timaeus222 Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Let's just go ahead and leave these herehttp://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-11-26/anita-sarkeesian-battles-sexism-in-games-gamergate-harassment http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/11/27/An-open-letter-to-Bloomberg-s-Sheelah-Kolhatkar-on-the-delicate-matter-of-Anita-Sarkeesian One of these is rooted in truth, guess which one. Way to be delicate, Milo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowe Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Let's just go ahead and leave these herehttp://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-11-26/anita-sarkeesian-battles-sexism-in-games-gamergate-harassment http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/11/27/An-open-letter-to-Bloomberg-s-Sheelah-Kolhatkar-on-the-delicate-matter-of-Anita-Sarkeesian One of these is rooted in truth, guess which one. Well I would go with the one that has a wealth of primary sources objectively proving its claims, but in your case I'm going to guess you meant the one that repeats a number of objectively disproven falsehoods which agree with your prejudices and preconceived notions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Derrit Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Well I would go with the one that has a wealth of primary sources objectively proving its claims, but in your case I'm going to guess you meant the one that repeats a number of objectively disproven falsehoods which agree with your prejudices and preconceived notions. so you're the new troll of this thread since i've been gone, congratulations on your position Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zircon Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Re: Milo's piece, the critiques on her viewpoints etc are all well and good, but again, it's amazing how often Gamergate supporters like Milo engage in ad hominem. If the narrative is not about demonizing or attacking specific individuals, then why continue with the personal attacks? Also a lot of very strange double standards in the article. He says that GamerGate supporters have experienced real disruption to their lives, contrasting that with people like Quinn, Wu, and Sarkeesian... and yet he himself verified with the FBI that people had made death threats against Anita, and both Wu & Quinn moved out of their homes as a result of doxxing. So... how is their experience not "real"? He talks about online harassment and how 'Men are almost twice as likely to receive Twitter abuse as women, according to Demos.', seemingly indicating that it is a problem.. but then later, "The response of most people, famous or otherwise, is to ignore trolls. They are just words on the internet." OK? So which is it? Does he care about harassment online via Twitter or not? There's a lot more to talk about but I don't have the time or patience. I'm all for talking about arguments about games, culture, media, feminism, etc. and why they may or may not hold water. Dave's made some good points throughout this thread and given quite a bit of material to read, especially from authors like Pinker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowe Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 (edited) Re: Milo's piece, the critiques on her viewpoints etc are all well and good, but again, it's amazing how often Gamergate supporters like Milo engage in ad hominem. If the narrative is not about demonizing or attacking specific individuals, then why continue with the personal attacks? That's a good question which you're simply asking of the wrong side. Milo writes like that because he's an inflammatory asshole, the rest of gamergate has been objectively demonstrated to be ~85-90% neutral at minimum. If the narrative isn't about demonizing or attacking people why did this start with things like "pissbaby" and "obtuse shitslinger" and devolve to racial slurs and similar from there? Also a lot of very strange double standards in the article. He says that GamerGate supporters have experienced real disruption to their lives, contrasting that with people like Quinn, Wu, and Sarkeesian... and yet he himself verified with the FBI that people had made death threats against Anita, and both Wu & Quinn moved out of their homes as a result of doxxing. So... how is their experience not "real"? Ironically enough you've unintentionally brought up a double standard yourself: Why is it that people who either choose to stay in their home, or are not wealthy and well-connected enough to be able to drop everything and leave, aren't considered real victims? Wu, Quinn, and Sarkeesian have all been doxxed... and so have around thirty other people. The difference here is that Milo is contrasting being threatened on the internet with things like losing your job, having your bank account hacked, your internet shut down, income payments being stopped, nearly getting killed in a SWATting, and getting mailed knives, syringes, or dead animals. And yes Timaeus I can basically turn this entire paragraph into a series of links. Nobody deserves to get threatened and it's unconsciousable whenever it happens; but the real world harm suffered by people, especially women and minorities, for supporting gamergate is simply incomparable in severity or volume to a doxing... something which itself has happened to around one full order of magnitude more people for supporting gamergate. He talks about online harassment and how 'Men are almost twice as likely to receive Twitter abuse as women, according to Demos.', seemingly indicating that it is a problem.. but then later, "The response of most people, famous or otherwise, is to ignore trolls. They are just words on the internet." OK? So which is it? Does he care about harassment online via Twitter or not? There's a lot more to talk about but I don't have the time or patience. I'm all for talking about arguments about games, culture, media, feminism, etc. and why they may or may not hold water. Dave's made some good points throughout this thread and given quite a bit of material to read, especially from authors like Pinker. Those aren't contradictory points, they're addressing two entirely different things. One is in response to the narrative of exclusively or near-exclusively female victimhood, the other is in response to the theatrically overdramatic reactions to and stirring of a moral panic over internet trolling. You're also not considering that it's possible to care about harassment without accepting that certain things, or in this case everything someone doesn't like, is "harassment". Consider for example the recent case of Claire Schuman versus Totalbiscuit needing to explain that people how replying to a public statement on twitter isn't harassment. One involves the definition of harassment most people would go by, the other is addressing the "anyone saying anything I don't agree with is harassment" definition