It also sounds like this is actual crowdfunding/investment with a defined project returned, in contrast to all the Patreon uproar lately.
Quoting my comment about ignoring the radicals on your own side and then saying it is like I am excusing the KKK is, at least to me, very offensive
How so? Youâve already said that you donât have a horse in the race, so it shouldnât matter to you if people compare Gamergate to the KKK. And they are in fact similar in that theyâre both hate groups. The parent article sets out the case against Gamergate pretty well. (I should say that I donât mean to trivialize the KKK. The KKK is much worse than Gamergate, both in terms of atrocities committed and in its ability to influence the political process. But theyâre pretty much identical in terms of their commitment to whiny xenophobia.)
1 Like
I think part of the problem is that they are so glad to have found an in-group that accepts them that it is actually in their best interests if they are written off as insane hate-mongers. Feeling that they are fighting the good fight against an oppressive world is actually the entire point.
There just isnât any ground to give. If there is a group of people who decide to associate themselves with #gamergate and those people really abhor all of the threats and nonsense but just honestly want better gaming journalism then there is almost no one who disagrees with them. No one is against journalistic integrity except for the people who are purchasing fluff pieces and the people who are selling them. Journalistic integrity in gaming is a pretty weird hill to die on precisely because they are fighting a fight against pretty much nobody.
On the other hand, the downright toxic nature of every gaming forum and comment thread out there is a problem that a lot of people are concerned about. As the article says, it really shouldnât be the case that commenting on or even researching gaming should come with an automatic âIâll have to deal with threats.â There may be people who are saying they really, really want to salvage a conversation about integrity in gaming journalism despite the association with out-and-out misogyny and threats of violence. But those people have their priorities in such a difficult-to-understand place that, for most people, the most reasonable explanation is that they are using that as a smoke-screen for their own misogyny.
There are totally people in the world who are fascinated by artifacts of Nazi Germany and collect swastika laden hats and banners and propaganda without being at all racist or anti-Semitic, but if they have any kind of self-awareness they have to forgive other people for making the mistake of thinking of them as pro-Nazi. When you brand yourself with a symbol associated with hate, most people probably donât care to take the time to find out if you are actually a hateful person or if you are just eccentric.
Itâs terrible that such a person may be subjected to harassment, and I wish the world was a better place where this didnât happen. I donât see the equivalence between: 1) vigilante-style attacks launched by righteous people who genuinely think their target is a terrible misogynist (which shouldnât happen because vigilantism has a terrible record of going after the wrong targets); 2) and hateful attacks against people because the person making the hateful attacks really is a terrible misogynist.
When you have a wave of people doing horrible things there is sometimes a counter-wave. Even as we condemn the counter-wave for illegal and immoral actions it might take, we shouldnât pretend itâs the same thing. The people attacking gaters are the people who might be told, âYou are becoming the thing you hate!â There is actually a thing that they hate to become, though, and it ;preceded their hatred.
14 Likes
Know Your meme?
snort
Whatever happened to Encyclopedia Dramatica?
2 Likes
Er⌠Sources? If no one talks about it, no one cares, and thus no-one has any windmills to tilt at. More explicit: If people realize that no one is listening, then they are forced to retreat back into the echo chamber, once again leaving the dialogue to us adults.
âObviously I must be doing something that matters, since everyone seems to care about what Iâm saying!â
Example? Here we all are debating a bunch of idiots who stand for something that doesnât really need all that debating about (from rational, civilized, adults, at least).
We are validating them. Or maybe we are⌠Or at least we risk doing so.
If someone is standing on my street corner screaming neo-nazi hate-speech, Iâm not going to try to discuss it with them, much less tell everyone where they are, what they are saying, and what the price for admission is. Ignore them, it is all they deserve. If they start leveling threats, call the police. If they are using a private space to spread their bile, then report it to the management, then go find someplace else to eat. Basically we donât want to be their free publicity.
2 Likes
The guy sitting next to me at work started talking about #gamergate. From a uses-the-phrase-âSocial Justice Warriorâ-unironically standpoint.
I think heâs a smart guy and a good guy and so I did my best to understand it from his perspective.
The way he sees it, Gamergate really IS about corruption and collusion in the gaming press and this is a valid issue that needs to be addressed â and from his perspective, itâs unfortunate that the whole thing came to light because a vengeful ex-boyfriend was spreading lies about his ex-girlfriendâs personal life. (And he acknowledges thatâs exactly what happened in the Quinn case.) Heâs mad as hell about the threats and the misogyny within the movement, and believes those people are a loud minority who are not representative and are hurting its credibility.
From that perspective, I can see how an intelligent, rational person would take that stance. Thereâs a lot of stuff I donât agree with him on, and heâs made some generalizations that are a little eye-popping. But heâs not a bad guy and I think headlines like âGamergate as a hate groupâ are probably not going to result in rational people on both sides sitting down and having grownup conversations. I think thatâs a desirable outcome, even as Iâm horrified by quite a lot of whatâs come out of Gamergate.
