The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

#GamerGate: Stop Being Jerks on the Internet Edition

1235798

Posts

  • miscellaneousinsanitymiscellaneousinsanity grass grows, birds fly, sun shines, and brother, i hurt peopleRegistered User regular
    The less jaded side of me is constantly baffled why this didn't end once Zoe Quinn published the chatlogs she'd been recording

    Then I'm like 'oh, right. people are terrible'

    uc3ufTB.png
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Holy shit, did a guy with a South Park avatar really just claim that "games" shouldn't be "political" because TV Shows aren't? The irony, it burnsss usssss

    The lack of self-awareness or any level of understanding is amazing.

    Sadly, it usually just leads to threads getting sidetracked.

  • curly haired boycurly haired boy Your Friendly Neighborhood Torgue Dealer Registered User regular
    also the whole 'people in the public eye get death threats' thing is not a default state of existence that we should accept as a society

    there's been this push to say that people need to harden the fuck up and accept that awful things will happen

    no sir

    i will not accept that

    death threats should not be a thing. you should never find yourself saying or writing a death threat in the course of normal civilized life. the fact that this is something people have to be REMINDED about is mindblowing.

    RxI0N.png
    Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    Repost from chat:
    Feral wrote: »
    I don't think we should do it justice by calling it 'gamergate.'

    It's an exaggerated faux-scandal in meandering search of a smoking gun, promulgated by hyperventilating reactionaries trying to twist it into an ideological battleground, which is why I've taken to calling it #quinnghazi.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • BigWillieStylesBigWillieStyles Expert flipper of tables Inside my mind...Registered User regular
    edited October 2014
    also the whole 'people in the public eye get death threats' thing is not a default state of existence that we should accept as a society

    there's been this push to say that people need to harden the fuck up and accept that awful things will happen

    no sir

    i will not accept that

    death threats should not be a thing. you should never find yourself saying or writing a death threat in the course of normal civilized life. the fact that this is something people have to be REMINDED about is mindblowing.
    Outside of a police state with thought police, how do you honestly expect a celebrity with a public social media profile to not get death threats? Hell, the President gets probably hundreds of death threats every day.

    You could substitute any crime in there and the response is the same. Because people still have free will. And some people are really messed up in the head. Put two and two together and you get all the horrible shit that covers the darker corners of human nature.

    BigWillieStyles on
    3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
    PM me with yours if you add me
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    She's the current poster girl for video-game sexism. I don't know how she deals with this shit.
    I don't know why she keeps calling out the threats on social media. Or telling the whole world on Twitter when she flees from her house. (Pretty much violating every advised protocol for such things.)
    seasleepy wrote: »
    Okay, so someone posted this in another thread and I didn't get a response, so maybe you can help me unpack some of the assertions that article makes because they seem pretty bonkers to me:
    1) Games are not and shouldn't be political
    2) Politics means there are two sides that must be constantly fighting
    3) #NotYourShield is gamers trying to say that gaming is actually already inclusive
    4) TFYC are doing all the SJW things except being hateful!
    5) Politicized games journalists are attacking the entire gaming community as hateful and bigoted
    6) Shutting down a conversation is censorship

    And despite it claiming it is a more complicated situation than is being presented elsewhere, it only seems to make arguments for one of the sides mentioned in the headline.
    I'm heavily involved in politics, so let me take a crack at answering these questions...

    1) They really shouldn't. Are movies as a whole considered political? Are television shows as a whole considered political? If no, why should video games as a whole be political?
    2) There's a reason politics is referred to as a "bloodsport" and a "contact sport" inside the beltway.
    3) Yes, what gamers tend not to tolerate, much like the atheists during the Atheism+ fiasco, is the co-opting of their hobby by overly political forces.
    4) Pretty much, yeah. They try to be inclusively liberal. Not a lot of those in the "SJW" crowd. See Movie Bob.
    5) Pretty much, with all those "gamers are dead" articles and whatnot. And calling all of them "neckbeards," virgins, "Mom's basement dwellers," and whatnot.
    6) Shutting off the flow of conversation is censorship. Yeah. "Just go somewhere else" is not a valid counterargument.

    Saying that entertainment shouldn't be political is simply a form of privilege.

    For instance, portraying women as objects is an inherently political concept. You simply don't recognize it as political because you're internalized that that world view as the universal default.

    It's the same phenomenon when conservatives get offended when gay judges are asked to rule on gay marriage, because they assume the judge is biased for being gay. But they have no problem with a straight judge ruling on marriage, because a straight judge is "neutral" and "normal."

    It's disingenuous to claim that GamerGate is against the co-opting of politics. They're only offended at having to consider the politics of people who don't look like them.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Repost from chat:
    Feral wrote: »
    I don't think we should do it justice by calling it 'gamergate.'

    It's an exaggerated faux-scandal in meandering search of a smoking gun, promulgated by hyperventilating reactionaries trying to twist it into an ideological battleground, which is why I've taken to calling it #quinnghazi.

    I'm basically in favor of -ghazi replacing -gate as our suffix of choice. Real scandals get short descriptions of what they actually are.

    For example: "A Bunch of Privileged Assholes Getting Upset Because Someone Invited a Woman to G.R.O.S.S."

    Granted, not as snappy.

    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • MagellMagell Detroit Machine Guns Fort MyersRegistered User regular
    also the whole 'people in the public eye get death threats' thing is not a default state of existence that we should accept as a society

    there's been this push to say that people need to harden the fuck up and accept that awful things will happen

    no sir

    i will not accept that

    death threats should not be a thing. you should never find yourself saying or writing a death threat in the course of normal civilized life. the fact that this is something people have to be REMINDED about is mindblowing.
    Outside of a police state with thought police, how do you honestly expect a celebrity with a public social media profile to not get death threats? Hell, the President gets probably hundreds of death threats every day.