used by Sarkeesian/McIntosh et al. Edited November 30, 2014 by Shadowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zircon Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 (edited) That's a good question which you're simply asking of the wrong side. Milo writes like that because he's an inflammatory asshole, the rest of gamergate has been objectively demonstrated to be ~85-90% neutral at minimum. If the narrative isn't about demonizing or attacking people why did this start with things like "pissbaby" and "obtuse shitslinger" and devolve to racial slurs and similar from there? I'm merely pointing out that given Gamergate's reputation, it would behoove its supporters and proponents not to engage in that kind of ad hominem. Ironically enough you've unintentionally brought up a double standard yourself: Why is it that people who either choose to stay in their home, or are not wealthy and well-connected enough to be able to drop everything and leave, aren't considered real victims? When did I say other people who have been doxxed (etc) aren't real victims? Look, most of your posts can be distilled to the following. (a) Bad stuff happened to people that are anti-gamergate? Well, even WORSE stuff happened to people that are PRO-gamergate! ( Pro-gamergate people did something bad? Well, anti-gamergate people did something WORSE! The point has been made a number of times in this thread (and repeatedly by TotalBiscuit, if it matters!) that using vague labels, dehumanizing people who disagree with you, and entrenching yourself further and further in your "camp" is not conducive to civility, discourse, and understanding. And I'm sure that as you read this you're already thinking of a way to type "But ANTI-GG people....." As far as I'm aware, EVERYONE in this thread condemns harassment. None of us support racism, misogyny, or death threats. None of us think it's OK to mail syringes, none of us think it's OK to doxx people, etc etc. Nobody is arguing that doxxing or harassment is bad when gamergaters do it, and OK when someone anti-gamergate does it. Full stop. So let's continue with that in mind. The reason I post about things that paint GG in a bad light is because I actually care about stuff like transparency and ethics in game journalism, better disclosures, etc. All of that stuff is really great and while I wasn't particularly offended, upset, or frustrated with the state of game journalism previously, it's nice to see positive changes being made. So, when I see needless ad hominem, an obsession with attacking feminist issues and game developers that are unrelated to game journalism, and other such things, I see that as not being productive toward reaching a primary goal of GG, which is better game journalism. And yes, I know that anyone can be a part of the movement, and different people have different goals, but please don't try to say that improving game journalism is no longer a major goal Now, of course there are folks who are anti-gg, some small fraction of whom are engaging in bad behavior. As mentioned repeatedly, this should be condemned. But I'm not posting about that because anti-gg is not a movement. It's not even really a hashtag. It's just an opinion that someone has ("I don't like gamergate", or "I don't like some gamergate supporters"). If some people want to dislike gamergate, they are welcome to! As long as they're not harassing, doxxing, etc. But again, anti-gg is not a 'movement' trying to achieve something. If someone who doesn't like gamergate does something bad, I don't think they are hurting any sort of cause or goal, since "I don't like gamergate" is not a cause or a goal. And that's why I don't devote any posts to behavior + activity of people who consider themselves anti-gg. Edited November 30, 2014 by zircon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Strader Posted November 30, 2014 Author Share Posted November 30, 2014 Both sides are bad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowe Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 (edited) When did I say other people who have been doxxed (etc) aren't real victims? When did I say you did? I was pointing out the more or less total media blackout on the attacks they've endured and the absolutely hypocritical responses they've gotten even from prominent journalists in mainstream outlets like Re/Code. Look, most of your posts can be distilled to the following. (a) Bad stuff happened to people that are anti-gamergate? Well, even WORSE stuff happened to people that are PRO-gamergate! ( Pro-gamergate people did something bad? Well, anti-gamergate people did something WORSE! The point has been made a number of times in this thread (and repeatedly by TotalBiscuit, if it matters!) that using vague labels, dehumanizing people who disagree with you, and entrenching yourself further and further in your "camp" is not conducive to civility, discourse, and understanding. And I'm sure that as you read this you're already thinking of a way to type "But ANTI-GG people....." No, my posts can be boiled down to pointing out that the facts simply do not support the conspiracy theories levied against gamergate, and that there is a profoundly hypocritical double standard in the way these issues are discussed. You characterize it as those two straw men, but in reality I'm saying "By your own standards you should be condemning this other defined clique of individuals orders of magnitude more strongly than the people you are criticizing, rather than not at all". I'm saying that in the real world you have to look at two sides of imperfect people and decide "Ok they're not perfect, but these other people are committing orders of magnitude more and more severe harm". And when you've got one side which at its core claims to be the ultimate moral authority that becomes especially relevant. As far as I'm aware, EVERYONE in this thread condemns harassment. None of us support racism, misogyny, or death threats. None of us think it's OK to mail syringes, none of us think it's OK to doxx people, etc etc. Nobody is arguing that doxxing or harassment is bad when gamergaters do it, and OK when someone anti-gamergate does it. Full stop. So let's continue with that in mind. And somehow I've yet to see the people behind that, the people publicly condoning and encouraging that, meaningfully criticized or condemned in any way. Instead I see the very narrative they're using to justify themselves reinforced and the victims of those attacks given a lipservice at best. That might not be as explicit cheering, but it's absolutely enabling behavior. So, when I see needless ad hominem, an obsession with attacking feminist issues and game developers that are unrelated to game journalism, and other such things, I see that as not being productive toward reaching a primary goal of GG, which is better game journalism. And yes, I know that anyone can be a part of the movement, and different people have different goals, but