You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 04, 2016, 04:31:51 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 4494 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steampunkette

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #25 on: October 20, 2014, 06:12:53 PM »
Gosh. I wonder if the movement founded explicitly for the purpose of garnering death and rape threats from a highly volatile and misogynistic subset of the gaming community might be issuing more abuse towards women than people outside of that hate group are throwing at it?

SUCH A CONUNDRUM!

Maybe it's the media's fault for presenting more of the hate group's attack on women than people attacking the hate group... That's gotta be it. Yup. Occam's Razor!

Crisis Averted. S'not a Conspiracy Theory, it's just a massive orchestrated movement maligning a perfectly reasonable, rational, and good group of people as "The Bad Guys" because of some... reason... Probably feminists banging important people or something.


Offline Kunoichi

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #26 on: October 20, 2014, 06:42:35 PM »
Or it could be that GamerGate isn't about harrassment, threats, or misogyny and instead really is concerned with ethics in journalism.


Offline Steampunkette

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #27 on: October 20, 2014, 06:55:35 PM »
Yeah... I only needed to listen to that for about 40 seconds before it really sunk in that dude wasn't interested in a fair critique of what was going on.

Protip: Social Justice Warrior is a key buzzword in discrediting progressive activists. And the majority of his initial statements were spent doing his best to discredit Quinn, while barely acknowledging the lies her ex boyfriend were telling about her. Specifically using the "She slept with people for reviews!" meme which is both bog-standard sexism and something that has repeatedly been disproven.

The guy she was dating at the site? NEVER. REVIEWED. HER. GAME.

Try again.

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 #28 on: October 20, 2014, 07:15:22 PM »
Or it could be that GamerGate isn't about harrassment, threats, or misogyny and instead really is concerned with ethics in journalism.

So... why are the publicly released logs of discussions from people who were there from day one, in the early days of the movement, full of people who think they're behind closed doors saying "This is totally about destroying Zoe Quinn and feminists and SJWs, guys!"? Why were they engaging in, then trying to hide, then trying to smear the opposition with, black-hat activities?

Why don't they ever talk about the blatant, commonly known, and undisputed actual issues of ethics in games journalism?

Offline consortium11Topic starter

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #29 on: October 20, 2014, 07:18:50 PM »
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 I want to talk about racism/feminism/gay rights etc etc I can do with someone who isn't rude, insulting and uncivil"

It's just the tone argument again.

And the point is certainly valid. No one is arguing against that.

I'd refer you to Ephiral above:

GamerGate isn't about journalistic integrity. At all.

There are a significant number of people... and there's been several on this thread... who have made clear that they don't consider the points about ethics raised during Gamergate (and raised by people who identify as supporting Gamergate) as valid because other people involved in Gamergate have been misogynistic abusers.

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.

But didn't you say that the name Gamergate has been "irreversibly tainted"? Emphasis on irreversibly. It doesn't matter if "responsible gamergaters create an atmosphere where misogyny is not tolerated in discussions" and remove all of the misogynistic elements; wouldn't it will still be tainted? Let's say there is a split in Gamergate and the journalistic ethical concerns completely split from the misogynistic ones; how long before it's painted as a simple "rebranding" and thus the irreversibly tainted point comes up again? And consider what Steampunkette says about standing on the shoulders of others, could one discuss GameJournoPros and their quite possibly illegal blacklisting? After all, it came out during Gamergate and thus is "irreversibly tainted." Could one discuss the close links between journalists and indy developers, with journalists having given money to the developers without declaring it in subsequent articles about the game or developer? Or been their friends and roommates? Could on discuss the dismissive way mainstream media has handled gaming? Could one discuss any of the elements which have appeared and not be tainted?

It's not a Tone argument.

Yes it is. To give you two definitions this time:

Quote
The tone argument is a form of derailment, or a red herring, because the tone of a statement is independent of the content of the statement in question, and calling attention to it distracts from the issue at hand.

Quote
The tone argument is to dismiss an opponent's argument based on its presentation: typically perceived crassness, hysteria or anger.

Although in this case people aren't even necessarily complaining about the way an argument itself is being presented... they're complaining about the way someone else possibly only tangentially related to the person making this argument said something.

