[quote=“FoolishOwl, post:17, topic:44429”]Public discourse, particularly on the Internet and in forums such as this one, and we’re fighting for it by articulating our arguments, calling out deceptions, and offering support.[/quote]And this will somehow serve to stem the flow of “countless harassing messages”?
[quote=“marilove, post:19, topic:44429, full:true”]And not talking about gamergate will NOT STOP THE HARASSMENT. The harassment was happening before the twitter tag and it will continue to happen, especially if we ignore it.[/quote]In the meantime, drawing more attention to the twitter tag (is that all it is now?) is just going to draw in more confused supporters who probably would be strongly opposed to people sending out death threats but find the issue sufficiently muddied that they don’t realize what they’re supporting. Has it occurred to you that there might be people opposed to everything Anita et al. stand for who are eager to keep the discussion centered around Gamergate as long as possible?
If everyone did it, yes. But if some people refuse to care about gender while others are making attacks over it, no, they’re just denying the problem. As it was said: things like misogyny and racism do not go away because people stop talking about them; they are only reduced when people confront them.
Healthy people won’t have any bandages, but that doesn’t mean leaving them off is a sensible response to an injury. So it is with paying attention to identities in society.
No doubt, but that doesn’t change that gamergate right now is a prominent manifestation of that misogyny. People should be concerned about the attacks being made on women like Sarkeesian and Wu, and this happens to be the banner those are currently under.
Edit: also, I don’t want to go against you for ideological purity here, but I couldn’t help but recall your last position was that these threats weren’t reflective of any real misogyny problem. That makes it very hard to know what I’m arguing against when you advocate ignoring the movement connected with them.
True. But it doesn’t change the fact that the problems some groups attribute to sex and race are easily demonstrated to be scientifically invalid. I think that this “reality factor” should weigh more heavily in discourse than telling people how to behave. They are operating upon faulty premise in the first place, which is a whole other problem. But this is what happens in a culture based upon “norms” instead of evidence.
I’m too young to remember segregation but I’m familiar with the phrase “separate but equal” because I had teachers who made sure to cover that period. However your point is still correct. I’ve debated a number of assholes who think “separate but equal” is the ideal solution, because they have no knowledge of the phrase’s history.
I hope you’re expending as much effort explaining that to the people who are the problem as you are explaining it here.
Until we reach a point where every single human being can know everything there is to know about every knowable topic, culture will in some way be based on “norms”. Probably after that point, too, since a lot of evidence can be seen in many, many ways.
[quote=“chenille, post:23, topic:44429”]Edit: also, I don’t want to go against you for ideological purity here, but I couldn’t help but recall your last position on these threats was that they weren’t reflective of any real misogyny problem. That makes it very hard to know what I’m arguing against when you advocate ignoring the movement connected with them.[/quote]Sigh. I think there are lots of people who enthusiastically play video games who have no particular problem with women at all. There are probably lots of people who never play video games who have severe problems with women. And I think there is a deplorable segment of the population that thinks making empty death threats is an effective way of expressing an opinion.
Hey, I’m already there. I’m 100% gender blind! People tell me I’m male, and I believe them, just because I’ve never been casually threatened with rape.
But I think it’s a little optimistic to expect other people to be as gender-blind as me.
Thanks for that. I tend to agree with that much, but as marilove says it skips something critical: that there may also be a small but dangerous segment who think non-empty death threats are effective, and there’s no good way to tell until someone is hurt. Which is a part of why it’s important to take these sorts of silencing attempts seriously.
Given that, what indication is there that talking about this is actually making the problem worse? It seems to me they have done well enough recruiting on their own; the harassment started long before things came into the public eye. We’ve seen a few times when they’ve made themselves known to advertisers, who listened to them because they didn’t really know what was going on but it seemed important. They’re surely not the only ones in that category.
And yes, there may be pro-gamergate people who like the attention it gets, but you can see from the one-off accounts here they’re usually trying to confuse what it’s actually about. I can’t imagine why one would presume the sort of attention Colbert provides, or BoingBoing for that matter, would make it more likely for anyone to mistake it. As they say, sunlight tends to be the best disinfectant.
That leaves the idea that mentioning gamergate is an impediment to meaningful discussion, but from what I can tell that seems to be mostly from the efforts of its supporters, and I don’t see how asking everyone to keep quiet about them would be more promising.
[quote=“chenille, post:32, topic:44429”]I tend to agree with that much, but as marilove says it skips something critical: that there may also be a small but dangerous segment who think non-empty death threats are effective, and there’s no good way to tell until someone is hurt. Which is a part of why it’s important to take these sorts of silencing attempts seriously.[/quote]Unfortunately, the next time someone wants to make a point, no one is going to end up looking at all this and decide that making a death threat is a bad way to get attention.
[quote=“chenille, post:32, topic:44429”]Given that, what indication is there that talking about this is actually making the problem worse? It seems to me they have done well enough recruiting on their own; the harassment started long before things came into the public eye. We’ve seen a few times when they’ve made themselves known to advertisers, who listened to them because they didn’t really know what was going on but it seemed important. They’re surely not the only ones in that category.
[/quote]You seem to have answered your own question: advertisers (and other people) are listening to “them” because they don’t really know what’s going on. What indication is there that talking about this is actually making anything in particular any better?
I agree, it’s important to talk about misogyny – and wouldn’t it be easier to have that conversation without this confusion? How about instead of arguing whether or not Gamergate is actually about ethics in video game journalism and suchlike, we just stop talking about Gamergate?
[quote=“AcerPlatanoides, post:33, topic:44429”]I think there is a deplorable segment of the population that distinguishes between types of death threats.[/quote]Law enforcement sure is majorly dropping the ball, then.
That’s people who aligned themselves with gamergate managing to mislead advertisers. It’s plain they have an interest in promoting it; I don’t see how it impacts my question as to how the rest of us talking about it is harmful.
From what I know, right now Intel and Adobe pulled ads based on gamergate demands. But they have been criticized for it, targets like Gawker have decided to stay the course against it, and other advertisers like Verizon and Best Buy have chosen not to respond to it. Do we really think they’d see more value in not capitulating to their demands if gamergate was the only voice out there, presenting itself as about ethics while it tries to cut off these women? Seriously, why?
Sometimes it’s not about making things better, it’s about hindering other people who would make things worse. Usually speaking up has been a good start on that, though there’s always someone to tell you it would be better to stay quiet. It’s not a convincing hypothetical.
What are you saying here? Can you clarify? Because it seems to me that you’re trying to silence the anti-gamergate crowd just in case someone takes from the discussion that death threats are a good way to get attention. And that’s a pretty messed up claim to make.
[quote=“chenille, post:37, topic:44429”]Do we really think they’d see more value in not capitulating to their demands if gamergate was the only voice out there, presenting itself as about ethics while it tries to cut off these women? Seriously, why?[/quote]At this particular point (remember how last week “vultures were circling Gamergate” ?) continuing to mention Gamergate in major media outlets seems at least as likely to raise its profile as it is to bring more people in opposition to it.
[quote=“marilove, post:39, topic:44429”]What are you saying here? Can you clarify? Because it seems to me that you’re trying to silence the anti-gamergate crowd just in case someone takes from the discussion that death threats are a good way to get attention. And that’s a pretty messed up claim to make.[/quote]I’m not sure what you’re getting at either. Also, wasn’t this about misogyny…?
Law enforcement can only investigate reported crimes, that actually happened. And I’m sure they are.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Because the police totally have a history of taking threats against women – rape, death, and otherwise – seriously!