please don't try to say that improving game journalism is no longer a major goal I've already addressed that point and I'll repeat it: The "that's not journalism" death-by-a-thousand-technicalities argument is patently disingenuous. Nearly everyone involved has at some point played the two step shuffle of claiming to be a non-journalist when it suits them, and a journalist when that suits them. Furthermore ethical reform in journalism is no more inherently restricted to engaging solely with self-identifying journalists (when they're identifying as journalists and not something else) than ethical reform in any other field in the energy industry is restricted to engaging solely with power plant technicians. When you've got a group of people with such incestuous financial, political, and personal ties (including their own private listserv for collusion and blacklisting) everyone involved is part of the problem... not just the people who choose to wear a particular nametag. You also don't seem to get that the toxic and bigoted ideology this clique of people were all involved in is itself part of the problem. It was the driving motivation behind their corrupt behavior, the means by which they abused others, and how they shielded themselves from criticism. Now, of course there are folks who are anti-gg, some small fraction of whom are engaging in bad behavior. As mentioned repeatedly, this should be condemned. But I'm not posting about that because anti-gg is not a movement. It's not even really a hashtag. It's just an opinion that someone has ("I don't like gamergate", or "I don't like some gamergate supporters"). If some people want to dislike gamergate, they are welcome to! As long as they're not harassing, doxxing, etc. But again, anti-gg is not a 'movement' trying to achieve something. If someone who doesn't like gamergate does something bad, I don't think they are hurting any sort of cause or goal, since "I don't like gamergate" is not a cause or a goal. And that's why I don't devote any posts to behavior + activity of people who consider themselves anti-gg. Firstly "Anti-GG" is very much a defined clique of individuals with extremely close financial, professional, and often personal ties. Virtually all of them were participants in the GJP list itself or have direct ties to one another. It's patently unreasonable to claim they aren't a defined and narrow group. Secondly... "some small fraction" is not an honest way of describing some of the most prominent voices of gaming journalism and the indie scene acting with the full support and backing of their friends and followers. These are not anonymous trolls shut down faster than their tweets can be retweeted for publicity, they're major public figures acting in their professional capacity. Finally that's a very inventive stretch to justify a double standard. One which is eminently abusable simply by any group declaring itself by fiat to be "not a group". Edited November 30, 2014 by Shadowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ab56 v2 aka Ash Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Firstly "Anti-GG" is very much a defined clique of individuals with extremely close financial, professional, and often personal ties. Virtually all of them were participants in the GJP list itself or have direct ties to one another. It's patently unreasonable to claim they aren't a defined and narrow group. Could you elaborate on this and why I should believe that term should be limited to the clique you mentioned? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timaeus222 Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 (edited) And somehow I've yet to see the people behind that [harassment], the people publicly condoning and encouraging that [harassment], meaningfully criticized or condemned in any way. Instead I see the very narrative they're using to justify themselves reinforced and the victims of those attacks given a lipservice at best. That might not be as explicit cheering, but it's absolutely enabling behavior. Please don't tell me you DO want us to criticize or condemn those people who harass others under the topic of GamerGate, meaningfully or otherwise. Wouldn't that just be 'throwing ourselves into the fire'? Obviously we shouldn't do nothing out of any fear or however you want to label reluctant or anticipatory minds, but at the same time, we'd appear to be just like them if we do speak out against them, i.e. they would proooooobably see us as what you'd call "anti-GG", which is essentially just a temporary, capricious category that some gamergaters use to label people who they deem to be against them in some way they don't like. It's not a real group or movement that stays consistently-sized, consistently-labeled, or consistently-treated. EX: "I don't like GG." "Yeah? Fine, you're anti-GG now." "Wait, why? It's not like I'm starkly against it in any passionate way. I just don't like it. Can't you just accept my opinion as one?" "No, you're just anti-GG. That's what I'm sticking to, because you said you don't like the movement." You said it yourself about capriciousness (under the assumption that it's true): Nearly everyone involved has at some point played the two step shuffle of claiming to be a non-journalist when it suits them, and a journalist when that suits them. In other words, labels change, given or received, including "anti-GG". Honestly, I would lump most of the people labeled "pro-GG" and "anti-GG" under one label: those who are missing the point and going on some tangent on feminism and such things other than the original goal: ethics in game journalism. Milo, as insensitive as he was, still called it a "delicate topic". Indeed... Edited November 30, 2014 by timaeus222 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DusK Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/718650-dragon-age-inquisition/70695319 Is this rant representative of GamerGate? Y/N Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anorax Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 (edited) http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/718650-dragon-age-inquisition/70695319Is this rant representative of GamerGate? Y/N I don't even know what a true representative of GamerGate is anymore. Is the rant of a butthurt cis white male (insert the ever-popular tumblr-originating suffix "scum" here if you'd like) a good view of GamerGate? I'm still trying to figure out what GamerGate stands for, are they against bad journalism in the gaming industry or are they against an increase in diversity, like this rant demonstrates? I don't freaking know man, it's getting to the point of absolute ridiculous bullshit on both sides, imo. EDIT: As I continue to read the following thread, I'm getting more and more confused. Edited December 1, 2014 by Anorax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pl511 Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 (edited) http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/718650-dragon-age-inquisition/70695319Is this rant representative of GamerGate? Y/N Jesus christ, I hope not. I've been following this whole thing from the sidelines, and I've come to the conclusion that there is no unified cause under the name 'GamerGate' any more. In my opinion, I'm pretty sure (and as much as I don't like labelling or generalisation of massive groups) that the entire 'movement' has been doomed from the start due to the fact that its basic foundation provides sanctuary for misogynists and homophobes. Vocal minorities reflect badly on large groups, and when you have the current situation, it's a PR nightmare where gamers in support of the group will be demonised from the start on the basis that they're somehow in cahoots with a bunch of misogynists and homophobes. This rant is the epitome of the worst possible way GamerGate can be seen - it's a generic straight male gamer proclaiming 'why aren't games catering to me?!' God forbid game devs and games be more accepting of people new to the series, or that they might create games that cater to everyone. The worst possible manifestation of this kind of toxic attitude is brought up in one of this guy's replies lower down on the page: 'This is a huge problem and unless we do something to reclaim our identity things are never going to get better.' The validity of whether the original issue was fair or not (which is probably going to be at the very least taken into account presumably in the next game if there was an issue in the first place) is completely thrown at the window, and suddenly it's just a guy not just saying that he doesn't feel catered to, but outright saying that 'this is not what games are; if you're a gamer, you should not allow it to be so'. Also just going to throw it out there that I'm neither for or against the movement (I was mildly peeved at the Bayonetta review when it seemed to be a reasonably empowering portrayal of women, but each to their own I guess), and my current position is that game journalism needs to abandon scores so that this isn't a problem any more. The approach IGN is taking with their side-bar 'if you like these game series, you'll like this game' is the way to go right now. Edited December 1, 2014 by Pl511 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Servbot#36 Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 (edited) I don't even know what a true representative of GamerGate is anymore. Is the rant of a butthurt cis white male (insert the ever-popular tumblr-originating suffix "scum" here if you'd like) a good view of GamerGate?I'm still trying to figure out what GamerGate stands for, are they against bad journalism in the gaming industry or are they against an increase in diversity, like this rant demonstrates? I don't freaking know man, it's getting to the point of absolute ridiculous bullshit on both sides, imo. EDIT: As I continue to read the following thread, I'm getting more and more confused. I'm probably not the most qualified to say anything about the whole Gamergate thing since I've only really recently made any attempt to learn what it's actually about, but if the experience of trying to sort through all the crazy bullshit of both sides has taught me anything, it's that the labels of pro and anti Gamergate are kind of oversimplified and not very helpful. From what I've found out, Gamergate itself is a pretty multifaceted issue. It's maybe about ethics in game journalism and also feminism and I think inclusivity? Race somehow worked its way in there too in some capacity it seems. And Obamacare somehow showed up in this topic? I'm still totally lost on that one. Honestly I still can't really sort all of it out. I was pretty sure Zoey Quinn was the start of all this but I pretty much only see Anita Sarkeesian's name thrown around in the part of this thread I've managed to read through. But what is pretty clear is that people hardly seem to be arguing the same things and they usually tend to support their opposition for their opponent's arguments by attacking the "side" as a whole. I feel like we would get a lot farther in these things if we weren't trying to prove that the other side is bad. Both sides have very clearly shown that they have their share of toxic douchebags sending death threats and saying racist/misogynistic/homophobic/generally unpleasant shit. And while all the doxxing and threats are obviously terrible and shouldn't be happening, they're not really evidence for your stance on the matter. We'd get a lot farther if we focused on the actual ideas, preferably divorced from the Gamergate label, rather than what terrible things the pro/anti Gamergaters have been up to this last week. It doesn't really make you more right if some lunatics went and attacked a guy for thinking the same things you do. And unless the actual ideas you're arguing against are "It's cool to harass/bully/threaten someone whose opinion differs from mine" (and you know you'll regret actually arguing with the kind of person who actually believes that), there's no real reason to bring it up. So yeah, might have lost focus a teensy bit there but what I mean is that Pro Gamergate and Anti Gamergate are kind of useless terms. They're sort of convenient but at the expense of lumping way too many people together to be able to say anything meaningful about them. And by now, I'd say you're pretty deluded if you think that everyone who calls themselves Pro or Anti Gamergate actually have the same opinions/reasoning behind those opinions on every single one of the trainwreck of topics that somehow got included in whatever Gamergate can even be called. I dunno, this has probably been said here by now. I was just checking in on the thread because I'm still trying to figure the whole thing out and saw that last message. I'm not saying that's been happening here too much (better than elsewhere at least). Seemed like this was the best place to share what I've taken away from the whole thing. But in (more direct) response to what I actually quoted, I think it's kind of pointless to find a true representative of Gamergate. It's just too broad a category and they seem to have wildly different motivations for believing the few things they actually do mostly agree on. I still don't even know where my views would fit into it. EDIT: Totally got beat to a pretty similar point. Wish I hadn't taken so damn long typing this between games of Smash. Ah well, good to know there are people who agree on that point at least. Edited December 1, 2014 by Servbot#36 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowe Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 Please don't tell me you DO want us to criticize or condemn those people who harass others under the topic of GamerGate, meaningfully or otherwise. Wouldn't that just be 'throwing ourselves into the fire'? Obviously we shouldn't do nothing out of any fear or however you want to label