    I believe he's implying that people shouldn't be such shitheads who think death threats are funny or a way to make a point.

  • KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    edited October 2014
    It's not strictly #GG related, but one of the lead devs on "Paranautical activity" made a death threat against Gabe Newell on twitter because there was a bug on steam when the servers were refreshing, and his game on the front crawl was listed as "early access" for an hour.


    His game was removed from Steam and the Humble Store.


    He tweeted again later as part of his rant against how awful it is that Valve has the power to shut down the game justt because of one really specific death threat something to the effect of "This is mostly the fault of GamerGate fo making serious death threats so that my death threat looks bad"


    Most of the arguments around it are "Well he done fucked up, good job valve" and "He's a young, hotheaded guy, and he probably wasn't actually going to kill Gabe Newell!"

    Pretty crazy how it looks when it's two dudes.

    Also, seriously, how are we at a point where anyone who owns half a company and is releasing a game he's been working on for years goes "I should probably threaten the life of the CEO of my business partner who is also my distributor"

    Khavall on
  • DivideByZeroDivideByZero Social Justice Blackguard Registered User regular
    For one thing, we could stop blaming the victim and framing a death threat as something one "receives" instead of something someone else "sends"

    Second step: find the sender

    Third step: punish them

    Fuck, that was hard! I just narrowly avoided creating a police state with thought police in the process.

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
  • BigWillieStylesBigWillieStyles Expert flipper of tables Inside my mind...Registered User regular
    edited October 2014
    Saying that entertainment shouldn't be political is simply a form of privilege.

    For instance, portraying women as objects is an inherently political concept. You simply don't recognize it as political because you're internalized that that world view as the universal default.

    It's the same phenomenon when conservatives get offended when gay judges are asked to rule on gay marriage, because they assume the judge is biased for being gay. But they have no problem with a straight judge ruling on marriage, because a straight judge is "neutral" and "normal."

    It's disingenuous to claim that GamerGate is against the co-opting of politics. They're only offended at having to consider the politics of people who don't look like them.
    Really, you gonna pull out the "privilege" card now?

    I didn't know conservatives were against gay judges. That's a fringe belief if I ever heard it. Probably the extreme social conservatives who are too religious for their own good.

    They're offended at the people using politics as a cudgel against them. Which is precisely what Anita is doing.

    BigWillieStyles on
    3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
    PM me with yours if you add me
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited October 2014
    She's the current poster girl for video-game sexism. I don't know how she deals with this shit.
    I don't know why she keeps calling out the threats on social media. Or telling the whole world on Twitter when she flees from her house. (Pretty much violating every advised protocol for such things.)
    seasleepy wrote: »
    Okay, so someone posted this in another thread and I didn't get a response, so maybe you can help me unpack some of the assertions that article makes because they seem pretty bonkers to me:
    1) Games are not and shouldn't be political
    2) Politics means there are two sides that must be constantly fighting
    3) #NotYourShield is gamers trying to say that gaming is actually already inclusive
    4) TFYC are doing all the SJW things except being hateful!
    5) Politicized games journalists are attacking the entire gaming community as hateful and bigoted
    6) Shutting down a conversation is censorship

    And despite it claiming it is a more complicated situation than is being presented elsewhere, it only seems to make arguments for one of the sides mentioned in the headline.
    I'm heavily involved in politics, so let me take a crack at answering these questions...

    1) They really shouldn't. Are movies as a whole considered political? Are television shows as a whole considered political? If no, why should video games as a whole be political?
    2) There's a reason politics is referred to as a "bloodsport" and a "contact sport" inside the beltway.
    3) Yes, what gamers tend not to tolerate, much like the atheists during the Atheism+ fiasco, is the co-opting of their hobby by overly political forces.
    4) Pretty much, yeah. They try to be inclusively liberal. Not a lot of those in the "SJW" crowd. See Movie Bob.
    5) Pretty much, with all those "gamers are dead" articles and whatnot. And calling all of them "neckbeards," virgins, "Mom's basement dwellers," and whatnot.
    6) Shutting off the flow of conversation is censorship. Yeah. "Just go somewhere else" is not a valid counterargument.

    Saying that entertainment shouldn't be political is simply a form of privilege.

    For instance, portraying women as objects is an inherently political concept. You simply don't recognize it as political because you're internalized that that world view as the universal default.

    It's the same phenomenon when conservatives get offended when gay judges are asked to rule on gay marriage, because they assume the judge is biased for being gay. But they have no problem with a straight judge ruling on marriage, because a straight judge is "neutral" and "normal."

    It's disingenuous to claim that GamerGate is against the co-opting of politics. They're only offended at having to consider the politics of people who don't look like them.

    I disagree, but only in that art that isn't political has nothing to say, and is therefore kinda shitty art.

    So saying art shouldn't be political is an extreme lack of knowledge about art (and art criticism), more than privilege.

    Fencingsax on
  • This content has been removed.

  • seasleepyseasleepy Registered User regular
    edited October 2014
    She's the current poster girl for video-game sexism. I don't know how she deals with this shit.
    I don't know why she keeps calling out the threats on social media. Or telling the whole world on Twitter when she flees from her house. (Pretty much violating every advised protocol for such things.)
    seasleepy wrote: »
    Okay, so someone posted this in another thread and I didn't get a response, so maybe you can help me unpack some of the assertions that article makes because they seem pretty bonkers to me:
    1) Games are not and shouldn't be political
    2) Politics means there are two sides that must be constantly fighting
    3) #NotYourShield is gamers trying to say that gaming is actually already inclusive
    4) TFYC are doing all the SJW things except being hateful!
    5) Politicized games journalists are attacking the entire gaming community as hateful and bigoted
    6) Shutting down a conversation is censorship

    And despite it claiming it is a more complicated situation than is being presented elsewhere, it only seems to make arguments for one of the sides mentioned in the headline.
    I'm heavily involved in politics, so let me take a crack at answering these questions...