In fact, to use more of the Geek Feminism definition (emphasis mine):

Quote
Drawing attention to the tone rather than content of a statement can allow other parties to avoid engaging with sound arguments presented in that statement, thus undermining the original party's attempt to communicate and effectively shutting them down.

In your replies on this subject you've made at most a passing mention of the journalistic ethics issues, instead concentrating almost entirely on the misogyny and abuse. And you've supported this by arguing that because the journalistic ethics issues were presented in a tone that also allowed for misogyny and abuse they can be ignored as a mere "smokescreen". That's pretty much fits that definition to a t.

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.

So it's an association fallacy as well? With a heap of poisoning the well thrown in for good measure? And all mixed in with some composition fallacy?

Are the revaluations about GameJournoPros and their quite possibly illegal blacklisting tied directly into Gamergate and thus seemingly directly into the misogyny and abuse? Yes. Does that mean the criticism of GameJournoPros and their quite possibly illegal blacklisting is misogynistic or can be written off? Is the way Gawker are happy to promote bullying tied directly into Gamergate and thus seemingly directly into the misogyny and abuse? Yes. Does that mean criticism of a journalist deciding that midway through the US's National Bullying Awareness month was a good time to say how nerds should be "constantly shamed and degraded" and how we should "bring back bullying" is misogynistic or can be written off?

Hamas infamously state(d) that their express purpose includes the obliteration of Israel and their charter is littered with genuine anti-semitism. But does that mean the criticisms they raise about how Israel treats Palestinians and those within the occupied territories are invalid and just a smokescreen? Or is it the case that the strength of an argument rests with the argument itself, not with those who say it or those associated with 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).

That must be pretty awkward for anyone who's had (or intending to have) any experience with gynecology treatment or surgery considering the way the "father of gynecology" went about his research. Or anyone who's had an influenza shot following the work of Thomas Francis, Jr... or Polio shot considering Jonas Salk learned much at Francis' knee. Or anyone who's taken a malaria pill following Dr. Alf Alving's work. In truth there's very few medical treatments today that don't owe some of their existence to unethical medical research.

It's like standing up next to NAMBLA because of their position on Boys Education and Literacy being important.

That's quite an interesting example to use. During the late 70's and early 80's the mainstream gay rights movement were more than happy to stand beside NAMBLA; it was the first US organisation to join the ILGA, played a significant role in most Pride events and parades (including having a lot of powerful positions in the New York march in particular) while David Thorstad was considered one of the leaders within the community. Even in the mid-80's as other groups began to turn from NAMBLA they could still call upon influential and celebrated people like Harry Hay (sometimes called the father of gay liberation) supporting them.

But I'd assume none of us think gay rights groups or supporters are tainted or their points invalid because NAMBLA was so powerful in the movement for around a decade?

The end position is this; some legitimate journalistic ethics issues have arisen from Gamergate. They seemingly wouldn't have come out without it. If you think that something should be done about them (and considering the way several websites have changed their disclosure rules and many of the participants are desperately trying to distance themselves from GameJournoPros that's prima facie evidence that something should be done) then I can't see how one can dismiss Gamergate entirely, despite the very unpleasant elements.

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 #30 on: October 20, 2014, 07:27:17 PM »
There are a significant number of people... and there's been several on this thread... who have made clear that they don't consider the points about ethics raised during Gamergate (and raised by people who identify as supporting Gamergate) as valid because other people involved in Gamergate have been misogynistic abusers.
I... feel like there's a significant risk of being misinterpreted here, so please allow me to clarify: I am reasoning backward from actions. Given that this is not a rigidly-organized movement with established leaders and policy documents we can refer to, that's what we've got. The actions people take under the banner of GamerGate are overwhelmingly focused on misogyny and hatred of women and anyone they deem to be a "social justice warrior". One of the memes that is omnipresent under that banner in an attempt to claim that this is about ethics is a trivially-disproven lie. People who care about journalistic integrity don't build their media presence around a lie. People who care about journalistic integrity should be concerned with the ridiculous way that the games industry treats game media as part of their marketing arm. The actions taken in the name of GamerGate do not reflect this. Conclusion: GamerGate is not concerned with journalistic integrity.

Offline Steampunkette

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #31 on: October 20, 2014, 07:39:24 PM »
I feel like you're too busy trying to dole out fallacies to really understand what's being said, Consortium. You're reading with the intent to respond, not understand.

