Tropes vs. Women / #GamerGate Conspiracies

[DusK]

Hello there, Mr. Pot. You know what kind of person resorts to ad hominem in lieu of an argument? Someone who know's they're wrong, but their inflamed right amygdala won't allow them to come to grips with that yet.

Edited September 5, 2014 by DusK

[Native Jovian]

Cute. I'm calling your "if something bad happens to you, it's your fault because you let it simply by doing what you normally do" bullshit out, and that means I can't read?

Well, you certainly didn't seem to read my post on the subject. Their point is that when you act a certain way (like posting controversial things on the internet), you can expect a certain response (like harassment from random anonymous assholes). That doesn't mean that the response is appropriate or acceptable, but it does mean that if you're unwilling or unable to handle the response, you probably shouldn't take the action in the first place.

[AngelCityOutlaw]

Hello there, Mr. Pot. You know what kind of person resorts to ad hominem in lieu of an argument? Someone who know's they're wrong, but their inflamed right amygdala won't allow them to come to grips with that yet.

How many times you gonna edit this post?

and no, someone who's tired of your shit does. You've made it pretty clear that not even the best surgeons could dislodge your head from your ass. It's obvious to all but you that nobody in this thread is saying what you're claiming they are saying. You just want so badly to believe that everyone like me, Meteo, Native Jovian etc. who are sharing the same viewpoint that "You should know better" doesn't equal "you deserved it" are nothing more than victim-blaming bigots.

Well, you certainly didn't seem to read my post on the subject. Their point is that when you act a certain way (like posting controversial things on the internet), you can expect a certain response (like harassment from random anonymous assholes). That doesn't mean that the response is appropriate or acceptable, but it does mean that if you're unwilling or unable to handle the response, you probably shouldn't take the action in the first place.

[DusK]

Well, you certainly didn't seem to read my post on the subject. Their point is that when you act a certain way (like posting controversial things on the internet), you can expect a certain response (like harassment from random anonymous assholes).

And my point is that you -- and the fedora brothers over there -- are completely incorrect in your assessment that such a heinous response is in any way to be expected. When you post something controversial on the Internet, especially if it's just a personal opinion, it's not in any way a reasonable expectation to be doxxed, harassed, or to have your life threatened.

The Internet isn't some dark alley, and posting something controversial isn't like leaving your wallet out.

Anyway, I'm done. All this victim blaming is tiring. I'm just going to reiterate what is by far the most accurate thing posted in this thread since I showed up:

However, it's a sad state of affairs where we suggest that to avoid harassment, people should not share their opinions.

[AngelCityOutlaw]

And my point is that you -- and the fedora brothers over there -- are completely incorrect in your assessment that such a heinous response is in any way to be expected. When you post something controversial on the Internet, especially if it's just a personal opinion, it's not in any way a reasonable expectation to be doxxed, harassed, or to have your life threatened.

The Internet isn't some dark alley, and posting something controversial isn't like leaving your wallet out.

Anyway, I'm done. All this victim blaming is tiring. I'm just going to reiterate what is by far the most accurate thing posted in this thread since I showed up:

[Meteo Xavier]

Cute. I'm calling your "if something bad happens to you, it's your fault because you let it simply by doing what you normally do" bullshit out, and that means I can't read?

YES. Because you didn't.

Because if you did, you'd find out I mostly agree WITH YOU. I just don't agree 100%. More like 80% at its lowest, and not because I don't want to, but because that's just not how the real world works.

But if you didn't read it then, you're not going to read this now.

[Brandon Strader]

So basically, they're to blame because they did... something.

Here's a couple links for those who don't know much about Quinn or Sarkession.

Quinn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKmy5OKg6lo

Sarkeesian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqJCCnued6c

Sarkeesian 2:

Just as a personal side opinion, live tweeting for weeks on end, several tweets per hour, about how frustrated you are about "harassment" is the best possible way to stop harassment. Probably easier to get acknowledged there than if you tried to live tweet Duck Dynasty during a new episode. These 2 are definitely creating a platform for trolls, whether you agree or not, that's the situation.

