You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 08, 2016, 08:23:47 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Gamergate  (Read 4513 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline consortium11Topic starter

Gamergate
« on: October 20, 2014, 12:46:34 AM »
"Gamergate" has been touched on a lot in other threads so it's probably worth getting one up to focus on it specifically.




What is Gamergate?

How long do you have?

Depending on who you ask Gamergate is a followup to earlier issues (such as the horribly named Doritogate and Lauren Wainwright controversy) with (the lack of) journalistic integrity and ethics in the video game media and/or a reassertion of the "video gamer" identity/sub-culture against pressure that it no longer existed and/or a reaction to what is seen as an attempt to force politics into gaming (and a further reaction to people believing they were being co-opted or used in a campaign they didn't believe in; see #NotYourShield) and/or a whole bunch of other stuff and/or basically a harassment campaign from misogynistic men who hate women.

In truth it's probably a bit of all of them... and depending on who you ask larger elements of each.

To give a very basic, very canned history:

Female indy game developer's ex-boyfriend puts up a blog about how she cheated on him and was in a relationship with a journalist at the video game website that gave her some coverage (although not during their relationship).

Everything explodes.

Basically the debate immediately split. On one hand some people focused on the integrity implications that came with this. As above the integrity (or lack thereof) of video games journalism has been a topic for a long, long time and while the direct accusations in this example were groundless it caused an upsurge of interest and comment, especially when there appeared to be a mass censorship attempt by much of the video games media. There have been lots of discussions about seemingly inappropriate relationships, the revealing of an "insider" mailing list where games journalists communicated with each other and seemed to have breached some barriers that shouldn't really be breached by journalists (as well as a possible illegal blacklisting) and a whole lot more.

On the other hand, especially in the wake of Anita Sarkeesian and the controversy she's caused (and threats she's been subjected to) and things like Dickwolves, some use it as an excuse to go on a harassment campaign against females involved in gaming in general and, more specifically, the much maligned S(ocial)J(ustice)W(arriors). There's been misogynistic insults, threats, death threats, doxxing... basically the full run of what happens when a Twitter-storm turns into a Twitter-Day-After-Tomorrow. And it hasn't been pretty... from either side.

Those two branches have remained pretty strong trends... but they've also branched off themselves.

One addition was more mainstream media getting involved, largely with a "gamers are dead, long living gaming" style approach where a lot of articles in a short place of time all delved into the issue of what constituted a "gamer", what constituted "someone who plays video games" and whether "gamer" as a subculture existed any more. This led to a fightback by those who still considered themselves gamers and in turn to mainstream journalists getting drawn into the wider Gamergate battle. Arguably the biggest story out of this is a targeted campaign to get advertisers to drop Gawker after one of their journalists made a number of "jokes" about bullying nerds during bullying awareness month and there was no real apology.

The other addition was the previously mentioned #NotYourShield. As a reaction to the misogynistic harassment being thrown at women in the game industry some people tried to paint "gamers" as being a misogynistic, racist, transphobic etc etc toxic whole... and in turn a number of gamers who fell into those minorities came back by saying that they were proud gamers and that someone shouldn't try to use them to make their point... in essence, don't use me as your shield to make an argument. So right there we have a debate about (to use over dramatic language) the "soul of video gaming".

Have you followed that?

Well, I'm struggling to and I'm writing this stuff. And only really touching the surface.




So, where do I stand?

In an awkward position.

On the journalistic integrity point? Heavily pro gamergate. Journalistic ethics have always been pretty dire in video games and this just reinforces the point. Too many "journalists" end up rewriting press releases as articles, too many accept too many freebies and junkets without feeling the need to declare them, the games PR and games reporting industries are far too close (not helped by a stint as a video games writer seemingly being one of the first steps in a career path to games PR) and as this series of events have revealed too many journalists and writers are too close to each other without disclosing it.

On the "gamers vs the world" point... still pretty pro gamergate. People who play video games have long been denigrated by more mainstream media, written off as "geeks" and "nerds" and generally made fun of. As difficult as it is to define I think there is a distinct "gamer" culture and I don't think it does anyone any good to either write it off as dead or pigeonhole it too much; the sort of people who play competitive MOBA's are a different group to those who pour hours into FPS's are a different group to those who play fairly hardcore wargames who in turn are different to those who delve into serious RPG's. I think it's only fair to "gamers" to reassert their existence and the fact that they're a subculture in and of themselves despite wider acceptance; lots of people drive cars but there are still car enthusiasts for example.

On the harassment? It's a disgrace. I'm not sure how much is directly related to video games and how much is more related to the way any woman who sticks her head above the parapet is basically immediately attacked online, but there has been a distinctly nasty misogynistic streak to much of the abuse. Frankly both "sides" have got their hands dirty; the likes of Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu have got the headlines when it comes to threats but one could likewise look at the treatment of Milo Yiannopoulos or this actually quite uplifting tale of someone who was doxxed and received death threats but was able to track the perpetrator down and have a conversation about what she had done. Suffice to say there's been a lot of shit thrown, a lot of insults and a lot of terrible behavior that paints no-one in a good light.

It's too late now but the best thing would have been if early on the term gamergate had been split... there are legitimate concerns about journalistic ethics just as there are legitimate concerns about the horrific way people are being treated. But the journalistic concerns get brushed under the carpet because they're lumped in with the misogynistic harassers and the abuse gets written off as people trying to distract attention for the ethics concerns. Then we could perhaps have another term for the "gamer vs non-gamer" debate and hell, lets throw in another one for the whole "NotYourShield" stuff and whether people can be said to speak for others.

As it is we have a mess. A big ol' mess.

Anyone else want to jump in?

