This seems like it's primarily a way for the media to play two groups of people off against stereotypes they have of each other? "Hey hysterical women, you'd better watch out for those nerdy basement trolls! Hey nerdy basement trolls, you'd better watch out for those hysterical women!"
The only winners here are the people who make money from clicks. So stop clicking on them.
If it was really just some kind of dumb nerd fight or whatever, then sure, safe to ignore it.
But a lot of the pro-GG players are the same people who have been harassing women in gaming for years, just under a new name. And they've doubled down on the harassment since this thing started.
Like sure, for me personally I ignore it and it goes away. Assholes are still going to be putting dead squirrels in Zoe Quinn's mailbox though, and that's shitty. And I want to talk about how shitty that is, and I especially want to hear developers say "if this is the kind of person you are, we don't want you buying are games" the way a few of the braver of them have.
What, specifically, is anyone on any side of the conversation doing that will make internet trolling less likely to happen?
Well, for one, the pro-women side is pushing law enforcement to treat death threats issued online like the actual serious crime they are.
It's really telling that you keep dismissing this conduct as "trolling".
That's more of a cybercrime issue than a gender issue really
I don't know about "more". Something certainly should be done about the casual way people send death threats now (Just recently Paranautical Activity was pulled off Steam because one of the creators blew up on Twitter, and I still find it amazing that George RR Martin got enough death threats to be seriously concerned after the Red Wedding episode of GoT aired), but you can't ignore that the abuse is generally more intensely focused on people who, shall we say, are not white men.
I can believe it.
0
Options
BigWillieStylesExpert flipper of tablesInside my mind...Registered Userregular
The thing that always boggles my mind is that these people accuse women of sleeping with men for favors, but they name and attack the women, and ignore the men. The double standard is so competely obvious I don't know how they miss it themselves.
They didn't ignore them, though. That blog dedicated to it called them "Five Guys" or whatever, and the names of the guys involved did get out eventually. People like the Internet Aristocrat talked at length about all of them.
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?
Funnily enough, the GamerGate people are reporting the harassers (at least the Twitter ones.)
Online harassment of public figures is commonplace. The problem is the people who decide to call out, on social media, the trolls threatening them. Most people will tell you you're not supposed to do that. That only encourages more crazy people to send threats so that they get attention (which is what those crazy threat-senders really want.) It's why a lot of academic types tell media organizations to not publicize the name and picture of those who commit mass murder.
BigWillieStyles on
3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
PM me with yours if you add me
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.
Bonus question: Was online harassment of female gamers/developers more or less common after the media picked up the GamerGate topic?
Sarkeesian's been getting this treatment since she first posted the Kickstarter what, two and a half years ago now? For doing basically elementary textual analysis from a feminist perspective. So no.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Bonus question: Was online harassment of female gamers/developers more or less common after the media picked up the GamerGate topic?
Sarkeesian's been getting this treatment since she first posted the Kickstarter what, two and a half years ago now? For doing basically elementary textual analysis from a feminist perspective. So no.
She's the current poster girl for video-game sexism. I don't know how she deals with this shit.
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.
Bonus question: Was online harassment of female gamers/developers more or less common after the media picked up the GamerGate topic?
Sarkeesian's been getting this treatment since she first posted the Kickstarter what, two and a half years ago now? For doing basically elementary textual analysis from a feminist perspective. So no.
She's the current poster girl for video-game sexism. I don't know how she deals with this shit.
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. Call me crazy, but I'm fairly sure that's how it worked even before the hashtags. So what has actually changed?
Clearly rallying law enforcement 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?
There isn't an anti Gamergate movement. Just people who aren't insane trying to survive a shitstorm.
No I don't.
+18
Options
BigWillieStylesExpert flipper of tablesInside my mind...Registered Userregular
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.)
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.
BigWillieStyles on
3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
PM me with yours if you add me
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.)
Because being silenced by terrorists is exactly what they want in this case.