The movement was FOUNDED on hatred and violence. You cannot ethically argue from that movement while disavowing yourself from the foundations of the movement because you're directly profiting from that hate and violence.

If you cannot understand that very fundamental basis of ethical reasoning I really don't know what to tell you other than: You're wrong and refuse to understand why you are wrong.

And really that's not an argument I'm willing to bash my head against, any further.

Offline Melusine

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #32 on: October 20, 2014, 08:20:50 PM »
"If I want to talk about racism/feminism/gay rights etc etc I can do with someone who isn't rude, insulting and uncivil"

It's just the tone argument again.

I urge you to understand my position and my feelings. I've been in the receiving end of hurtful, misogynistic comments all my life. I've been made to feel unsafe and uncomfortable by them. This is not just incivility! Believe me, I can handle rudeness. What I cannot handle is people trying to denigrate my humanity. I have every right to not want to debate with people who think me lesser. I'm not a 24/7 debate machine with no emotions that can swallow all kinds of abuse and come out fine. And I'm not the only one who feels this way.

If this is the tone argument, fine. I give up.

There are a significant number of people... and there's been several on this thread... who have made clear that they don't consider the points about ethics raised during Gamergate (and raised by people who identify as supporting Gamergate) as valid because other people involved in Gamergate have been misogynistic abusers.

You're right. I shouldn't have spoken for others, only for myself. I apologize to you and them.

But didn't you say that the name Gamergate has been "irreversibly tainted"? Emphasis on irreversibly. It doesn't matter if "responsible gamergaters create an atmosphere where misogyny is not tolerated in discussions" and remove all of the misogynistic elements; wouldn't it will still be tainted? Let's say there is a split in Gamergate and the journalistic ethical concerns completely split from the misogynistic ones; how long before it's painted as a simple "rebranding" and thus the irreversibly tainted point comes up again? And consider what Steampunkette says about standing on the shoulders of others, could one discuss GameJournoPros and their quite possibly illegal blacklisting? After all, it came out during Gamergate and thus is "irreversibly tainted." Could one discuss the close links between journalists and indy developers, with journalists having given money to the developers without declaring it in subsequent articles about the game or developer? Or been their friends and roommates? Could on discuss the dismissive way mainstream media has handled gaming? Could one discuss any of the elements which have appeared and not be tainted?

I contradicted myself. I apologize. I'll have to think more about this.

I'm tired of arguing about the misogyny in the movement, and other people in the thread have explained their concerns much more succintly than I did. About the journalistic ethics argument, my opinion is twofold:

1) The close relationships between developers/companies and journalists; no argument from me there. I know about the Kane and Lynch controversy, about Doritogate, and I'm all for gaming journalists to shape up.

2)The so called "political" infiltration in gaming journalism and often, games themselves. I've seen several gamergaters decrying it. As I said in a previous post, I'm all for social/feminist/queer/antiracist critique of games. I'm a gamer, I have gamer friends from all social groups, and part of our escapist fun should be to play in worlds without the same bullshit we have to face day after day. I'm all for games growing up, becoming forms of art and being treated like art (which means they are critiqued as art).

And that's my position on their arguments.

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 #33 on: October 20, 2014, 08:31:32 PM »
2)The so called "political" infiltration in gaming journalism and often, games themselves. I've seen several gamergaters decrying it. As I said in a previous post, I'm all for social/feminist/queer/antiracist critique of games. I'm a gamer, I have gamer friends from all social groups, and part of our escapist fun should be to play in worlds without the same bullshit we have to face day after day. I'm all for games growing up, becoming forms of art and being treated like art (which means they are critiqued as art).

This brings up an interesting point to me: Games, like every other channel of human expression, have always been political. The only way you can pretend they're not is if things like sexism, racism, gender and sexuality policing don't affect you - if you have the privilege of just ignoring them in your day-to-day life to no real detriment.

Offline Steampunkette

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #34 on: October 20, 2014, 09:00:31 PM »
Pretty much everything is political in a fairly binary sense.

1) Supports the Status Quo

2) Opposes the Status Quo

Just because they support the status quo on a given topic (Racism, Sexism, Transmisogyny, Bisexual and Transmasculine Erasure, Etc) doesn't make them apolotical. It just makes them conservative or, in some examples, flatly regressive.