Offline Steampunkette

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #1 on: October 20, 2014, 01:50:33 AM »
Well the first thing to note is: The reviewer never reviewed her work.

Ever.

At all. Before, during, or after their relationship.

ALL of that "Journalistic Integrity" argument coming out of Gamergate is just a smokescreen over a lie to hide the fairly rampant misogyny involved in it, from start to finish. There are people who legitimately want to talk about the Journalistic Ethics surrounding gaming websites and the lavish parties, bribes, and so forth. But you can't wave the Gamergate flag while doing it and remain morally or ethically viable.

If someone is seriously worried about the journalistic ethics of gaming websites then they need to spin of from Gamergate, disassociate themselves completely from the political baggage that comes with it, and start working from scratch.

Anything else is itself ethically repugnant. By using that banner, with all the nastiness and hatred it has had from the moment it was formed as a revenge-plot with a series of lies meant to discredit a female game developer, a person would be benefiting from the buzz of gamergate itself. All the lies, rape threats, death threats, doxxing, hacking, and everything else is a part of the name because that's what it was specifically founded for. Justice-oriented as someone might be, you cannot disassociate the two.

Also anything with "Gate" at the end is just silly, at this point. Watergate was the name of a hotel that was completely irrelevant to the crimes going on that were being exposed. We should stop with the -gate scandal suffix.

Offline Kunoichi

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #2 on: October 20, 2014, 02:21:47 AM »
Hello, pro-GamerGate person here, though I will admit to having spent more time watching from the sidelines than actively participating in anything.  I've been watching since week 1, though, way back in August, and I'd say that everything you've said in that basic, canned history is about as accurate as you can get with a simple, quick summary.

Like you said, though, it's a big ol' complicated mess, overall.  Two months is practically forever in internet time, and probably the only reason GG has lasted this long has been because something happened pretty much every other day to keep people interested in continuing the fight.  Any full summary of everything that's gone on would probably take hours to read through.  TFYC, the breaking news about GameJournoPros, the day 4chan was kill, Intel pulling all advertising from Gamasutra, and more...

Though if anyone does have a significant amount of time to kill and an interest in learning more, have a timeline of events.

More importantly, I think a little safety information would be useful in this thread, because things have started getting a lot more intense since GamerGate hit the mainstream media.  Stay safe, everyone!

Offline Melusine

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #3 on: October 20, 2014, 06:30:31 AM »
I've been following the Gamergate drama tangentially. Their stated goal (if it truly is their stated goal and not just a smokescreen, as steampunkette said) is positive. Journalistic integrity is practically non-existent in gaming publications.

However, I feel that the name Gamergate has become irreversibly tainted. For the longest time I just avoided the whole debacle, since misogyny upsets me, and gamergaters have quite the reputation. I've seen some, quite frankly, appaling posts. The movement is completely anonymous and it's difficult to hold people accountable for their misogyny and separate them from the ones that just want to have a debate about gaming journalism. Also, the defensiveness in some parts of Gamergate doesn't help. If they're unwilling to hold the bad apples within the movement accountable, why should I take them seriously? The #NotYourShield proves nothing to me. Just because women and people of color exist in a movement doesn't necessarily mean it's friendly to these social groups.

Also, the fact that they so eagerly adopted the name Gamergate by a man who compares gay marriage to incest doesn't exactly lend them legitimacy.

And another thing: it seems that even the ones who are into it for journalistic integrity disagree within themselves for the meaning of the word. A portion apparently believes that game reviews should just focus on the mechanics/graphics/technical aspects/gameplay of the game, without criticising the story and potentially harmful attitudes that the game presents uncritically, otherwise the reviewer is just a "SJW".

Games, as a medium, are evolving. They're getting better storylines, more complex characters. There's an ongoing debate on whether or not videogames can be art. While this is besides our point, it's a disservice to the medium to want it to remain juvenile for the escapist benefit of a few. Games are grown up now and it's time we treat them like grown ups, and feel free to critique unsavory or hurtful aspects that have nothing to do with gameplay mechanics.

I find the "gamers are dead" articles somewhat silly. A subculture (and several sub-subcultures) exists, and it's not going anywhere in my opinion. However, I'm not overly bothered by them. I really don't think gamers as a group are persecuted (at least nowadays), but perhaps this is strictly my own experience as a gamer.

Offline Steampunkette

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #4 on: October 20, 2014, 06:43:31 AM »
It is kind of annoying how hard we struggled for YEARS to get games recognized as an art form to have other gamers try to drag it back down. Like... why? Why wouldn't you want gaming to be critiqued on the story, it's motives, the themes? Why would you want to go back to games being viewed as quarter-sucking wastes of time?

Every form of art is, by nature, political. And deserves political discourse. It isn't just pretty colors and flashing lights. Y'know?

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Gamergate
« Reply #5 on: October 20, 2014, 07:24:21 AM »
Also anything with "Gate" at the end is just silly, at this point. Watergate was the name of a hotel that was completely irrelevant to the crimes going on that were being exposed. We should stop with the -gate scandal suffix.

'Watergate' was the name of the office complex where the Democratic National Committee had their headquarters at the time of the 1972 break-in.  The complex consists of three apartment buildings, two office buildings, and a hotel/office building, the sixth floor of which housed the DNC headquarters.  So, to say that it was 'completely irrelevant' is inaccurate.

Offline consortium11Topic starter

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #6 on: October 20, 2014, 09:54:23 AM »
ALL of that "Journalistic Integrity" argument coming out of Gamergate is just a smokescreen over a lie to hide the fairly rampant misogyny involved in it, from start to finish. There are people who legitimately want to talk about the Journalistic Ethics surrounding gaming websites and the lavish parties, bribes, and so forth. But you can't wave the Gamergate flag while doing it and remain morally or ethically viable.

