Top products from r/AgainstGamerGate

We found 21 product mentions on r/AgainstGamerGate. We ranked the 20 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/AgainstGamerGate:

u/DeLoftie · 2 pointsr/AgainstGamerGate

> I'll agree that the paper's conclusion may not be perfectly represented in the video. However I do think that the conclusions outlined in the video are far closer to the reality of the data than the narrative typically pushed.

The reality of what data?

> Do you have any data that does show that a significant amount of minority gamers are adversely affected by current video game norms?

After years of arguing with Creationists on the Internet these types of questions always make me weary. I'm not sure how much of a gotcha that question was designed to be, but giving you the benefit of the doubht I woudl say that there is no single data set or research paper that demonstrates the adverse affect of unrepresentation of minorities in media, in the same way that there is no paper that proves evolution takes place. This is because the field in discussion is vast and science does not work in order to allow the easy winning of Internet debates.

So I would say to you the same thing I would say to a Creationist asking for me to demonstrate evolution happens, you need to immerse yourself in the research in this subject in order to gain a clear idea of the field.

If you are interested in that I would suggest introductionary books on media studies. A few that seem up to date and which include tons of resources would be

http://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-Minorities-Media-Changing-Boundaries/dp/0335202705
http://www.amazon.com/Gender-Race-Class-Media-Critical/dp/1452259062

I have not read either of those, but from scanning them on Google Books they seem reasonable.

Now of course you may balk at the idea of spending $70 on a media studies text book or devoting that much time to the subject. That is fine. I may say to a Creationist that you have to understand biology to understand evolution, but I do not expect them to go away an enroll themselves in a B.Sc Biology until we can continue. Luckly they don't have to because lots of other people already have. And you can just listen to them.

In the same way that you can just trust that the thousands of biologists working in the area of evolutionary biology have already figured out that yes evolution takes place (despite all the Creationist objections), you can also trust that the thousands of media studies academics are just pulling this all out of their asses. I know it has become fashionable to laugh at subjects such as media studies as being "just-so" stories, but then if you feel that you can go and buy the text books and learn for yourself.

> And likewise, any data on a proposed solution that would correct the problem rather than just (and preferably not at all) stifle creativity and free choice?

I never understand this line of thinking. What do you mean by "stifle creativity and free choice?" What is creativity in this regard?

Taking the example of Friends, which vastly underrepresented the number of black Americans that one would typically find in any 20 meter section of New York, was it "creativity" that lead to this white washing of New York? Or just laziness or ignorance? I don't think it was some ones creative decision to pretend black people don't exist in New York.

If it was that is even worse than simple laziness, that is someone actively choosing to pretend black people don't exist. I fail to see how we are expected to be concerned that this "creativity" is stifled

u/stopsayingfaggot · 7 pointsr/AgainstGamerGate

> [iii] is prima facie false considering the entire purpose of GG is to shake up a status quo in gaming journalism.

I'll be blunt - this strikes me as a remarkably disingenuous argument for you to make. The video could not have been more clear that "status quo" in this context referred to the maintenance of gaming as a (straight) male-dominated space, particularly in the face of increasing pressure for better representation of women and minorities. Hence the insistent belief that Anita Sarkeesian and like-minded individuals (i.e. "SJWs") are invading their cultural space, and the frequent clamoring to "keep politics out of gaming". If you failed to understand this extremely basic and oft-repeated point, then I question whether you're really attempting to engage with Foldable Human's ideas and arguments.

> Taken from the /r/GamerGhazi[3] sidebar. While anti-GGers do not constitute a movement, they do constitute a group. And the distinction between GGers as a movement and anti-GGers as a group is unclear.

It's more or less the same distinction that allows us to claim that atheism isn't a religion. No equivalence exists between the group of people who choose to unite under a particular banner and the much broader group of people who choose not to. The former made an active choice to take on a label, follow a leader (or in GamerGate's case, merely influential voices), and work together towards a common cause; the latter, well, didn't. Or to paraphrase someone else whom I can't remember, just because I'm opposed to cannibalism doesn't mean I have to answer for everybody else in the world who also happens to be opposed to cannibalism.