Offline Caehlim

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #35 on: October 20, 2014, 09:02:03 PM »
In my opinion there is no purpose or value to the phrase 'gamergate'.

These issues have been discussed for a long time, before someone came up with an elaborate revenge-ploy against an ex-girlfriend that lead to this whole discussion of things in terms of the scandalous -gate suffix.

You want to talk about queer theory in videogames? Take a look at the Gaymer movement.
You want to talk about female representation in all mediums, feminism really has you covered there including videogames.
You want to talk about journalistic integrity in gaming? You're a bit late since traditional media is practically dead when it comes to gaming, but yeah people were talking about this back in the 90s when you still bought gaming magazines.

Calling any of these things 'gamergate' is just:
A) Implying that there's some sort of crisis in gaming culture, when in fact all of these things have been issues since videogames were first created and have been steadily improving in the face of constant discussion of these issues.
B) Jumping on a fad bandwagon and hype machine that's entirely topical.
C) Avoiding any real chance of a serious discussion since there are so many viewpoints and topics mixed into the one category that it's never going to get anywhere.
D) Going to feel awkward in six months when this dies off and people get back to the actual discussions.
E) Risking being seen as an endorsement for the brutal treatment that has been inflicted recently on certain female commentators in the field.

Offline Steampunkette

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #36 on: October 20, 2014, 09:48:29 PM »
Yes. All of that. Thank you.

Offline Shjade

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #37 on: October 21, 2014, 01:14:43 AM »
In my opinion there is no purpose or value to the phrase 'gamergate'.

This more or less sums up my take on it as well.

I've spent most of this evening giving GG the benefit of the doubt, because that's just the kind of person I am: I started feeling like maybe I was, myself, becoming numbed in the "echo chamber" sense to the possibility of accepting counter information and, even if/when I'm right about something, I like to check that feeling when it comes up. So when I saw someone who I consider an otherwise intelligent and reasonable figurehead appear to be speaking up on GG's side (Popehat, of all people), I asked him what point of view he'd recommend for reading up on the origins of the event.

I ended up here: Daddy Warpig's blog. As far as I can tell he's a pro-GG person with no professional stake in the field, but not particularly fervent about it either. In trying to approach this from a fresh perspective, yes, GG's claims are made in an unusually hostile manner and several have been debunked, but not all of them. And the ones that haven't been don't get nearly as much press as the ones that were or the harassment at large.

Without going into great detail, I'm more or less back where I started: neither side, recognizing there are definite issues in gaming journalism (and journalism at large, but eh, that's a different, larger issue) but unsatisfied with the methods at work in this mess. As far as I'm concerned, both sides might not be "equal," but both sides are certainly fucking up.

Or, as one of the GGers I discussed this with put it, "We can both admit there are a lot of dogs barking up a lot of trees. But that doesn't mean that all trees are wrong."

There's a metric fuckton of dogs in this fight. The barking is deafening. Makes it impossible to find what isn't bullshit, of which there is also plenty.


Related note: looking at the brief dispute between Liz F and KingofPol just a couple of hours ago, I'm starting to wonder if a lot of this (overt real world harassment not included) isn't just a case of culture clash. Not in the "culture war" sense, but basically a language barrier. In the middle of this scuffle I rode a link over to the 8chan thread discussing it and a couple of posters said, basically, "calling people autistic doesn't mean anything; everyone's autistic on anychan board."

I tried to reply in the thread to ask him why chan board culture has any bearing on a conversation in Twitter conversations but, alas, for some reason 8chan wouldn't let me post - the page would just hang when I tried it. Not sure what the problem was there. Anyway, that meant I couldn't get direct explanation for that remark, but thinking on it, direct harassment aside, it would explain a lot about the ongoing abusive language coupled with "this isn't harassment."

To them, it's possible that it really isn't, that they're incapable of recognizing harassment because it is honestly how they treat each other on a regular basis with no intended harm done. Sure, that's an extremely unhealthy culture from an outsider's perspective, but to them, it's the norm. Smashing that up against people who expect some semblance of civility and you get immediate problems regardless of the topic.