[Native Jovian]

And my point is that you -- and the fedora brothers over there -- are completely incorrect in your assessment that such a heinous response is in any way to be expected.

May I ask what internet you've been browsing? Because "anonymous people being assholes" is sort of a thing. And that comic is from ten years ago, so it's not like this is a new phenomenon. Being a public figure is always going to draw some unsavory types out of the woodwork -- and being a public figure known entirely for expressing controversial opinions on the internet is typically going to be worse.

Again: we're not disagreeing with you that this is a horrible thing and the people behind the harassment are unmitigated assholes. We're just disagreeing with you that the harassment was an unforeseeable or unexpected result.

When you post something controversial on the Internet, especially if it's just a personal opinion, it's not in any way a reasonable expectation to be doxxed, harassed, or to have your life threatened.

It's happened in the past. It'll happen again in the future. How is it in any way unreasonable to expect it? (Again: the fact that it's expected doesn't mean it's okay. I'm going to repeat this every time the subject comes up just to minimize understandings.)

I'm just going to reiterate what is by far the most accurate thing posted in this thread since I showed up:

However, it's a sad state of affairs where we suggest that to avoid harassment, people should not share their opinions.

I don't think anyone here disagrees with that sentiment. No one here that I've seen has said that you should be harassed for expressing certain opinions, only that it will happen anyway, and you should be prepared for it. The fact that the internet is not a free and open place to discuss ideas is certainly terrible, but that doesn't make it any less of a fact.

You seem to be confusing "is" and "ought", here. Being able to post opinions on the internet without facing harassment for it ought to be the state of affairs, certainly. But that doesn't mean it is, and pointing out that it's not doesn't mean you think it shouldn't be.

[Cecilff2]

There's way more than Quinn and Anita being harassed.

http://imgur.com/a/Iryng

Pay close attention to http://i.imgur.com/ZCnzTjY.png. I'm not sure if it's still up anymore after Fish had his most recent meltdown, but zoe and the list of journalists being complained about favorited that tweet. Some of the other tweets in that image are the journalists being talked about by this whole ordeal.

Zoe absolutely wrecked a charity kickstarter about getting women into game development and used her PR agent to help spread the word not to support it. Then redirected discussion back towards donating to her patreon if you want to help women in games instead. The person who ran the kickstarter was doxxed, and the site was DDOSed, and Zoe laughed about it.

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1s644c0

This would be the project btw

http://www.thefineyoungcapitalists.com/Voting

[timaeus222]

I don't think anyone here disagrees with that sentiment. No one here that I've seen has said that you should be harassed for expressing certain opinions, only that it will happen anyway, and you should be prepared for it. The fact that the internet is not a free and open place to discuss ideas is certainly terrible, but that doesn't make it any less of a fact.

Again, yes, we know it, but we can't expect a particular person to just know it. How can you expect that you'll get bombarded by hatespeech, get death threats, and get hacked rather than simply just receiving some replies saying, "No, you're wrong, I disagree", or "gtfo, troll", or "you've probably never [insert past tense action here] before, have you"? Okay, sure, I'd expect one or two, maybe a few more, but not 50+ or 1000+. I, again, doubt that Anita Sarkeesian would have done those commentary videos if she knew, "for a fact" as you call it, that she would, as Dusk says it, get "doxxed, harassed, or...have [her] life threatened." Now, I'm not saying she definitely would have not done those videos had she predicted that (she did, to some reasonably safe extent), nor am I saying she definitely didn't predict that (she did, to some reasonably safe extent), but it would be a very plausible scenario to consider.

You said it earlier---huge difference between "you should have known better" and "you deserved it" scenarios. Let's also include a "you couldn't have known better" scenario in there. Let's compare.

