Support NeoGAF

[Xtra]

The problem is that this doesn't actually have a positive impact. Twitter has very clearly demonstrated that they have no interest in dealing with harassment and abuse. And Jenn actually tweeted about the shrugs she got out of calling the police about the threats she received.

Then maybe this is something we should be focusing our energy on. Segregation/Slavery/Sufferage/Jim Crow Laws (i.e. societal issues) weren't solved through responding in kind. They were solved through litigation and enforcement and development of new laws. No one should feel unsafe for expressing an opinion.

The reasons you've provided for this, though, are that it encourages more harassment (not always true, and the available alternative to "engage" isn't necessarily "ignore") and that it's more "mature" (says who?) Without a concrete reason that shows it actually being beneficial, this just sets up another way to kick victims of harassment while they're already down.

In my experience getting into an argument with trolls ALWAYS results in more trolling, without exception. Also, contacting authorities is not quite "ignoring." I have NEVER claimed that victims of harassment deserved it, but I do claim that engaging the trolls invariably will make it worse.

Now here is where I feel like I might get banned:

As I understand it, a moderators job (in general, not meaning yours specifically) is to dictate and establish behavior and not become invested in arguments. As such arguing with trolls (i.e. arguing with an idiot) is very likely to get both the troll and the person arguing with the troll BOTH banned, as they both break established decorum. This, to my understanding, is why engaging trolls makes the moderators job much more difficult.

 

[unbias]

Totally. This is a major point about whoever is supporting victims that is crucial. Dragging victims or exposed people into harassment fights is just detrimental to them. This is a great piece on this issue.

Was a good read, philosophically solid(even if some of it is lost in hyperbole) too, which is normally rare with most meta critiques on the damage of "hero worship". They dont realize they are hero worshiping, because they approve of a certain standard, not the actual person.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Right. Just like how almost everyone who says something about their own group - a black person who makes some negative generalization about black people, a Democrat who makes some negative generalization about Democrats, etc. - is not including themselves in the subset of the group which is the cause of whatever problem is being identified. "Republicans aren't willing to stand up for what their principles" is not something that gets said by Republicans who see themselves as unwilling to stand up for their principles. Alexander obviously seems to be giving a broad description of what this subset of gamers she's talking about is like, at the start of the piece. They're overwhelmingly young men, for one. Later she actually seems to say that what she's doing is describing how gamer culture looks to outsiders. This is a really uncontroversial mode of speaking when it comes to basically everything else in the world.

When was the last time a black journalist or commentator at a mainstream publication (not a comedian) got away with writing something about black people and black culture as insulting as what Leigh Alexander wrote about gamers and their culture? I'm reminded of Bill Cosby's extremely controversial Pound Cake speech. To say that this sort of stuff happens all the time and is uncontroversial is a bit much. And even there, Cosby is unambiguously self-identifying as a black person, whereas Alexander is arguably writing her article from the perspective of someone who no longer chooses to self-identify as a gamer.

When a Republican says "Republicans aren't willing to stand up for their principles" they're positioning themselves with their audience against an undefined and possibly imaginary subset of fake Republicans. This isn't a good example. This is like a Republican declaring that Republican voters are ignorant hillbillies who watch Nascar all day long and hate gays. This doesn't happen (or at least it doesn't happen without significant fallout).

To be frank the entire piece is so all over the place I don't think it's really possible for any of us to know what her actual intent was.

 

[John Rabbit]

Totally. This is a major point about whoever is supporting victims that is crucial. Dragging victims or exposed people into harassment fights is just detrimental to them. This is a great piece on this issue.

this was quite interesting, thank you for sharing.

 

[Trame]

I'm sorry, but this would not fly in any other context. Literally, substitute "gamers" with any other broad category of people and think about how you feel about someone making shotgun insults about them.

So, does anyone remember eegra?

It dropped off pretty fast, but it was a somewhat well known webcomic for a little while. Not as well known as most others, so I wouldn't be surprised if you've never heard of it, but it made the rounds.

Does anyone remember this comic? Titled "Fucking Gamers," it's most immediately making fun of people who ran Portal jokes into the ground, but also generally paints "gamers" as having no social skills and thinking everything revolves around the games they like. It ends with someone walking away, obviously in disgust of how awful and socially inept "gamers" are.

I don't remember people having problems with this comic. I was originally linked this comic by a gamer. I have seen it posted on tons of gaming sites and forums. In fact, while searching for it, the GIS link for this comic was on a NeoGAF post, making fun of a gamer with a Portal tattoo.

