Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[PA Comic] Wednesday, October 15, 2014 - Star Gourds

2456

Posts

  • PuddingSenatorPuddingSenator Registered User regular
    Orphane wrote: »
    All I have to say regarding gamergate is: does nobody else think this shit is absolutely fucked? Since when did being on opposing sides (if there are even any) of an internet argument mean that death threats or doxxing people is acceptable behavior? It's appalling. You can have a common cause, and this cause can be righteous, but the moment you allow the people who are doing this to associate with your cause without making the utmost effort to expel them you have already lost. This goes for both sides.

    Of course death threats and doxxing people aren't acceptable behavior. How do you mean "allow people" to associate with the cause? Is there somewhere I can apply to prevent people from using a certain hashtag? How, exactly, do you prevent people from associating with your cause when all that requires is using a particular hashtag? This is called the association fallacy and it's a completely invalid argument. You set an impossible goal, of "expelling" all trolls from a group, then you say "until my impossible goal is met we can't discuss this issue."

    Kenninator
  • El BananaEl Banana Registered User regular
    Orphane, it's a movement that basically originated on 4chan.

    It actually didn't. The term was coined by Baldwin, right after over 11 different, supposedly independent games journalism sites simultaneously ran basically identical stories all on the same day: that "Gamers are Dead" because they're misogynistic white cishet neckbeards who are overweight and live in basements. It was something so hilariously suspicious and the timing right after the Zoe Quinn debacle that pretty much anyone could smell the rat.
    Really, being pro or anti GG is one thing, but it would be nice if people at least bothered to do a tiny bit of research instead of reading the latest Gamasutra headlines.

    PuddingSenatorCrippl3glider
  • PuddingSenatorPuddingSenator Registered User regular
    Djiem wrote: »
    Orphane, it's a movement that basically originated on 4chan. There is no other way this could have gone. All the arguments about how trolls don't represent GamerGate crash against this simple fact - it started on 4chan, the cesspit of the internet. It might have attracted a few unwitting souls along the way, but that does not legitimize it in any way.

    That's pretty much the summary. There are tons of people who don't think harassing people is okay, and they say they're part of gamergate to fight the evils of gaming journalism while they were very content with its status before this campaign (it's not like the alleged problems with gaming journalism started in the second half of 2014), but that just gives the harassers the cover they need. Gamergate stays strong, has traction, they send death threats to try and silence feminists and anyone they deem a "SJW", and people think it's only a few trolls, that gamergate is still an ok movement, and so they continue to create a climate of oppression against social change and criticizism of videogames, saying these people try to "destroy gaming".

    I wasn't content with gaming journalism before this campaign, you have no basis to assume that I or anybody else was and it's not fair to put words in others' mouths. I was pissed off about dorito pope, about the tomb raider gamespot controversy, about the eurogamer Robert Florence controversy, and many many other things.

    Please explain to me how people sending death threats is enabled in any way by the fact that I'm pissed off about games journalism. Does Twitter only show your death threats to people if your hashtag has enough tweets associated with it? Or is it exactly as possible to harass people with or without other people talking about gamergate? Do the people receiving death threats say to themselves "Well, I would be totally cool with receiving this death threat, if only gamergate were receiving fewer tweets per day," or are they just as devastated regardless of which hashtag is used when threatening them? I suspect it's the latter.

  • Rhome GrownRhome Grown Rhode IslandRegistered User regular
    Tycho be like, "I'm too old for this shit!" haha I love you bro! Great comic today....btw I love the stream of Destiny with Gabe.

    Geth
  • SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    I've been trying not to post too much about this because it honestly sickens me to get too into it, but:

    The gamergate movement is about silencing feminist voices.

    That's it, that's all it is. It started as a way to get back at a woman who developed a game that "real gamers" didn't like. 4chan, obviously, delighted in the opportunity to harass women and "SJWs." Their "Disrespectful Nod" boycott campaign that e-mailed advertisers featured, as their examples of corruption, nothing but articles that discussed sexism in gaming. They threatened to shoot up a college campus because a feminist was going to give a talk.

    If you seriously care about games journalism, if you seriously care about games, step one is to step away from this thing. This movement has driven people from their homes out of fear, it has caused the FBI to get involved, it has done nothing but provide the general public with a multitude of examples of "real gamers" being misogynistic troglodytes.

    In short:
    20141015-theperfectcrime.png

    icon.png facebookIcon.png tumblrIcon.png
    is this how nations are born
    DjiemSmrtnikkaortiAegeriMoridin889PLADarkewolfejakobaggermare_imbriumCommander ZoomCambiataThe SauceSmoogyTofystedethJusticeforPlutoCantideceresjoshofalltradesintropZilla360ArdolZoku GojiraCalicaGoose!
  • seasleepyseasleepy Registered User regular
    El Banana wrote: »
    Orphane, it's a movement that basically originated on 4chan.