Online harassment of public figures is commonplace. The problem is the people who decide to call out, on social media, the trolls threatening them. Most people will tell you you're not supposed to do that. That only encourages more crazy people to send threats so that they get attention (which is what those crazy threat-senders really want.) It's why a lot of academic types tell media organizations to not publicize the name and picture of those who commit mass murder.
Nope, doesn't work. As basically any bullied six year old could tell you. You can fight back or bring in the authorities.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
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.
It's one of those things where they assume that "white straight male" perspective is the same as "neutral" perspective.
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.)
You're right. She should just suffer in silence, or maybe just shut up altogether. It's not like the disgusting response her videos have received is any way relevant or anything.
"I see everything twice!"
+6
Options
BigWillieStylesExpert flipper of tablesInside my mind...Registered Userregular
Because being silenced by terrorists is exactly what they want in this case.
She can keep doing her other stuff. She doesn't need to call out the threats against her (contact the authorities, sure, but do nothing else.) Calling out the trolls against her only encourages more of it. As anyone will tell you.
Ebert received death threats after his pretty stupid "video games will never be art" article. He just ignored them (outside of contacting the authorities.)
For any modestly public figure, death threats are a probably daily occurrence. Because some people be crazy. Batshit crazy.
Because being silenced by terrorists is exactly what they want in this case.
She can keep doing her other stuff. She doesn't need to call out the threats against her (contact the authorities, sure, but do nothing else.) Calling out the trolls against her only encourages more of it. As anyone will tell you.
What are you basing this on?
Cause she received death threats long before she was calling out the threats.
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 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.
I'm sorry, but are you under the impression that women don't get harassed aside from the public figures already mentioned?
Were you completely asleep when the #YesAllWomen thing happened?
+3
Options
BigWillieStylesExpert flipper of tablesInside my mind...Registered Userregular
Cause she received death threats long before she was calling out the threats.
She started calling them out very soon after she started receiving them. Those threats and the subsequent articles about them gave her Kickstarter project a massive publicity push.
If I was being cynical, I'd say she was practicing self-aggrandizement. But that's unlikely.
3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
PM me with yours if you add me
Because being silenced by terrorists is exactly what they want in this case.
She can keep doing her other stuff. She doesn't need to call out the threats against her (contact the authorities, sure, but do nothing else.) Calling out the trolls against her only encourages more of it. As anyone will tell you.
Ebert received death threats after his pretty stupid "video games will never be art" article. He just ignored them (outside of contacting the authorities.)
For any modestly public figure, death threats are a probably daily occurrence. Because some people be crazy. Batshit crazy.
When your main message is "there's something toxic in the content of games, and that has a negative effect on the way women are treated in this industry and in the community" staying silent when you're getting death threats because you have a voice isn't going to make the "trolls" go away. It's giving them exactly what they want.
No, she's doing exactly what she should, and this is something that needs to be talked about, loudly. So no, not anyone will tell you to "not feed the trolls", because these aren't trolls. They're fucking terrorists.
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.
The only people benefiting from this are sociopaths who want to drive women and progressives out of games and D-list conservative hacks. Literally everyone else loses.
+11
Options
GreasyKidsStuffMOMMM!ROAST BEEF WANTS TO KISS GIRLS ON THE TITTIES!Registered Userregular
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.)
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.
I dealt with this conflation of "politics", ie. government, political parties, etc., with the "political" as it pertains to art tonight in this twitter convo that I posted earlier: Give it a read.
TL;DR: All art is inherently political. This DOES NOT MEAN that it makes explicit political statements (although, it might in some cases such as Bioshock). Rather, it means that everything that goes into producing a piece of art is either supported by, or implicitly supports, certain political patterns / ideologies / tropes, that all work together to produce a certain view of the way the world is and operates. For example, Anita Sarkeesian's entire point of her videos is to show how a lot of mainstream titles implicitly (or even explicitly) support the subjugation / exploitation / destruction of women. Games can make the implicit point that "women are objects" without explicitly saying so; the implicit nature of the statement doesn't make it any less political.