1:

You know you're in a safe neighborhood; no car break-ins have ever happened before, but you leave your car doors locked anyways. Your iPhone slides out of your jeans' butt pocket and it sits in plain sight on the driver's seat. Oops. Well, you come back later, and you notice someone broke in and stole your iPhone.

So then, is it really your fault that it was stolen? Okay, sure, it was, but should someone really call it out in that specific way? One, you didn't know it slid out of your pocket. Two, break-ins had never happened in that neighborhood before. Because you weren't aware that the phone slid out, and you heard from everyone you met (and they could all be trusted) that it was a safe place, it was a "you couldn't have known better"; it was out of your control. It was a nonvoluntary action because you suffered from your ignorance. You had no reason whatsoever to believe that it would happen, and you didn't even know your phone wasn't with you until you checked and went back to your car. "Oh shoot, someone stole my phone. I guess it fell out of my pocket..."

2: Same situation, but you purposefully left your phone on the seat ("I'll be right back! Stay riiiiight there. Don't move!"), in a locked car, and you assume that BECAUSE it's a safe neighborhood, nothing should happen.

Then, it's a "you should have known better" scenario, if in fact someone does steal the phone because you had some control. You had some awareness of what could happen, but not complete awareness. It was partially involuntary action, but mostly a voluntary action because you made a reasoned-out decision (= voluntary) with a little ignorance that you didn't double back and realize; then, you later recognized that ignorance (= involuntary) and now you know better. "Oh, I thought someone might see my phone; I didn't reeeeally think someone was going to try and get it. I just thought they were going to stare at it for a while and walk away."

3: Same situation, but you put your phone there in plain sight on purpose, in a purposefully unlocked car, and you knew it was NOT a safe neighborhood. You knew that break-ins HAD happened before, and happened often, but you just assume that, maybe, just maybe, it wouldn't happen today.

Then, it's "you deserved it" because you were completely aware of what might happen; it was a completely voluntary action. "Okay, yeeeeeaaah, maybe leaving my phone out in an unlocked car in an unsafe neighborhood WAS a bad idea..."

Edited September 5, 2014 by timaeus222

[AngelCityOutlaw]

I feel like too many "what if" scenarios are being brought up and makes a pretty simple point seem complex.

Again, yes, we know it, but we can't expect a particular person to just know it. How can you expect that you'll get bombarded by hatespeech, get death threats, and get hacked rather than simply just receiving some replies saying, "No, you're wrong, I disagree", or "gtfo, troll", or "you've probably never [insert past tense action here] before, have you"? Okay, sure, I'd expect one or two, maybe a few more, but not 50+ or 1000+. I, again, doubt that Anita Sarkeesian would have done those commentary videos if she knew, "for a fact" as you call it, that she would, as Dusk says it, get "doxxed, harassed, or...have [her] life threatened."

While it's fair to say that we can't expect someone to know the dangers of something they've never really had any experience with or at least been informed of prior, I really doubt that this applies in Anita's case. She has a cause that she strongly believes in. She recently tweeted that the cops asked her why she doesn't just "give up" or something if she receives these threats. It's because she believes that her work is important. Again, she is also someone who is clearly well versed in the use of the internet.

There is no good reason to believe that the whole "I didn't know" concept you're talking about applies to Anita Sarkeesian. She just might not have expected backlash as severe as she's received.

1:

You know you're in a safe neighborhood; no car break-ins have ever happened before, but you leave your car doors locked anyways. Your iPhone slides out of your jeans' butt pocket and it sits in plain sight on the driver's seat. Oops. Well, you come back later, and you notice someone broke in and stole your iPhone.

So then, is it really your fault that it was stolen? Okay, sure, it was, but should someone really call it out in that specific way? One, you didn't know it slid out of your pocket. Two, break-ins had never happened in that neighborhood before. Because you weren't aware that the phone slid out, and you heard from everyone you met (and they could all be trusted) that it was a safe place, it was a "you couldn't have known better"; it was out of your control. It was a nonvoluntary action because you suffered from your ignorance. You had no reason whatsoever to believe that it would happen, and you didn't even know your phone wasn't with you until you checked and went back to your car. "Oh shoot, someone stole my phone. I guess it fell out of my pocket..."