    1) They really shouldn't. Are movies as a whole considered political? Are television shows as a whole considered political? If no, why should video games as a whole be political?
    2) There's a reason politics is referred to as a "bloodsport" and a "contact sport" inside the beltway.
    3) Yes, what gamers tend not to tolerate, much like the atheists during the Atheism+ fiasco, is the co-opting of their hobby by overly political forces.
    4) Pretty much, yeah. They try to be inclusively liberal. Not a lot of those in the "SJW" crowd. See Movie Bob.
    5) Pretty much, with all those "gamers are dead" articles and whatnot. And calling all of them "neckbeards," virgins, "Mom's basement dwellers," and whatnot.
    6) Shutting off the flow of conversation is censorship. Yeah. "Just go somewhere else" is not a valid counterargument.
    All your responses seem pretty bonkers to me too!
    1) Other people have covered this better, so I'll defer to them here.
    2) There are plenty of other places where politics involves more than two sides, and often these groups work together.
    3) Atheism+ is an interesting choice to bring up as that also was a fiasco largely due to the firestorm that erupted when women spoke out about harassment and generally feeling unwelcome in a different male-dominated subculture.
    4) I do not find TFYC especially inclusive. As an example, I'd suggest you read this post and then TFYC's response. Please also keep in mind that those they are happy to associate with harassers (their thank you post explicitly mentions an especially notorious Youtube troll who is well-known for harassing a female Youtuber, amongst others), which is not a thing that would exactly encourage inclusivity.
    5) You are rather drastically misreading those articles. Every one of them I have read says that gaming is and has always been larger than the stereotype and people that make games should and do make games that reflect that audience. ("Death of the author" does not mean "kill all authors.")
    6) Again, others have covered this better, so I'll defer to them.

    seasleepy on
    Steam | Nintendo: seasleepy | PSN: seasleepy1
  • curly haired boycurly haired boy Your Friendly Neighborhood Torgue Dealer Registered User regular
    no, censorship is the government domain. it involves law. people being ostracized for having shitty speech are not having their free speech rights violated.

    also, the whole 'most people are apolitical' thing is probably the crux of this entire matter

    if you happen to fit the sociopolitical default, then YEAH you can live life in an 'apolitical' fashion and not have to worry about anything political because every system is designed around you

    for literally ANYONE ELSE, the very act of living in society is political and involves systemic injustices and all the realities of not fitting the default.

    'apolitical' simply means "it's more comfortable for me if i'm able to pretend that society doesn't have problems because i don't see them"

    sorry

    no

    this giant noisy bell that you say SJWs have been ringing? all this extra attention to ISSUES that you'd just like to pretend don't exist? why can't we just talk about the GAMES that gloss over more complex realities in favor of an easy narrative that fits my experience?

    it's so important to silence critics and SJWs because it's MENTALLY UNCOMFORTABLE TO BE CONFRONTED WITH INJUSTICE. we're social animals and we're wired to feel sympathy when others are suffering. it's an obligation to fix the problem.

    RxI0N.png
    Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
  • BigWillieStylesBigWillieStyles Expert flipper of tables Inside my mind...Registered User regular
    edited October 2014
    Magell wrote: »
    I believe he's implying that people shouldn't be such shitheads who think death threats are funny or a way to make a point.
    I didn't get that from his post.
    For one thing, we could stop blaming the victim and framing a death threat as something one "receives" instead of something someone else "sends"

    Second step: find the sender

    Third step: punish them

    Fuck, that was hard! I just narrowly avoided creating a police state with thought police in the process.
    Something the GamerGate people have been doing. They've found a lot of the harassers.

    BigWillieStyles on
    3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
    PM me with yours if you add me
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    She's the current poster girl for video-game sexism. I don't know how she deals with this shit.
    I don't know why she keeps calling out the threats on social media. Or telling the whole world on Twitter when she flees from her house. (Pretty much violating every advised protocol for such things.)
    seasleepy wrote: »
    Okay, so someone posted this in another thread and I didn't get a response, so maybe you can help me unpack some of the assertions that article makes because they seem pretty bonkers to me:
    1) Games are not and shouldn't be political
    2) Politics means there are two sides that must be constantly fighting
    3) #NotYourShield is gamers trying to say that gaming is actually already inclusive
    4) TFYC are doing all the SJW things except being hateful!
    5) Politicized games journalists are attacking the entire gaming community as hateful and bigoted
    6) Shutting down a conversation is censorship

    And despite it claiming it is a more complicated situation than is being presented elsewhere, it only seems to make arguments for one of the sides mentioned in the headline.
    I'm heavily involved in politics, so let me take a crack at answering these questions...

    1) They really shouldn't. Are movies as a whole considered political? Are television shows as a whole considered political? If no, why should video games as a whole be political?
    2) There's a reason politics is referred to as a "bloodsport" and a "contact sport" inside the beltway.
    3) Yes, what gamers tend not to tolerate, much like the atheists during the Atheism+ fiasco, is the co-opting of their hobby by overly political forces.
    4) Pretty much, yeah. They try to be inclusively liberal. Not a lot of those in the "SJW" crowd. See Movie Bob.
    5) Pretty much, with all those "gamers are dead" articles and whatnot. And calling all of them "neckbeards," virgins, "Mom's basement dwellers," and whatnot.
    6) Shutting off the flow of conversation is censorship. Yeah. "Just go somewhere else" is not a valid counterargument.

    1 Many people would say all art is political. Regardless, the point is these people think gaming should NEVER be political, not that it should be political as a whole.

    2 Political acts and the party politics of the USA have very little to do with each other, and the machismo you seem apparently impressed with is irrelevant.