    It actually didn't. The term was coined by Baldwin, right after over 11 different, supposedly independent games journalism sites simultaneously ran basically identical stories all on the same day: that "Gamers are Dead" because they're misogynistic white cishet neckbeards who are overweight and live in basements. It was something so hilariously suspicious and the timing right after the Zoe Quinn debacle that pretty much anyone could smell the rat.
    Really, being pro or anti GG is one thing, but it would be nice if people at least bothered to do a tiny bit of research instead of reading the latest Gamasutra headlines.
    The first usage of the GG hashtag was by Baldwin.... to link to a video with a cover image of a Five Guys. It was not about defending gamers. It was not about journalistic integrity. It was, from day one, about harassing women.

    (For all your complaining about reading them so many times in different places, you're also wildly misreading those "death of the gamer" articles. The point of all of the ones I've seen have been that games aren't and have never been the province of the stereotypical neckbeards, and the idea that they are is what needs to die for the sake of the medium's growth.)

    Steam | Nintendo: seasleepy | PSN: seasleepy1
    SurfpossumDjiemCrippl3kaortiAegeriCommander ZoomCambiataintropZilla360Calica
  • PuddingSenatorPuddingSenator Registered User regular
    edited October 2014
    If anything Tycho did not go nearly far enough- he talked only about the death threats, not the fact that it's all bullshit aimed exclusively at keeping feminists out of video games.

    If you really believe Zoe Quinn slept with a guy just to get a mention in a goddamn blog post (which isn't even the case since the post happened before the relationship is supposed to have begun) I have a bridge in New York to sell you.

    I don't believe Zoe Quinn slept with a guy to get a mention in a blog post. I believe that Nathan Grayson used his position of power in the industry to help a friend get more publicity and attention onto her game, when he should have recused himself from writing about it. Whether or when they slept together isn't really relevant because they were friends prior to that when Nathan was publicizing her work to hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people. That also doesn't mean Zoe Quinn became friends with Grayson because she expected him to help her career, or that she asked for his help, or anything like that. And yes, his headlining of her game in "a goddamn blog post" which is read by a massive number of people has value. Pretending it doesn't is disingenuous.

    It's actually a pretty mild ethical breach (and the breach is Grayson's, not Quinn's, we have no evidence that she desired or demanded his help) that could have easily and quickly been done away with with an apology and a promise to do better in the future. Instead we got a huge shitstorm of censorship and people being called misogynists for even mentioning what happened in any context. The only reason I even know about it at all is because of the massive censorship of discussion that took place on Reddit. I think the Streisand Effect is responsible for a huge percentage of the people who are currently in gamergate.

    PuddingSenator on
  • Evan WatersEvan Waters Registered User regular
    If anything Tycho did not go nearly far enough- he talked only about the death threats, not the fact that it's all bullshit aimed exclusively at keeping feminists out of video games.

    If you really believe Zoe Quinn slept with a guy just to get a mention in a goddamn blog post (which isn't even the case since the post happened before the relationship is supposed to have begun) I have a bridge in New York to sell you.

    I don't believe Zoe Quinn slept with a guy to get a mention in a blog post. I believe that Nathan Grayson used his position of power in the industry to help a friend get more publicity and attention onto her game, when he should have recused himself from writing about it.

    By that logic Roger Ebert should never have reviewed a Scorcese or Altman film since he was friends with those guys.

    Recusal is a matter for LAW. It's for when there are real stakes to something, not merely the kind of basic publicity that takes place in every industry.

    Depression Quest was already getting attention when he first mentioned it. It got attention when it came out, because it was an unusual take on subject matter that is rarely tackled in the medium, and there was healthy debate over how well it represented said subject matter.

    Don't you think there's something the least bit significant about the targets this movement has chosen? Why the focus on feminists and people who have a problem with gender and/or minority representation in video games? Coincidence?

    FCDAegeriDjiemDarkewolfeSurfpossumSmrtniktheResetButtonCambiataZilla360ArdolQuidCalica
  • kaortikaorti Registered User regular
    Today I was at a game store, and overheard a group of five people talking about how GamerGate totally wasn't about harassing women.

    They went on to talk about how if a women was dressed "slutty" they would totally be all up on that.

    It was distressing.

    DjiemceresCommander ZoomCambiataJusticeforPlutoCalica
  • FiarynFiaryn Omnicidal Madman Registered User regular
    edited October 2014
    GamerGate is a great example of the dangers of forming your identity upon the media you consume, and of the sizzling undercurrent of raging misogyny in 'gamers'.

    Nothing more.

    Fiaryn on
    Soul Silver FC: 1935 3141 6240
    White FC: 0819 3350 1787
    DjiemtheResetButtonJacobkoshjakobaggerceresCommander ZoomTofystedethAndy JoeHachfaceQuidCalica
  • AegeriAegeri Plateau of LengRegistered User regular
    edited October 2014
    GamerGate has been the single most dangerous poison to the credibility of games that we've faced in years. They have delivered to many Mainstream outlets like the BBC, CNN, New York Times (front page even) and many others (who were never going to be dumb enough not to see straight through it for what it is: An anti-woman hate campaign) the perfect headlines to say "Gamers are awful and are currently attacking women".