If someone is seriously worried about the journalistic ethics of gaming websites then they need to spin of from Gamergate, disassociate themselves completely from the political baggage that comes with it, and start working from scratch.

However, I feel that the name Gamergate has become irreversibly tainted.

These points strike me as little more than the tone argument... and not even a particular strong tone argument at that.

"You may have valid points but we're not going to engage or deal with them because someone else who claims membership to the same vague and wide grouping as you said something nasty"

If the points about ethics are valid then it doesn't matter in the slightest if there's a #gamergate afterwards or if the person who wrote them is a proud supporter and member of that vague "pro-gamergate" community. Truth be told if we actually stick to pure logic it doesn't matter if the person who made those points is also a vile misogynist who abuses women; one can certainly question their motives but it doesn't impact on the strength of the point itself; it stands or falls on its own basis, not that of who said it.

Furthermore, where else do we expect this of others?

Do we expect Muslims to give up the term "Islam" and rename their religion because of the vile fundamentalists who do things in its name?

Do we expect communists to change the name of their political viewpoint because of the horrors the 20th century version of communism brought us?

Do we expect feminists to drop the term feminism due to the pretty deeply ingrained transphobia of many second wave feminists (and second wave feminists with big platforms)?

Hell... do we expect those on the anti-gamergate side and/or the social justice side to give up those terms because of the actions of some of their peers... be it doxxxing, death threats or abuse? Brianna Wu is somewhat of a figurehead for the abuse women take in the field... but she herself is happy to use ablist insults (although I should note she says her twitter was hacked).

As in my original post I wish the two aspects hadn't been conflated together; it makes points both sides make get ignored with comments about ethics written off as being part of this misogynistic attack and comments about abuse being ignored as part of a coverup/smokescreen to hide the lack of integrity. But the fact is right now Gamergate is both aspects and it can't really be separated. Demanding one part of it changes it's tone (or the hashtag attached to its points) before they will be taken serious is a fallacy.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Gamergate
« Reply #7 on: October 20, 2014, 10:32:59 AM »
'Watergate' was the name of the office complex where the Democratic National Committee had their headquarters at the time of the 1972 break-in.  The complex consists of three apartment buildings, two office buildings, and a hotel/office building, the sixth floor of which housed the DNC headquarters.  So, to say that it was 'completely irrelevant' is inaccurate.
         In that particular original case, yes.  But without meaning to talk over steam (who I'm most certain can show up with her own words any time quite regardless of what I may guess)...  I really don't think that was the heart of the concern.  Personally, I think that's picking at piddly stuff a bit.  But I'll try to do better: 

        When it came to Water--gate, yes of course it was part of the complex name and thus no one did find a need to add -gate to anything for effect.  It was already in there.  But what about these later cases?  Do we really gain a lot by bundling the idea "Christie or his people did something worthy of prosecution by tangling city traffic to make a political point" into some buzzword "Bridgegate," or is this simply a cheap way of evoking "Watergate" -- and with it, the memory of a particular president and a war that killed tens of thousands of American troops and tangled policy choices for decades -- to stoke people up?  I suspect it's more a matter of stoking, and however much I think every life threatened by the Christie faction's activity was precious and that should be a punishable action, it's still...  Not really anything nearly on the same scope of awful. 

          And we should not be buzzing around thinking all we need to do is add -gate to a word to make people afraid of prosecution or draw more and more cycles of media coverage.  It's becoming a kind of cheap code for "Look here!  We are really gonna raise a stink and try to hurt someone with some level of political following cause we really hate them!"  How much more meaning does it really have, now?? 

          To take another one, I imagine the Republicans in many cases would just love to say "Benghazigate" over and over in some wildly flailing hope it would make Obama personally culpable.  And really, preferably impeachable, cause some of them would just reach for that word too on any turn of a dime they can concoct - damn it, they wonder, why doesn't the guy bang some intern! if only, it could be a much simpler -gate...  That is to say, culpable  for some outlandish plot far more unbelievable than what I can imagine was probably going through many officials' heads at the time.  But saying Benghazi-gate doesn't roll of the tongue very well at all, now...  How horrible that many foreign words don't fit the format. 

          And again, even if one happens to think people should have been much more careful and maybe just maybe say, someone might be punishable for something, it's hardly proof to keep tossing out a syllable that evokes Watergate over and over.  It may be at least in part, more evidence of how rightists these days will do anything to attempt to appear to play to the spriit of lefty politics (including not only such historical victories but also more postmodern identity politics) -- while often in fact rather abusing the language to create similar sounding complaints with pretty different questions at the heart of them.  They may also be dreaming about impeachment of a president or trouncing of a political opponent sure.  But the why should anyone listen, is completely different in the substantive portion and the attempts to evoke a comparison to Watergate at that level can become pretty ridiculous.   
« Last Edit: October 20, 2014, 10:45:02 AM by kylie »

Offline Melusine

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #8 on: October 20, 2014, 11:09:51 AM »
These points strike me as little more than the tone argument... and not even a particular strong tone argument at that.

"You may have valid points but we're not going to engage or deal with them because someone else who claims membership to the same vague and wide grouping as you said something nasty"

I never argued against engaging or dealing with them. I even said it in my post! Their stated goal is certainly positive. But people have every right to be put off when portions of the Gamergate movement are so hateful. If I want to talk about journalistic integrity, I can do it without having to endure misogynistic insults that make my blood pressure skyrocket.

