Ok, so, I don't have a lot of time - I've gotten rather busy, and I churned out a pair of fairly massive posts earlier for one of my RP's that left me kinda drained (before I posted my last reply to this thread, true, but that just contributed, haha) - so I'm gonna make this response as quick as possible, largely because I didn't want
to get into a huge several-thousand-word-post debate about this specific topic. In retrospect, perhaps I shouldn't have posted about such a controversial topic if I didn't want a huge discussion about it.
So, if it's all the same to you, I would rather leave aside the things we've sidetracked into and get back to the point that was the cause for my initial post. I might come back after the fact and address all
of the points once I've had a bit of a sleepy, but I want to get back to my initial
And now we reach "below." So is the Quinnspiracy the core and origin of GG or not? You've played it both ways here.
This is my fault for not re-reading the post before I sent it (though, to be fair, can you blame me? Look how long these posts have gotten. >.< ) to make sure that I was being clear with what I was trying to say. What I'm saying is that for some
people it was, and others
it wasn't. It's the nature of the online hashtag that anybody can claim it for whatever reason and for whatever purpose. Unlike things like Feminism and whatnot, GG is/was an extremely new thing that had yet to define itself properly (and I would argue still hasn't, not really) and didn't have a a core group of publicly known "Founders." Therefore, some GG hashtag users used the Quinnspiracy as its genesis, and others didn't care so much about the Quinnspiracy but the possibility
that it could be true and they would still technically be abiding by their pre-set code of ethics (to name two examples; there are other possibilities, of course). So it really depends on the person, which is what the main thrust of my original comment was; calling it a "Hate Group" is wrong simply because it implies some kind of unified cohesive unit, when that isn't the reality of the "movement."
If Sarkeesian is irrelevant, why are articles that are mostly about her worthy of response?
Again, my fault for not being clear with what I was trying to say. She was
irrelevant - her and the Quinnspiracy were two separate things, by and large - until they kind of got joined into one/linked together by either including each other, or coming out at the same time and saying similar things which regardless of intent, came across as coordinated.
Sarkeesian became a major name because of what was happening to her, so your "it's because she's famous!" premise doesn't hold.
This is true, I misspoke. What I meant was that the more famous she became,
the more it happened because people were hearing about her. But! Sarkeesian is largely irrelevant to my initial point, and as much as I am tempted, I really don't want to get sidetracked with her.
There might have been useful idiots from near the beginning. But it was founded, driven, and guided by people who hated that women were invading 'their' space and not staying docile. A few dupes doesn't change that.
How exactly do you think they "guided" a hashtag? As I've said numerous times, the nature of a hashtag makes it extremely difficult - nigh on impossible - to guide, police or direct.
[ Side note: I did a bit of refresh-googling since it's been a while since I talked about GG in any great depth (which probably shows considering my unfocused and rambling structure (Sorry 'bout that) ) and found out that there's a type of ant called a "Gamergate" that is a reproductively viable female worker ant who reproduces in the absence of a Queen. Completely unrelated, I just found it interesting. ]
But the thing is, there wasn't a single group of "founders." There were a whole slew
of different types of people looking at this kerfuffle who then adopted the term "Gamergate" for their own reasons after the term was coined by Adam Baldwin. A lot of the users used it as a screen to attack people, whilst others genuinely wanted a discussion. Of course, I wouldn't go to Twitter of all places to look at people who wanted a genuine discussion...twitter isn't exactly the right medium for a long debate.
Anywho, the point is that the hashtag itself wasn't created or guided by people "looking to harass women," it was coined by somebody else at a panel (I think that's where he created the term, though I could be wrong. It was definitely Baldwin, though) and adopted by a large variety of different people.
The same holds for Gamergate - it is defined by toxic bile because toxic bile is the bulk of it, and so signing on with it means endorsing that toxicity.
Not necessarily. If I identify as a pro-journalistic-integrity GGer (Which I kinda do, though only retrospectively; I kinda stumbled upon GG mid-last year when it was already in full swing due to being busy with University), why not try to change the perception? I mean...no matter the amount of toxic bile that comes out of the Southern Baptist Church, we don't judge ALL Christians by those standards. We judge people based on what they themselves say (or at least, we should). My original point was, calling it a "Hate Group" implies more organisation, unity and cohesion then there actually was.
Because the 'trolls' are most of the traffic. Why is it the responsibility of the targets to filter a very weak signal from overwhelming noise, instead of just writing the entire thing off as not worth it? Why is it not the responsibility of those who want to talk about actual issues to find a less noisy channel?
So we should instantly ditch labels that become "tainted?" What's stopping those people that "tainted" the original label from just jumping ship and doing the same thing to the new label, leading to accusations of the people from the old label trying to get away with their "old tricks" under a new label? It's a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. There were attempts at policing the hashtag, it was just extremely difficult due to the nature
And yes, the number of people doing the harassing was relatively low. So was the number of people raising genuine issues. Most of the traffic on Gamergate was retweeting of things targeted at women. The unique individuals saying things about actual issues were a very small minority. The data do not support your claims.