    And it's right. By supporting GG, you are implicitly creating the atmosphere that allows, enables and encourages the worst of the gaming community to come forth and attack these women. GG is a platform for harassment right from the beginning and trying to rewrite historical narratives to change that isn't going to work. That horse bolted from the stables so long ago now it's not even remotely possible to get it back anymore.

    It is now poison pure and simple. It has created an atmosphere of intimidation and fear for women (which was always the goal), with a host of willing useful-silly geese who deflect and have a well drilled PR machine narrative of dismissing/questioning harassment to pretend it doesn't exist (despite the hundreds of individual women, prominent game designers and journalists saying harassment from GG has affected them). GG has failed in any objective that wasn't to create fear for women in the games industry and all the nonsense whining about "buh-buh it was about ethics!" doesn't change it.

    You either stop supporting gamergate, or you continue supporting the harassment of women in the games industry.

    There is no longer a middle ground in supporting GG after multiple women have been driven from their homes by death threats (all of whom GG either attacks prominently or were critics of it) and another is forced to not talk about video games at a University for fear of an actual attack. GG has done more damage to gamers, the gaming community and everything about our hobby than all of the previous controversies in games combined. It's done more damage than American Senators like Joe Lieberman who wanted games banned and definitely more than Jack Thompson could ever have dreamed of. Could you image how he would feel if back at that time someone threatened to cause a massacre at a school because of a woman daring to speak about video games?

    This is where we have got to and the toxic, horrific atmosphere of fear for women in games that GG has promoted allowed it to happen. It's time to end it and find a new way to critique the actual problems in the games industry and press (much of which involves strong, multi-million dollar PR firms that GG is oddly not interested in fighting at all - given their apathetic response to these institutions trying to bribe youtubers for example).

    Aegeri on
    The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
    ZxerolMoridin889FiendishrabbitMumboJumboPAX_SkeletorFCDDjiemDarkewolfeSurfpossumSmoogytheResetButtonKid PresentablemRahmaniDarkPrimuskaorticeresPonyCommander ZoomCambiataThe SauceTofystedethDark Raven XMaclayCantideSpaffyAndy JoeHachfaceintropZilla360ArdolQuidMichaelLCCalica
  • Rhesus PositiveRhesus Positive GNU Terry Pratchett Registered User regular
    I miss the days when the greatest perceived enemy to games was Jack Thompson. Reactions to him meant $10,000 got donated to charity as opposed to bullying him into moving house or forcing him to cancel speaking engagements by threatening a school shooting.

    AegeriFiendishrabbitFCDDjiemDarkewolfePLAtheResetButtonmare_imbriumceresCommander ZoomCambiataTofystedethJusticeforPlutoCantideknitdanintropZilla360ArdolQuid
  • ZxerolZxerol Registered User regular
    I miss the days when the greatest perceived enemy to games was Jack Thompson. Reactions to him meant $10,000 got donated to charity as opposed to bullying him into moving house or forcing him to cancel speaking engagements by threatening a school shooting.

    That's because he had the luck to be born without an icky icky vagina and wasn't talking about stuff that was truly horrible. Awful shit like games and gaming culture not being quite inclusive of women and minorities, and other horrid, death threats worthy stuff.

    AegeriRhesus PositiveDjiemDarkewolfeSmrtnikjakobaggerKid PresentableCommander ZoomCambiataCantideAndy JoeintropZilla360Ardol
  • exup35exup35 Registered User regular
    Whassthat?? Whassthat ? ?

    I HEAR THE GREAT PUMPKIN ! ! !

  • DjiemDjiem Registered User regular
    Aegeri wrote: »
    GamerGate has been the single most dangerous poison to the credibility of games that we've faced in years.

    This is true, and sad. I find it really depressing that the biggest threat to the credibility of games and gaming came from within, from a large group of gamers, rather than from some outside misinformed sources like in the almost comical Jack Thompson era.

    SurfpossumceresCommander ZoomCambiataZilla360
  • alcaronalcaron Registered User regular
    edited October 2014
    It is a shame that so many people give longevity to this issue. I BARELY game anymore, haven't in quite awhile. I don't think I ever even came close to "hardcore" hell I don't even think I'm "casual" at this point.

    Likewise I've never really read "gaming news", not back when we stacked thin slices of tree together nor now that we've lassoed untold numbers of electrons like little tiny slaves.

    People can say whatever they want, but standing on the sidelines between two factions I really don't relate to or care about, I can tell you this.

    BOTH sides have fringe actors that make death threats (one just has the "media" behind them) both sides engage in bullying, both sides engage in doxxing.

    I'm sick of both sides.

    It's true that whatever genuine grievances "gamergate" has have been drowned out by name calling all the way down to where the rest of the s**t rolled, but both sarkeesian and the game journalists have just as deaf an audience now because all any rational person can hear is a bunch of people just being god awful to one another.

    On the merits of the argument. Sarkeesians points laid out in her videos are just...I'm sorry but they are like talking about the ocean by describing the waves. It is neither in depth nor insightful. Most of the criticism she levels at female characters can be lobbed at any huge number of male characters. And on some level that is INTENDED. I don't look anything like the characters I play in games, hell most of the time I don't think, talk or act like them. And that is sometimes the point. To wander into a make believe where I AM a cartoon, and ass is mine to beat!