And even if you're right and there isn't any distinction, so what? Whether or not it's fair, the legitimacy of the anti-GG side isn't in question.

> This is a simple misunderstanding. The "Literally Who" code was designed to strip the names from people GGers felt were "professional victims" and "attention-seekers." After all, they reason, why give an attention-seeker what he or she wants by referring to his or her name constantly?

Except that GamerGate never once stopped talking about these women. It never stopped giving them attention, or being incensed at the things they have to say. And everybody knew right away who those code words referred to. Literally the only meaningful effect of these rather derisive code names was to strip these women of their identity in frequent discussions about those same women. Do you know what GamerGate could have done instead to avoid giving these supposed attention-seekers what they want? Not pay them any attention.

> FoldableHuman loves nonfalsifiable interpretations of social phenomena, and this is a nonfalsifiable interpretation. Any group can be interpreted this way:

> GGers: Sure, we're mostly white males, but we have women and minorities in our movement! We're totally not using them as tokens to further our agenda!

Falsifiable or not, what matters is that this assertion is true. It's not like GamerGate is subtle about it.

> She's introverted, has a healthy and realistic figure (not anorexic, not busty), dresses in casual, normal clothing, and just wants to play games without all the politics.

(emphasis mine)

You said it yourself - Vivian James is a girl who would never voice any concern over the representation of her gender in the hobby that she loves because she just wants to play games. She's a gamer girl that doesn't meaningfully challenge or critique the increasingly former status quo (there's that phrase again) of gaming as a male-dominated, frequently sexist cultural space. This is the crux of Foldable Human's argument, and you apparently agree with it.

> Gaming criticism is still in its infancy. Just as gamers need to learn how to accept criticism from perspectives they don't share, critics need to learn how to communicate their ideas effectively and dovetail criticism to its medium in meaningful ways. In short, a Rogers review of Bayonetta 2- same issues with clothing and design, same final score, but with depth and knowledge and medium awareness- would've gotten a much healthier reception. This is what it means to just care about games.

I have seen and even participated in several arguments with GamerGaters regarding that Bayonetta review, and not a single one complained about depth, knowledge, or medium awareness exhibited therein. What they did complain about was that the review was "pushing an agenda", because what GamerGate really cares about is to remove or mitigate the influence of so-called SJWs in gaming culture, and for their precious games to be treated as toys and consumer products that cater to their tastes rather than as art that can be critiqued as sexist or racist. GamerGate wants politics out of games - didn't you just give Vivian James as an example of this very sentiment?

> Everything is political? Even the culinary arts? Even Pillock paintings? Even gardening? Even Super Mario Bros.?

...have you not watched Anita's videos? If your one example of an apolitical video game is the single most iconic example of the Damsel in Distress in all of video game history, it would be an understatement to say that you're not making a very strong case. The same can be said for your other examples. Gardening absolutely takes place in a socio-political context, and is performed to serve the needs of its owner or creator, whether that's to provide supplementary sustenance, cultivate rare or exotic plants, or exhibit an ostentatious display of privilege and wealth. A community vegetable garden makes an entirely different statement from a conservatory, a Japanese rock garden, or a hedge maze. The same with cooking - there's a reason that banquets and feasts accompany all manners of cultural festivals, formal ceremonies, and other important events. (Try telling the White House Executive Chef that she doesn't serve a political function). And assuming you're talking about Jackson Pollock, are you seriously arguing that there's nothing political about a painting by possibly the most influential figure in abstract impressionism? Really?!?

u/Joss_Muex · 1 pointr/AgainstGamerGate

> Cultural marxism in my experience is a most definitely right-wing term.