    3 Which gamers are you talking about? Let me guess, 'real' gamers, not people like me or Sarkeesian?

    4 I don't understand. Too many acronyms.

    5 I've got a beard, I'm fat, and I am a massive gaming nerd. My sex life would embarrass the pope. Those people using terms like neck beard are often responding to the most appalling insults and threats imaginable, whether aimed at them or not. So while I think their name calling is unhelpful, it doesn't hurt my feelings and isn't in the same league at all.

    6 No. Telling someone to shut up is not censorship. Censorship happens by powerful organizations such as governments and corporations.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    Really, you gonna pull out the "privilege" card now?

    *Facepalm.*

    Yes. Ignoring politics is easier if you benefit from the status quo.

    Everything created by humans is political. Refusing to acknowledge that is a tactic that lets flaws go unexamined.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    1) Every media is political. Passively or actively, politics taints what gets made.
    2) Media isn't the beltway, it's entertainment. There is a line for what is tolerated before push back occurs. GamerGate went over that line when crimes were committed in its name.
    3) Gamers were political before this happened, they just didn't notice it since they were the ones whose views were the status quo. With minorities and women rising up to re-arrange the status quo gamers are discovering the ground is eroding beneath their feet and they are scared to death of change they don't understand.
    4) SJW are liberal, they're just extreme with their views. GG is conservative to the bone.
    5) Technically you're right, gamers like that do exist. They're not what it means to be a gamer any longer, they don't define the term like they used to. The industry has evolved.
    6) Censorship is done by the government, not civilians. The government hasn't censored anything in this fiasco. Free speech has consequences. Going somewhere else creates another movement from scratch that won't be tainted by BB, which is beyond saving as a brand. Burn it down, salt the earth and start over - this time don't let it be defined badly like BB was.
    1) Most people are apolitical. Overt politics is distasteful to them.
    2) Still no direct connection. The threats didn't use the hashtag. Try again.
    3) That's a straw man. Moving on.
    4) Not really. The diversity of views in the GamerGate movement is well established (if you care to look.) The anti-GG are pretty homogeneous in viewpoint.
    5) "Gamer" means someone who plays video games and associates with the word. It isn't specific to race, class, gender, or sexual orientation. To claim it is is being inherently dishonest.
    6) Censorship isn't just the government domain. By limiting discussion on a website (or outright banning people who bring it up,) that's censoring their viewpoint. Unless you have a better word for it. And GamerGate doesn't let other people define it. And it's not going anywhere yet.

    What's BB?

    1) Everyone is political.
    2) I'll have to research further.
    3) No strawman, politics in the gaming industry didn't start recently it was there from the beginning from the board rooms to the arcades. GG is very much political in its goals, which isn't liberal by any stretch.
    4) No, it really isn't. Its themes are conservative in nature, despite its large numbers. It has some different views, yes, but they're not front and center for its ambitions or its public face. I'm not talking about the criminals threatening people, either. It's the GG who want to conform the video game industry to their standards, which isn't friendly to women. It wants the status quo to remain as is, or regress - not expand to larger audiences.
    5) No, it isn't. A Gamer was a stereo typed white male nerd that lives in a basement until recently, now it's anyone that can play a video-game.
    6) Censorship isn't the word you're looking for. Websites and companies have the right to do whatever they like with their property as long as its legal. That's not censorship. You don't follow their rules they'll ban you or alter their content to what they want. What do you call GG protesting against certain types of articles about video-games to their liking?


    Meant to type GG.

  • CoinageCoinage Heaviside LayerRegistered User regular
    Khavall wrote: »
    Also, seriously, how are we at a point where anyone who owns half a company and is releasing a game he's been working on for years goes "I should probably threaten the life of the CEO of my business partner who is also my distributor"
    He got screwed over by Valve several times before this and he has had almost no money during this entire process, so I can understand him having a little bit of a breakdown. It also seems that he just doesn't know how to interact with people, at all. The perils of being a nerd who has never had a regular job.

    Happiness is within reach!
  • Edith UpwardsEdith Upwards Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    That this is basically a hurt ex using the internet to punish his former girlfriend always sends a chill down my spine. Especially since the chat logs of 4chan were released where he was coaching people on how to best fuck with her.

    I'm also appalled at how many false flags the gamergate movement started so as to claim they were the victims. That's some organized rat fucking on a level I didn't think those corners of the net were good at.

    I saw them make fake Facebook pages for Trayvon before getting into GamerGate, so, no, they've always been doing this, and the fact that games are getting shit from them means our thing is legit and part of society.

  • KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    Magell wrote: »
    I believe he's implying that people shouldn't be such shitheads who think death threats are funny or a way to make a point.
    I didn't get that from his post.
    For one thing, we could stop blaming the victim and framing a death threat as something one "receives" instead of something someone else "sends"

    Second step: find the sender

    Third step: punish them

    Fuck, that was hard! I just narrowly avoided creating a police state with thought police in the process.
    Something the GamerGate people have been doing. They've found a lot of the harassers.


    Wait so it's impossible to stop death threats without creating thought police and moving to a police state

    But GG has had no problem finding the people sending death threats?



    Also, how has GG "Punished" any of the harassers?

  • BigWillieStylesBigWillieStyles Expert flipper of tables Inside my mind...Registered User regular
    edited October 2014
    poshniallo wrote: »
    1 Many people would say all art is political. Regardless, the point is these people think gaming should NEVER be political, not that it should be political as a whole.

    2 Political acts and the party politics of the USA have very little to do with each other, and the machismo you seem apparently impressed with is irrelevant.

    3 Which gamers are you talking about? Let me guess, 'real' gamers, not people like me or Sarkeesian?

    4 I don't understand. Too many acronyms.

    5 I've got a beard, I'm fat, and I am a massive gaming nerd. My sex life would embarrass the pope. Those people using terms like neck beard are often responding to the most appalling insults and threats imaginable, whether aimed at them or not. So while I think their name calling is unhelpful, it doesn't hurt my feelings and isn't in the same league at all.