    On the points "gamergate" originally brought up.

    Come on. Does anyone think game journalism is even a thing let alone a bastion of journalism? If you do I would suggest you haven't been paying attention. Though to that point I would ask...why do you still visit their sites?

    Kudos to both sides for handing trolls one of their biggest victories since the internet came along. And here, as they say, is the kicker. How do you stop it? Ignoring death threats seems...suspect...but pretending they speak for whatever group they glom onto is even worse. In fact the only way I can think to avoid it is for either side to AVOID making that association. But in a world where NOBODY wants to "lose" and winning is more about doing and less about accounting for the cost...I don't think I'll hold my breath.

    alcaron on
  • DelzhandDelzhand Venitah, Satariel! Registered User regular
    Gaming journalism, all gaming journalism, is an advertising engine. A way for you to spend your non-gaming hours being electively advertised to. Concerning yourself with its "ethics" is transparent as fuck, because the net result is just that you might see content related to games you're not going to buy and aren't interested in.

    Who gives a fuck.

    Nobody.

    But it is awfully convenient.

    Steam|FFXIV|Switch SW-3472-4893-0802
    GRMikeCommander ZoomDjiemSmrtnikAndy JoeJackdawGinZilla360glider
  • OtieOtie Registered User regular
    because its bad for your back...

  • mare_imbriummare_imbrium Registered User regular
    Games journalism has been a mouthpiece for the publishers for years. If I want to know if a game is any good I come ask here. Are the forums corrupted by the publishers? No? Well, I'll just keep doing that then.

    v2zAToe.jpg
    Wii: 4521 1146 5179 1333 Pearl: 3394 4642 8367 HG: 1849 3913 3132
    Delzhandceres
  • BrymBrym Registered User regular
    Djiem wrote: »
    The problem, Brym, isn't that the people with legitimate problems with the gaming journalism and gaming industry let extremists into their rank, it's that by identifying as gamergate, THEY joined the extremist ranks.

    The suggestion here is to dissociate from that movement, condemn it, and when people are ready to have an actual debate and conversation, discuss the problems of the gaming journalism edifice like actual human beings.

    I think that's right. As others have noted, it's not like the problems with gaming "journalism" are new, which makes it pretty clear that the issue is a fig leaf for silencing feminist criticism. For example, I remember Jeff Gerstmann discussing on the Bombcast how big publishers will hire professional reviewers to come and mock review preview builds of the games in order to determine what changes to make to the game, or perhaps just to have a better idea of how to market it. That's a tremendous conflict of interest--you have people reviewing EA games for mainstream outlets by day while their earning extra income by working as freelance consultants for EA at night. But there's been no outcry against the practice by gamers. Everyone just listened to that episode of the Bombcast and promptly forgot about it. That seems like a much bigger issue to me than who a small independent developer may or may not have slept with.

    The one issue I have with the current trend of feminist criticism in games is that, while most of it is justified and helpful to the industry, some does go overboard. I'm thinking, for example, of all the brouhaha over the alleged "rape" scene in Tomb Raider (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomb_Raider_(2013_video_game)#Controversy). Here you have a game with a strong female protagonist, depicted (finally) with normal human proportions, and with a story written by a woman. Yet people still went out of their way to try to depict it as sexist, based on a misrepresentation of a single scene in the game. I suspect that some of these critics really do just hate video games, similar to the Jack Thompsons of old.

    But even if you think that the feminist critics of games sometimes go overboard, the proper response is to ignore that criticism or rebut it, not to attempt to silence it.

  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    Brym: True, and yet, I wonder how much of that misrepresentation and assumption was because we all know how terrible gaming has been (and continues to be) on that sort of thing, and were expecting TR to be no different? And that it's actually a surprise, an exception and a landmark when it's not? (Ugh.)

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    DjiemCalica
  • BrymBrym Registered User regular
    Brym: True, and yet, I wonder how much of that misrepresentation and assumption was because we all know how terrible gaming has been (and continues to be) on that sort of thing, and were expecting TR to be no different? And that it's actually a surprise, an exception and a landmark when it's not? (Ugh.)

    I'm sure that drove it in part.

  • DjiemDjiem Registered User regular
    edited October 2014
    Brym wrote: »
    But even if you think that the feminist critics of games sometimes go overboard, the proper response is to ignore that criticism or rebut it, not to attempt to silence it.

    Of course. Even criticism can be subject to criticism. Just because you are being liberal or progressive or whatever doesn't mean your arguments are sound or that the points you made are right.

    However, the phrase "The one issue I have with the current trend of feminist criticism in games is that, while most of it is justified and helpful to the industry, some does go overboard." is a little problematic, or rather, it makes me think of a problem we are having as a community at the moment. It seems to me that your issue isn't with the current trend of feminist criticism in game, it's about specific pieces that you believe are wrong about the subject. And that's an absolutely ok opinion to have. I find myself agreeing with pieces, disagreeing with others, or hell, agreeing with larger points of some pieces while disagreeing on smaller details and arguments. But that's not the "trend" of this criticism, nor is it new or exclusive to it. It just came along with it. The right thing to do is to be part of the conversation. Present explicit support for pieces of criticism you agree with, and present strong, respectful and enlightened counter-arguments to pieces that trouble you.

