And, more to the point, if calls for things being banned get enough noise and enough support that it happens then welcome to democracy and living in society; sometimes a large group decides they don't want X and so it doesn't happen.

Does it suck if it effects something you like? Sure... but that's how the world works

Yeah, but democracy isn't really the best way to frame this issue. In an election you can elect candidate A or candidate B, but you can't have both. With a free market economy, you can have many different kinds of games at the same time, there's no reason to have to choose only one. The majority shouldn't have unchecked power to impose its will on minority groups, that's why constitutional rights and protections are important in a democracy to prevent tyranny of the majority. People can choose with their own money which games to buy and which to boycott, but that's not the same as denying other people even the option to buy certain kinds of games.

People can choose with their own money which games to buy and which to boycott, but that's not the same as denying other people even the option to buy certain kinds of games.

But it's well established that game censorship is already well underway in a number of concrete forms. AO rated games are the most blatantly obvious category, as are the variety of Australian and German incidents over the years. If you're truly worried about it, why are you silent on that set of problems?

I don't like that either. Retailers are of course free to carry the games they want, and I don't play AO games myself so I don't really have a personal stake in it, but I think ideally it would be more fair if there were more mainstream options for adults to buy those kinds of games. On the other hand, I definitely don't like strict government censorship unless its something that's blatantly illegal and harmful in other ways. If I saw a thread here specifically about German censorship, I'd comment in that too.

And, more to the point, if calls for things being banned get enough noise and enough support that it happens then welcome to democracy and living in society; sometimes a large group decides they don't want X and so it doesn't happen.

Hang on, it's one thing for a large group of people to say "we don't like X and we won't buy it", it's a whole different kettle of fish to say "we don't like X and it should be banned". There are limits on freedom of expression, but they should be exercised with extreme caution and only in the most serious of circumstances (child porn, etc).

But if you mean that thousands of people say that Hatred looks awful and so the studio decides it's not worth making, then yeah, that's the free market at work.

Just to be clear, Sarkeesian et al, are not advocating for any kind of laws relating to game content. They are asking the game devs themselves to see if they can make their games better.

Ironically, if mainstream gaming was less demeaning to women, then the odd game that existed purely for titillation wouldn't be an issue. It's when damsels and women as objects are the default setting that people get annoyed.

And, more to the point, if calls for things being banned get enough noise and enough support that it happens then welcome to democracy and living in society; sometimes a large group decides they don't want X and so it doesn't happen.

Does it suck if it effects something you like? Sure... but that's how the world works.

The difference between such a full-time demagogue and you is that you have to work to pay your bills whereas they don't have anything to do but tell people what they want all day long. So they get to decide what direction everybody has to go, and there's little you can do against it. It's bad enough when they only have rubbish to tell, but it really gets concerning if they have a valid point, too (because that makes their game even easier).

The difference between such a full-time demagogue and you is that you have to work to pay your bills whereas they don't have anything to do but tell people what they want all day long. So they get to decide what direction everybody has to go, and there's little you can do against it. It's bad enough when they only have rubbish to tell, but it really gets concerning if they have a valid point, too (because that makes their game even easier).

I agree that professional activists have a disproportionate effect. However I doubt they could force change if there was no validity to their claims, and you admit that there is a valid point. Why is it a concern to address a valid point?

The difference between such a full-time demagogue and you is that you have to work to pay your bills whereas they don't have anything to do but tell people what they want all day long. So they get to decide what direction everybody has to go, and there's little you can do against it. It's bad enough when they only have rubbish to tell, but it really gets concerning if they have a valid point, too (because that makes their game even easier).

I agree that professional activists have a disproportionate effect. However I doubt they could force change if there was no validity to their claims, and you admit that there is a valid point. Why is it a concern to address a valid point?

Because a valid point and a call to action don't necessarily coincide, for the same reason nobody supports "kill all the homeless" as a solution to the problem of "there's a lot of homeless people". Besides, it's not like fear and social pressure haven't forced undesirable changes before.

Like others though, I mostly blame all this GG nonsense for giving people like this the celebrity status they have. Worse still is that, while she's free to speak her mind, we're less free to say "No, that's a terrible idea" do to all the accumulated backlash.

Because a valid point and a call to action don't necessarily coincide, for the same reason nobody supports "kill all the homeless" as a solution to the problem of "there's a lot of homeless people". Besides, it's not like fear and social pressure haven't forced undesirable changes before.

Good thing Sarkeesian et al are not advocating for homeless genocide then :)

They're basically pointing out that there is a homeless problem and maybe we could build some shelters or possibly stop treating homeless people as sub human (and that's as far as I'm willing torture that analogy).

Like others though, I mostly blame all this GG nonsense for giving people like this the celebrity status they have. Worse still is that, while she's free to speak her mind, we're less free to say "No, that's a terrible idea" do to all the accumulated backlash.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

If you want to say that games shouldn't be censored, most reasonable people will agree with you.

If you want to say that the representation of women in video games (or indeed in fiction in general) is perfectly adequate, you will probably find a few strongly dissenting voices.

If you want to align yourself with gamergate, you can expect a backlash.

But assuming you're not threatening or harassing anyone, you are perfectly free to express those opinions.

She is not calling for restrictions or limitations to be imposed, nor is she calling for things to be removed from shelves or banned.

And, more to the point, if calls for things being banned get enough noise and enough support that it happens then welcome to democracy and living in society; sometimes a large group decides they don't want X and so it doesn't happen.

Does it suck if it effects something you like? Sure... but that's how the world works.

However she isn't at that point and if the GG Harassment Brigade stopped making so much noise then she'd get less attention and the "problem" they have would go away... unfortunately (and predictably) this logic has escaped them so instead they try to bully people out of the way, drawing more attention to them and their message while at the same time giving Gamers a bad name.

(And yes, I believe the term 'gamer' still has relevance in a word where everyone plays games; much like Film Buffs separate themselves from the general population who watch films, so 'gamer' is a term I would argue applies to people who make games, the playing of, learning about and general enthusiasm about, even in a world where everyone plays games. Unfortunately the morons have ruined it for the rest of us and the media was quick to jump on that and missed the 'film buff' aspect of the comparison to people watching films.)

First I'm not scared of change (see pics at bottom of reply). I'm scared because you say she isn't calling for restrictions, but on her twitter (femfreq) she has made it clear she wants the damsel in distress never used again "because it is a sexist trope" and wants all developers to never use oversexualized women "because it teaches gamers to be sexist and misogynists". Yes she is critiquing games in her video, but she is calling for restrictions on her twitter account. She doesn't even allow open discussion of her points (every video she has posted have comments and ratings turned off) and if you make a counter to her claims on her twitter she blocks you. Yes she is being harassed and threatened, but the problem is that everyone blames any negative criticism, rude remarks, and hate as GamerGate.

All the coverage of GG has been only from the view of Anti-GG or those who are being targeted as unethical journalists. The three articles listed below were written by Cathy Young who, as far as I know, has been neutral:

A game can both be developed by women and also be sexist towards women.