If the hardcore dicks doing the RL harassment would cut that the fuck out, I'm starting to wonder if this couldn't in large part be solved by just getting people to calm the hell down about the language being used, get them to think of all the swearing and casual racism as, essentially, "translation errors."

Probably not. But hey, it's a nice thought, isn't it?

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 #38 on: October 21, 2014, 01:50:34 AM »
My issues with the politics of this is that many of the people whom have come running to the defence of GG after it started on Twitter happened to be part of the far right. Now while I am not one to just discount all that the right has to say, when all the loudest voices claiming that feminists/gaming media/insert whomever you want to attack here are killing the games industry happen to be the very same people that only a month before claimed that my love for CS 1.6 would turn me into a killer, I kind of have to wonder if they are really in it for my benefit as a gamer or because they have another motive.

I mean consortium, you understand that Adam Baldwin started the hashtag right and all the people that ran to condemn these women happen to be those that believe strongly in "Family values", a neat little box feminists happen not to fit in. Just because someone is saying something that sounds like what you believe, does not mean you believe the same thing. In this case, the opening shots are fired over something that was a) not true to start with and b) came from a side of politics that normally make out that gamers are the reason school shootings happen. They do not seam to me like people whom are "On the side of gamers or the integrity of gaming media".
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 01:53:56 AM by Dice »

Offline Shjade

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #39 on: October 21, 2014, 02:01:20 AM »
Yeeeah, honestly Sommers' video about how women want to take away all the boys' games was, I thought when I first saw it, clearly a parody video. Imagine my astonishment to find people were not only taking that seriously but praising her for it. The fuck?

Things like that are what give me a very hard time taking GG seriously even without considering all the harassment in the air.

Offline Steampunkette

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #40 on: October 21, 2014, 02:28:21 AM »
It only now occurs to me that Kunoichi was linking to the Amazing Atheist's channel. No wonder I couldn't take the "Investigamer" seriously. The Amazing Atheist is a terrible person who -surrounds- himself with other terrible people. He's the kind of guy who'll threaten to rape a woman, repeatedly, wish rape on her, tell her that rape is the only sex she's gonna get, and then try to play it off like he's the victim.

Consider your sources, especially when you make an appeal to authority.

*shudder*

Offline Kunoichi

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #41 on: October 21, 2014, 02:45:37 AM »
It only now occurs to me that Kunoichi was linking to the Amazing Atheist's channel. No wonder I couldn't take the "Investigamer" seriously. The Amazing Atheist is a terrible person who -surrounds- himself with other terrible people. He's the kind of guy who'll threaten to rape a woman, repeatedly, wish rape on her, tell her that rape is the only sex she's gonna get, and then try to play it off like he's the victim.

Consider your sources, especially when you make an appeal to authority.

*shudder*

True, I have shot my own arguments in the foot pretty badly, haven't I?  I think I'll bow out of the discussion, now.

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 #42 on: October 21, 2014, 03:23:47 AM »
Oh, holy crap. TAA is in on this too? I find it... rather telling just how many high-profile GamerGate supporters just happen to also be highly visible bigots and bigotry-apologists in other contexts. Christina Hoff Summers, The "Amazing" Atheist, Mike Cernovich, Todd Kincannon, Kingofpol (whose medical ethics are also highly questionable), Adam Baldwin, Paul fucking Elam...

...gee, it's almost like there's something about it that attracts people who hate women and equality, isn't it?

Seriously, folks. If Paul Elam loves your absolutely-about-games-journalism no-woman-hating-here-honest movement? You have, at the very least, a massive messaging problem.

Offline Shjade

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #43 on: October 21, 2014, 03:25:35 AM »
That's the biggest problem they have: this insistence on "no leaders, we welcome everyone" etc. leaves them completely open to any and all nutjobs happy to use the free megaphone for whatever agenda they want to push alongside any legitimate issues the group might champion. Until that shit gets sorted out this is just going to stay a mess.

Offline consortium11Topic starter

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #44 on: October 21, 2014, 10:16:48 AM »
I... feel like there's a significant risk of being misinterpreted here, so please allow me to clarify: I am reasoning backward from actions. Given that this is not a rigidly-organized movement with established leaders and policy documents we can refer to, that's what we've got. The actions people take under the banner of GamerGate are overwhelmingly focused on misogyny and hatred of women and anyone they deem to be a "social justice warrior". One of the memes that is omnipresent under that banner in an attempt to claim that this is about ethics is a trivially-disproven lie. People who care about journalistic integrity don't build their media presence around a lie. People who care about journalistic integrity should be concerned with the ridiculous way that the games industry treats game media as part of their marketing arm. The actions taken in the name of GamerGate do not reflect this. Conclusion: GamerGate is not concerned with journalistic integrity.