    At the moment, though, Gamergate is silencing all criticism of games by lumping all feminists and feminist pieces into that "going overboard" basket. By claiming that the "other side" is full of crazies, they can try and claim to have the moral high ground in their crusade of harassment.

    I do not think for a moment that you personally have a problem with the criticism that we are facing, as you said yourself, most of it is justified and helpful to the industry, but I think many people are making that mistake of conflating "bad" criticisms and legit ones with statements such as "My problem with people who gives criticism are the ones who give bad criticism", which plays right in the hands of those who would silence them all.

    Djiem on
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    edited October 2014
    A major problem with gamergate, even if you ignore the fact that it was created by a 4chan raid, is that the people behind it can't even clearly articulate what they want.

    Like there's a video circuiting around right now called "want to stop gamergate?" and a guy explaining that all you need to do as a games journalism website is post a lists of ethical guidelines and adhere to them. Then gamergate will be over, or if it's not then there's your proof gamergate is really just about harassment.

    Except, two of gamergates largest targets, Polygon and Kotaku, already have ethical guidelines listed. And iirc Kotaku even changed it's guidelines in response to Gamergate.

    There just don't seem to be any actual win conditions for #GamerGate.

    Cambiata on
    Djiem
  • DjiemDjiem Registered User regular
    Honestly, the fact that they went after a few small indie devs and feminist critics of games rather than go after huge institutions like IGN or Gamespot tells you all you need to know about them and their alleged goal.

    CambiataSurfpossumceresAegeriJusticeforPlutoSmrtnikintropArdol
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    Djiem wrote: »
    Honestly, the fact that they went after a few small indie devs and feminist critics of games rather than go after huge institutions like IGN or Gamespot tells you all you need to know about them and their alleged goal.

    Well yes, entirely that too. But I've been trying to read "moderate" gamergaters to see what they think is wrong, because even if it's not true those people *believe* that the attacks on Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian are either isolated or done by non-gg-affiliated trolls.

    But even ignoring that, their arguments are... really not very good.

    The main point I've gleaned out of them is that they just don't want people to talk about feminism. Which at least that's a goal to have, as opposed to "objective reviews" which is a nonsense phrase.

    Djiem
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    edited October 2014
    There also seem to be a lot of people who strongly identify as "gamers" who want the public to stop calling them/treating them like/thinking of them as terrible people... and of course, they set out to make this happen by acting like terrible people.
    Way to go, there.

    Commander Zoom on
    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    SmoogyLovelyCantideJackdawGinCalica
  • SmoogySmoogy Registered User regular
    I really don't know too many people who strongly identify as gamers anymore, though I know they're out there. I think it's a part of becoming 30 and just realizing that, yes, I play games here and there, but that doesn't really define anything about me. But there's a lot of people out there who feel that way...and, yeah, they aren't doing themselves any favors on this one.

    Smoogy-1689
    3DS Friend Code: 1821-8991-4141
    PAD ID: 376,540,262

  • DjiemDjiem Registered User regular
    edited October 2014
    Smoogy wrote: »
    I really don't know too many people who strongly identify as gamers anymore, though I know they're out there. I think it's a part of becoming 30 and just realizing that, yes, I play games here and there, but that doesn't really define anything about me. But there's a lot of people out there who feel that way...and, yeah, they aren't doing themselves any favors on this one.

    I guess I identified as a gamer during my teenage and young adult years, and I'm assuming the "gamers" today are today's teenagers.

    Djiem on
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    Djiem wrote: »
    Honestly, the fact that they went after a few small indie devs and feminist critics of games rather than go after huge institutions like IGN or Gamespot tells you all you need to know about them and their alleged goal.

    I was in shock with how much latent misogyn seemed to come out of nowhere over this. It strikes me a lot like the tea party where it's just a bunch of angry people who are uncomfortable with demographics change and are lashing out over it.

    What really sucks about Sarkeesian and this death threat in particular is that it's not like her theses or opinions are all that rigorous. It's not hard to pick apart most of her stuff, the Hitman video is a particularly good example of that. But when you threaten her talk with a mass shooting, all you're doing is giving her the opportunity to slink away without ever having her opinions challenged.

    I hope to hell they find this guy and prosecute him to the full extent of the law. Threatening letter is one thing, but this might as well be a terrorist manifesto.

  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited October 2014
    A reminder that terrorism isn't strictly limited to actually blowing people up and other acts of violence, but includes using the threat of violence and general mayhem to create fear and intimidate your opposition into compliance, silence, or retreat.

    In this regard, Gamergate is literally a banner under which terrorists are proudly marching. I'm not saying all Gaters are terrorists, but I am definitely saying that it is a banner being used for terrorism and anyone who isn't a terrorist but still says they support Gamergate should really think about that.