If the points about ethics are valid then it doesn't matter in the slightest if there's a #gamergate afterwards or if the person who wrote them is a proud supporter and member of that vague "pro-gamergate" community. Truth be told if we actually stick to pure logic it doesn't matter if the person who made those points is also a vile misogynist who abuses women; one can certainly question their motives but it doesn't impact on the strength of the point itself; it stands or falls on its own basis, not that of who said it.

And the point is certainly valid. No one is arguing against that. But we're talking about Gamergate as a whole, with its good and bad aspects. I don't care if an abuser makes a valid point; I don't want to know them, I prefer to erase their existence from my mind. This is for my own emotional health and no, I'm not going to be purely logical about it. I can recognize the merits of an argument (and I did in my last post) without mindlessly supporting everyone who espouces it. And I certainly don't have to engage with people who deny my humanity.

Furthermore, where else do we expect this of others?

Do we expect Muslims to give up the term "Islam" and rename their religion because of the vile fundamentalists who do things in its name?

Do we expect communists to change the name of their political viewpoint because of the horrors the 20th century version of communism brought us?

Do we expect feminists to drop the term feminism due to the pretty deeply ingrained transphobia of many second wave feminists (and second wave feminists with big platforms)?

Hell... do we expect those on the anti-gamergate side and/or the social justice side to give up those terms because of the actions of some of their peers... be it doxxxing, death threats or abuse? Brianna Wu is somewhat of a figurehead for the abuse women take in the field... but she herself is happy to use ablist insults (although I should note she says her twitter was hacked).

Everyone is free to distance themselves from Islam, communism and feminism if they believe these movements do more harm than good. I'm not expecting gamergaters to do anything and I certainly cannot force them to do anything. I'm just pointing out how the controversy has tainted the message.

However, major political/religious movements like Islam or feminism are much more varied and less homogeneous, while Gamergate is extremely small. Also, these movements have inspired positive social changes despite their flaws (which, to many people, justifies their existence) while Gamergate hasn't. I don't think it's valid to compare them. Feminism has, for example, achieved monumental victories for women, like the vote. Until the Gamergate movement leads to a major positive change in gaming journalism, I don't think we can compare it to these movements.

As in my original post I wish the two aspects hadn't been conflated together; it makes points both sides make get ignored with comments about ethics written off as being part of this misogynistic attack and comments about abuse being ignored as part of a coverup/smokescreen to hide the lack of integrity. But the fact is right now Gamergate is both aspects and it can't really be separated. Demanding one part of it changes it's tone (or the hashtag attached to its points) before they will be taken serious is a fallacy.

I don't demand they change their tone; it's some of their arguments I have a problem with, and the misogyny within the movement. Please, don't conflate this with tone. We're not talking about simple anger here, we're talking about rape threats.
And as I said, I demand nothing. I'm merely pointing out how Gamergate is perceived in certain circles. But why is it impossible to separate the good from the bad? Can't the hateful elements within the movement be ousted? If responsible gamergaters create an atmosphere where misogyny is not tolerated in discussions, these elements will feel unwelcome and walk out the door.

Offline Dice

  • Ooh, shiny.
  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Location: Middle of nowhere, Australia
  • Gender: Male
  • Autocorrect will do its thing. Sorry about that.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: Gamergate
« Reply #9 on: October 20, 2014, 11:22:59 AM »
From my point of view, the danger is no longer some guy who's name I have never heard at IGN writing up some rehashed press release and effective advertising a game. It's not the rampant culture of forcing preorders or cutting up games for dlc, no, to me the danger is the shit that goes on behind the scenes on YouTube.

I don't read reviews, I don't buy games before they come out, I think if you do and the game is Shit, well your the dick that paid for it, bigger fool you. I WATCH reviews. I want to see a game in action and when you end up with back room deals from Microsoft or whoever else to up someone's pay per view on a Vid or this recent shit with that new Lord of the Rings game, that's when I get pissed. Because writing a rehashed press release is just not worth my time, but I would like to think that when someone sits down, edits a vid and puts out their views with a backing of actual fucking game play, then at that point I would like to know that no backroom deal is the driving force behind what he or she is saying.

That to me is where the issue lies today. 17 year old kids who somehow ended with with an opinion that matters on YouTube being offer a few extra bucks and not really caring if what they say happens not to be the whole truth. As for traditional media? Yea, magazines are dead and soon you will be too.

On the subject of death threats, moronic acts and people waving their dicks in the air, I think they should be banned from the dam internet. I might not like what you have to say, but that does not stop you from having the right to say it. It also means I have a platform form which I can debate your ideas and push my own. But if every moron with a inferiority complex online wants to go out and attack you for what you have to say, I find myself less interested in debating you and more interested in standing with you. Because I just hate bully's.

As for the points that these women are making, they seam to be rather valid. Granted they over reach on some matters, but I feel like females in games HAVE to look sexy while guys get all doors opened to them. You can have a fat scared man who likes bombing shit in MGS, but do note that all the girls in that game look like the kind you would find at a bucks party. A dominate, self sufficient woman who does not look like a super model and needs a guy to hold her hand and save her ass? Yea that's really dam rare. Women have to conform, they have to look a set way, they almost always fit the same set roles and they otherwise get slot in behind the men doing all the heavy lifting.

That is a valid point to make and no one should be threatened with rape/greavous bodly harm/death/whatever the fuck else for saying it. And defenently not rape, I mean how stupid is it to go "I don't like you saying women are mostly treated as sex symbols in game so I am going to rape you"? It's just foolish and if anything, helps cement the point that there is something fundermentally fucked up with this whole situation.


Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Gamergate
« Reply #10 on: October 20, 2014, 11:41:46 AM »
GamerGate isn't about journalistic integrity. At all. They talk a lot about it, sure. But... the actual integrity issues in games journalism have to do with things like publications being in bed with game companies, advertising and advance copies being linked to good reviews (!), and so on. These are actual, very serious issues that could do with some serious pushback from their audience.

Instead, what does GamerGate attack with incredible vehemence? Female developers, anyone who dares to say "feminism" without the approved amount of sneer, and an alleged conspiracy run by Zoe Quinn's vagina.

I have not seen them do a single thing to actually address anything that looks like a real journalistic ethics issue; instead, I've seen them distract from these issues by being vicious to women and causing a much bigger problem.

Also... I have to say, this:

More importantly, I think a little safety information would be useful in this thread, because things have started getting a lot more intense since GamerGate hit the mainstream media.  Stay safe, everyone!

is just some straight-up bullshit. Threats and harassment received by "both sides"? Please show me the sheer torrent of abuse and threats thrown at any participant in GamerGate by an organized campaign whose goal is to destroy their career and/or life. This is just plain false equivalence. On to the actual points:

1. "If you don't report every single thing said immediately, despite the fact that police are very clear about being uninterested unless it rises to a frankly ludicrous level, it's not really a problem." Bullshit.
2. "Don't you dare get angry at targeted campaigns of hatred and bigotry. If you do, we'll accuse you of being irrational."
3. Okay, finally something valid, assuming you can actually get law enforcement interested in the first place.
4. "Don't you dare talk about what we're doing to you. Because it's tearing public perception of us apart."
5. "Don't try to show people just how bad it's gotten. Because then they might take it seriously. Also, it could maybe be an actual safety issue, if you were to do something blatantly stupid that doesn't apply in any of the cases where people were actually forced from their homes."
6. "Don't expose the slimy and dangerous tactics we engage in to the light."
7. "Let us dictate your actions by how vile we are to you."

It's well-established at this point that GamerGate's defense is to pretend they're being reasonable, through the use of careful tone control in talking to the general public (but not to female developers or anyone who uses a platform to criticize them), and building a shield of useful idiots who can't see past that carefully-neutral tone.

Don't be a useful idiot.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2014, 12:07:21 PM by Ephiral »

Offline Formless

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #11 on: October 20, 2014, 12:03:13 PM »
I'll start by saying, I'm not with Gamergate , or any other league for that matter.

The reason if you're interested.
Why? Because the world loves label these days , and it is not for the benefit of the cause that label presents, but for an easier definition of said labeled person. And that means you'll bear the same stereotypes , misconceptions and all the shit that anyone of those who shares the same label did. And I for one have been in the gaming community for far too long to know I don't want any of that crazy related back to me.


Now as for the journalistic integrity. Is it any different in the gaming world than it is in any form of media? There's as much problems with it with the gaming community as there is all over the internet. What truly differs about it is how it is heavily populated by the younger generation. And that's where the real focus should be.

The young generation has a lot of aspirations. High ambitions. And with that comes competition. To say that any media has a fully ethical journalistic practice is kind of ... Immature. There's bound to be some backhanded deeds. cutthroat , sabotaging or even demolishing the competition. Be it within journalistic standards , or video gaming standards , since we're discussing both of these aspects.

I came to a habit where I ignore a game's review. Because who chooses to write a review is biased. And that can be seen in any triple A title's review starting from 2010 and onward. What is surprising is to realize that some of these biased opinions are not influenced by bribery , promotions or any of elements that we can associate with inaccurate or misleading criticisms. It comes from sheer passion. See most reviewers started their journey in the gaming world as players. ( Not using the word Gamer as it seems to invite unnecessary discussions. ) And as they grew up , their passion evolved from being on the seat of the player , to the seat of a speaker to other players. And they'd like to promote their passion to others. That could come in a positive review , or a negative one. And when you read such reviews , you realize that they hardly touch on the game for its mechanics , story , characters ... etc. Its just some player who went happy-trigger with what he likes. Now what happens when that reviewer was compelled to comment on a gaming event that doesn't involve a game that he can play and comment on?

This is where things goes astray. Those reviewers now comment on anything that happens in the gaming industry. They have no true journalistic values aside from their ' passion '. So logically whatever they would say will be processed through their passionate mind and there's no filter for what they will say. They also bear the stigma of the ' geek/dork '. Imagine how they would react when someone touches on that stigma in provocative ways? As you see , the average gaming journalist lacks more than he has when it comes to journalism. Just because someone played a game , doesn't make them  a journalist in that field. I have a degree in a certain major , but that will never make me a journalist even when I have over a decade of experience in it.

Anyway , the very few professional journalists within the gaming community aren't saints either. Bribery and persuasions comes in many forms that some may mistake them for something else , which puts their integrity under the microscope. ( If you wish to do so of course. )

But what does that has to do with Gamergate? Well , I really don't know how some woman who cheated on her boyfriend created this phenomenon. I'm not going to talk about the death threats feminists post on their twitters , because they are never proven true , and end up being another cry for attention and a reinforcement campaign to a certain project that they want to promote.

Its actually funny how this whole gamergate event was actually the result of decades and decades of mistakes done by the female community themselves. I always search through history , trying to find a defining mark where ' women were forbidden ' to play video games. It was just a consciousness built within them for a long time. And sadly , now they act upon it as if it is a fact , when in reality , no one pushed them out of the crowd for trying to play the games when they first came into markets. And the male side of the argument didn't help either. Most of the male side of the gaming community are immature teenagers who acts foolishly. And we , the older portion of that community has to take the blame for these irresponsible actions made by our younger portion.