What you're describing here is an "accident". Accidents are disqualified from the point of "You should have known better" if the accident was pretty much caused by something beyond your control. A phone slipping out of your pocket onto your seat that happened to be spotted by a thief in a neighborhood not known for thievery is an accident. Walking by yourself, late at night with a necklace worthy of a Pharaoh and a 4,000 Rolex is not.

3: Same situation, but you put your phone there in plain sight on purpose, in a purposefully unlocked car, and you knew it was NOT a safe neighborhood. You knew that break-ins HAD happened before, and happened often, but you just assume that, maybe, just maybe, it wouldn't happen today.

Then, it's "you deserved it" because you were completely aware of what might happen; it was a completely voluntary action. "Okay, yeeeeeaaah, maybe leaving my phone out in an unlocked car in an unsafe neighborhood WAS a bad idea..."

Tim, this is exactly what we're NOT saying. Yes, this example is a good example of the stupid kinds of mistakes being made despite knowing the risks, but it's still a case of "You should have known better." Even with stupidity, you don't deserve to be the victim of theft or other invasions of privacy. It's that you should know better (and likely do), but instead made a choice that resulted in you suffering bad consequences and therefore are to blame for making a dumb choice that made you a target.

[timaeus222]

There is no good reason to believe that the whole "I didn't know" concept you're talking about applies to Anita Sarkeesian. She just might not have expected backlash as severe as she's received.

The bolded part is the point I was saying, too. She can expect backlash. Just not really predict, with a good chance of being pretty much correct, a close estimate to the extent or severity to which it can happen. Anita and Zoe were both taking risks, yes. So good to know that you're on the same page too. But DusK, earlier, didn't think you were. Maybe now it'll be more clear, now that you said it explicitly here.

What you're describing here is an "accident". Accidents are disqualified from the point of "You should have known better" if the accident was pretty much caused by something beyond your control. A phone slipping out of your pocket onto your seat that happened to be spotted by a thief in a neighborhood not known for thievery is an accident. Walking by yourself, late at night with a necklace worthy of a Pharaoh and a 4,000 Rolex is not.

Right, and this is not quite what's happening, yes. Anita and Zoe had some control. However, I did this example anyways to cover all the bases... or many of them at least.

Yes, this example is a good example of the stupid kinds of mistakes being made despite knowing the risks, but it's still a case of "You should have known better." Even with stupidity, you don't deserve to be the victim of theft or other invasions of privacy. It's that you should know better (and likely do), but instead made a choice that resulted in you suffering bad consequences and therefore are to blame for making a dumb choice that made you a target.

And that's what I'm aiming to clarify/retrieve/divulge here, between you, Meteo, and DusK in particular. It's not that you're wrong that Anita or Zoe are to blame for their mistakes, but it's the way you and those two are typing about it that comes across in more or less the opposite way each of you intended. Earlier, DusK claimed that you didn't mention the extent, whereas he emphasized that there was the issue of the extent.

Anita and Zoe ARE to blame, but not so insensitively, because if they were theoretically psychic (as if it was possible) and they knew exactly what would happen, extent and all, they'd definitely alter how they would go about it if they still want to go about it at all. Additionally, you wanted people to agree with you on that point, but DusK, for example, didn't agree completely. The reason why is not what you said, but how you said it. The power of the euphemism vs. the dysphemism (I made up the name of the comparison, but anyways...). Not to mention the ad-hominem-toting face-off. Yeah, "don't let it get to you emotionally", etc., but it already happened.

It's the difference between "perhaps she shouldn't have done that, because look where that got her---stuck in between a horde of attackers and cyberbullies" and "she shouldn't have made that stupid decision that got her stuck in between a horde of attackers and cyberbullies that would have clearly done that to her. She should have known better, but apparently she was dumb enough to do it anyway."