    Pony on
    CambiataFCDAndy JoeintropArdolCalica
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited October 2014
    Basically at this point if you're a Gater that isn't a misogynistic terrorist bag of shit, you're just like a Scientologist who sees their thing as just some religion to help people with their maladjusted thetans, not a dangerous scam and murder cult that actively deceives and terrorizes people.

    Meaning, you exist and I'm sure you're a lovely person and all that, but you are at best ignorant and misguided and at worst actively enabling hideous people to do horrible things by providing the smokescreen of legitimate membership they need to conceal what they really are.

    Pony on
    CambiataCommander ZoomCantideFCDRhesus PositiveceresAndy JoeJackdawGinArdolCalica
  • JilaXJilaX Registered User new member
    Djiem wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Djiem wrote: »
    The problem, Brym, isn't that the people with legitimate problems with the gaming journalism and gaming industry let extremists into their rank, it's that by identifying as gamergate, THEY joined the extremist ranks.

    The suggestion here is to dissociate from that movement, condemn it, and when people are ready to have an actual debate and conversation, discuss the problems of the gaming journalism edifice like actual human beings.

    Pretty much. I'm sort of sad to see Tycho even weigh in on the subject, even though he's approaching the matter obliquely, as all anyone is doing at this point is throwing fuel on the fire.

    I would have agreed with you, but I re-read Tycho's post, and I think that he's actually saying what you bolded in my post, and I think it's important to be said, just ignoring it will not solve the issue, it has to be addressed by everyone who's "big" in the gaming industry/community. It's important for people to weigh in and state they're not ok with this, to create an environment where gamergate is not approved of, and doesn't act freely thanks to the silence of all.

    "When your media doesn't represent you, or actively attacks you as it has here, it’s not your media. You’ll have to make your own, and it’s not impossible. It’s more possible now than it has ever been in human history, and you’re reading an example of it at this moment. Go your own way."

    That sounds like a call to the "decent" gamergaters, the people who are upset about journalistic integrity and who have been duped into believing the gamergate movement is about journalism ethics in any way whatsoever. Tycho is telling them to not touch the label gamergate to question journalism ethics, and to go their own way about it. The "example we are reading at this moment" is Penny-Arcade. Penny-Arcade has been critical of gaming journalism for a long time, and never associated with that banner that was created as a harassment organization designed to drive women out of the gaming industry and to suicide, and is in fact now taking a stand: "Death threats are wrong".

    And that's really the single only thing gamergate has ever been about.

    I have to comment on this, because you're making some pretty serious mistake.

    The "decent" gamersgaters, as you are calling them, are the gamergaters. That's what gamersgate is about.

    Notice how gaming journalists have been very eager to put the spotlight very clearly on 4chan trolls spamming stupid offensive shit? (Like they do, every single day of the year.) Don't think that the "antigamersgate" crowd are filled with any less vitrol, there have been posts just as disgusting there. People stating straight out that they were extremely disappointed that TB didn't die from the cancer. Straight up disgusting stuff. Yet, there is no focus on that. No Kotaku clickbait articles, no Polygon morality lecture, nothing. Why?

    Because the easiest way to avoid dealing with the people calling for integrity in games journalism, is to discredit them by focusing on a very small vocal minority. No common person on #GamersGate in any way condones the Death Threats and bullshit that has been going on, and to think that you can somehow curb trolls from posting under your hashtag displays a blatant lack of understanding of how the internet works. Focus on the issues at hand, not that nonsense.

    To just move away from #GamersGate, would be to let those with no integrity win. Those journalists who gladly take money or other goods from AAA companies to give them an 8+ rating no matter what, to only promote a console positively, etcetc. You're letting them win if #GamersGate dies.

    glider
  • DjiemDjiem Registered User regular
    edited October 2014
    I am making no mistake. The idea of journalistic integrity being the goal of gamergate is a very obvious smokescreen to a campaign of abuse against feminism and "sjws".
    JilaX wrote: »
    To just move away from #GamersGate, would be to let those with no integrity win. Those journalists who gladly take money or other goods from AAA companies to give them an 8+ rating no matter what, to only promote a console positively, etcetc. You're letting them win if #GamersGate dies.

    That has been going on for years, over a decade easily, yet SUDDENLY Gamergate is our only hope?
    Yeah, no.

    Besides, Gamergate has never done anything or said anything about the "issues" you just described.

    Djiem on
    CambiataJusticeforPlutoCantideFCDmare_imbriumCalicaDarkewolfe
  • CaowythCaowyth Registered User new member
    Being someone that has no idea what Gamersgate is about, I'd just like to point this out:
    Dijem wrote:
    At the moment, though, Gamergate is silencing all criticism of games by lumping all feminists and feminist pieces into that "going overboard" basket. By claiming that the "other side" is full of crazies, they can try and claim to have the moral high ground in their crusade of harassment.

    I'm seeing both sides being guilty of this. Practically every post in this thread is lumping all gamersgate members into that "going overboard" basket.

    So at this point I'm seeing both sides vainly scrabbling for a moral high ground from the bottom of an ashtray.

  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    edited October 2014
    I don't think the side saying that "hey, you shouldn't issue death threats (or cover for those who do)" needs to do any scrabbling.

