Who actually cares about GamerGate?

[consortium11]

Obviously there's a lot to respond to since I last posted and unfortunately I don't really have time at the moment... hopefully I can get round to it in the next day or two.

But I think it's worth mentioning that the Society of Professional Journalists' "Airplay" conference, a debate between those for and against Gamergate, just got shut down following credible bomb threats. This was a pretty high profile event with a lot of support on the Gamergate side of things and a fair amount of opposition from those opposed to Gamergate (one can look at this previous update from Airplay to see those opposed to Gamergate trying to get it shut down... as well as how they hoped to prevent bomb threats following a previous GG meet up having to be evacuated due to them).

As above this isn't the first time that events supported by Gamergate have been shut down due to bomb threats following a campaign by opponents to get them cancelled; the first "#GGMeetup" suffered the same fate. But it shouldn't be assumed that it was direct opponents of Gamergate who were behind it; just as the previous swatting attributed to Gamergate were largely done by the "Baphomet" board on 8chan, a group that hated Gamergate(rs) but gained more enjoyment from abusing opponents of Gamergate and provoking a reaction, I suspect there's a good chance that it was third party trolls behind this attack.

But that's two Gamergate supported events that have been the target of credible bomb threats. For comparison the death threat at Anita Sarkeesian's Utah State University which brought a huge amount of prominence to the idea of Gamergate being a real life threat to people, deplorable as it was, was deemed non-credible. In the same way that the doxxing, death threats towards and abuse of pro-Gamergate people is normally swept aside and ignored I expect the narrative will remain the same regardless.

[FionaM]

As quoted from 8chan:

[Omnius]

I personally have kept quiet on the issue for a while here, out of fear of being ostracized, but a thought I had today prompted me to post here. Disclaimer: I do actually believe in social justice. just not the brand of it that is currently popular.
Disclaimer: (Harassment is bad, mkay?)

I have been a long time supporter of gamergate, and the recent happening with Anita and Zoe being invited to the UN troubles me on a whole nother level. I personally feel like the UN is using them for their own purposes (or they are complicit, but I do not know) I know they want websites to police their members more to stop harassment (The problem with this is that some people view any and all criticism or disagreement as an attack on them) as well as believing "cyber violence" to be as bad as physical violence. (it can be, but once again I refer you to the previous statement). Now my worry is this. If they were to push for dissenters to be banned (I doubt they would succeed, but I am certain they would try), it would rid the "field" of many of their opponents. The same kinds of people who oppose them are also the same kinds of people generally highly opposed to certain other measures (PIPA, CISPA, SOPA, ACTA, and the TPP), Usually gamers, pro free speach types, anti censorship types, libertarians, and tech people. The organizations that were the "big guns" against those bills, "reddit, wikipedia, google, mozilla) Have more or less sided with the SJWs since, leading me to think if the lower level censorship started with a veneer of social justice, they would not oppose it. and with the playing field clear of opposition, the more draconian measures are soon to follow.

Now this is likely just some tinfoil hat shower thought I had, but I am putting out there anyway, I hope this does not harm my standing here.

[Caehlim]

I have been a long time supporter of gamergate, and the recent happening with Anita and Zoe being invited to the UN troubles me on a whole nother level. I personally feel like the UN is using them for their own purposes

...

Now this is likely just some tinfoil hat shower thought I had, but I am putting out there anyway, I hope this does not harm my standing here.

While I wouldn't accuse you of being a tinfoil conspiracy person, I think you may be falling into a trap that commonly affects conspiracy theorists as well. That is mistaking complex organizations for vastly simpler monolithic entities. The United Nations is an organization that spans a lot of cultural barriers and has a very complicated organizational structure. When you speaking of the UN doing things for their own purposes I suspect that you're not appreciating that for the United Nations to have purposes requires that its policies are approved by the U.S., China, Russia, France and the U.K. These are not countries that commonly see eye to eye.