And where does that leave say TotalBiscuit?

His media presence certainly wasn't built around a lie; it was built upon his youtube channel where he's one of the most popular video game commentators/reviewers.

His interest and care for journalistic integrity precedes Gamergate; he's done a lot of work on the use of DMCA's to block critique and, more recently, the X-Box/Machinima XB1M13 tag controversy to give two simple examples.

He's also one of the most prominent supporters of Gamergate.

It's all fine and dandy to say "well, people just shouldn't use or associate themselves with Gamergate" but here's the rub... post-Doritogate (which I note people also tried to derail by saying it was all about misogyny once Lauren Wainright got involved) where exactly has a widespread movement about journalistic integrity been? Where were the revelations? Where were the successes? In the wake of Dorito-gate (which focused on the relationship between big publishers, PR companies and reviewers/journalists) websites said they did nothing wrong... but quickly updated their policies about transparency. In the wake of Gamergate (where the integrity aspect focuses on the personal friendship between journalists themselves and with indy/smaller developers) websites again said there was nothing wrong... but again quickly updated their policies.

Patricia Hernandez was a close friend of Anna Anthropy prior to Gamergate appearing. She lived with Anna Anthropy prior to Gamergate appearing. She repeatedly gave positive coverage to Anna Anthropy's games without disclosing any of this in the articles prior to Gamergate appearing. No-one delved into it before Gamergate appeared. Then Gamergate appeared and suddenly a pretty obvious breach of ethics (in at least not declaring a connection even in the unlikely even it didn't influence the coverage) came to light.

Danielle Riendeau was a close friend to Chris Remo prior to Gamergate appearing. She appeared with other members of the "Idle Thumbs" group prior to Gamergate appearing. She reviewed a game featuring music by Chris Remo without disclosing that relationship prior to Gamergate breaking, praising the tone and giving it a 10/10. Outside of one comment below the line (quickly dismissed), no-one delved into it. Then Gamergate appeared and suddenly people noticed that, you know, perhaps you should declare that one of your close friends is involved in a game you give 10/10 to.

Patricia Hernandez (again) was close friends with Christine Love (and seemingly in a relationship for a while) prior to Gamergate appearing. She repeatedly gave positive coverage to Christine Love's games and encouraged people to buy them without disclosing this prior to Gamergate appearing. No-one delved into it before Gamergate appeared. Then Gamergate appeared and suddenly a pretty obvious breach of ethics (in at least not declaring a connection even in the unlikely even it didn't influence the coverage) came to light.

Game Journalism Professionals was set up prior to Gamergate appearing. Video game journalists used it to coordinate their coverage prior to Gamergate appearing. Video game journalists used it to discuss internal staffing matters at their websites (which could be a breach of employment law in and of itself) prior to Gamergate appearing. Video game journalists used it to blacklist another prior to Gamergate appearing (notably the journalist in question was being blacklisted for revealing some pretty underhand ethical issues, even if not in the most toneful of ways)... something that is quite likely illegal. Yet prior to Gamergate few knew of the story and it certainly hadn't broken. The Gamergate appeared and now the editor in chief of Destructoid has resigned, seemingly over it, and the ethics of it are something people are discussing.

Just as one cannot purely look at the journalistic ethics side of Gamergate without accepting the misogyny and abuse, one cannot look as the misogyny and abuse without considering the journalistic ethics aspect. The examples above all relate to integrity and ethics in video game journalism, however positive an approach you want to take on them. They all came out because of Gamergate; they cannot be separated from it. To ignore or dismiss Gamergate is to ignore and dismiss them.

I feel like you're too busy trying to dole out fallacies to really understand what's being said, Consortium. You're reading with the intent to respond, not understand.

I'm "doling out fallacies" because using fallacies as part of a debate renders the debate meaningless. I'm also "doling out fallacies" because there's a sticky at the top of the forum which makes clear people should avoid using fallacies (I also note it makes clear that one should read it before debating here) and specifically lists many of fallacies you've used so far.

