I wonder who is going to be cast as Nathan Grayson?
“Who?” I hear you ask.
Why, the reporter who supposedly traded sex for a good review of Quinn’s game Depression Quest.*
You know, the guy who was constantly hounded with death and rape threats, and having to leave his home for his own safety, because of his lack of journalistic ethics.**
Yeah, him.
*which didn’t ever happen
**which also didn’t ever happen
Which is weird if you think about it. Because if you take a counterpoint like Julian Assange, the double standard becomes really apparent. There are a lot of people who feel that even if the accusations against him are true, they should be disregarded in terms of his credibility and overall sympathy for his cause. But if a woman has consensual sex with someone (which is the accusation here) anything she has to say about harassment and death threats is, y’know… not really serious amirite?
Semi-OT but I hope she reconsiders that title, only because that standard format “Memorable Phrase: Non-Clarifying Generic Subtitle” is awfully hacky. It originates from the perfectly reasonable “Memorable Phrase: Subtitle Describing The Subject Of The Book/Paper” (e.g. “Founders’ Son: A Life of Abraham Lincoln”) but when it’s degenerated into meaninglessness it comes off as pseudointellectual. As is, it might as well be called “Catchphrase: Something About The Internet” with no loss of information to the potential reader.
Not really, certainly not credibly, not at all in fact. I reads of bitter tears and a whiny self important asshole trying to make his ex look bad. That he took back the worst accusations he made in that post does away with any credibility you claim he arguably (sans argument) has.
I was just thinking that when I write the story of the things my ex did: the manipulation, the gaslighting, the emotional (and once physical) abuse, the cheating … men tell me “You should have picked a better guy.” Where’s my internet lynch mob, and can they make him pay his past-due child support?
I’m kind of mixed on this. I mean Quinn got one hell of a raw deal (apparently being an allegedly shifty girlfriend and allegedly shitty game developer is somehow grounds for having your life destroyed as a result – but at least many shocking abuses of ethics in game journalism were exposed, amirite guys??).
Snark aside, good for her for turning around the situation and using it to educate and better others. No matter what did or didn’t happen that led up to the GG fervor she didn’t deserve any of the treatment she got which was certainly more motivated by hate, jealousy, and misogyny than anything else.
Ethics in game journalism was just a convenient and legitimate sounding “cause” to latch on to but everybody knows it’s all bullshit. It was just an excuse for a bunch of insecure males to publicly and visibly try to shame dehumanize the women that dared to be into video games.
It certainly makes for a compelling story.
On the other hand I fear that Hollywood getting their hands on this story will just further legitimize GG by giving them a more mainstream presence if it were made into a feature film.
The only bad thing about this is the wave of harassment–er, “ethics crusading” that everyone involved in this production is going to be put through. Quinn, of course, but Miss Pascal, the cast and crew, anyone who favorably reviews the finished product. The sweaty, neoreactionary orcs who make up the anti-intellectual ranks of "GamerGate are going to start mobilizing again.
I respect where Zoe Quinn is coming from, but this concerns me on two points:
• Every step of this production is going to be plagued with GG-ing. From the book release to stores carrying the book to film locations to the movie premiere, I fear GG will attack this memoir with knives bared, and it won’t be pretty for anyone involved.
• Selling her memoir as well as film rights is going to make GG’s oft-repeated claim that Zoe Quinn is profiting off of her harassment really hard to dispute.
Then the obvious answer would be to stop harassing her.
Does anyone care that she profit from this except for GG? The idea that she not be allowed to profit is weird… why can’t she monetize this? Why wouldn’t she? They’ve made it so she cannot work in her chosen profession, she might as well make money where she can.
Besides, I thought their argument was that she was manufacturing the abuse/harassment and then profiting off that “fakery” - not that she was profiting of actual abuse?
just found this thread. Some pretty good variants of “fuck off” going around:
“A Gamergater is someone who can look at the state of the world today, so filled with cruelty and poverty and inequality and loss, and come to the conclusion that humanity’s greatest challenge is someone on tumblr who criticized his favorite videogame.”
There’s nothing that needs to be disputed. The claim that needs to be disputed is that she fabricated or intentionally caused the harassment to turn a profit. Hurricane Carter profiteered off of his wrongful imprisonment with a movie (at least I hope he got a bunch of money from that) - but that doesn’t justify his wrongful imprisonment, or make it a good thing for him.
The only advice I have for someone who finds it distasteful that she may financially profit from being harassed is: Stop harassing her.
Just to clarify, I am personally 100% okay with her selling her memoir, especially as this has become her defacto job now that working in games has become impossible for her. I just fear that it’ll give GG more ammo (not that they seem to be having trouble loading their weapons).
I’m not suggesting anything. I’m just voicing my concern for Zoe Quinn, who often finds herself in a no-win situation. I hope this works out well for her.