellows with most of them. You will not see eye to eye with most people you meet and know. Why should You expect any different from this community? Unless you can provide something of interest to everyone that would justify that.

Gethsemani:

Jamcie Kerbizz:
Never called you all these names and I am a gamer, so your points on collective labelling fails if you want to twist it this way.

You do realize how generalisations work, right? I mean, you must do since you did it with "corporations" in the very OP. So either you are being entirely disingenuous with this reply to me just to win a discussion, or you are not consistent with when you feel like allowing generalisations. That would have been comparable if either corporations had identity and individuality or people playing video games being rewarded for following gender stereotypes.

Corporations are environments in which individuals who can find a best way to turn profit get rewarded. Thus the generalisation used but I owe the fact it would be more accurate to name the thread 'how Microsoft perceives gamers'

Jamcie Kerbizz:
However as I said the difference is being able to respond and being able to take responsibility for what you do as an individual.
Given your example, these idiots may have had an experience in which they got scammed by a guy pretending to be a girl and asking for favours or actual woman taking advantage of that they would be stupid enough to give her things or do her favours in hopes of god knows what.

Since when can't you respond to what media does? We live in the information age. There are social media coming out the wazoo of the internet, so this claim is preposterous. If you feel unfairly generalized by a media corporation, you can, quite literally, take it up with them directly just by going to Twitter or Facebook. You're just engaging in goalpost moving and setting arbitrary distinctions to not have to own up to the fact that generalisations are the same, no matter if I do it, you do it or NBC does it.Once yours or mine reply to this 'hit piece' is being posted on NBCN you'll have a point. Other than that, we're people shouting at trees in the woods.

Jamcie Kerbizz:
Them being stupid enough to conflate their individual bad experience with conduct/presence of every women online suddenly looks very familiar to the way you collectively label all male gamers based on your experiences.

Which I never said anything about, so nice strawman. My point is about gaming culture in general, not male gamers, and how it (you included) has been fine with generalizing other people (women, for example), but get its' knickers in a twist the moment someone dares generalize gamers. I mean, even when that's not what's actually going on. The whole Gamers are Dead-debacle and this NBC story are only outrage worthy if you can't actually comprehend the message (GaD: "the stereotypical gamer doesn't exist, stop pandering to it", NBC: "Discord is used as a congregation place for white supremacists, due to lax moderation"). Which I never implied you said. I explicitly explained why such people may act this way and pointed towards exact same mental trapping being used to build and perpetuate stereotype.
Trying to call that a straw man doesn't work as subversion. You simply have no argument to fall back on here.

As to implying that NBCN only claims that 'Discord is used as a congregation place for white supremacists, due to lax moderation' is laughable at best. First of all the argument is asinine, nobody expects communicators to assign moderators, nobody expects cell phone companies to employ someone who would listen to your phone calls and moderate them. All of these means of communications are used to organise and coordinate crime activities and nobody in their right mind blames these companies for providing such service. Secondly everything that is said, written or uploaded is being transfered and potentially stored by Discord (as well as Skype...). This is why when bad things happened, it was relatively easy for company to dig up who and what did, using their service (and ban them).

Jamcie Kerbizz:
If something like that works and I argue it's nonsense, it works both ways. You are right accussing all male gamers of things they don't do, because some did, they were right to accuse you of things you are not or did not do, because they met someone who does that.
You're both perpetuate unfair stereotypes and are dicks to innocent people. You both try to, in advance, judge individuals based on their collective label you use to pass that judgement. Namely gender of video game player.

This whole sentence makes me think that you weren't around for the "Fake Gamer Girls"-debacle. It featured nuggets like Felicia Day being called a fake gamer girl because she stated in an interview that she liked starring in Fallout: New Vegas because she was a gamer herself. Cue angry nerds getting outraged because someone as pretty as Felicia Day (no really, that was the argument) could never be a gamer. Well I'd laugh at that argument and notion. Also it's very self deprecating don't you think?