No it isn't. Below is a quote from this twitlonger http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sc1pi4

**
Cultural Marxism is not an invention of the paranoid right. It's a school of thought developed by left-wing Marxists and named by them as such because it describes the application of their own theory to culture rather than economics. Whether you agree with the movement or disagree with the movement, saying that it's not a movement, or that William Lind created a fictitious movement in 1998, is absurd. You are either misinformed or lying.

Below is a list of sources drawn exclusively from professors and scholars practicing cultural Marxism in which they use the term to describe the Frankfurt- and Birmingham-descended schools of thought.

)1. Richard R. Weiner's 1981 book "Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" is "a thorough examination of the tensions between political sociology and the cultural oriented Marxism that emerged int the 1960s and 1970s." You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Political-Sociology-Research/dp/0803916450

)2. Marxist scholars Lawrence Grossberg and Cary Nelson further popularized the term in "Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture", a collection of papers from 1983 that suggested that Cultural Marxism was ideally suited to "politicizing interpretative and cultural practices" and "radically historicizing our understanding of signifying practices." You can buy it here:http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Interpretation-Culture-Cary-Nelson/dp/0252014014

Note that the left-wing and progressive Professor Grossberg is a world-renowned professor who is the Chair of Cultural Studies at UNC, near my house. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Grossberg

)3. "Culutral Marxism in Postwar Britain", by Dennis Dworkin, is described by Amazon as "an intellectual history of British cultural Marxism" that "explores one of the most influential bodies of contemporary thought" that represents "an explicit theoretical effort to resolve the crisis of the postwar Left". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Postwar-Britain-Post-Contemporary/dp/0822319144

)4. "Conversations on Cultural Marxism", by Fredric Jameson, is a collection of essays from 1982 to 2005 about how "the intersections of politics and culture have reshaped the critical landscape across the humanities and social sciences". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Jameson-Conversations-Cultural-Post-Contemporary-Interventions/dp/0822341093

Note that Dennis Dworkin is a progressive professor at the University of Nevada, where his most recent book, "Class Struggles", extends the themes of "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain".

)5. "Cultural Marxism," by Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome, states that "Cultural Marxism is a generic term referring to a loosely associated group of critical theorists who have been influenced by Marxist thought and who share an interest in analyzing the role of the media, art, theatre, film and other cultural institutions in a society. The phrase refers to any critique of culture that has been informed by Marxist thought. Although scholars around the globe have employed various types of Marxist critique to analyze cultural artifacts, the two most influential have been the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt am Main in Germany (the Frankfurt School) and the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, UK. The latter has been at the center of a resurgent interest in the broader category of Cultural Studies." You can buy it here. http://www.abebooks.co.uk/Cultural-Marxism-Frederic-Miller-Agnes-Vandome/2237883213/bd

The essay "Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies," by UCLA Professor Douglas Kellner, says " 20th century Marxian theorists ranging from Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, and T.W. Adorno to Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton employed the Marxian theory to analyze cultural forms in relation to their production, their imbrications with society and history, and their impact and influences on audiences and social life... There are, however, many traditions and models of cultural studies, ranging from neo-Marxist models developed by Lukàcs, Gramsci, Bloch, and the Frankfurt school in the 1930s to feminist and psychoanalytic cultural studies to semiotic and post-structuralist perspectives (see Durham and Kellner 2001)." The essay is available here: http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf

Note that Professor Kellner is a progressive professor, an expert in Herbert Marcuse, and critic of the culture of masculinity for school shootings.

)6. For another reference, see http://culturalpolitics.net/cultural_theory/journals for a list of cultural studies journals such as "Monthly Review", the long-standing journal of Marxist cultural and political studies". Note that the website Cultural Politics is a progressive site devoted to "critical analysis" of the "arena where social, economic, and political values and meanings are created and contested."

)7. You could also check out "Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society", Volume 7, Issue 1 of Critical sociology, of the Transforming Sociology series, from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology.

I hope that this brief survey amply demonstrates that Cultural Marxism is a term created and actively used by progressive scholars to describe the school of thought that first developed at Frankfurt and Birmingham to apply Marxism to cultural studies.