+22
Options
GreasyKidsStuffMOMMM!ROAST BEEF WANTS TO KISS GIRLS ON THE TITTIES!Registered Userregular
My TL;DR is longer than the actual thing I meant to TL;DR but I don't care.
@BigWillieStyles, if gamergate is actually concerned with ethics in video gaming journalism then how do you explain the existence of Operation Bayonetta 2? Because it looks like you people are more about stifling journalism than anything else.
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.
Considering it's involved numerous death threats and at least one threat of mass murder, I think it's very much worth noticing.
And so do you, else you wouldn't even bother posting in this thread to tell us how totally not a big deal it all is.
You should look at your posting here and do some self-examination about your own motives.
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.
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.)
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) 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.
+5
Options
BigWillieStylesExpert flipper of tablesInside my mind...Registered Userregular
Considering it's involved numerous death threats and at least one threat of mass murder, I think it's very much worth noticing.
And so do you, else you wouldn't even bother posting in this thread to tell us how totally not a big deal it all is.
You should look at your posting here and do some self-examination about your own motives.
None of those threats can be linked to GamerGate and GamerGate as a whole disavowed any threats and harassment. Because GamerGate does not support that shit. We report it. Every day.
BigWillieStyles, if gamergate is actually concerned with ethics in video gaming journalism then how do you explain the existence of Operation Bayonetta 2? Because it looks like you people are more about stifling journalism than anything else.
Ethics in journalism is one facet. Another facet is stopping the "SJWs" from gaining influence (and the gaming press that seems to generally agree with the goals of said people.)
As for Anita (and such people,) this three-part series of articles sums it up pretty well:
Operation Bayonetta 2, which seems to be focused on getting people to buy a game that has an over 90% rating on Metacritic? And being pissed at that one review that decided to dock the game points for the oversexualized protagonist (sex positive feminists rejoice, sex negative feminists harrumph)?
BigWillieStyles on
3DS Friend Code: 1006 - 0121 - 6969
PM me with yours if you add me
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.
I'm sorry, but are you under the impression that women don't get harassed aside from the public figures already mentioned?
Were you completely asleep when the #YesAllWomen thing happened?
Women have been getting harassed for all of human history, most of it in person and institutionalized.
Now what does any of that have to do with what I said?
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?"
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.)
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. Lots of movies and tv shows are considering political. It is perfectly acceptable for a movie or show to make a political point and it should be fine for games to make those same kind of points.
2. Politics isn't just two sides fighting it's generally one side trying to make change, and then other people fighting that change. They fight that change because the status quo works better for them and don't want things to change.
3. You can't really compare Atheism and Gaming, because Atheism is a belief system and video games are a hobby. Everybody plays video games, nobody's hijacking your hobby they're targeting a shitty hashtag.
4. SJW (the shittiest term ever) isn't hateful. It's about teaching people that everybody should be treated the same.
5. Except those articles are saying gamers are dead because everybody plays games. Gamers aren't neckbeards, virgins, and what have you. That's an outdated notion and that's what those articles are saying.
6. Shutting down a conversation isn't censorship. Censorship is when the government stops people from saying things. When somebody stops having a conversation with you it's because they don't want to listen to what somebody is saying.
Considering it's involved numerous death threats and at least one threat of mass murder, I think it's very much worth noticing.
And so do you, else you wouldn't even bother posting in this thread to tell us how totally not a big deal it all is.
You should look at your posting here and do some self-examination about your own motives.
None of those threats can be linked to GamerGate and GamerGate as a whole disavowed any threats and harassment. Because GamerGate does not support that shit. We report it. Every day.
Ethics in journalism is one facet. Another facet is stopping the "SJWs" from gaining influence (and the gaming press that seems to generally agree with the goals of said people.)