But I'd like to go back to your second question, that I didn't have time to reply to before:

When you get labeled though collectively, have any semblence of individuallity or agenda removed and then attacked, it isn't all that sunny anymore. You will get dragged down, kicked around for someone elses (true) faults. Why should you let that go? If you don't object you just help to support that collective conflation.

This is only true if we assume that the group I belong to is not at fault at all. Which is not true with Gamers, for one. But more importantly, my vocational choice means I belong to a group of people that get blasted a whole lot (mental care professionals). The thing is, I can recognize that in my particular corner of psychiatric care things are pretty good. Our ward has good patient satisfaction and good patient outcomes, our self harm care is among the best in the country. But for all that, for all the good we do in our corner, I also know that the horror stories in media are true, because I know that the psychiatric care in some places is awful.

So when I see headlines about how shitty psychiatric care is and how little psychiatric staff care, I can breathe easy knowing that I am not included in that group and the best way to prove it is to keep doing a good job. "Gamers" would be a lot less agitated and less easily riled if they could just wrap their heads around this idea. If you aren't one of the white supremacists, the GamerGate conspiracy nuts, the rage monsters about game balance or the woman haters, then relax and enjoy the knowledge that you are not one of the idiots that people talk about when they talk about mouth breathing neckbeards.

Not everything has to be taken personally, especially when large groups of people are generalized. The thing is that generalizations happen for a reason. A lot of psychiatric care is sub-par or actively bad, a lot of gamers are raging assholes and women have typically not been very interested in gaming for the last 2 decades. Just accepting that exceptions exist (I am a gaming woman, who delivers good psychiatric care and ain't a raging gamer asshole) can take you a long way to mellowing out about generalisations. ok if you are mental care professional, ask yourself what prolonged exposure to extreme cases of hurt individuals, combined with a irrational and unfair stress put on the person would do to that person's view of what is 'normal' (average) in reality.

You also (probably accidentally) explained your own personal experiences with male gamers and stereotypes some of them follow. Generalisations are created for a reason (I described such reason, which you were kind enough to call a strawman), true. However, they are never fair when applied to an individual or perpetuated as being true even though the diagnosed cause of outcome, which was used to generalise people is wrong,
i.e. like telling that all blacks are thieves, because all people in given poor neighborhood happen to be poor, unemployed, undereducated, socially disorganised and black (even though if you leave out race and apply all the other factors anywhere else in the world where there aren't even a single black person around, the outcome is exactly the same (high crime rate).

kurokotetsu:

Jamcie Kerbizz:

It's really simple here: NBCN (Microsoft owned) tries to push a smear campaign on Discord, direct competitor of Skype (also Microsoft owned). They do that at the expense of anyone who likes to play video games. They do that despite being one if not the biggest corporation involved in video game industry.

That's who you are to corporations.

Please provide proof that this is a deliberate attempt from MS to smear Discord. RIght no hat you have is a video (that has a lot of flaws) and that two services are owned by the same corporation. Since mega corporations are so big, different parts of it are pretty autonomous and act according different principles. The video doesn't mention Skype or anything to say that Discord was the cause of the issue adn rather seems to focus on the problems that gaming community may have with the "alt-right" (which needs a lot more of study, numbers and sustainability) but in no way it is proven beyond doubt that it is a direct attack on Idscord, and may be taken rather as a problem with internet anonimity in certain services.

I do not have such proof but you seem to concede requirement of it, since you already provide excuse why such proof would be irrelevant, due to how corporations work.

I can re-iterate everything with 'absolutely coincidentally' MS owned media outlet attacks MS owned communicator direct, fastest growing competitor. I'd expect though people would just take that as being needlessly snide.

Jamcie Kerbizz:

F-k you if you complain about the quality of recently developed games or criminal publishing practices. You are worse, than people you complain about.

You are a gamer = you are evil for it.

The Video:
"Not everyone in the gaming community is racist, or sexist. We are having this kind of internal, cultural problem".