Edited September 5, 2014 by timaeus222

[djpretzel]

One of my favorite #gamergate articles is from FORBES of all places:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/

"Whether or not some people are capitalizing on a culture of victimhood is a matter largely of opinion, and not something that can simply be stated as fact any more than alleged, unverified death threats against anyone ought to be reported as fact. So much of this is mired in speculation and partisanship at this point that it’s almost impossible to see the forest for the trees. Anyone selling you simple answers is likely ripping you off."

I'm wondering how people feel about that. Andy in particular - you've pointed out (correctly, I think) the speculative nature of many of the accusations, but this writer is at least willing to treat some of the nastiest stuff as "alleged"...is that reluctance victim-blaming or harassment in and of itself, or just good journalism, displaying equal skepticism for information supporting either argument?

On victim blaming: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/03/nude-pictures-hackers-advice-blame-freedom-and-timing/

Makes some solid points - anyone beg to differ? This is exactly how I feel - sound advice is sound advice, the probability of becoming a victim CAN be reduced by avoiding certain behaviors, there IS often a sacrifice involved in terms of personal freedom that shouldn't be minimized, and timing is important.

Is there more to say? What part of that don't we all actually agree with?

[timaeus222]

On victim blaming: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/03/nude-pictures-hackers-advice-blame-freedom-and-timing/

Makes some solid points - anyone beg to differ? This is exactly how I feel - sound advice is sound advice, the probability of becoming a victim CAN be reduced by avoiding certain behaviors, there IS often a sacrifice involved in terms of personal freedom that shouldn't be minimized, and timing is important.

Is there more to say? What part of that don't we all actually agree with?

EXACTLY! This part illustrates what I was debating about earlier:

it’s one thing to implicitly fault someone, and another thing to do so more expressly — especially when that person has just been victimized and deserves our sympathetic outrage (or just sympathy, if the incident is an accident and not a crime). When a friend is in the hospital after the car accident, that’s a bad occasion to tell people that he could have been safe and sound if he’d only worn a seat belt.

Likewise, when someone has been raped or beaten, that’s a bad occasion to give people useful advice about not being alone in dangerous places, or about not dating the ex-girlfriend of a notoriously jealous thug. (I deliberately give here examples of behavior that is in no way morally culpable, that in a just world everyone should be free to engage in, and that can only be avoided at substantial cost to one’s freedom — but that, in our world, is still safest to avoid.) Now, the release of nude photographs isn’t quite in the same category as a brutal physical attack, but it’s still pretty bad stuff; and chiding the victim strikes me as similarly out of place there.

It’s not so much, I think, that the advice dilutes the blame imposed on the culpable party. Sometimes it might, but usually not.

Rather, it’s that the advice, framed as an observation of the victim’s mistake, dilutes the sympathetic outrage that we should be offering to the victim, and to those who empathize with the victim. Law-abiding, rights-respecting people expect other such people to condemn lawbreakers and rights violators, and to express sympathy for their victims. It is, I think, a social duty. It is a duty related to kindness, a sense of the community of the law-abiding, and norm reinforcement, not a duty stemming from law or even obligation to respect others’ rights. But some of our most important social duties fall in that category. The duty applies even if the victims exercised a bit more freedom than is wise under the circumstances. And turning the incident into an occasion to point to the victims’ errors weakens the force of this.

Edited September 5, 2014 by timaeus222

[relyanCe]

so much fucking is/ought up in here right now I almost puked

it's like an undergrad philosophy class

[Brushfire]

We ought to go back to the age when videogaming wasnt mainstream. That is the only solution.