So if the number of people doing the harassing was relatively low and none of it was really unique content, that would suggest at least a sizeable proportion of it being sockpuppeting, which in turn suggests it's the same people doing it and retweeting it. So why not focus on and draw attention to the people actually bringing up valid points and issues, rather than giving the people harassing people the spotlight? The more you pay attention to them, the more they do it. I thought that was Internet 101; don't feed the trolls. Report them, ban them, move on to more important things. If you get a genuine death threat with credible information, call the Feds but DON'T declare "I've been threatened and have called the Feds," which is pretty much the first thing they tell you to do since it's harder to catch them if they know the Feds are coming.
I'd say the anti-GG traffic would need to be at least as toxic as the pro, if we're calling them equal. I've provided documentation showing just how much of the GG traffic had nothing to do with ethics in journalism. That number was significantly over 50%. At that point, saying it was really about ethics is disingenuous at best. You have yet to address this.
I have addressed it, in a manner of speaking. I'm not disagreeing, simply because those are the statistics. However, I'm not arguing that GG was a "force for good" or even that most of the tweets under it were solely about Journalistic integrity. My initial point was that you calling it "Just a hate group" was overly simplistic and missed the point of the nature of the hashtag because "hate group" implies more cohesion and unity than there actually was. I never said that it was "really about ethics" (and if I did, then I apologise; I misspoke). I just said that your assertion that it was "Nothing but a hate group" was overly simplistic, black and white and dismissed the GG hashtag users that didn't
engage in harassing behaviour, of which there was a sizeable portion. Even if the number of GG tweets that were purely harassment numbered 70%, that still leaves 30% that wasn't
harassment, which makes your assertion that it was "Nothing
but a Hate Group" incorrect. That's what I was taking issue with; the absolutist language that dismissed the complexities of the situation in a seeming "Us Vs Them" mentality that ignored the grey areas inherent when talking about the usage of an online hashtag.
I would reject it, because I can clearly and easily demonstrate that a) most feminist speech is non-toxic (provided you don't automatically tag anything feminist as toxic because it's feminist), and b) by far the loudest and most effective voices against the toxicity are feminists. You cannot do this with Gamergate, because it isn't true of Gamergate.
Well, I can. There were a good number of Pro GGers that spoke out against the harassment, but because there were more who spoke out against it in the Anti GG camp (kinda obviously, if you think about it) it seems
like there weren't that many. Also, I find that the loudest voices against toxic feminists aren't always
other feminists. In fact, in my personal experience, ordinary moderate feminists are kinda quiet with the "Eh, they don't represent me, so I won't worry about it." The most vocal opposition I see are people who actively don't identify as feminist but tend to agree with the moderates. A kind of pedantic distinction, but I can't help it. >.>
Anyway, also remember that it was estimated that there were only really about 10,000 Pro GGers (which looked like a lot more given the dupes and socks), which isn't really that high a proportion of gamers, and the Anti GGers at least seemed
a lot more numerous (though I have no doubt some Duping and Socking went on in that "camp" as well, though to what extent I'm not gonna speculate on).
Can you name me three people who were in from day one, were high profile, and weren't saying toxic things?
Nope, simply because there was no "Day One" with GG. The Hashtag grew rapidly, but I can't name anybody who was in at Day One because people don't generally say "I supported it from the start," and a lot of the high profile supporters heard about it later on. For example, I would again name TotalBiscuit because I know that he supported the Journalistic Integrity aspect of it, but I have no idea when
he "joined," for lack of a better term.
Can you show me high-profile toxic people who were rejected?
Again, no, simply because it wasn't a group.
It was a Hashtag, primarily, and people just declaring that they were in on forums and whatnot. How do you reject somebody from a nebulous, amorphous entity that doesn't have any centralised hierarchy or official leaders? You can't. Because it's not a unified group, so there's nobody with the authority to reject you.
(but only when it comes to indie games and journalists saying approving things about ones we don't like)
That's kind of unfair; to be fair, Quinn had done shady things in the past, so it isn't like suspicion was unjustified. The harassment was, but a healthy dose of suspicion as to her motivations and methods was certainly fair. And had that original post never been...well...posted, it would never have gotten to the "Quinnspiracy" levels...personal dislike obviously played a part in it, but to say it was generated purely because it was about one that people distrusted is unfair. A lot of people still like Peter Molyneux (I hope I got that right. I can NEVER remember how to spell his last name) but he still got raked over the coals the last time he started his usual tricks.
This ugly, toxic undercurrent was a significant part of gamer culture, and it was from this undercurrent that things got kicked off.