    6 No. Telling someone to shut up is not censorship. Censorship happens by powerful organizations such as governments and corporations.
    1) Nothing else to really say then.

    2) Politics are like two rams locking horns.

    3) Gamers as a whole. (You mean the woman who is on tape calling herself "not a gamer" and thinking video games "gross" for the "murders" a player commits? I'd love her to address that one.)

    4) OK...

    5) The name calling was coming from those not getting threats for the most part. Once again, the threats were not coming from GamerGate people.

    6) Shutting down discussion and banning people (on websites run by corporations) fits then, don't it?
    1) Everyone is political.
    2) I'll have to research further.
    3) No strawman, politics in the gaming industry didn't start recently it was there from the beginning from the board rooms to the arcades. GG is very much political in its goals, which isn't liberal by any stretch.
    4) No, it really isn't. Its themes are conservative in nature, despite its large numbers. It has some different views, yes, but they're not front and center for its ambitions or its public face. I'm not talking about the criminals threatening people, either. It's the GG who want to conform the video game industry to their standards, which isn't friendly to women. It wants the status quo to remain as is, or regress - not expand to larger audiences.
    5) No, it isn't. A Gamer was a stereo typed white male nerd that lives in a basement until recently, now it's anyone that can play a video-game.
    6) Censorship isn't the word you're looking for. Websites and companies have the right to do whatever they like with their property as long as its legal. That's not censorship. You don't follow their rules they'll ban you or alter their content to what they want. What do you call GG protesting against certain types of articles about video-games to their liking?


    Meant to type GG.
    1) Everything isn't overtly political. And your truism is a truism without evidence to back it up.

    2) OK.

    3) Yes, but the politics to "change the industry" on the terms people like Anita want it to isn't something that happens (in any industry) very often. And it is usually heavily resisted and rarely succeeds.

    4) No, the goals are to stop exactly what third-wave feminists (mostly sex negative feminists) tried to do to atheism with the Atheist+ movement (Thunderf00t or TheAmazingAtheist can fill you in there.) Not an atheist myself, so I didn't know about this until Thunderf00t pointed it out.

    5) In your opinion. Gamer has long been an open term to anyone who wanted it. From the youngest age, my friends of all races, genders, classes, and creeds loved video games.

    6) As a collection of people with little real power (but the power of the purse and the e-mail,) they don't have the power to do anything. Forum moderators have a lot of power over the people who post in them.

    BigWillieStyles on
    3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
    PM me with yours if you add me
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited October 2014
    I can't believe someone is actually trying to argue that art is not or should not or can not be political.

    I don't think I've ever seen this tactic before.

    It really does expose how empty the claims that this is about gaming are though. If video games are art, then they most certainly can be political and more importantly they can be analysed as such. Most of the shit the #GG crowd are complaining about are some of the few instances of actually journalism or study or analysis of video games going on.

    shryke on
  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    So it sounds like a lot of people in this thread are anti-Gamer Gate. How many people posting here have called law enforcement? It sounds like it's primarily the harassed people who are calling the police, which is pretty much how the system already worked before the media got involved.

    So if the goal of the anti-GG movement is to rally law enforcement against online harassment, is someone really a part of the movement if they don't actively do that? Clearly that is not the goal. So what is? What specific things is the movement doing that will reduce online harassment?

    Bonus question: Was online harassment of female gamers/developers more or less common after the media picked up the GamerGate topic?

    What movement are you talking about?

    I suppose I'm a member of the feminist movement, but that's been around quite a while, and is pretty easy to understand.

    Your post is a mix of strawman, no-true-Scotsman, and goalpost-moving.

    If you have opinions, please state them clearly rather than using rhetorical or trap questions. That's hardly civil.

    Clearly stated: The people who benefit from the GamerGate controversy are not harassment victims, or harassers. The people who benefit are the owners of media companies who make their money off of clicks. There are no other winners.

    This controversy is worth your time and attention if you think that click-driven media companies (both inside and outside of 'games journalism') don't make enough money, and you want to give them a helping hand. It is doing nothing to affect actual incidences of online harassment one way or the other (how would it, exactly?), except possibly inciting more harassment by making people more angry at each other.

    So what are the people who are getting harassed suppose to do? Or the people who see them getting harassed? Are we just suppose to ignore that people have fled their homes and just laugh it off and hope it goes away after 2 months of this?

    I'm sorry, but these are real people who don't make that much money getting threatened and harassed to a ridiculous degree because of a sociopath who wrote a hit piece about his ex. No, I'm not going to sit back and ignore this. I don't expect the people who are getting the brunt of this to do so either.

    Not ignoring it is fine. What, specifically, is being done by you, or any aspect of this movement to make online harassment occur less often? What's the plan of attack?

    Is it just "Get really angry at stereotypes and hope something changes?"

    The only thing I can do about it is engage with people who may not realize what they're involved with too.
    Magell wrote: »
    I believe he's implying that people shouldn't be such shitheads who think death threats are funny or a way to make a point.
    I didn't get that from his post.
    For one thing, we could stop blaming the victim and framing a death threat as something one "receives" instead of something someone else "sends"

    Second step: find the sender

    Third step: punish them

    Fuck, that was hard! I just narrowly avoided creating a police state with thought police in the process.
    Something the GamerGate people have been doing. They've found a lot of the harassers.

    Well considering who the harassers are all it takes to find them is a little self reflection. If they did that they could find all the harassers.

    No I don't.
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    So it sounds like a lot of people in this thread are anti-Gamer Gate. How many people posting here have called law enforcement? It sounds like it's primarily the harassed people who are calling the police, which is pretty much how the system already worked before the media got involved.