Ok, so the video doesn't quite make these broad, sweeping, all-encompassing statements that are described in the OP.

This is quite tedious. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of dumb-ass stuff in that video, and it could use some intelligent deconstruction. But that's never what we get in these instances. We get these ridiculous exaggerations of what was actually said, until it's unrecognisable.

Silvanus:

Jamcie Kerbizz:

F-k you if you complain about the quality of recently developed games or criminal publishing practices. You are worse, than people you complain about.

You are a gamer = you are evil for it.

The Video:
"Not everyone in the gaming community is racist, or sexist. We are having this kind of internal, cultural problem".

Ok, so the video doesn't quite make these broad, sweeping, all-encompassing statements that are described in the OP.

This is quite tedious. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of dumb-ass stuff in that video, and it could use some intelligent deconstruction. But that's never what we get in these instances. We get these ridiculous exaggerations of what was actually said, until it's unrecognisable.

When did they put that quote in?

RaikuFA:

When did they put that quote in?

Shortly after the 2 minute mark.

Silvanus:

RaikuFA:

When did they put that quote in?

Shortly after the 2 minute mark.

My money was at the end. All I've seen are memes about this vid. My favorite is comparing the writer to this scene:

Jamcie Kerbizz:
.

I'll fully admit, I started during a time when the gaming community was a mere fraction of what it is now, not just in numbers, but in means of communication. That's why I say "fellow" gamers. We really did just have each other.

You do in turn keep personal grudge about insult that you take out on anyone you feel that associate with someone who offended you.

I reserve it for people who say I deserved it and for people who support those people.

I also don't mind someone dropping on me 'git gud' line.

Suit yourself, but I don't exactly care for some little wet behind the ears shit who probably wasn't sperm when I played and mastered Ninja Gaiden NES or Bayou Billy authoritatively judging my gamer cred. Someone can tell me to "Git Gud" when they clear at least 15 waves on Robotron 2084 with tournament settings.

Silvanus:

Jamcie Kerbizz:

F-k you if you complain about the quality of recently developed games or criminal publishing practices. You are worse, than people you complain about.

You are a gamer = you are evil for it.

The Video:
"Not everyone in the gaming community is racist, or sexist. We are having this kind of internal, cultural problem".

Ok, so the video doesn't quite make these broad, sweeping, all-encompassing statements that are described in the OP.

This is quite tedious. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of dumb-ass stuff in that video, and it could use some intelligent deconstruction. But that's never what we get in these instances. We get these ridiculous exaggerations of what was actually said, until it's unrecognisable.

Huh, Sarkeesian flashback.

That's weird.

Silvanus:

Jamcie Kerbizz:

F-k you if you complain about the quality of recently developed games or criminal publishing practices. You are worse, than people you complain about.

You are a gamer = you are evil for it.

The Video:
"Not everyone in the gaming community is racist, or sexist. We are having this kind of internal, cultural problem".

Ok, so the video doesn't quite make these broad, sweeping, all-encompassing statements that are described in the OP.

This is quite tedious. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of dumb-ass stuff in that video, and it could use some intelligent deconstruction. But that's never what we get in these instances. We get these ridiculous exaggerations of what was actually said, until it's unrecognisable.

This is highly devious attempt at manipulation Silvanus.
This is 4 seconds remark, dropped by person with distorted voice on the phone, not brought up at any point by the narrative throughout the video. Video which in its almost 4 min duration remains in direct opposition of that remark. Not to mention, that this remark is immediately followed with so 'what happens when these behaviours move from gaming world to real world (kkk guys being showed on the screen)' as if gamers suddenly were a source of murderous idiots and NOT murderous idiots ALSO playing video games were creating a possibility to encounter them while you play online video games with social interactive elements in them.

Can't believe you could be that disingenuous trying to excuse such BS. Deeply disappointing.

I'd say they see us as a bunch of easy marks ready to be fleeced of our money by whatever nefarious schemes they can come up with.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here