[HoboKa]

If a female-based VG company/indie group can make games for women let them...but I think that companies who wish to cater to men should be allowed to do so too; by and large inclusivity isn't a bad idea per se, but when extremist pro-women types start spewing acidic attacks on the game devs and harass other people with different opinions on a personal level, it's sort of hard to sympathize with them. If people WANT women to be more included in games then they should use more constructive and positive methods. That's my 2 cents anyhow

[psychowolf]

Ok ive officially avoided this place since gamergate begun because my viewpoint was vastly different from everyone id seen on my twitter.

i will say this now, i couldn't care who you are, if you enjoy games you are a gamer.

i will say this though, i find this whole situation a fucking mess.

the issue that brought up by gamergate is the corruption of the gaming journalism, but instead the "sjw" side brings up that if the opposing side are racist sexist bigots if you disagree with them.

that isn't how it works im afraid

being sexist means you actually hate women and think they are a lesser being then men.

being racist means you feel that your own position in society means you are better than people of different race/gender whatever.

arguing with someone because they called a inanimate object a word that used to be used to described the mentally disabled isnt helping fucking no one.

people say there isn't any rolemodels for female gamers in the gaming industry just are not looking hard enough.

bayonetta.

clementine.

mona sax.

find more here.

do we need feminism in gaming? no like any strong movement it takes time to embrace into the media and us gamers have been intergrating strong female characters into our gaming over time.

you know what we do need a positive gaming character for?

transgender.

we have almost zero

it was brought up in game theory and to be honest i can seriously agree.

we also need to focus on other races but most aren't shown as negative as transgender people.

but the issue everyone has avoided is the corruption in gaming journalism but it seems everyone wants to continue avoiding this legit question to one that we are slowly solving ourselves.

you wanna put down girl gamers just remember, 1 it doesnt help your case and 2 they are actually the majority now. so think before you outcast yourself.

Edited September 6, 2014 by psychowolf

[Ab56 v2 aka Ash]

that isn't how it works im afraid

being sexist means you actually hate women and think they are a lesser being then men.

being racist means you feel that your own position in society means you are better than people of different race/gender whatever.

It's worth acknowledging that people might be working under different definitions of sexism or racism. Clarifying the meaning of our -isms in a debate can ease everyone into a more open-minded and productive discussion.

do we need feminism in gaming? no like any strong movement it takes time to embrace into the media and us gamers have been intergrating strong female characters into our gaming over time.

you know what we do need a positive gaming character for?

transgender.

we have almost zero

it was brought up in game theory and to be honest i can seriously agree.

we also need to focus on other races but most aren't shown as negative as transgender people.

It's counterproductive to act like this is a zero-sum game and the gaming industry can only address one form of harm at a time. I welcome introducing feminism to developers if it leads them to create more interesting characters who may be male, female, or another gender.

[psychowolf]

It's worth acknowledging that people might be working under different definitions of sexism or racism.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/racism

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/sexism

The only definition that matters is the one used in the dictionary im afraid.

making up your own definition does not help your case but muddles the discussion.

and did i say that we can only address 1 thing at a time? no, what i said is that we are already sorting it out without the need to bash each other for not agreeing with each other.

what needs to be done is that we need to start looking at fixing other things too.

why try fix something that is already being fixed?

[Ab56 v2 aka Ash]

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/racism

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/sexism

The only definition that matters is the one used in the dictionary im afraid.

making up your own definition does not help your case but muddles the discussion.

Sociologists use different definitions. Moreover, different dictionaries have different definitions and multiple definitions at that. Your dictionary definition of choice isn't necessarily the one other people are using or should even be expected to defer to. That's why it's important to clarify what we're talking about at the beginning.

and did i say that we can only address 1 thing at a time? no, what i said is that we are already sorting it out without the need to bash each other for not agreeing with each other.

what needs to be done is that we need to start looking at fixing other things too.

why try fix something that is already being fixed?

I'll take your word for that being your point; it didn't come across that way to me. Let me take my own advice: what do you mean when you say we don't need more feminism in gaming? How are you defining feminism and why do we not need more of it?