    So if the goal of the anti-GG movement is to rally law enforcement against online harassment, is someone really a part of the movement if they don't actively do that? Clearly that is not the goal. So what is? What specific things is the movement doing that will reduce online harassment?

    Bonus question: Was online harassment of female gamers/developers more or less common after the media picked up the GamerGate topic?

    What movement are you talking about?

    I suppose I'm a member of the feminist movement, but that's been around quite a while, and is pretty easy to understand.

    Your post is a mix of strawman, no-true-Scotsman, and goalpost-moving.

    If you have opinions, please state them clearly rather than using rhetorical or trap questions. That's hardly civil.

    Clearly stated: The people who benefit from the GamerGate controversy are not harassment victims, or harassers. The people who benefit are the owners of media companies who make their money off of clicks. There are no other winners.

    This controversy is worth your time and attention if you think that click-driven media companies (both inside and outside of 'games journalism') don't make enough money, and you want to give them a helping hand. It is doing nothing to affect actual incidences of online harassment one way or the other (how would it, exactly?), except possibly inciting more harassment by making people more angry at each other.

    So what are the people who are getting harassed suppose to do? Or the people who see them getting harassed? Are we just suppose to ignore that people have fled their homes and just laugh it off and hope it goes away after 2 months of this?

    I'm sorry, but these are real people who don't make that much money getting threatened and harassed to a ridiculous degree because of a sociopath who wrote a hit piece about his ex. No, I'm not going to sit back and ignore this. I don't expect the people who are getting the brunt of this to do so either.

    Not ignoring it is fine. What, specifically, is being done by you, or any aspect of this movement to make online harassment occur less often? What's the plan of attack?

    Is it just "Get really angry at stereotypes and hope something changes?"

    Well right now I'm debating with you and that libertarian guy, because you seem to think it's just fine, in the hope you'll change your mind.

    I'm just one person, so there's not a lot I can do.

    Also stop with the 'movement' stuff, please.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • curly haired boycurly haired boy Your Friendly Neighborhood Torgue Dealer Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    I can't believe someone is actually trying to argue that art is not or should not or can not be political.

    I don't think I've ever seen this tactic before.

    It really does expose how empty the claims that this is about gaming are though. If video games are art, then they most certainly can be political and more importantly they can be analysed as such. Most of the shit the #GG crowd are complaining about are some of the few instances of actually journalism or study or analysis of video games going on.

    oh, it's not new

    it's just particularly useless

    RxI0N.png
    Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    Saying that entertainment shouldn't be political is simply a form of privilege.

    For instance, portraying women as objects is an inherently political concept. You simply don't recognize it as political because you're internalized that that world view as the universal default.

    It's the same phenomenon when conservatives get offended when gay judges are asked to rule on gay marriage, because they assume the judge is biased for being gay. But they have no problem with a straight judge ruling on marriage, because a straight judge is "neutral" and "normal."

    It's disingenuous to claim that GamerGate is against the co-opting of politics. They're only offended at having to consider the politics of people who don't look like them.
    Really, you gonna pull out the "privilege" card now?

    I didn't know conservatives were against gay judges. That's a fringe belief if I ever heard it. Probably the extreme social conservatives who are too religious for their own good.

    They're offended at the people using politics as a cudgel against them. Which is precisely what Anita is doing.

    Wrong.
    LOS ANGELES — A US judge refused to vacate a decision last year that declared California's anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Backers of Prop. 8 had wanted the decision thrown out on the grounds that the judge who made the decision is gay and therefore should have recused himself from the case.

    There was a huge movement to get this judge to recuse himself on the grounds that this judge was somehow biased, where as a straight judge wouldn't be.

    Just like with GamerGate, it's a false assumption of privileged neutrality.

    The bigots in the Prop 8 assume that being straight is neutral, and and therefore anything gay is a perversion of justice.

    GamerGate does the exact same thing. They enjoy games that have certain political views that they see as politically neutral. Any contrary political view is non-neutral, and therefore bad.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited October 2014
    Saying that entertainment shouldn't be political is simply a form of privilege.

    For instance, portraying women as objects is an inherently political concept. You simply don't recognize it as political because you're internalized that that world view as the universal default.

    It's the same phenomenon when conservatives get offended when gay judges are asked to rule on gay marriage, because they assume the judge is biased for being gay. But they have no problem with a straight judge ruling on marriage, because a straight judge is "neutral" and "normal."

    It's disingenuous to claim that GamerGate is against the co-opting of politics. They're only offended at having to consider the politics of people who don't look like them.
    Really, you gonna pull out the "privilege" card now?

    I didn't know conservatives were against gay judges. That's a fringe belief if I ever heard it. Probably the extreme social conservatives who are too religious for their own good.

    Talk about this in another thread, people will let you know what's going on with conservative judges.
    They're offended at the people using politics as a cudgel against them. Which is precisely what Anita is doing.

    Yes. She's using politics specific to video-games, or specifically the industry itself. Politics isn't off-limits for media to explore.

    edit: GamerGate is using politics to get what it wants from the industry.

    Harry Dresden on
  • MagellMagell Detroit Machine Guns Fort MyersRegistered User regular
    ff
    poshniallo wrote: »
    1 Many people would say all art is political. Regardless, the point is these people think gaming should NEVER be political, not that it should be political as a whole.

    2 Political acts and the party politics of the USA have very little to do with each other, and the machismo you seem apparently impressed with is irrelevant.

    3 Which gamers are you talking about? Let me guess, 'real' gamers, not people like me or Sarkeesian?

    4 I don't understand. Too many acronyms.

    5 I've got a beard, I'm fat, and I am a massive gaming nerd. My sex life would embarrass the pope. Those people using terms like neck beard are often responding to the most appalling insults and threats imaginable, whether aimed at them or not. So while I think their name calling is unhelpful, it doesn't hurt my feelings and isn't in the same league at all.