Offline Kunoichi

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #12 on: October 20, 2014, 01:13:48 PM »
is just some straight-up bullshit. Threats and harassment received by "both sides"? Please show me the sheer torrent of abuse and threats thrown at any participant in GamerGate by an organized campaign whose goal is to destroy their career and/or life.

The Harassment No One is Talking About in #GamerGate

Any other requests?

Offline Steampunkette

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #13 on: October 20, 2014, 03:09:19 PM »
Okay. Wow.

These points strike me as little more than the tone argument... and not even a particular strong tone argument at that.

No, dude. It's not a Tone argument. It's about being tied directly to a movement who's EXPRESS PURPOSE FOR BEING CREATED was to harass and attack female game developers with the thin veil of "Journalistic Integrity" as literally a lie told to add fuel to the fire. It was birthed out of an act of violent misogyny and has maintained that "Taint" throughout it's entire existence. That's not a taint, that's the backbone.

"You may have valid points but we're not going to engage or deal with them because someone else who claims membership to the same vague and wide grouping as you said something nasty"

No. You could have valid points, but you're using the abuse of women as your platform. The Foundations of the movement were about intentionally violating the privacy and safety of a woman and expanded to women in the industry and then some "Journalistic Ethics" based on the lie that created the whole thing. It's not about some Vague or Wide grouping because people "Claim Membership"... It's because it was FOUNDED on misogyny and violence.

If the points about ethics are valid then it doesn't matter in the slightest if there's a #gamergate afterwards or if the person who wrote them is a proud supporter and member of that vague "pro-gamergate" community. Truth be told if we actually stick to pure logic it doesn't matter if the person who made those points is also a vile misogynist who abuses women; one can certainly question their motives but it doesn't impact on the strength of the point itself; it stands or falls on its own basis, not that of who said it.

No. It does matter. Because it's how you got to where you are. Using a Hate Movement's political clout and strength of social impact to get across your point by agreeing with that Hate Movement "On this topic Only" is unethical as using medical research that was extracted from unwilling participants (See the Tuskeegee Experiment). You are using a violent and harmful movement to further your own cause.

Furthermore, where else do we expect this of others?

Do we expect Muslims to give up the term "Islam" and rename their religion because of the vile fundamentalists who do things in its name?

Fuck no. Because it wasn't FOUNDED ON HATRED. It wasn't created with the EXPRESS INTENT of harming someone. This is a False Equivalence.

Do we expect communists to change the name of their political viewpoint because of the horrors the 20th century version of communism brought us?

Fuck no. Because it wasn't FOUNDED ON HATRED. It wasn't created with the EXPRESS INTENT of harming someone. This is another False Equivalence.

Do we expect feminists to drop the term feminism due to the pretty deeply ingrained transphobia of many second wave feminists (and second wave feminists with big platforms)?

See Above.

Hell... do we expect those on the anti-gamergate side and/or the social justice side to give up those terms because of the actions of some of their peers... be it doxxxing, death threats or abuse? Brianna Wu is somewhat of a figurehead for the abuse women take in the field... but she herself is happy to use ablist insults (although I should note she says her twitter was hacked).

See Above. The "Anti-Gamergate" side of the matter is responding to violence directed at women. Not designed from the outset day one as an excuse to harm dudes. Same thing with social justice minded folks.

As in my original post I wish the two aspects hadn't been conflated together; it makes points both sides make get ignored with comments about ethics written off as being part of this misogynistic attack and comments about abuse being ignored as part of a coverup/smokescreen to hide the lack of integrity. But the fact is right now Gamergate is both aspects and it can't really be separated. Demanding one part of it changes it's tone (or the hashtag attached to its points) before they will be taken serious is a fallacy.

No, dude. The reasons the two sides got "Conflated" is because Journalistic Ethics and discussions of Corruption were a weapon being used to harm a woman from day one by her ex. You don't get to sign on with a Hate Group who's express purpose of founding was to attack people and say "Y'know, aside from all the violence against women and the lies about Journalistic Integrity it was founded on, this movement's right about Journalistic Integrity being bad."

It's like standing up next to NAMBLA because of their position on Boys Education and Literacy being important. Or the KKK because their focus on Family Values should be lauded. You cannot divorce the origins and motives of the political movement from the topic you want to talk about while still using that group's political power. It doesn't work.

Again, this is not a vague minority in a strong movement to promote journalistic integrity. This is a movement built on a foundation of violence and misogyny that is trying to rebrand itself and divorce itself from the monstrous shit it was founded on and continues to perpetuate. You don't get to do that. This isn't a "No True Gamergate Activist" argument, either, if that's the Fallacy you were looking for. It's an argument about the ethics of standing on the shoulders of those who came before you to be heard and pretending like those people aren't violent misogynists because it's not relevant to what you want to say.

You still wind up using their violence and hatred to push your political agenda.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2014, 03:15:44 PM by Steampunkette »

Offline Shjade

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #14 on: October 20, 2014, 04:16:41 PM »
There's a lot to be said about this but, ultimately, it comes down to very little: GG started as a cover to make an already ongoing harassment campaign have a veneer of legitimacy; it expanded rapidly when a series of journalists wrote topical articles about the popular stereotype of what it means to be a "gamer" and why, at present, that stereotype is no longer valid - that in truth gamers are a more varied and expansive audience than advertisers and certain portions of the "culture" would lead one to believe; these articles were grossly misinterpreted as an "attack" on gamers and used as recruiting fuel to pull people who had previously been uninvolved under the GG banner in an attempt to bring validity to the "ethics" claim while, in practice, continuing the initial harassment unabated.