reluctant or anticipatory minds, but at the same time, we'd appear to be just like them if we do speak out against them, i.e. they would proooooobably see us as what you'd call "anti-GG", which is essentially just a temporary, capricious category that some gamergaters use to label people who they deem to be against them in some way they don't like. It's not a real group or movement that stays consistently-sized, consistently-labeled, or consistently-treated. Ok you're not even making sense anymore. You've got so many convoluted twists and double negatives in here that it's incomprehensible even before you take into account the fact you've somehow turned a straightforwards point about a double standard into some kind of torturous grammar exercise. I made a comment about the fact there is a double standard at work here where one side is utterly excoriated for every single bad thing that happens on the internet even when there's proof it WASN'T them. At the same time the other side is given a complete free pass even when actively participating in or publicly condoning an order of magnitude more and more severe attacks. And all of this is despite the first group going to such extreme lengths to combat inappropriate behavior that they're literally filing police reports and taking down troll accounts faster than they can be retweeted for publicity In other words, labels change, given or received, including "anti-GG". Honestly, I would lump most of the people labeled "pro-GG" and "anti-GG" under one label: those who are missing the point and going on some tangent on feminism and such things other than the original goal: ethics in game journalism. Milo, as insensitive as he was, still called it a "delicate topic". Indeed... This at least makes sense, even though it's something I literally just addressed. The "that's not journalism" death-by-a-thousand-technicalities argument is patently disingenuous; Your entire argument here boils down to declaring "that's off-topic" by fiat and then claiming gamergate is wrong for violating your personal decree of what is or is not relevant. The fact of the matter is there's no tangent at all. The high level topic is "ethics in game journalism". The problem is the lack of it, or alternatively worded the corruption of gaming journalists. A perverse ideology which co-opts the language and rhetoric of social justice and feminism to justify attacking others, and serve as a shield against criticism, is part of the means by which that corruption is expressed. Jesus christ, I hope not. I've been following this whole thing from the sidelines, and I've come to the conclusion that there is no unified cause under the name 'GamerGate' any more. In my opinion, I'm pretty sure (and as much as I don't like labelling or generalisation of massive groups) that the entire 'movement' has been doomed from the start due to the fact that its basic foundation provides sanctuary for misogynists and homophobes. Vocal minorities reflect badly on large groups, and when you have the current situation, it's a PR nightmare where gamers in support of the group will be demonised from the start on the basis that they're somehow in cahoots with a bunch of misogynists and homophobes. And what foundation is that? Provide a falsifiable explanation which can not be just as readily applied to nearly anything else out there, and which does not turn things into a race for one side to declare themselves "feminists" and the other side "misogynists" before the other does. If anything has doomed gamergate from the start it's the fact they're going up against journalists who have absolutely no problems with simply printing whatever false narrative they want. Just look at the recent IGDF blacklist and Alanah Pearce debacles. What's more likely: That tens of thousands of people from all over the world will come together for months for the sole nefarious purpose of attacking women which they then express by raising over $120,000 for feminist organizations and charities, contacting the FTC requesting regulatory reform, and constantly go out of their way to support and give voice to women and minorities? Or that a clique of wealthy well-connected individuals already proven to be engaging in collusion and blacklisting by the evidence in the GameJournoPros leaks are smearing the people protesting their corruption with something they know everybody will rush to defend without question? I don't know about you but I'm not inclined to believe there has been a global conspiracy of staggering size and scope going on for the last three or so months. Especially when the evidence just keeps mounting against that and in favor of the "misogyny" narrative being nothing more than a McCarthyist diversion. Could you elaborate on this and why I should believe that term should be limited to the clique you mentioned? I'm not really sure what you mean by "elaborate" on this. There's a group of people who have extremely close financial, personal, and professional ties including a leaked mailing list which documents their behavior ranging from collusion to blacklisting. This group, and the individuals they have direct financial or personal ties to, have basically been the driving force behind the entire controversy. http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/718650-dragon-age-inquisition/70695319Is this rant representative of GamerGate? Y/N Is a random outlandish post on gamefaqs which doesn't reference gamergate in any way shape or form representative of the thing it makes absolutely no reference to whatsoever? I don't know, can we ask the same question but swap out gamergate for taco bell? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pl511 Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 (edited) And what foundation is that? Provide a falsifiable explanation which can not be just as readily applied to nearly anything else out there, and which does not turn things into a race for one side to declare themselves "feminists" and the other side "misogynists" before the other does. Maybe it came across as being somewhat against your side, but what I was trying to get across was that in my opinion, from the way the whole GamerGate thing started, those who are misogynistic or homophobic will likely be supporters of GamerGate. I'm in no way against the supposed main goal of GamerGate to promote ethical journalism, and I think this is an unfair generalisation to assume every single person in support of it is misogynistic or homophobic, but you can't deny that there will be a reasonably large (and undeniably vocal) group within the movement that has this kind of view. Also, just maybe a tip in conversing with people like a normal human being, demanding that I 'provide a falsifiable explanation' for what I explicitly said was just my opinion on the matter (that I think was fairly middle-ground in this whole debate anyway) might possibly be seen as being kind of rude. Just saying. I'm not fighting