    6 No. Telling someone to shut up is not censorship. Censorship happens by powerful organizations such as governments and corporations.
    1) Nothing else to really say then.

    2) Politics are like two rams locking horns.

    3) Gamers as a whole. (You mean the woman who is on tape calling herself "not a gamer" and thinking video games "gross" for the "murders" a player commits? I'd love her to address that one.)

    4) OK...

    5) The name calling was coming from those not getting threats for the most part. Once again, the threats were not coming from GamerGate people.

    6) Shutting down discussion and banning people (on websites run by corporations) fits then, don't it?

    5. The articles with all those stereotypes of gamers were talking about how those stereotypes are being destroyed in the eye of the public because everybody is a gamer. They aren't calling people that.

  • KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    Coinage wrote: »
    Khavall wrote: »
    Also, seriously, how are we at a point where anyone who owns half a company and is releasing a game he's been working on for years goes "I should probably threaten the life of the CEO of my business partner who is also my distributor"
    He got screwed over by Valve several times before this and he has had almost no money during this entire process, so I can understand him having a little bit of a breakdown. It also seems that he just doesn't know how to interact with people, at all. The perils of being a nerd who has never had a regular job.

    He only got "screwed over" because he was going through greenlight while continuing to find a publisher, and then Valve went "Wait, no, you don't get to use the greenlight process only to ditch it if you find greener pastures elsewhere, you're a greenlight game, go through the greenlight process now"

    Also, even in the email they sent him they went "Hey so you said some shit about us, and that's fine, because we're open to criticism even in a public sphere, and even when filled with vitriol. But no mas on the death threats"

    Anyways , not the thread, I just wanted to bring up the whole a: Weird how different things go when a man sends a death threat to a man, and b: Seriously what the fuck why is it so hard for people not to threaten to murder other people

  • Undead ScottsmanUndead Scottsman Cybertronian Paranormal Eliminator Registered User regular
    Coinage wrote: »
    Khavall wrote: »
    Also, seriously, how are we at a point where anyone who owns half a company and is releasing a game he's been working on for years goes "I should probably threaten the life of the CEO of my business partner who is also my distributor"
    He got screwed over by Valve several times before this and he has had almost no money during this entire process, so I can understand him having a little bit of a breakdown. It also seems that he just doesn't know how to interact with people, at all. The perils of being a nerd who has never had a regular job.

    He's apparently a grade-a asshole who had his fans pursue a harassment campaign against the dude who made Guncraft, because he had the NERVE to go "Hey, maybe you should treat your customers a little better or you might lose them" while they were sharing a chatroom during an indie bundle thing.

  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    They're offended at the people using politics as a cudgel against them. Which is precisely what Anita is doing.

    Anita has done nothing aside from create a web series of videos talking about misogyny in gaming. If you disagree with her, boo fucking hoo. Don't watch the video. You do not get to engage in a campaign of intimidation to silence opposition. Which is exactly what you're doing. You're going to say that's not you, that's someone unrelated, but here you are, Willie, right in that post, villifying her simply for voicing her opinion.

    And to your notion about how games shouldn't be 'wholly' political? What does that even mean? What the bloody hell are you talking about? 'Wholly' political? Since when are games wholly political? Since when is anything wholly political? That is a made up term, and is extraordinarily dishonest. No, Willie, what you want is to go back to when gamers as a whole could treat people like shit and no one cared because everyone looked down on gaming as childish. Well, unfortunately, gaming grew up. Now it appeals to audiences as wide as film and books and music. And so you get experiences and voices as wide and varied as in film and books and music. Don't you dare tell me that's a bad thing. Don't you fucking dare.

    What GamerGate is really about is that the light of mainstream attention is shining on the racism and sexism endemic to the gaming circles that used to be safe havens for this vile behavior and they are freaking out.

  • UrQuanLord88UrQuanLord88 Registered User regular
    edited October 2014
    Magell wrote: »
    5. The articles with all those stereotypes of gamers were talking about how those stereotypes are being destroyed in the eye of the public because everybody is a gamer. They aren't calling people that.

    Its just too bad that they all have really poor titles that might be interpreted otherwise. And that they all came out at roughly the same time. (I'm being serious)

    UrQuanLord88 on
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/urquanlord88
    urquanlord88.png
    Streaming 8PST on weeknights
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    See this is the trouble. It's gonna be really hard to have a civil discussion about this, even if we want to.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • MagellMagell Detroit Machine Guns Fort MyersRegistered User regular
    edited October 2014
    Magell wrote: »
    5. The articles with all those stereotypes of gamers were talking about how those stereotypes are being destroyed in the eye of the public because everybody is a gamer. They aren't calling people that.

    Its just too bad that they all have really poor titles that might be interpreted otherwise. And that they all came out at roughly the same time. (I'm being serious)

    I'd say the problem is a lack of critical reading and reasoning on the part of people who are reading the articles. And they all came out around the same time because of gamergate. Also the people who write the articles don't name them. That's the editor who wants lots of clicks fault.

    Magell on
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    Squidget0 wrote: »
    So it sounds like a lot of people in this thread are anti-Gamer Gate. How many people posting here have called law enforcement? It sounds like it's primarily the harassed people who are calling the police, which is pretty much how the system already worked before the media got involved.

    So if the goal of the anti-GG movement is to rally law enforcement against online harassment, is someone really a part of the movement if they don't actively do that? Clearly that is not the goal. So what is? What specific things is the movement doing that will reduce online harassment?

    Bonus question: Was online harassment of female gamers/developers more or less common after the media picked up the GamerGate topic?

    What movement are you talking about?

    I suppose I'm a member of the feminist movement, but that's been around quite a while, and is pretty easy to understand.

    Your post is a mix of strawman, no-true-Scotsman, and goalpost-moving.

    If you have opinions, please state them clearly rather than using rhetorical or trap questions. That's hardly civil.