However, that's just my view after dealing with this for two months as a gamer who is otherwise uninvolved. I'm sure I would be told that "that's not what it's about" by GGers, because that's the party line at this point. Here's the thing, though: when you tell that to someone writing a story on the subject, and then they go check out the sources you tell them to check to find the "real" GamerGate? This is what happens:

http://np.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2h36ue/another_poorlyresearched_hitpiece_from_the_boston/cldrqeu


tl;dr - Some hardcore trolls fooled a mob into following their lead and now the mob is too invested to disperse.



Edit: oh, regarding harassment - yes, it most definitely is occurring on all sides of the issue: GG vs non-GG, anti-GG vs GG, anti-GG vs non-GG, non-GG vs GG, basically any possible link to any loose category of people near GamerGate has received its share of harassment. The whole thing is a massive shitstorm for any remotely viable target. None of that changes how or why it started, how it got to this point, but it certainly does make "this point" a pretty sad state of affairs for basically everyone.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2014, 04:24:32 PM by Shjade »

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Gamergate
« Reply #15 on: October 20, 2014, 04:48:46 PM »
The Harassment No One is Talking About in #GamerGate

Any other requests?
...nope, but I'll restate the same one. Followed the links and got... one person saying mean things, a 404, something that... would be horrible, but honestly feels manufactured (and is coming from a group that is known to spread lies and try to carefully manage its spin, and it's mislabeled as a "death threat"), something that is so heavily edited it is impossible to see any connection whatsoever to gamergate or any response to it, and that's just the first paragraph. A quick scan of the rest of the article fails to show anything even remotely resembling an organized campaign, let alone one that lists "drive people to suicide" and "ruin lives" among its expressly stated goals. Further... everything there, taken together, is maybe about the level of what certain single individuals have been targeted with by GamerGate and its supporters.

So... yeah, try again.

Offline Shjade

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #16 on: October 20, 2014, 04:55:53 PM »
Ephiral: even if we go with the assumption GG supporters have been harassed less often and less dramatically than those opposed to it, who does it help to downplay their side's targets?

GG's caught some shit along the way. There's no reason to overlook that: they're human beings who need support as much as anyone else. It's completely possible to support them when they're attacked and still disagree with their message and methods.

Seriously, your response to Kuno's post there is the kind of crap GG does to harassment victims (claiming false flag/manufactured threats, downplaying seriousness of harassment, claiming their side has it just as bad/worse, etc.). There's no call for it.

Offline Formless

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #17 on: October 20, 2014, 04:56:28 PM »
Actually Ephiral , I do have one thing I've been wondering about.

The Utah conference that was cancelled. Doesn't it seem too convenient that things lined up in the way they did?

I mean let's discount Anita's continuous misleading behavior in her projects. And focus on the elements of that event.

The only state where licensed concealed guns law is allowed is where she would do her conference. While she always seems to be tweeting about how she receives death threats. ( Also discount the requirement of proof as that's pointless.) And how she was demanding from the university to take action and not the local authorities? ( I actually did my best to search any official statement where the authorities were contacted and my searches returned nothing. But you're free to add in that. )

Call me a conspiracy theorist , but that is looks too convenient to me. If she is an actual resident of Utah , she would've known about it. And if she's from a different state , you'd think someone who receives a lot of death threats that they'd at least ask about security where their conference would take place prior to agreement to hold such conference.

But ... Sounds to me like the Anti Gamergate are just as twisted as anyone else.

Offline Atarn

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #18 on: October 20, 2014, 05:00:10 PM »
A bunch of misogynists that managed to dress in nice suits and got to fool a bunch of people into thinking they're not complete assholes? That's pretty much my view of the GG movement. Every single second they've been around has been tainted by misogyny and sexism. I find it slagging hilarious that they crawled out of the woodwork after one spurned asshole ex boyfriend wrote a rant, which proved that gaming media was corrupt because it was a "slu-I meam woman-OhwaitImeansexistotallynotrelevanttoourpointf*ckinghoesruiningourgaming"
Not when the Dorito thing happened, not when a publisher got a guy fired for giving a 7 or something out of ten to a game that deserved a 3...No no, clearly unsubstantiated rumor about someone fucking someone means the end of PURE GOOD GAMING!

So yeah, GG proponents can holler all they want about the goal of their movement, because the cold, naked truth is that their movement is the most hateful thing I've encountered. Hell, the Cthulhudamned Far Right here in Sweden is more eloquent and less creepy.

Now, I know there's good people in the movement, know one who is genuinely tired of media corruption; but that's not new, and GamerGate is NOT a good place to fight that fight.

Tl;dr; Any movement that uses the phrase "Well harassment is bad but..." is not a good movement.

Offline Steampunkette

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #19 on: October 20, 2014, 05:09:34 PM »
Sure. Let's acknowledge that there's anti-Gamergate sentiment that is vile.

Let's not pretend that it's equal. Which is what the "From Both Sides" line implies. There's no acknowledgement of difference, there, and that's kind of dumb.



And, again, the conspiracy theory and "Con Artist" stuff about Sarkeesian just needs to die, already. She's been getting death threats and rape threats for YEARS. This is not new. This is not her manufacturing bullshit out of nowhere to play the victim. It's a continuing act of aggression. And can we keep discussion of her in the thread about her, please?

Atarn? I adore you.

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Gamergate
« Reply #20 on: October 20, 2014, 05:31:29 PM »
Ephiral: even if we go with the assumption GG supporters have been harassed less often and less dramatically than those opposed to it, who does it help to downplay their side's targets?

GG's caught some shit along the way. There's no reason to overlook that: they're human beings who need support as much as anyone else. It's completely possible to support them when they're attacked and still disagree with their message and methods.