***

Cultural Marxism is a real academic term, Orwellian efforts of Wikipedia admins to redefine it notwithstanding.

u/heychrisfox · 4 pointsr/AgainstGamerGate

Male gaze is inherently objectification. You should refer to my first post in this thread to explain that, especially the video I linked at the end of it. It's not wrong for men to be catered to - I'm a dude, why would I not want to be catered to? The problem is men, especially in games, are almost exclusively catered to. That is not equitable.

To your question of how are video games not inclusive, I once again reference their representation. If by your own logic women are indeed a large percentage of the video game audience, why are the majority of protagonists in video games primarily male, functionally 90%+ male? Is that equitable if women are indeed a vast portion of the demographic for video game players? Even if women are not dominant in a sub-genre, why is including their perspective a bad thing? Why should men only see perspectives that align with their world view, merely because they are men?

And yes, Cosmo should be more inclusive of their male audience; just because they cater to women primarily doesn't mean that they should neglect their male audience. And you wonder if there should be feminist critique of women's magazines and female centered media, when this criticism already exists. And also including non-binary women, and women of different races.

Again, inclusion is only a positive step toward making people happier. It's easy to call questions and attempt to create negatives that merit proof. But why would anyone be against equality and equal representation?

u/CatboyMac · 2 pointsr/AgainstGamerGate

Phoenix Rising by William A. Johnstone.

>Newly elected U.S. President Ohmshidi is sharing the wealth, rewriting the Constitution, and changing the National Anthem. But when he begins to implement his agenda - banning oil production, slashing military budgets, and establishing a 'New World Order' - our nation becomes the target for a new wave of Muslim extremists, who rename America 'The Islamic Republic of Enlightenment.' Enter Jake Lantz, a seasoned army major and ace helicopter pilot who assembles Firebase Freedom, a ragtag team of action-ready soldiers and patriots in order to take on the violent 'Army of Allah.' Jake's mission: Take back America.

If that doesn't put a smile on your face, wait until you see the reviews.

u/LilithAjit · 2 pointsr/AgainstGamerGate

I'm hoping Santa Cocks brings me a wii u and bayonetta. But if not I'll likely play some Zelda on my DS or some D3/Minecraft/GW2 which are my normal fare.

I also started doing a puzzle last night. It's really pretty.

u/fernsauce · 4 pointsr/AgainstGamerGate

> MRA (Men's Rights Activist) - Noun - Ehm-ARRR!-Aye: These are men and women that work toward alleviating over-conviction of males, men's custody rights, raising male sexual assault awareness, etc. These aren't anti-feminists, or red-pillers, or channers.

Any definition of the modern men's right's movement that puts a specific caveat of "these aren't anti-feminists" is really, really bad. At the very least, highly inaccurate to reality.

MRAs are not "all people who advocate for men." They're a specific ideology of advocating for men, consisting of places like /r/mensrights, websites like A Voice for Men, and a good chunk of much worse places that don't really need to be mentioned. Anti-feminism is quite literally a tenant of the MRA movement, quite possibly the single most unifying belief among their constituency. Of course, this predates the Internet, but real-life MRA organizations are few and far between. Of the few MRA political parties out there, they tend to be, uncoincidentally, antifeminist (ex). Or you can read the guy from AVfM who started his own political party. Note the URL, particularly feminism/government-tyranny. This is the same guy who wrote this book.