I'm not sure if you just aren't actually aware of what you are saying or just too clueless to realise what it means.
Considering it's involved numerous death threats and at least one threat of mass murder, I think it's very much worth noticing.
And so do you, else you wouldn't even bother posting in this thread to tell us how totally not a big deal it all is.
You should look at your posting here and do some self-examination about your own motives.
None of those threats can be linked to GamerGate and GamerGate as a whole disavowed any threats and harassment. Because GamerGate does not support that shit. We report it. Every day.
Except for when you don't. Like with The_Camera_Girl sending sexual, harassing messages to people. No reports there. Just ignored.
Or the fact that 8chan is still a hub for the movement, even though it hosts child porn, doxxes, and all different types of awful shit.
Considering it's involved numerous death threats and at least one threat of mass murder, I think it's very much worth noticing.
And so do you, else you wouldn't even bother posting in this thread to tell us how totally not a big deal it all is.
You should look at your posting here and do some self-examination about your own motives.
None of those threats can be linked to GamerGate and GamerGate as a whole disavowed any threats and harassment. Because GamerGate does not support that shit. We report it. Every day.
BigWillieStyles, if gamergate is actually concerned with ethics in video gaming journalism then how do you explain the existence of Operation Bayonetta 2? Because it looks like you people are more about stifling journalism than anything else.
Ethics in journalism is one facet. Another facet is stopping the "SJWs" from gaining influence (and the gaming press that seems to generally agree with the goals of said people.)
As for Anita (and such people,) this three-part series of articles sums it up pretty well:
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. Call me crazy, but I'm fairly sure that's how it worked even before the hashtags. So what has actually changed?
Clearly rallying law enforcement 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?
Law enforcement is not a popularity contest, they don't just investigate the crimes that get the most reports. Spamming law enforcement with duplicate reports will only lead to wastage of police time, and fewer resources being able to be allocated to actual investigation of crime.
When you talk about a movement, who do you mean? If you are talking to those opposed to gamergate, it is reaching to call it a movement. As far as I can see it is a disparate group with only the horror they feel at acts by the fringes of the gamergate movement to unite them. Whilst I can't speak for other folks I can expand on my personal motivations for posting.
Generally I am more of a lurker than poster on forums. What has made me speak up in this case is that when you have a group of people who purport to represent gamers, and who espouse views that are abhorrent to you personally, it is a duty to voice your dissent. To do less is to allow them to claim to speak for a silent majority, to paint themselves as brave martyrs. By raising my voice and saying that I fundamentally disagree with your aims and actions, reduces gamergates legitimacy in being able to claim to speak for gamers, albeit in a very small way. The more people who speak up though, the greater force this will become.
I do not see why I am required to reduce online harassment. I have never harassed someone online and only ever tried to be civil in my discourse with others. It is disingenuous to on one side claim those that harass others online are not true gamergaters, but on the other say it is the duty of those who disagree with gamergate to stop it.
As for your bonus question, sadly harassment of women and other oppressed groups has been going on since time immemorial, and certainly predates the internet. What the internet does however is to allow cowards to make truly vile threats under a cloak of anonymity. To do anything other than clearly and unequivocally state your opposition to such vile threats is equally as cowardly in my book. Just because something has always happened does not mean you need to accept it as inevitable. It is always worthwhile taking a stand against evil acts.
I don't know why any moderate would want to be linked to Gamergate when it started as a witch hunt against a woman who did none of the things she was accused of. Maybe come up with a new brand that hasn't harassed women who are doing good work in the video game community.
The gamergate hashtag was literally started by a dude who was trying to get people to dogpile on Zoe Quinn for having a shitty sociopath ex-boyfriend. Anyone associating with that movement is not worth the time of day.
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
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
+12
Options
BigWillieStylesExpert flipper of tablesInside my mind...Registered Userregular
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.
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
Posts
I can believe it.