Seriously, your response to Kuno's post there is the kind of crap GG does to harassment victims (claiming false flag/manufactured threats, downplaying seriousness of harassment, claiming their side has it just as bad/worse, etc.). There's no call for it.
It doesn't help to downplay it. Let me make this clear: The actually-substantiated things I saw at the provided link are vile, repulsive bullshit, and need to stop. Full stop.

However, what Kuno was trying to respond to was me calling the "safety tips" preamble a false equivalence - painting what both sides have received as equal. The important question, then, is "Is it equal?". This is not downplaying - all the harassment, everywhere, needs to stop, and I would stand against all of it - if there were supporters of both sides of the harassment here. (Seriously, is there anyone here who wants to defend, say, Sam Biddle or the outing of Wikipedia authors? Because if so, We Need To Talk.) What it is is recognizing what the real picture looks like.



Actually Ephiral , I do have one thing I've been wondering about.

The Utah conference that was cancelled. Doesn't it seem too convenient that things lined up in the way they did?

I mean let's discount Anita's continuous misleading behavior in her projects. And focus on the elements of that event.
Citation sorely needed; what misleading behaviour? This accusation is frequently flung and pretty much never substantiated from what I've seen.

The only state where licensed concealed guns law is allowed is where she would do her conference. While she always seems to be tweeting about how she receives death threats. ( Also discount the requirement of proof as that's pointless.) And how she was demanding from the university to take action and not the local authorities? ( I actually did my best to search any official statement where the authorities were contacted and my searches returned nothing. But you're free to add in that. )
A couple salient facts: Speakers do not choose where to give a talk, except from among the restricted list of "places and events that have asked me to speak". The university, not Sarkeesian, received the biggest threat, so asking them "What have you done about this?" is actually very relevant - in some jurisdictions, the police would tell her that she has no direct bearing on the case, and therefore they cannot discuss it with her. Finally, here's the university's statement on the matter. Please count the authorities mentioned in the response to the threat. This was the second hit on a Google search for "Sarkeesian cancelled university police", so I find your claim to have "done your best" to find this information... questionable.

Call me a conspiracy theorist , but that is looks too convenient to me. If she is an actual resident of Utah , she would've known about it. And if she's from a different state , you'd think someone who receives a lot of death threats that they'd at least ask about security where their conference would take place prior to agreement to hold such conference.
So you also didn't see her statement that literally the only place she set foot in Utah was the Salt Lake City International Airport (first news hit for the above search). And... well... when she received a specific and detailed threat, she did ask about security measures and suggest what would make her feel safe, including a suggestion to just make sure that people actually carrying guns to this event that had been threatened with guns were legally permitted to do so. They refused, and you said that this was the wrong thing for her to do. So yes, it looks like you're searching for reasons to dismiss her concerns, and dismissing, ignoring, or purposefully avoiding anything that might help explain them. You are, at the very least, JAQing off pretty obviously.

Offline Steampunkette

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #21 on: October 20, 2014, 05:49:19 PM »
*swoon*

Offline Formless

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #22 on: October 20, 2014, 05:57:52 PM »
@ Ephiral. You're missing my point entirely.

Citation sorely needed; what misleading behaviour? This accusation is frequently flung and pretty much never substantiated from what I've seen.

Which is why I meant to discount discussing that. Its a behavioral pattern. Not an act. We can argue for ages wither a portrayed behavior is right or wrong.


You are, at the very least, JAQing off pretty obviously.

Please refrain from using such terms when addressing me. I have every right to question any event I come across.

Anyway , My point ( And I am stating it for the purpose of clarifying what I said. ).

If I was a person with a known presence in any media. And I was receiving a huge amount of threats , be it death threats rape or etc. And I was invited to partake in a convention or a conference , the first thing I would ask about is security. I wouldn't wait for the host to receive a death threat at the last day and then make a big fuss about it.

Take what I said however you want. But its clear that a feminist is yet again , twisting events to further strengthen her cause.

I will bow out of this discussion.

Offline Steampunkette

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #23 on: October 20, 2014, 06:04:46 PM »
"JAQing off" is Just Asking Questions.

It's a common deflection tactic among people who oppose progressive attitudes to use outdated rhetoric or unsubstantiated claims to dismiss or insult the progressive group while only "Speaking Hypothetically" or "Asking for Clarification"

See also "Devil's Advocate" or "Schrodinger's Asshole"

Offline Kunoichi

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #24 on: October 20, 2014, 06:06:03 PM »
It doesn't help to downplay it. Let me make this clear: The actually-substantiated things I saw at the provided link are vile, repulsive bullshit, and need to stop. Full stop.

However, what Kuno was trying to respond to was me calling the "safety tips" preamble a false equivalence - painting what both sides have received as equal. The important question, then, is "Is it equal?". This is not downplaying - all the harassment, everywhere, needs to stop, and I would stand against all of it - if there were supporters of both sides of the harassment here. (Seriously, is there anyone here who wants to defend, say, Sam Biddle or the outing of Wikipedia authors? Because if so, We Need To Talk.) What it is is recognizing what the real picture looks like.

What about if there are no supporters of either side of the harassment here?  What if we're in full agreement that all harassment, everywhere, needs to stop?

https://archive.today/D5Nk5
https://archive.today/4pwKA
https://archive.today/k2zZu
https://twitter.com/sanc/status/521211260017606656

Also, to actually respond to that claim of a false equivalence this time, how is saying 'In response to the threats and harassment received by both sides' promoting a false equivalence, exactly?  Both sides are receiving threats and harassment.  The image was created in response to that.  What in any way about that is false, or promoting any kind of equivalence?

As of now, there is no concrete data one way or the other on which 'side' of the debate is receiving more harassment.  One set of people being harassed is gaining more media attention than the other set of people being harassed, but that's about it.