I said I'm not gonna sidetrack into Sarkeesian, and I'm not, but this bit right here I dismiss out of hand. Not that the harassment happened (though I find it suspicious that she opened her comments section only for her Kickstarter campaign and then closed it again when she got the money, as if she knew what was gonna happen, and though I disagree with closing the comments section at all since it filters out constructive criticism as well as nasty comments (and let's be honest, Youtube Comments are hardly a decent microcosm of a community at large; most watchers don't even bother commenting) that isn't why I labelled her as manipulative and dishonest. I dislike her for entirely
different reasons that I would rather not expand on here), but that misogyny is somehow an inherent undercurrent of the gamer community. "There were literally thousands of hateful comments." .....so? You're saying that several thousand hateful comments in a community that numbers hundreds of millions,
is indicative of a misogynistic current that underlies all of gamer culture? Nonsense. Gaming is no more or less misogynistic than any other form of media. BUT. I said I wouldn't talk about this, so I'm gonna move on.
Can you show me the initial organizing of an anti-GG movement,
Nope. Just like you can't show me the initial organising of the GG movement because there was
no organising it. There were separate groups who had different reactions that adopted a term that was coined by somebody at a panel. THAT'S one of the things that makes it difficult to categorise; several different groups adopted it at the same time. The people you point at as being involved in the Quinnspiracy are entirely separate from the people who only learned about it after the "Gamers Are Dead" articles and whatnot and decided to speak up about journalistic integrity.
Can you show me the 'gaters who were driven from their homes and had to confront SWAT teams?
I already did. I named several Pro-GGers who were subject to that kind of harassment in one of my previous posts.
You're allowed to, and it's quite simple - just stop waving their flag. You'll note I'm not waving Quinn's.
So we should ditch any label that has been tainted for a new one? See above. I would rather try and salvage the ones we have. If nobody fights for the terms that are being corrupted, then what's to stop the new term being corrupted as well? I "wave the flag" of Journalistic Integrity, and identify with the GGers who also do that. I might well be in a minority, but I don't think being a minority is a reason to pack up and go home.
Because I have data showing that the majority of Gamergate was in fact targeted at women. Thank you!
not the entirety. That
was the original point of my message; that you saying that the movement was nothing but a hate group was overly simplistic and ignored the complexities, dismissing those GGers who wanted a genuine discussion...because there was a sizeable proportion. It wasn't the majority of the tweets
(though tweets, given the ease of Duping and Socking isn't necessarily indicative of the attitude of the majority of the supporters
) but they existed, and my initial point was just that labelling it as a hate group both ignored the sizeable proportion who weren't
and treated it like an overall association or organisation (like the WBB Church) rather than a loose collection of hashtag users and anonymous forum posters who likely had very little coordination with people outside of their respective "Sub group."
So there haven't been any organized campaigns? No high-profile members that the rank and file took cues from? None of those high profilers trying black-hat activities while embraced by the wider movement? None of that? Are you certain this is the position you want to take?
That's not what I'm saying. I've already specified in my earlier post that there were charismatic people that other users took cues from, like any other human social invention ever. What I'm saying is that these separate "Heads" didn't usually talk to each other and coordinate and whatnot, and there weren't any "official" overall leaders. If a toxic member was rejected from a circle of "journalistic Integrity" users, they could easily go off and find a "Head" that agreed with them where they could settle down. My point was that it isn't a group with an overall committee that decides the direction that they should take, like a Union or a Protest Group. It's a hashtag that loads of varying, often disagreeing groups adopted and your implication that the entire thing was coordinated on some grand scale is simply wrong due to the nature of the group. As I keep saying; there were loads of little sub groups and splinter groups (Splinter Cells, shall we say, fnufnu gaming pun fnufnu) that sometimes worked together and other times butted heads, but you were implying an overall guiding hand that directed the entirety of the movement, which is incorrect.
Show me the evidence. I've shown you my evidence that GG was, by and large, toxic; let's see yours.
Evidence of what? That GG wasn't just
a Hate Group? You've already done that by admitting that whilst toxic messages were the majority, there was a sizeable portion that weren't
Please show me where the antis organized and directed campaigns at specific targets. Please show me one of these campaigns aimed at somebody who wasn't spewing toxicity.
I already did; there was that bomb scare that broke up the GG meeting. And anyway, regardless of what they were talking about (to a certain extent), they have the right to assemble regardless of whether you agree with them or not.
Spend five minutes on KiA and try to tell me there aren't coordinated campaigns to target advertisers as a means of dictating content.
Yeah, and that's bullshit and I don't support that. I mean, send petitions to advertisers if there's something you feel is inappropriate - you're allowed to do that, and the companies are allowed to either listen or ignore you - but threatening and hacking and whatnot? Yeah, no. Don't do that. But as I said; many different Heads. There are extremists in any group.