you. If anything has doomed gamergate from the start it's the fact they're going up against journalists who have absolutely no problems with simply printing whatever false narrative they want. Just look at the recent IGDF blacklist and Alanah Pearce debacles. What's more likely: That tens of thousands of people from all over the world will come together for months for the sole nefarious purpose of attacking women which they then express by raising over $120,000 for feminist organizations and charities, contacting the FTC requesting regulatory reform, and constantly go out of their way to support and give voice to women and minorities? Or that a clique of wealthy well-connected individuals already proven to be engaging in collusion and blacklisting by the evidence in the GameJournoPros leaks are smearing the people protesting their corruption with something they know everybody will rush to defend without question? I don't know about you but I'm not inclined to believe there has been a global conspiracy of staggering size and scope going on for the last three or so months. Especially when the evidence just keeps mounting against that and in favor of the "misogyny" narrative being nothing more than a McCarthyist diversion. I'm nowhere near well informed enough on the links you posted and some of the events you referenced to even begin talking against this, but I think the phrase 'false narrative' is probably not the right way to describe what is going on. In something like this, if you're on an opposing side, it's often hard to see or understand the viewpoint of others, something that really is clearly a problem on all sides of this argument. Do you really think a journalist is going to willingly write an article that puts themselves, their friends, or their own thoughts in a bad light? Also at the end there you're starting to sound like there's some kind of anti-gamer illuminati or something... As much as it may be a 'McCarthyist diversion', it's still going to effect how well a movement like this is going to be seen by people who aren't actively involved in every little incident. Is a random outlandish post on gamefaqs which doesn't reference gamergate in any way shape or form representative of the thing it makes absolutely no reference to whatsoever? I don't know, can we ask the same question but swap out gamergate for taco bell? Here's another example of where your tone is getting in the way of whatever you're trying to say - read what he said again. He didn't say 'reference', he said 'was it representative'. Jumping to conclusions and immediately being condescending makes you look like an asshole. Just as an aside, right now there is so much shit flying from every conceivable side that it's almost impossible to talk about this any more because people have absolutely no idea what they're even talking about any more. Let's say I'm not going to read hundreds of articles, view all of the tweets, or watch a video detailing everything that's happened so far. How do I even begin to understand what the hell is going on in a lot of the arguments in this thread? Edited December 1, 2014 by Pl511 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timaeus222 Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 (edited) Ok you're not even making sense anymore. You've got so many convoluted twists and double negatives in here that it's incomprehensible even before you take into account the fact you've somehow turned a straightforwards point about a double standard into some kind of torturous grammar exercise.I made a comment about the fact there is a double standard at work here where one side is utterly excoriated for every single bad thing that happens on the internet even when there's proof it WASN'T them. At the same time the other side is given a complete free pass even when actively participating in or publicly condoning an order of magnitude more and more severe attacks. And all of this is despite the first group going to such extreme lengths to combat inappropriate behavior that they're literally filing police reports and taking down troll accounts faster than they can be retweeted for publicity Of course I'm making sense. You're continually making the "distinction" between these "groups", when I already told you that these "distinctions" are made arbitrarily to fit the situation, like you already said with regards to the "journalists". These double negatives I'm incorporating simply reflect the complexity and blurriness of the entire situation, because it literally is quite that confusing as a situation, and it's not just me. It's inherently a dilemma. "Do I want to criticize the people who support GG and risk getting criticized back, or do I not and let the people who are against GG (at that time) continue fighting against those who are supporting GG (at that time)? In what very careful way should I criticize them should I choose to, in order to avoid needlessly brutish consequences? Why is it that I even have to be that careful? How animalistic might these consequences be? Do I want to risk experiencing what Sarkeesian, Quinn, etc. have? Is it worth trying?" (Seriously, quit it with the ad hominem, it doesn't get anyone anywhere. If you're confused, that's fine, but please, don't misconstrue your confusion as someone else's mistake if it happens to not be a mistake. If you're going to say "due to the fact that..." or what have you about facts, it necessarily must be correct. If it's not, well... it's not really a fact, then.) Edited December 1, 2014 by timaeus222 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DusK Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 Is a random outlandish post on gamefaqs which doesn't reference gamergate in any way shape or form representative of the thing it makes absolutely no reference to whatsoever? I don't know, can we ask the same question but swap out gamergate for taco bell? The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ab56 v2 aka Ash Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 I'm not really sure what you mean by "elaborate" on this. There's a group of people who have extremely close financial, personal, and professional ties including a leaked mailing list which documents their behavior ranging from collusion to blacklisting. This group, and the individuals they have direct financial or personal ties to, have basically been the driving force behind the entire controversy. Plenty of ways to elaborate. What group? Can you describe these financial, personal, and professional ties? Can you describe this specific group's involvement in the controversy? Why should the "anti-GamerGate" label apply only to this narrow group rather than all the people out there on gaming sites, Twitter, Tumblr, and elsewhere that oppose whatever it is that GamerGate is about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