Funnily enough, the GamerGate people are reporting the harassers (at least the Twitter ones.)
Online harassment of public figures is commonplace. The problem is the people who decide to call out, on social media, the trolls threatening them. Most people will tell you you're not supposed to do that. That only encourages more crazy people to send threats so that they get attention (which is what those crazy threat-senders really want.) It's why a lot of academic types tell media organizations to not publicize the name and picture of those who commit mass murder.
PM me with yours if you add 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.
Sarkeesian's been getting this treatment since she first posted the Kickstarter what, two and a half years ago now? For doing basically elementary textual analysis from a feminist perspective. So no.
She's the current poster girl for video-game sexism. I don't know how she deals with this shit.
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.
With heavy involvement from law enforcement.
There isn't an anti Gamergate movement. Just people who aren't insane trying to survive a shitstorm.
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.
PM me with yours if you add me
Because being silenced by terrorists is exactly what they want in this case.
Nope, doesn't work. As basically any bullied six year old could tell you. You can fight back or bring in the authorities.
It's one of those things where they assume that "white straight male" perspective is the same as "neutral" perspective.
Ebert received death threats after his pretty stupid "video games will never be art" article. He just ignored them (outside of contacting the authorities.)
For any modestly public figure, death threats are a probably daily occurrence. Because some people be crazy. Batshit crazy.
You contact the authorities, but you don't give the trolls lodging the threats publicity and attention, which is what they crave.
PM me with yours if you add me
What are you basing this on?
Cause she received death threats long before she was calling out the threats.
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.
I'm sorry, but are you under the impression that women don't get harassed aside from the public figures already mentioned?
Were you completely asleep when the #YesAllWomen thing happened?
If I was being cynical, I'd say she was practicing self-aggrandizement. But that's unlikely.
PM me with yours if you add me
When your main message is "there's something toxic in the content of games, and that has a negative effect on the way women are treated in this industry and in the community" staying silent when you're getting death threats because you have a voice isn't going to make the "trolls" go away. It's giving them exactly what they want.
No, she's doing exactly what she should, and this is something that needs to be talked about, loudly. So no, not anyone will tell you to "not feed the trolls", because these aren't trolls. They're fucking terrorists.
The only people benefiting from this are sociopaths who want to drive women and progressives out of games and D-list conservative hacks. Literally everyone else loses.
I dealt with this conflation of "politics", ie. government, political parties, etc., with the "political" as it pertains to art tonight in this twitter convo that I posted earlier: Give it a read.
TL;DR: All art is inherently political. This DOES NOT MEAN that it makes explicit political statements (although, it might in some cases such as Bioshock). Rather, it means that everything that goes into producing a piece of art is either supported by, or implicitly supports, certain political patterns / ideologies / tropes, that all work together to produce a certain view of the way the world is and operates. For example, Anita Sarkeesian's entire point of her videos is to show how a lot of mainstream titles implicitly (or even explicitly) support the subjugation / exploitation / destruction of women. Games can make the implicit point that "women are objects" without explicitly saying so; the implicit nature of the statement doesn't make it any less political.
Considering it's involved numerous death threats and at least one threat of mass murder, I think it's very much worth noticing.
And so do you, else you wouldn't even bother posting in this thread to tell us how totally not a big deal it all is.
You should look at your posting here and do some self-examination about your own motives.
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.
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.
Ethics in journalism is one facet. Another facet is stopping the "SJWs" from gaining influence (and the gaming press that seems to generally agree with the goals of said people.)
As for Anita (and such people,) this three-part series of articles sums it up pretty well:
http://gamesided.com/2014/09/08/sarkeesian-truth-part-1-straw-feminist-trojan-horse-censorship/
http://gamesided.com/2014/09/09/sarkeesian-vs-truth-part-ii-phantom-sources-dixie-kong-double-standards/
http://gamesided.com/2014/09/10/nsarkeesian-vs-truth-part-iii-impossible-argument-men-koopas/
Operation Bayonetta 2, which seems to be focused on getting people to buy a game that has an over 90% rating on Metacritic? And being pissed at that one review that decided to dock the game points for the oversexualized protagonist (sex positive feminists rejoice, sex negative feminists harrumph)?
