… And then we our lawyer got a call from someone that said they might have additional investors. We found ourselves on a weekday in a residential neighborhood without a soul in sight. We met a guy who looked a lot like Robert Davi.
And during the course of the conversation he asked my partner three times what would happen to our company “If you turned up dead in the lake.” When we left the meeting we said “Well that certainly sounded like an actual face to face death threat.”
[quote]Gamersgate was started in 4chan - by the same people that are in those
chat logs oddly enough - the fact that they use IRC to communicate is
well known. Apparently you either are trying to cover that up or don’t
know about it - I always assume the best in people so I’ll assume you
just don’t know. That being the case you are throwing out arguments
about things that have already been vetted as nonsense because they
don’t make sense to you. Which is just defending evil.[/quote]
And your proof are chat logs from an unrestricted IRC channel posted by someone with a vested
interest in this kind of conspiracy existing. I’d also point out that this isn’t any kind of
justification of vile acts, just an exercise of common sense and skepticism. Not believing
that gamergate was started in this manner does not speak to condoning anything.
[quote]No one said Adam Baldwin was in a conspiracy - that’s a strawman (as you
so eloquently put it) and a redirect at trying to save face when you
defend the undefendable.[/quote]
Unless you believe that a dozen guys on 4chan started gamergate, the indisputable fact is that
Adam Baldwin started the hashtag and it snowballed from there. This by the way, is much more
believable than some dark conspiracy concocted by a dozen misogynists from 4chan.
[quote]Again when you make excuses for people who do this crap you shouldn’t
expect people to treat your opinion with any respect. Anytime there are
a group of people who are radicalized and do things like make death
threats - there will always be an ‘us’ and ‘them’ - thankfully our
society is still civilized enough to make the ‘us’ group the larger
majority.[/quote]
I’m coming to the conclusion that your reading comprehension skills are
lacking. I made no excuses for anyone in that post. I merely described the nature of any
discussion tainted by gamergate. Polarized discussions of multifaceted problems are an
embarrassment to any civilized society. The thought that someone who does not agree with you
completely must be against you shows a lack of critical thinking and makes meaningful
conversation impossible.
[quote]So death threats - that you say have nothing to do with gamersgate - but then you say
happened because it was her
fault for attacking gamersgate - so you are rambling trying to find a
solid ground to talk on because when you defend the vile, disgusting,
and hateful - you end up finding no solid ground from which to do so.
Then you go on…[/quote]
You really should read more carefully. I never said it was her fault. To actually have done
that, I would have had to say that. Also, gamer gate and the narrative of gamer gate are not
the same thing. One is subject, and the other is the story of the subject. The story of
gamergate has not driven anyone out their homes. Attacking gamergate as a group on the other
hand has resulted in that.
Again, I did not say it was her fault. That would imply some kind of wrong doing on her part.
I simply said that there was a cause and effect. Or do you seriously think that the way she approached
the gamergate crowd had nothing to do with the death threats she received?
I confused, how does the uncertainty of an internet threat make it worse than threats from people who have an actual history of following through on death threats? A death threat is a death threat. I don’t get why you’re both trying to trivialize the comparative meaning of one. It’s ridiculous. This isn’t the death threat olympics.
Fortunately, no.
But things like “suggesting that maybe the way to make a playable female character isn’t to paint her pink and take her clothes off results in sarcastic comments about feminazis,” and “designs for more interesting aka less naked female characters start off by being stonewalled and then result in a constant undertone of grouchy complaining” and “talk about the Sexisim in the Industry Story of the Day is generally characterized by sniggering and eye rolling” and “every time it’s pointed out that women might potentially comprise part of the audience for the game, there are blank looks around the table” and etc. etc. do suggest that there are more than a few insiders who idolized Calvin and G.R.O.S.S. a bit too much.
1 Like
So because you had it worse, these people’s experiences don’t count?
4 Likes
Are you able to twist literally anything into an ad hominem attack?