[Omnius]

Oh, I have no illusions about that. I doubt they will be able to do much due to the UN not having much power in and of itself, just the possibilites and rabbit trails from there worry me.

[Ephiral]

Now this is likely just some tinfoil hat shower thought I had, but I am putting out there anyway, I hope this does not harm my standing here.

Yes, yes it is. Where to begin?

One: No matter how often freeze peach types try to claim otherwise, calling out problematic behaviour is not censorhsip. Nobody is calling for "dissenters" to be silenced. Nobody is calling for people who launch coordinated campaigns of threats and harassment to be silenced. We're just pointing out that they're, y'know, assholes.

Two: Refusing to provide a platform or an audience is not censorship. You're free to say most anything you want, but I'm free to say "I don't want that in my house, and I'm not going to listen to it." Why is it that the "free speech" argument only applies in one direction?

Three: Believe it or not, censorship and silencing are social justice issues. Censorship, like any other form of repression, falls hardest on the most disadvantaged. It is not only possible but extremely likely that any given social justice activist fought against the censorship laws you mention. The freedom of the Internet, as a gathering place and coordination tool for oppressed people, is seriously important to us. In fact, it's possible to be a gamer, a supporter of free speech, an enemy of censorship, a libertarian, and/or a tech person and still think that using lies about ethics as a front for harassing women is a shitty thing done by shitty people. (I'm all but one of those things!)

Four: It's really, really easy to fact-check your thoughts here. Hypothesis: Reddit is on the side of the SJWs, who support censorship and silencing of voices they disagree with. Test: Does KotakuInAction still exist? Yes? Well, then, something is seriously wrong with your premises.

[Assassini]

I personally have kept quiet on the issue for a while here, out of fear of being ostracized, but a thought I had today prompted me to post here. Disclaimer: I do actually believe in social justice. just not the brand of it that is currently popular.
Disclaimer: (Harassment is bad, mkay?)

I have been a long time supporter of gamergate, and the recent happening with Anita and Zoe being invited to the UN troubles me on a whole nother level. I personally feel like the UN is using them for their own purposes (or they are complicit, but I do not know) I know they want websites to police their members more to stop harassment (The problem with this is that some people view any and all criticism or disagreement as an attack on them) as well as believing "cyber violence" to be as bad as physical violence. (it can be, but once again I refer you to the previous statement). Now my worry is this. If they were to push for dissenters to be banned (I doubt they would succeed, but I am certain they would try), it would rid the "field" of many of their opponents. The same kinds of people who oppose them are also the same kinds of people generally highly opposed to certain other measures (PIPA, CISPA, SOPA, ACTA, and the TPP), Usually gamers, pro free speach types, anti censorship types, libertarians, and tech people. The organizations that were the "big guns" against those bills, "reddit, wikipedia, google, mozilla) Have more or less sided with the SJWs since, leading me to think if the lower level censorship started with a veneer of social justice, they would not oppose it. and with the playing field clear of opposition, the more draconian measures are soon to follow.

Now this is likely just some tinfoil hat shower thought I had, but I am putting out there anyway, I hope this does not harm my standing here.

Yeah, I have to admit, I really wouldn't worry about it.

While it infuriates me on some level that Anita actually spoke at the UN, they aren't actually going to do anything about it. Because, you are right, her definition of "harassment" is just a blanket term for any form of disagreement or criticism which might penetrate someone's hugbox. On the bright side, the UN is a collection of intelligent individuals, they won't just blindly agree to everything she has to say. She gave a speech, but I wouldn't worry about it going further until there is actually some evidence that things ARE doing further.

Also, while Reddit definitely had some issues with censorship back when GamerGate broke, I think they've improved a little bit... I mean, despite all the deleted criticism about Ellen Pao (she was briefly CEO of the site) she still quit in the end, so that was some kind of victory. I also wouldn't want to lump Wikipedia or Google with the SJWs. Particularly Wikipedia, because they simply have to do their best to be impartial, and it's extremely difficult to do that (especially seeing as it is a crowd-moderated website).