PM me with yours if you add me
Women have been getting harassed for all of human history, most of it in person and institutionalized.
Now what does any of that have to do with what I said?
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?"
1. Lots of movies and tv shows are considering political. It is perfectly acceptable for a movie or show to make a political point and it should be fine for games to make those same kind of points.
2. Politics isn't just two sides fighting it's generally one side trying to make change, and then other people fighting that change. They fight that change because the status quo works better for them and don't want things to change.
3. You can't really compare Atheism and Gaming, because Atheism is a belief system and video games are a hobby. Everybody plays video games, nobody's hijacking your hobby they're targeting a shitty hashtag.
4. SJW (the shittiest term ever) isn't hateful. It's about teaching people that everybody should be treated the same.
5. Except those articles are saying gamers are dead because everybody plays games. Gamers aren't neckbeards, virgins, and what have you. That's an outdated notion and that's what those articles are saying.
6. Shutting down a conversation isn't censorship. Censorship is when the government stops people from saying things. When somebody stops having a conversation with you it's because they don't want to listen to what somebody is saying.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
Yes, then can.
I'm not sure if you just aren't actually aware of what you are saying or just too clueless to realise what it means.
nm....
Except for when you don't. Like with The_Camera_Girl sending sexual, harassing messages to people. No reports there. Just ignored.
Or the fact that 8chan is still a hub for the movement, even though it hosts child porn, doxxes, and all different types of awful shit.
GG is a large movement, its possible for both to exist within its structure. GG also has no central leadership as far as I know.
Law enforcement is not a popularity contest, they don't just investigate the crimes that get the most reports. Spamming law enforcement with duplicate reports will only lead to wastage of police time, and fewer resources being able to be allocated to actual investigation of crime.
When you talk about a movement, who do you mean? If you are talking to those opposed to gamergate, it is reaching to call it a movement. As far as I can see it is a disparate group with only the horror they feel at acts by the fringes of the gamergate movement to unite them. Whilst I can't speak for other folks I can expand on my personal motivations for posting.
Generally I am more of a lurker than poster on forums. What has made me speak up in this case is that when you have a group of people who purport to represent gamers, and who espouse views that are abhorrent to you personally, it is a duty to voice your dissent. To do less is to allow them to claim to speak for a silent majority, to paint themselves as brave martyrs. By raising my voice and saying that I fundamentally disagree with your aims and actions, reduces gamergates legitimacy in being able to claim to speak for gamers, albeit in a very small way. The more people who speak up though, the greater force this will become.
I do not see why I am required to reduce online harassment. I have never harassed someone online and only ever tried to be civil in my discourse with others. It is disingenuous to on one side claim those that harass others online are not true gamergaters, but on the other say it is the duty of those who disagree with gamergate to stop it.
As for your bonus question, sadly harassment of women and other oppressed groups has been going on since time immemorial, and certainly predates the internet. What the internet does however is to allow cowards to make truly vile threats under a cloak of anonymity. To do anything other than clearly and unequivocally state your opposition to such vile threats is equally as cowardly in my book. Just because something has always happened does not mean you need to accept it as inevitable. It is always worthwhile taking a stand against evil acts.
(rereads. Whew, what a ramble...)
Only a mere 136 pins to go!
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
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?
Television shows as a whole. Come on, man!
Nice guilt by association there.
And 4Chan has a thriving LGBQT community as well as all those shady activities you mentioned. Your point?
YouTube has a problem with illegal stuff being posted constantly and a thriving Let's Players community. Your point?
Reddit banned GamerGate discussions but also has some pretty shady subreddits. Your point?
PM me with yours if you add me