I’m just trying to understand what you are saying. These people have received what they consider to be threats to their and their families lives. You seem to be implying, and please clarify your exact point if I am somehow misinterpreting, that you received worse, so these ones don’t really count
4 Likes
You’re free to make up whatever fantasy enrages you the most. Enjoy!
So I’m right then. You aren’t correcting me so I take it that’s exactly what point you were trying to make. Good good.
Mod note: Stay on topic
1 Like
This is starting to sound like an /r/creepy post.
In the short term, is there something that could be done to actively support/protect women that get this kind of threat?
I’m thinking specifically about the organization [Bikers Against Child Abuse][1], which basically sets up abused kids with a biker “gang” that stands watch outside their house, escorts them to court, and whatnot. The idea is that both the kid and their abuser see this very visable wall of protection which is bigger and scarier than anything that’s going to come at it.
I’m wondering if there’s something similar that could be done- either in cyberspace or physically. Something that not only shields the victim, but does so in a way that makes people think twice about making threats in the first place. Thoughts?
[1]: http://bacaworld.org/
1 Like
(Edit - sorry I lost the thread of what you were responding to…)
.Oh that can just loop endlessly for two or three years without ever passing the Turing test. I’m working on a nonfiction book that includes a lot of material on stalking (not on-line) .
The way the story ended was that we went to the local FBI office with the names of all the people involved and a PowerPoint presentation outlining their personal and financial relationships, and we asked the feds to investigate these individuals for racketeering because they were conspiring to impede our business across state lines while committing stock fraud with their IPO. We told them that this file was our life insurance policy in case we turned up dead. We visited the FBI twice and they really liked that we made them a PowerPoint presentation. But at the time their local office was all involved in the investigation of a bunch of kids that had gone to jihad camp in Pakistan, and some of them ended up going to prison. And some of the people that had been masterminding the activity against us fled the country for a couple years.
Right. . . you are both for and against Gamergate. Because that’s the issue here, not death threats.
You hate to see an argument about video games get derailed by some nonsense about death threats.
A woman being forced to flee her home with her family because of misogynistic death threats is the equivalent gamers all being lumped together.
Gotcha.
9 Likes
The indisputable fact for anyone who was actually paying attention is that Adam Baldwin coined the hashtag IN A TWEET SHARING AND ENDORSING THE FIVE GUYS VIDEO. Gamergate started as harassment of Zoe Quinn from the very first tweet. The hashtag stuck a label on something that was ongoing, and that something DID have its origins in the Five Guys chatroom.
So, there’s that. Criminy.
5 Likes
it’s much too early to absolve developers. for examples, please watch some of Sarkeesian’s tropes videos.
if anything i think these incidents prove that developers who blatantly cater to sexism are helping to create a toxic environment. one in which misogyny is seen as an entitlement.
See, this is again not the thing I am talking about. The games industry has sexism. I said that. And Sarkeesian’s videos are the most mild criticisms of cliches that get into stories because men, in general, do not have to think about the narratives. They are used to being the center of stories.
But when I have a conversation about Sarkeesian’s videos with a someone who actually works in gaming, the worst criticism I hear is some mild disagreement about her examples. When I have a conversation with a gamer, that’s when I get the “she hates this thing I like and is evil and should die”. Is there overlap between those groups? I’m sure there is, that’s why I didn’t actually totally absolve developers. Meanwhile, game companies are inviting Sarkeesian to speak at their offices, which says to me that they’re working on their issues. .
Have I seen game developers say and do some tone-deaf and sexist things? Yes. Have I seen them issue vividly descriptive death threats to, well, anyone at all? No, I’m afraid I haven’t. Gamers on the other hand …
5 Likes
Another good read
Although Jon Stone doesn’t specifically call out the men’s rights / pick up artist, the AEI, or Brietbart / Real Clear Politics who are all trying to profit from this sequel to the battle of the sexes. And, heck, some of them don’t even game.
1 Like
Mod note: Stay on topic and stop the “not all ___________” arguments.
2 Likes