    Commander Zoom on
    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    DjiemkaortiSurfpossumCantideFCDintropCalica
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    Yeah, I'm sorry, until "SJWs" are engaging in campaigns of death threats and causing say, Adam Baldwin for example, to flee his home in fear of being raped and murdered

    until "feminists" are engaged in organized fronts to destroy the lives and careers of people who oppose their viewpoints

    until "corrupt journalists" are calling in bomb threats against public speakers they don't like

    this is false equivalence bullshit

    There's no arguing in good faith with fucking terrorists

    DjiemchromdomMaclayCantideFCDRhesus PositiveceresDelzhandintropCambiataArdolGnizmoPsykomamare_imbriumsteepleleaperCalica
  • kaortikaorti Registered User regular
    JilaX wrote: »
    Djiem wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Djiem wrote: »
    The problem, Brym, isn't that the people with legitimate problems with the gaming journalism and gaming industry let extremists into their rank, it's that by identifying as gamergate, THEY joined the extremist ranks.

    The suggestion here is to dissociate from that movement, condemn it, and when people are ready to have an actual debate and conversation, discuss the problems of the gaming journalism edifice like actual human beings.

    Pretty much. I'm sort of sad to see Tycho even weigh in on the subject, even though he's approaching the matter obliquely, as all anyone is doing at this point is throwing fuel on the fire.

    I would have agreed with you, but I re-read Tycho's post, and I think that he's actually saying what you bolded in my post, and I think it's important to be said, just ignoring it will not solve the issue, it has to be addressed by everyone who's "big" in the gaming industry/community. It's important for people to weigh in and state they're not ok with this, to create an environment where gamergate is not approved of, and doesn't act freely thanks to the silence of all.

    "When your media doesn't represent you, or actively attacks you as it has here, it’s not your media. You’ll have to make your own, and it’s not impossible. It’s more possible now than it has ever been in human history, and you’re reading an example of it at this moment. Go your own way."

    That sounds like a call to the "decent" gamergaters, the people who are upset about journalistic integrity and who have been duped into believing the gamergate movement is about journalism ethics in any way whatsoever. Tycho is telling them to not touch the label gamergate to question journalism ethics, and to go their own way about it. The "example we are reading at this moment" is Penny-Arcade. Penny-Arcade has been critical of gaming journalism for a long time, and never associated with that banner that was created as a harassment organization designed to drive women out of the gaming industry and to suicide, and is in fact now taking a stand: "Death threats are wrong".

    And that's really the single only thing gamergate has ever been about.

    I have to comment on this, because you're making some pretty serious mistake.

    The "decent" gamersgaters, as you are calling them, are the gamergaters. That's what gamersgate is about.

    Notice how gaming journalists have been very eager to put the spotlight very clearly on 4chan trolls spamming stupid offensive shit? (Like they do, every single day of the year.) Don't think that the "antigamersgate" crowd are filled with any less vitrol, there have been posts just as disgusting there. People stating straight out that they were extremely disappointed that TB didn't die from the cancer. Straight up disgusting stuff. Yet, there is no focus on that. No Kotaku clickbait articles, no Polygon morality lecture, nothing. Why?

    Because the easiest way to avoid dealing with the people calling for integrity in games journalism, is to discredit them by focusing on a very small vocal minority. No common person on #GamersGate in any way condones the Death Threats and bullshit that has been going on, and to think that you can somehow curb trolls from posting under your hashtag displays a blatant lack of understanding of how the internet works. Focus on the issues at hand, not that nonsense.

    To just move away from #GamersGate, would be to let those with no integrity win. Those journalists who gladly take money or other goods from AAA companies to give them an 8+ rating no matter what, to only promote a console positively, etcetc. You're letting them win if #GamersGate dies.

    If #gamergate dies, there will finally be room for legitimate criticism of games journalism. As it is now, gamergate is either poorly informed people acting as a smokescreen, conspiracy theorists, or literal terrorists. There is no media coverage of gamergate's legitimate criticism of games media because gamergate is not producing legitimate criticism of games media.

    This isn't a "the truth is somewhere in the middle" situation. There are militant misogynists along with their allies, and there are people that think that it's not ok to support a group which uses death threats, doxxing and terror tactics to oppress people.

    DjiemSurfpossumCantideFCDCalicaDarkewolfe
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    JilaX wrote: »
    Djiem wrote: »
    And that's really the single only thing gamergate has ever been about.

    I have to comment on this, because you're making some pretty serious mistake.

    The "decent" gamersgaters, as you are calling them, are the gamergaters. That's what gamersgate is about.

    I know you want to believe this, but the facts are all there for everyone to see. The reason most of the industry are against gamergate, even the people who very much have a problem with the corruption in the game industry, is because GG is a very transparent attempt at silencing women.

    I know this is not what you, personally want it to be about. I believe absolutely that you don't want that.