[psychowolf]

the thing i see is the feminism that anita is bringing to the table when really the issue is, that issue is slowly being dissolved with the insurgence of strong female characters appearing in more and more games.

so why would you need more salt when there's already salt on your food?

if anything we need to sort out the gamers themselves, what with their reactions to this whole situation.

we need to as a group clam the fuck down.

[Ab56 v2 aka Ash]

That didn't really answer my question what you mean by "feminism" in this context.

If women out there think women's portrayal in video games has problems, I'm inclined to pause and hear them out. They have a perspective that I, as a man, can't understand through my own experiences. So I don't think having more strong female characters means the discussion of games from a feminist perspective needs to end. I'd actually like to see it increase. The only thing I would want is deeper coverage of the issues and a discussion that doesn't devolve into a shouting match and name-calling.

The real sad part is that people can't seem to critique video games from a minority's perspective without all sorts of irrational rage flying all over the place. Just gotta stick to the issues.

[djpretzel]

It's counterproductive to act like this is a zero-sum game and the gaming industry can only address one form of harm at a time. I welcome introducing feminism to developers if it leads them to create more interesting characters who may be male, female, or another gender.

So do I; that's the tack I think Anita should have gone with - this can better games by making them more varied & interesting & by deviating from some overused tropes. But she didn't. I wish she had. But when you set the whole thing up as a "vs." to begin with, you wear your agenda on your sleeve. Her personal agenda does not seem to forward the progress of gaming, but rather to disseminate dated ideology and point out many of the same tired things second wave feminists pointed out several decades ago, as if they were something new, more in a context of demonization and extremely tenuous potential causation.

Sociologists use different definitions.

Sociologists use stupid definitions.

Not really disagreeing with your point that the words are loaded and take many forms, just throwing a potshot in at the sociological definition of these terms, which defies evolutionary psychology and common sense and is embarrassingly ethnocentric & politically compromised. Shame on you, sociology.

I'll take your word for that being your point; it didn't come across that way to me. Let me take my own advice: what do you mean when you say we don't need more feminism in gaming? How are you defining feminism and why do we not need more of it?

I'll chime in here. We need pragmatic, results-oriented, third-wave feminism in gaming. We don't need polemical, irrational, and prosecutorial second-wave feminism in gaming, or much of anywhere else. The only reason it's even POSSIBLE is that the gaming community doesn't have enough of an academic/cultural foundation for some strong voices to emerge and point it out for what it is - a resurrection & regurgitation of sad, dead ideas.

The real sad part is that people can't seem to critique video games from a minority's perspective without all sorts of irrational rage flying all over the place. Just gotta stick to the issues.

I'm unclear if you mean that the irrational rage is flying out from those doing the critiquing, those reacting to the critiquing, or both. I'm hoping both.

[zircon]

One of my favorite #gamergate articles is from FORBES of all places:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/

I'm wondering how people feel about that. Andy in particular - you've pointed out (correctly, I think) the speculative nature of many of the accusations, but this writer is at least willing to treat some of the nastiest stuff as "alleged"...is that reluctance victim-blaming or harassment in and of itself, or just good journalism, displaying equal skepticism for information supporting either argument?

On victim blaming: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/03/nude-pictures-hackers-advice-blame-freedom-and-timing/

Makes some solid points - anyone beg to differ? This is exactly how I feel - sound advice is sound advice, the probability of becoming a victim CAN be reduced by avoiding certain behaviors, there IS often a sacrifice involved in terms of personal freedom that shouldn't be minimized, and timing is important.

Is there more to say? What part of that don't we all actually agree with?

The first article is long-winded but pretty thorough and concludes with some 'safe' points that I would agree with. I do think it glosses over some of the more obscene actions that were taken by the people harassing Quinn & co. That her personal information was spread over the internet is not a matter of opinion, but fact. Skype accounts being compromised, threats being issued over twitter, these things are public record... perhaps in his attempt to be as neutral as possible, the author may not have done his research on that side of things. But his conclusions are sound.

The article about the nuances of victim blaming, practical advice etc. is great. I'm in agreement with all of that.