Gamergate is both the issues about journalistic integrity and the misogyny. Arguing that the journalistic ethics issues can be dismissed or don't matter because of the misogyny and abuse is a pretty clear example of the fallacies I've listed previously.

I urge you to understand my position and my feelings. I've been in the receiving end of hurtful, misogynistic comments all my life. I've been made to feel unsafe and uncomfortable by them. This is not just incivility! Believe me, I can handle rudeness. What I cannot handle is people trying to denigrate my humanity. I have every right to not want to debate with people who think me lesser. I'm not a 24/7 debate machine with no emotions that can swallow all kinds of abuse and come out fine. And I'm not the only one who feels this way.

If this is the tone argument, fine. I give up.

I'm certainly not saying one has to engage directly or stay in a conversation with such people... I wouldn't.

But one does have to engage with the arguments rather than dismiss them out of hand. It could be that the arguments are wrong. It could be completely legitimate and not an ethical concern in the slightest for journalists and reviewers to give positive coverage to their friends and their games without even noting that friendship, let alone recusing themselves from the coverage. But one doesn't prove that by going "Uh... Gamergate... misogyny". Just because an issue came out during gamergate doesn't make it wrong or misogynistic; you have to debate an argument on its own strength.

1) The close relationships between developers/companies and journalists; no argument from me there. I know about the Kane and Lynch controversy, about Doritogate, and I'm all for gaming journalists to shape up.

2)The so called "political" infiltration in gaming journalism and often, games themselves. I've seen several gamergaters decrying it. As I said in a previous post, I'm all for social/feminist/queer/antiracist critique of games. I'm a gamer, I have gamer friends from all social groups, and part of our escapist fun should be to play in worlds without the same bullshit we have to face day after day. I'm all for games growing up, becoming forms of art and being treated like art (which means they are critiqued as art).

And that's my position on their arguments.

I basically agree. Journalistic ethics; those complaints should be taken seriously and addressed regardless of the source; view the arguments on their own merits. "Infiltration": I've posted in the previous Sarkeesian thread about how I disagree with some of her analysis but that doesn't mean I don't want the analysis or that it shouldn't be made; just that I disagree with aspects of it.

Offline Caehlim

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #45 on: October 21, 2014, 11:37:46 AM »
They all came out because of Gamergate; they cannot be separated from it.

This is the problem with something like Gamergate. You have serious, legitimate concerns hopelessly intermingled with the delusional fantasies of a scorned and embarrassed ex-boyfriend. If this argument is correct, that these things cannot be separated from it, then it is irresponsible to use the platform of gamergate to raise these serious issues.

Doing so risks two things.

1) The serious allegations that have been discovered become tainted by association with a flawed methodology and a hashtag of ill-repute thus allowing the guilty to escape justice.
2) The frivolous and libelous accusations that have been thrown about for personal reasons within the hashtag inherit legitimacy from the serious allegations thus causing the innocent to be punished.

At worst case, it's possible for both to occur.

The breaches of journalistic integrity you've mentioned are worth producing an expose upon and bringing to light. However it would be the height of irony for this exposure to be achieved through what would be in itself a breach of journalistic integrity.

Offline Steampunkette

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #46 on: October 21, 2014, 12:08:45 PM »
Consortium: Fallacy Fallacy. Argumentum ad Logicam.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

Argument A supports the proposition P
Argument A contains a logical fallacy.
Therefore, the entirety of P is false

I'm trying to talk about the ethical concerns of using a hate movement, specifically one founded on a series of lies and hate-speech with the willful intent of creating attacks on women, to try and elevate a position discussing the ethics of other people. You're busy debating whether or not I'm arguing with enough logical presentation rather than addressing the argument itself.

I'm beginning to suspect it's because debating the actual heart of the matter, the ethics of using a deplorable action to your personal, political, or professional benefit not as an oppositional force but with the intent of specifically excusing and ignoring the ethical problems -of- the deplorable action (thereby offering that deplorable action post-facto legitimacy), is itself undeniably ethically wrong and you're avoiding taking an undefensible position on the matter by attempting to put everyone else on the defensive with accusations and demands of "X Level of Logical Discourse" before you'll even attempt to address the issue itself.