    But that is what the tag itself has pushed for in the majority.
    Notice how gaming journalists have been very eager to put the spotlight very clearly on 4chan trolls spamming stupid offensive shit? (Like they do, every single day of the year.) Don't think that the "antigamersgate" crowd are filled with any less vitrol, there have been posts just as disgusting there. People stating straight out that they were extremely disappointed that TB didn't die from the cancer. Straight up disgusting stuff. Yet, there is no focus on that. No Kotaku clickbait articles, no Polygon morality lecture, nothing. Why?

    Well, there's a couple of things to parse, here. The first is that while GG is a group of people who willingly associate with each other, people who are against GG are disparate. There's going to be feminists in there like myself. But there's also going to be people who just hate gamer fanboys and don't care about feminism, there's going to be people who were touched by Depression Quest and are big fans of Zoe Quinn but don't have any concept of "social justice" and just want revenge on anyone who would attack their hero.

    Basically when you're talking about people who don't like gamergate, there's no organized group there. There's no organizational docs the way gamergate has, no forum like 8chan's GG for them to discuss policy. It's just a group of people. Besides that, with some pro-GGers, they get attacked by people *within* GG because they say something other GGers don't like, like that Milo Y[greek name] is a hack.

    The second thing is, well, I've asked people to show me the harassment that supposedly going on on to GGers. I don't doubt there's some there, because trolls are assholes and will take any target. But the stuff people have provided me with? Has been stuff like "Kill all gamergaters", which while a shit thing to say, is not actually harassment directed at an individual. I saw one twitter discussion where the anti-GGer pointed out that something pro-GG was doing was illegal, and the pro-GGer started acting like they'd been threatened with violence, and said they'd call the FBI. I even saw one person insist that Seth Rogen (yes, the multimillion dollar actor) sent a dick pic to a pro-GG lady. Which, I don't even. Look, if something like that had happened, if someone as famous as Seth Rogen had sent a dick pic, I guarantee SOMEONE would pick it up, even if it was something like the Daily Mail. Something like that would be easy for twitter to track on their end. The fact that GG is so credulous of anti-GG threats regardless of how ludicrous they are, is a little worrying. No news outlet carrying a story of Seth Rogen sending dick pics doesn't mean "the SJW cabal has fingers everywhere!" what it means is "this is not something that actually happened."

    Now this is where you might say "Anita Sarkeesian lied about being threatened too, though!" To which I'll say: some of the threats in the latest fiasco involving her were sent to school faculty, not to her personally. So unless you're saying she called the school herself, which would be incredibly risky for someone under so much scrutiny, then GGer's accusation there doesn't seem very credible.
    Because the easiest way to avoid dealing with the people calling for integrity in games journalism, is to discredit them by focusing on a very small vocal minority. No common person on #GamersGate in any way condones the Death Threats and bullshit that has been going on, and to think that you can somehow curb trolls from posting under your hashtag displays a blatant lack of understanding of how the internet works. Focus on the issues at hand, not that nonsense.

    So here's the other thing: The people that you're so certain are terrified to follow up on your totally-legitimate scandal, are the same people that informed the public about previous corruption scandals in gaming, like Doritosgate and the Gerstmann firing. Or more recently, the payola with Shadows of Mordor. These aren't people invested in protecting corruption, these are people that absolutely want to discuss it. These people love gaming every bit as you - maybe more, because they've dedicated their careers to it. But because GG has brought up topics that just boil down to no scandal at all, there's nothing to discuss. It's not some secret organization trying to hide the truth, it's that the scandals you've chosen are easily disprovable and/or not actually unethical in any way.

    And even at that, the organizations you declared were corrupt still tried to cater to you a little bit: Both Kotaku and Polygon changed their (already posted) ethical policies in response to gamergate. But this was somehow deemed not good enough. The question is, whether anything would be good enough.
    To just move away from #GamersGate, would be to let those with no integrity win. Those journalists who gladly take money or other goods from AAA companies to give them an 8+ rating no matter what, to only promote a console positively, etcetc. You're letting them win if #GamersGate dies.

    Actually it's the opposite. The longer you remain under a bankrupt hashtag, the less credibility you have.

    kaortiPonyDjiemCommander ZoomchromdomSurfpossumCantideFCDZilla360intropArdolQuidCalicaDarkewolfe
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    I think the Shadow of Morder payola is like, the ultimate proof of that Gamergate is fucking garbage

    I found out about that stuff yesterday, not from Gaters, not from any of the noise associated with this bullshit, but from someone on this forum mentioning it in passing. Someone who was using it as an example of the kind of thing Gaters aren't talking about.

    What does Gamergate have to say about this?
    Jg9ND2C.jpg?2

    ...oh, oh I see

    that's how it works, then

    because Shadow of Mordor's payola scheme (which is SUPER FUCKING BAD and is some pretty bad violations of journalistic fucking integrity, holy shit!) didn't involve people with vaginas

    Gamergate don't care

    it's a "publisher ethics" issue

    yeah, okay

    tell me again why this bullshit is anything but terrorism and misogyny

    CambiataDjiemCommander ZoomTofystedethkaortiJusticeforPlutoSmrtnikFCDAndy JoeJackdawGinintropZilla360ArdolQuidCalica
Sign In or Register to comment.