This isn't to say that there aren't pro-feminist MRAs, because given how many people are involved, there could be at least a couple. But the dominant frame of the movement is a reaction to feminism gone too far.

u/EnigmaticNinja3 · 2 pointsr/AgainstGamerGate

Does Jump count? If so, I've been reading "Jojo's Bizarre Adventure Part V: Vento Aureo", and I just bought the first English volume of Jojonium. If not, I just bought Memoirs of a Geisha and a Tale of Two Cities the other day but haven't started reading either yet...

u/n8summers · 1 pointr/AgainstGamerGate

Fine. Let me Google that for you.

http://www.amazon.ca/gp/aw/d/0231151632

Or this:


http://womensenews.org/story/women-in-science/131212/calling-all-female-brains-stop-the-neurosexism#.VHOce4H8XqA


"The idea that women's brains or hormones or "natures" do not suit them for leadership, make them irrational and out of control or good at communicating, but bad at decision making, are toxic"

Shall we move the goal posts now?

u/caesar_primus · 4 pointsr/AgainstGamerGate

"When The Escapist caved to their demands and revised their ethics policy, they immediately violated the new policy with an article that presented itself as neutral, but sourced game developers from GamerGate itself, including one that had been openly calling for criminal activity against developers he didn’t like, and one that had been backed by Alexander Macris, co-founder of the Escapist. (Collected Sources: Storify) Additionally, GamerGate continues to list The Escapist as one of the good ones in spite of this and that The Escapist published an article promoting a game (Source: The Escapist) owned by co-founder Alexander Macris (Source: Amazon) without disclosure."

Source: Straight from Zoe Quinn

u/Clumpy · 5 pointsr/AgainstGamerGate

The wheelchair thing is an extreme example to be sure, though obviously when you're trying to get at a general concept within four sets of quotes everything is going to be :). I mean to connote a general resentment among the majority at any discussion of minority issues, and a tendency to believe that one's intention is the most important, regardless of whether they end up propagating narratives which disproportionately impact some groups. I still think that "privilege" is important as a concept because it gets at how something (like race, or sex, or any other status) which can be taken for granted not to be an issue by many people who are considered to be the "default," but still impact others.

So you wanted an example of constrained opportunity for minority groups, and I'd be happy to get into that. The general way we tend to conceive of this is that the only true barriers are formal legal ones or overt discrimination, and that's not necessarily true—studies have shown that landlords, employers, etc. are less likely to consider applicants with the same information and "black"-sounding names, police officers more likely during simulations to view an innocent object in the hands of a black individual as a gun and "shoot" them, etc. I really doubt that many of the people in these studies are overt bigots, yet they absolutely act as gatekeepers to opportunity for many.

But let's consider a society in which people may have been prevented in the past from entering certain institutions or holding power, but aren't overtly facing that treatment today. Would we expect things to be even now, everybody to have an equal shot?

Not really. Our opportunity is pretty dramatically affected by our social status, and that reaches into the past. The chance to be born in a middle-class neighborhood, have connections to make education and entering the workforce easier and imbue advantage there, and any number of other things may have a great deal to do with whether your parents and grandparents were allowed those privileges. Many ancestors of white people in the US were working-class in the early 1900s when that was the standard, and factory labor led to resources which were invaluable during the big college and manufacturing boom of the 1950s and onward. Black people, meanwhile, during the first half of the 20th century were targeted by Jim Crow laws intended to keep them in service and labor positions, overt racism, segregation which reduced access to resources and seats of power, a lack of legal representation and often a state whose institutions mobilized against them, and both institutionalized and private violence which targeted black-owned businesses for destruction, black people who were seen as stepping above their station for threats and violent reprisal, and which reinforced a deliberate view of black people as inherently servile, subservient, but potentially dangerous.

I strongly suggest this book to get into just how pervasive and destructive Jim Crow was, though the consequences of this type of behavior persist today, even in an era in which overt discrimination isn't nearly as common. Are many people prevented legally from getting a job due to some legal status? Not really. But many people's current position—living in disproportionate poverty in former urban centers, from which most who were renting couldn't escape after white flight to the suburbs and who are even now losing access to these areas through gentrification—is a direct result of some of the vilest racism in our country's history, which many living today experienced and which occurred only a few decades ago. We're talking about policies designed first overtly, then covertly, to maintain the disadvantage and constrain the opportunity of an entire group of people long after chattel slavery ended.