The closest you've come to it is to say that questioning the ethical viability of the position is tone policing which is a -clear- misunderstanding of what tone policing is (Tone Policing, incidentally, is demanding that arguments be presented in a manner that is inoffensive and presented on the terms of the listener, regardless of the content of the discussion or the additional burdens it places on the speaker. See also: Moving the Goalposts)

So... I'm just gonna go ahead and put you on ignore. It's not a judgement on your character or your ethical or moral standpoints, it's just to clean up this thread's discussion. I promise to click the "Show Posts" button in other threads, but it's clear we can't discuss the issue at hand in a reasonable manner.

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 #47 on: October 21, 2014, 01:29:14 PM »
The problem, Consortium, is that you can cite individual examples to prove anything you want about any group you want - but the group as a whole has some clear, overarching traits. One of those traits is that even now, if you say "Zoe Quinn" into a mirror three times, a pack of dudebros show up to tell you she slept around for good reviews, and they do it in the name of Gamergate. And then a second pack shows up to tell you that it's totally not about Quinn at all.

It's still doing pretty much nothing for actual ethics issues, except where those ethics issues can be used in service of attacking women and their allies. This tells me that "journalistic ethics" is not their terminal goal.

And frankly... even if they do have a point? It's very, very hard to appreciate someone's nuanced positions on the finer points of socioeconomic theory while they're still punching you in the face.

You ask where the actual movements for journalistic ethics are? I say "We need heroes? Build them." If you think this is an actual concern worth spending time and effort addressing, then do something about it without all the misogyny and hatred and abuse. It's costing the movement resources - both in creating these attacks and in deflecting criticism about them - and it's completely tanked any trust or credibility they ever could have earned. Even before you begin taking the first look at whether equality is, y'know, a good thing - even if literally your only concern is dealing with ethics issues in journalism - Gamergate is a toxic, festering pit that can do nothing but harm you. The only way to actually do something productive at this stage is to walk away from it and try building something useful.

Offline Skynet

Re: Gamergate
« Reply #48 on: October 21, 2014, 01:51:21 PM »
GamerGate will get my respect only when they start policing their own beyond the token "we're sorry about the bad apples, just ignore them!" when said bad apples have doxxed and harassed people out of their homes.  And overwhelmingly women who are transgender and/or have feminist views at that!

The "not all GGers are like that!" argument doesn't hold much water when their most popular gathering spots (Kotaku in Action, 8chan) are more than happy to adopt an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" viewpoint to accept Breitbart journalists into their ranks and other hateful individuals.  If you're really about journalistic integrity, seeing breitbart.com ally with you should provoke an immediate "battle stations ready, discharge and disown!" response.

I'm not very fond of the "cultural Marxism" slur they throw at pro-feminist and pro-transgender groups, especially given that the term is used by a lot of Neo-Nazis online as an attack against any form of egalitarianism.

Or how GamerGate members threatened Gaymer X for rejecting them because they were too friendly with Milo Yiannopoulos, a guy with a history of transphobic fearmongering.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 02:16:57 PM by Skynet »

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 #49 on: October 21, 2014, 02:21:13 PM »
And further evidence just keeps coming!

What do Gamergate and the incredibly embarrassing band of atheist misogynists known as the Slymepit have in common? They both lie about Rebecca Watson in an attempt to destroy her career.

Please note: Watson is neither associated with gaming in any way, nor a journalist. And this is a lie: "Skep tickle" outed herself* well over a year ago. More interestingly, the reason her identity is relevant now is because of an ethically dubious act. (tl;dr: She used her position as an MD to diagnose someone she strongly disliked, and had never met, with gonorrhea based on a vague bit of information about a knee problem, did so publicly, and used that to try to smear a major atheist conference she has issues with.)

If this is all about ethics, and particularly ethics in media, why are they lying in an attempt to cause harm to someone outside the industry they care about, in the name of defending someone with extremely poor ethical standards? Can anyone defending them explain this? This action is clearly and actively against ethical behaviour on all fronts.

*EDIT: consortium says this is a direct comment link, but it's not working for me in Chrome. If you have the same issue, search for "Eliza" and the first hit is her.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2014, 03:51:57 PM by Ephiral »