Man I donât get that. As a Liberal Socialist, if I started calling my opponents Corporation Crusaders, Iâd rightfully be called an idiot. But quote unquote âgamersâ get to call people âSocial Justice Warriorsâ and expect to be given some kind of high-ground in the debate for being reasonable?
Itâs laughable and the kind of thing Iâd expect from 4chan⌠oh wait
7 Likes
What I donât get, and what I hope maybe your friend can shed some light on, is if you care about journalistic integrity, why latch on to #gamergate? As far as journalistic corruption, gamergate has focused on allegations which are mostly disproven, penny-ante, or both. So whatâs the appeal?
Gamergateâs complaints revolve largely around indie games and sex lives. Why not get into something like the recent Shadow of Mordor youtube thing - where you basically could not get a review copy unless you agreed to give a positive review (link here)
Dorito-Gate never got this level of sustained interest. Gerstman getting fired over Kane & Lynch never evoked this kind of passion. People maybe cared about games journalism before now, but they didnât turn into zealots until a woman was accused (falsely) of using sex to get positive coverage
10 Likes
So, was âShadow of Mordorâ is morally repulsive and I canât stop playing itâ a positive, or a negative review?
Nothing. Why would it be? It is GamerGate thatâs identified as the hate group here, not the people trying to fight for a level playing field.
2 Likes
Why should any person or people be expected to âcondemnâ anybody? This sounds like a very manipulative outlook, where we should take sides for or against something which is perceived as a social problem. My guess is that this comes from a broadcast news mentality of oversimplifying issues and then taking polls on them. Real world organizations and events might be too complex to reduce to token ideological camps. And pressuring people to take sides is more likely to be preaching to the converted than an educational process.
Demonstrably false, and if you believe that, youâre either quite cool with death/rape threats or youâre a dupe. Take your pick.
7 Likes
Of course they donât. The gamergaters want to appear innocent of the threats. Itâs not really working, though, because the connection is pretty clear to anyone paying attention.
3 Likes
If you need any evidence that theyâre not interested in a level playing field and want women to be marginalized, the simple fact that they consider social justice to be something bad should be plenty. Theyâre not interested in justice; theyâre interested displaying their power to ruin peopleâs lives, particularly those of women.
7 Likes
That is in my opinion the most damning fact about gamergateâs supposedly noble front. They donât actually address the real corruption at all. They just use some imagined small-scale corruption as an excuse to terrorize and discredit women in gaming who dare to speak up. Gamergateâs credibility is incredibly low with anyone who has actually been paying attention to game journalism and its corruption.
6 Likes
Has anything positive come out of this entire disaster? I mostly see articles about women getting harassed. Somebody commented on Gawker that âGamergate is the just the Tea Party movement for nerdsâ, and Iâm kind of worried thatâs an accurate analogy.
2 Likes
Well, yes. If you were a communist and other communists were killing people in the name of communism, then there wouldnât really be any way to sit on the fence about those people who are doing the killing. You either accept what theyâre doing as being part of your group, or you make it clear that you reject them.
Real-world actions like murder, death threats, or harassment are not âtoken ideological campsâ.
4 Likes
Which is taking the people receiving harassment, rape and death threats, and throwing them under the bus. How magnanimous of you.
From the evidence supplied by GGers who have received harassment (and, admittedly, I havenât seen all that much personally) itâs often 1.) Female GGers receiving threats to stop talking about GG and/or 2.) The same vitriol, the same style, as GGers harassing so-called SJWs.
So, to me, it really does look like many of the GGers receiving harassment are probably victims of âfriendlyâ fire. Their peers see a woman talking about GG - and they must harass!
2 Likes
Plus, given the quality of âevidenceâ that theyâve presented in favour of their little cause, Iâm taking any assertions of theirs to demonstrate their victimhood with a rather large serving of salt. My arteries are currently hating me.
1 Like
Oh goodie. now we can have a debate about whether the second amendment should be allowed to stifle the first.
Anita Sarkeesian has canceled her scheduled speech for tomorrow following a discussion with Utah State University police regarding an email threat that was sent to Utah State University. During the discussion, Sarkeesian asked if weapons will be permitted at the speaking venue. Sarkeesian was informed that, in accordance with the State of Utah law regarding the carrying of firearms, if a person has a valid concealed firearm permit and is carrying a weapon, they are permitted to have it at the venue.
This is continues to be So. Fucking. Horrible.
A clear threat specifying the target, time, and location, and the authorities canât do anything.
And still Iâve got to take off my shoes and belt every fucking time I get on an airplane.
#Bullshit.
13 Likes