relyanCe Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 (Seriously, quit it with the ad hominem, it doesn't get anyone anywhere. If you're confused, that's fine, but please, don't misconstrue your confusion as someone else's mistake if it happens to not be a mistake. If you're going to say "due to the fact that..." or what have you about facts, it necessarily must be correct. If it's not, well... it's not really a fact, then.) First of all, there is no ad hominem in Shadow's posts. His rebuttals may be on the spiny side of discourse method, but he is addressing your points just fine. Be wary of falling back on complaints of personal attack when someone isn't nice to your position. Second, and I'm not making a judgment either way here, but if someone tells you that your position is confusing, it might be a wise practice to go back over your statements to make sure you aren't obfuscating your point. There is a difference between being confused and pointing something out as confusing. Especially in this kind of forum, where all responses are a matter of record and easy to reread, it can never hurt to vet yourself (and others). Lastly, facts have varying truth values. A fact is not necessarily a truth, nor a truth a fact. There is no rule that says a fact is true by necessity. Just a nitpick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argle Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Let's say I'm not going to read hundreds of articles, view all of the tweets, or watch a video detailing everything that's happened so far. How do I even begin to understand what the hell is going on in a lot of the arguments in this thread? Don't bother, at this point it's two entrenched sides dedicated to fighting each other for the sake of fighting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meteo Xavier Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 The lady doth protest too much, methinks. You're one to talk... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timaeus222 Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 (edited) First of all, there is no ad hominem in Shadow's posts. His rebuttals may be on the spiny side of discourse method, but he is addressing your points just fine. Be wary of falling back on complaints of personal attack when someone isn't nice to your position. Yeah, it's the seeming hostility that personally bugs me, but oh well, I can live with it. Second, and I'm not making a judgment either way here, but if someone tells you that your position is confusing, it might be a wise practice to go back over your statements to make sure you aren't obfuscating your point. There is a difference between being confused and pointing something out as confusing. Especially in this kind of forum, where all responses are a matter of record and easy to reread, it can never hurt to vet yourself (and others). Fair enough. With the point I previously addressed though, it was concerning a detail that I figured was delicate enough to write it in such a particular way. For example, sometimes there comes a situation where you don't want to emphasize the yay or the nay, but understate the nay to illustrate that hairiness---that delicateness. At least, that kind of language is practical, and is not that uncommonly used, as far as I can tell (a litote). But yes, I'll agree that occasionally I can be confusing. Lastly, facts have varying truth values. A fact is not necessarily a truth, nor a truth a fact. There is no rule that says a fact is true by necessity. Just a nitpick.And a minor thing that you could easily clarify yourself, but I mean, the Googled definition of a fact is "a thing that is indisputably the case," so that appears to agree with something being necessarily correct. There are degrees of correctness, to be sure, but I believe that it should be agreeably so, because if someone catches you saying "this is fact", but it's suuuuper far off, well that's just embarrassing. [/rant] Edited December 2, 2014 by timaeus222 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anorax Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 Is a random outlandish post on gamefaqs which doesn't reference gamergate in any way shape or form representative of the thing it makes absolutely no reference to whatsoever? I don't know, can we ask the same question but swap out gamergate for taco bell? Only if they're discussing burritos made of meat and sand filler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowe Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 (edited) Of course I'm making sense. You're continually making the "distinction" between these "groups", when I already told you that these "distinctions" are made arbitrarily to fit the situation, like you already said with regards to the "journalists". These double negatives I'm incorporating simply reflect the complexity and blurriness of the entire situation, because it literally is quite that confusing as a situation, and it's not just me. It's inherently a dilemma. So basically you admit that you're deliberately writing incomprehensible convoluted sentences for... why again? You're trying to make impossible to understand posts because you think the situation is confusing and therefore everyone deserves to be confused? And I'm not even going to touch that stuff about the distinction between two objectively definable and distinct groups being "arbitrary". You wouldn't happen to be a postmodernist would you? Because all of this is starting to sound a LOT like their "nothing truly means anything" rejections of an objective knowable truth. "Do I want to criticize the people who support GG and risk getting criticized back, or do I not and let the people who are against GG (at that time) continue fighting against those who are supporting GG (at that time)? In what very careful way should I criticize them should I choose to, in order to avoid needlessly brutish consequences? Why is it that I even have to be that careful? How animalistic might these consequences be? Do I want to risk experiencing what Sarkeesian, Quinn, etc. have? Is it worth trying?" Lets try this a third time: My original comment was pointing out the double standard in this thread and elsewhere. That double standard is that gamergate is utterly excoriated for literally everything on the internet even when there's proof it wasn't gamergate (like with the GNAA and SomethingAwful trolls), while on the other hand the other side (GameJournoPros members and supporters) has been proven to publicly condone and even outright engage in not only more but more severe attacks. But unlike gamergate the GJP members and their supporters' proven behavior is barely even mentioned, let alone criticized, let alone to the absurdist levels of hyperbole thrown at gamergate. Your response to this has been to repeat what you now admit to be deliberately incomprehensible convoluted questions that as near as I can tell boil down to something I've never even said. As for what Sarkeesian/McIntosh, Quinn, and "etc" have experienced there are