Again, gonna have to address the fact that the analysis has been done and yeah, it was mostly misogyny. When most of your movement is misogynistic crap, then yes, the movement is misogynistic crap.
But then what proportion? 51%? 60%? 75%? Why should you ignore the valid points because there are misogynistic assholes screaming alongside them (who the people making valid points likely don't like anyway)? That feels like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Moving Tags wouldn't solve anything - since what's stopping those misogynistic assholes from following you to the new Tag? - so why can't the GGers who actually want a discussion try to push back against that misogynistic collection of morons in an attempt to "clean house?" It's difficult, sure, but there are people trying to do that.
Absolutely right. And the bulk of Gamergate's argument is "Screw those women!". Why should this not be allowed to fall?
It should. Ignore those twats, and engage with the points that have merit, ignoring who the person who is suggesting it identifies as. Why bother vilifying everybody in the GG "movement" - as you DID do by claiming that GG was nothing but a hate group - when you can just assess the arguments by their own merits?
Show me that most anti traffic was toxic. Please. Do this and I'll recant my position immediately and publicly.
Setting aside that I didn't say that Anti GG was even mostly just bile, there's no way for me to do that since nobody has collated those statistics and I reeeeeeaaallly don't feel like wading through tens of thousands of tweets to draw them up myself. >.> Call me lazy, but that just doesn't appeal to me.
But I can treat it as soemthing composed of the elements it's actually composed of, in the proportions that it actually has. Which means it has a problem with being "the toxic misogyny movement (that also says some things about ethics (but doesn't get ethics 101))", not "the ethics movement (that occasionally has toxic misogyny)".
Which is your prerogative, but labelling something as a Hate Group when it isn't even really a unified group and still has a large proportion of valid messages is false. THAT is all I was saying; that your labelling it as a Hate Group was overly symplistic and missed the point of the actual nature of GG as a whole.
Because it is not my responsibility to make sure you communicate effectively. If you want me to hear your signal, maybe you shouldn't broadcast on a channel that is full of very loud noise. There is a thread of worthwhile content in there, but a) it, not the misogyny, came along later, and b) it will always be lost in the noise because the noise is overwhelming. If your group is in such condition that actual, widely-recognized hate groups can show up to the party, find it comfortable, and not be rejected or even visibly divisive, you have a problem.
What's stopping the "noise" from simply switching broadcast channels with us? It would solve nothing, so why put effort into getting everybody to switch Hashtags when we could use that same effort into attempting to push back against it, which some groups are starting to do by actively policing the Tagged posts. An uphill battle, but at least people are trying.
You're fine - you've actually gotten me to dial back on my usual "righteous anger" schtick in an attempt to keep to the tone you've set. I'm pretty hard to offend.
Woo! It finally worked! I try to intersperse my posts with bad jokes so people don't take it that seriously ever since I realised that I often come across as more aggressive than I mean to be. It still doesn't work sometimes, though...so I tend to try and stay out of topics like this, for the most part, so I don't end up getting yelled at because I made a bad joke and people think I'm mocking them.
EDIT: So that we can keep this under novel-length, please feel free to condense and respond to my "show me the data" and "gonna have to address the proportion of toxicity" arguments as single points.
My answer to that is pretty much A) I can't because the data isn't available short of me collecting it myself, and I don't want to spend my Sunday night collating statistics for some weird reason - maybe that's just me - and B) I don't really see the need anyway, since I didn't want to get into a GG Vs Anti GG argument, I just wanted to point out that GG wasn't a "Hate Group" simply because it's made up of several different "factions" that constantly disagree and is very difficult to police because of the nature of hashtags. >.< I reeeeaeaaaaally don't want to get into a GG Vs Anti GG debate, I just wanted to point out that saying that GG was "nothing but a hate group" was oversimplistic and unfair.
JESUS, I say I want to keep it short and I still end up with a novel length post. Maybe it's me. Maybe I just ramble too much. Maybe I should stop posting in the Politics And Controversy Section if I don't want to spend hours writing lengthy responses. >.>
Huh. So I just stumbled upon a website that purports to have some statistics related to harassment in GG, and though I'm not certain how reliable the statistics are - I only just found them - I thought it an interesting read for you, if nothing else.http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2015/05/gamergate-isnt-a-harassment-campaign-states-wam-report/
I have never heard of Women Action Media, but that isn't surprising since I tend to just use Sky News and a collection of journalists that I've found I tend to agree with. *shrug* Since you're obviously more statistic minded than I am, take a look and let me know if you think these stats are reliable. If you want to, of course.
to suggest that the harassment attributed to GG was exaggerated in its severity, but
I haven't read it cover to cover yet....I'll do that once I'm not feeling quite so dead tired, haha, and come to some concrete conclusions as to what it says.