    Clearly stated: The people who benefit from the GamerGate controversy are not harassment victims, or harassers. The people who benefit are the owners of media companies who make their money off of clicks. There are no other winners.

    This controversy is worth your time and attention if you think that click-driven media companies (both inside and outside of 'games journalism') don't make enough money, and you want to give them a helping hand. It is doing nothing to affect actual incidences of online harassment one way or the other (how would it, exactly?), except possibly inciting more harassment by making people more angry at each other.

    So what are the people who are getting harassed suppose to do? Or the people who see them getting harassed? Are we just suppose to ignore that people have fled their homes and just laugh it off and hope it goes away after 2 months of this?

    I'm sorry, but these are real people who don't make that much money getting threatened and harassed to a ridiculous degree because of a sociopath who wrote a hit piece about his ex. No, I'm not going to sit back and ignore this. I don't expect the people who are getting the brunt of this to do so either.

    Not ignoring it is fine. What, specifically, is being done by you, or any aspect of this movement to make online harassment occur less often? What's the plan of attack?

    Is it just "Get really angry at stereotypes and hope something changes?"

    Well right now I'm debating with you and that libertarian guy, because you seem to think it's just fine, in the hope you'll change your mind.

    I'm just one person, so there's not a lot I can do.

    Also stop with the 'movement' stuff, please.

    I can see why it'd be a movement, it's not an organization.

  • BigWillieStylesBigWillieStyles Expert flipper of tables Inside my mind...Registered User regular
    edited October 2014
    Its just too bad that they all have really poor titles that might be interpreted otherwise. And that they all came out at roughly the same time. (I'm being serious)
    Which is what the whole GameJournoPros (designed on JournoList) was about.
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Anita has done nothing aside from create a web series of videos talking about misogyny in gaming. If you disagree with her, boo fucking hoo. Don't watch the video. You do not get to engage in a campaign of intimidation to silence opposition. Which is exactly what you're doing. You're going to say that's not you, that's someone unrelated, but here you are, Willie, right in that post, villifying her simply for voicing her opinion.

    And to your notion about how games shouldn't be 'wholly' political? What does that even mean? What the bloody hell are you talking about? 'Wholly' political? Since when are games wholly political? Since when is anything wholly political? That is a made up term, and is extraordinarily dishonest. No, Willie, what you want is to go back to when gamers as a whole could treat people like shit and no one cared because everyone looked down on gaming as childish. Well, unfortunately, gaming grew up. Now it appeals to audiences as wide as film and books and music. And so you get experiences and voices as wide and varied as in film and books and music. Don't you dare tell me that's a bad thing. Don't you fucking dare.

    What GamerGate is really about is that the light of mainstream attention is shining on the racism and sexism endemic to the gaming circles that used to be safe havens for this vile behavior and they are freaking out.
    *Sigh.* I'm not defending the threats she's received.

    Endemic? Really? So, all that money raised to get women-created games made means nothing? GamerGate isn't about sexism, racism, or harassment.

    BigWillieStyles on
    3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
    PM me with yours if you add me
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    1) Every media is political. Passively or actively, politics taints what gets made.
    2) Media isn't the beltway, it's entertainment. There is a line for what is tolerated before push back occurs. GamerGate went over that line when crimes were committed in its name.
    3) Gamers were political before this happened, they just didn't notice it since they were the ones whose views were the status quo. With minorities and women rising up to re-arrange the status quo gamers are discovering the ground is eroding beneath their feet and they are scared to death of change they don't understand.
    4) SJW are liberal, they're just extreme with their views. GG is conservative to the bone.
    5) Technically you're right, gamers like that do exist. They're not what it means to be a gamer any longer, they don't define the term like they used to. The industry has evolved.
    6) Censorship is done by the government, not civilians. The government hasn't censored anything in this fiasco. Free speech has consequences. Going somewhere else creates another movement from scratch that won't be tainted by BB, which is beyond saving as a brand. Burn it down, salt the earth and start over - this time don't let it be defined badly like BB was.
    1) Most people are apolitical. Overt politics is distasteful to them.
    2) Still no direct connection. The threats didn't use the hashtag. Try again.
    3) That's a straw man. Moving on.
    4) Not really. The diversity of views in the GamerGate movement is well established (if you care to look.) The anti-GG are pretty homogeneous in viewpoint.
    5) "Gamer" means someone who plays video games and associates with the word. It isn't specific to race, class, gender, or sexual orientation. To claim it is is being inherently dishonest.
    6) Censorship isn't just the government domain. By limiting discussion on a website (or outright banning people who bring it up,) that's censoring their viewpoint. Unless you have a better word for it. And GamerGate doesn't let other people define it. And it's not going anywhere yet.

    1) So explain to us the meaning of non-overt politics. Because it sounds like non-overt politics is just a fancy way of saying "The politics that I personally already assume as true," where as overt politics is a fancy way of saying "The politics of people who are different from myself."

    For instance, Samus is actually a girl? That's a political message, "Girls can be heroes too!" But if Samus was a guy, it would also be political, "All heroes are men!" But it would be political in a way that most gamers already accept without question.

    4) I honestly have no idea what you're referring to. What exactly do you mean by "The anti-GG are pretty homogeneous in viewpoint", unless by viewpoint, you mean "Women are people too" and "Harassment = bad"?

    5) If that's the case, then why does GamerGate consider Feminist views as being counter to Gamer culture? If the meaning of "gamer" is as broad as you define it, then they should have no problem welcoming feminist views.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited October 2014
    Its just too bad that they all have really poor titles that might be interpreted otherwise. And that they all came out at roughly the same time. (I'm being serious)
    Which is what the whole GameJournoPros (designed on JournoList) was about.

    Can you explain this? I don't know what you're talking about. As long as it is on-topic.

    Harry Dresden on
This discussion has been closed.