multiple statistical analyses proving objectively that 85-90% of all tweets directed at them are neutral at minimum ranging up to positive. If I were you I would be far more concerned about the real world violence and harm suffered by an extremely disproportionate number of gamergate supporters, which starts with people losing their jobs or having their income and utilities interfered with and escalates to multiple people nearly losing their lives in SWATting attacks or getting mailed knives, syringes, and dead animals. I'm nowhere near well informed enough on the links you posted and some of the events you referenced to even begin talking against this, but I think the phrase 'false narrative' is probably not the right way to describe what is going on. In something like this, if you're on an opposing side, it's often hard to see or understand the viewpoint of others, something that really is clearly a problem on all sides of this argument. Do you really think a journalist is going to willingly write an article that puts themselves, their friends, or their own thoughts in a bad light? Also at the end there you're starting to sound like there's some kind of anti-gamer illuminati or something... As much as it may be a 'McCarthyist diversion', it's still going to effect how well a movement like this is going to be seen by people who aren't actively involved in every little incident. I realise it sounds absurd but it is literally the case that there is a group of people who have been proven to be colluding through a private mailing list (GameJournoPros) to engage in everything from blacklisting to bribery/payola and potentially criminally racketeering the IGF/Indiecade. This is an actual thing that has been verified even by the people on the list. These people, and the people that they're either extremely close friends and roommates with or have financial ties to (most often through patreon) have literally been writing provably complete and utter bullshit to smear the people protesting them for that very corruption. One of the most recent examples is one I just linked you to, a bunch of people wrote articles claiming Alanah Pearce had been harassed by gamergate. She publicly stated on twitter that there was no indication of that, and she was actually set up and then quote-mined. Similar things happened with the developers of "That Dragon Cancer", who repeatedly insisted they were not being harassed at all by anyone despite GJP supporters insisting gamergate was attacking them. You raise exactly the point that I made though. It's far more likely that a small group of tight-knit people that are already colluding with each other privately would write a bunch of hit pieces on the people protesting them than it is that tens of thousands of people from all over the world would suddenly declare war on only a handful of women and "weaponize charity" to the tune of over a hundred grand and a quarter. Here's another example of where your tone is getting in the way of whatever you're trying to say - read what he said again. He didn't say 'reference', he said 'was it representative'. Jumping to conclusions and immediately being condescending makes you look like an asshole. Just as an aside, right now there is so much shit flying from every conceivable side that it's almost impossible to talk about this any more because people have absolutely no idea what they're even talking about any more. Let's say I'm not going to read hundreds of articles, view all of the tweets, or watch a video detailing everything that's happened so far. How do I even begin to understand what the hell is going on in a lot of the arguments in this thread? I know he didn't say reference, I did. My point was that he posted something which is literally so utterly unconnected to gamergate in any way, shape, or form that it doesn't even reference it in passing and then implied it was representative. It's become commonplace for gamergate to be blamed for literally everything bad on the internet, anywhere, ever, even when there's proof otherwise. As for understanding what's going on... if you're not speaking in absolutes then I guess you could get some understanding by reading things like the Press Dossier or articles written by Georgina Young and others. But this is very much a complex issue and no matter how much it's condensed or synthesized by people like Ms. Young there's still going to be mental legwork involved. Plenty of ways to elaborate. What group? Can you describe these financial, personal, and professional ties? Can you describe this specific group's involvement in the controversy? Why should the "anti-GamerGate" label apply only to this narrow group rather than all the people out there on gaming sites, Twitter, Tumblr, and elsewhere that oppose whatever it is that GamerGate is about? A number of people, primarily gaming journalists, communicated through a private mailing list called GameJournoPros. Leaks from this list include evidence of bribery/payola, collusion, blacklisting, and a host of more routine ethical violations. Several incidences have been uncovered where soem of these people have direct personal ties to those they've given favorable coverage to such as roommates, old friends, and romantic partners. Many of the people involved in the anti-gamergate side of this also have such personal ties, and many have direct financial ties such as payments through Patreon or even potential criminal racketeering such as with Polytronic and the IGF/Indiecade. A number of the most negative pieces written about gamergate even outside of gaming journalism itself were also by people with ties to the GJP list or its members, such as patreon payments and the like. The final bit that confuses a lot of people is why "social justice" keeps coming up if this is about ethics in journalism. In the simplest terms all of the above and then some was committed while using the banner of "feminism" as a shield against criticism, as well as an excuse to engage in vicious bullying, toxic mudslinging (classic "yellow journalism"), and blackmail. Basically a group that is 80-90% wealthy white males is using the image of feminism as an excuse to make themselves bulletproof against any criticism, and using tumblr style hate-activism against those they don't like. The reason these people are a defined group should be clear at this point. They have a clearly defined and shared tight-knit ideology, a clearly defined and objectively listed group of individuals which form their de facto leaders, and there is a wealth of information documenting their practically incestuous financial, professional, and personal ties to each other. Where this gets muddy is when you consider the people they've recruited to fight for them using the social justice narrative. Only if they're discussing burritos made of meat and sand filler I think it's Meatt, with two T's. Edited December 3, 2014 by Shadowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.