I've never seen anyone complain about this comic. I'm sure people have, but for example, in the thread it was posted in here, which went on for 3 more pages, I didn't see anyone complain about it (it was posted on the first page). Some people commented on how funny it was. Later on in the thread, not apparently directly related to the comic, someone said "I think I hate gamers now."

Why didn't people care then?

Because they know the comic isn't about them - it's about people who make Portal jokes and do embarrassing shit. Some people may be wrong when they think that it's not about them, given some other eegra comics, but the point is that they know when the comic says "gamers," it's not talking about everyone who has ever played a game. Most of them know the kind of people this comic is talking about exist in gaming communities.

Why do people care now?

I'm open to other answers, but I feel like many people don't want to admit how pervasive misogyny and sexism are. That people don't want to admit it's a huge problem, and instead just insist that it's a few bad apples doing all the harassment. I have played games my whole life, and I know the "gamers are dead" articles are not about me. I know the kind of people they're talking about exist in gaming communities.

 

[Lime]

Yeah. I'm still not clear exactly what concrete steps people think can be taken by other participants in these discussions (as opposed to moderators, the police, etc) to combat incivility on the internet without making the problem worse.

Strangers shaming each other in real life works because in real life people are susceptible to shame from strangers. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that this is the case online.

There are a lot of research and propositions on curbing online harassment. Stuff like Sherry Turkle is a good start if you want to be introduced to the area.

 

[Son of Cervantes]

As someone who knows Stephen very well, let me say that his willingness to listen to feedback, change his mind, and be open to every possible angle of any story or issue is one of his best qualities, and it's something I often try to emulate.

I will take your word for it, and FWIW, I've never seen Totilo be a troll, or rude, or mean-spirited. But from the outside looking in, it does make him seem like someone who is swayed very easily, or who can't make up his mind on a single position.

edit: I mention that because 'rude and mean-spirited' is the Gawker Media trademark in pretty much every blog except Kotaku, and I think that's due a lot to Totilo's influence. That doesn't go unnoticed, and it's one of the reasons I still visit the site.

 

[tengiants]

To me the whole situation is completely sad but humans aren't perfect and reading all the articles, I understand humans enough to see how it happened. The way to fix this is to pay attention to the feminist movement, there is real factual inequality there, and continue to be proud to be a gamer.

Watch the Anita Sarkeesian Tropes vs Women videos and realize that she is simply making observations about some videogames. Understand that she is not telling you or forcing you to behave any different. If you're male and find yourself feeling defensive when watching them, then that is actually a good thing. It means there is a blind spot in your worldview, and it's time to explore it a bit. As a real gamer, this shouldn't be a problem for you as you like to explore and try new things. I personally feel that the race to acceptance and equality is an endless one, and a civil discussion of our differences is and has been essential for the survival of humans. This means we will be having these discussions for longer than our lifetimes, so it's not worth it to get too emotional about it.

To me, being a gamer is actually a real thing. I joke around here sometimes and say I don't believe in it, but in some respects I actually do. We are all addicts, and being an actual gamer is all about wanting to better yourself, and being addicted to that feeling. Many of us 'hardcore' gamers just love competition, whether that's against AIs, multiplayer opponents, our own dexterity, our own sense of rhythm, etc. We like to monitor our progress, through high scores, tournament ladders, KD ratios, whatever. What it all comes down to is being able to test our skills and bettering them. We show no real prejudice as to where we do this, and we truly don't want to see the end of our competitors cause then there would be no fun.

Nothing else in gamergate deserves to be mentioned as it was all pretty disgusting.

 

[APF]

Her army line has been removed. I can't say what else has.

Are you talking about this:

<<
My adult life in games and internet culture frequently involves brutal gendered language. Over video games. So if you want someone who feels sorry for you because your family grew up with a Super Nintendo, don’t ask me.

The fact you got a Game Boy for Christmas and liked it so much you stopped doing anything else doesn’t entitle you to a revolution. Your fandom is not your identity. Your fandom is not a race.

If you think it is, then you’re in our way, and the work I do specifically exists to dispossess you of your sense of relevance. If you don’t like it, good. I’m much louder than you. And we have an army.
>>

Because it's not from that article?

 

[Myggen]

By far, in particular:

What's so bad about that? Generalizing, yeah, but is that the worst people can find in these articles? Mountains out of molehills is an understatement when we're talking about this shit, Jesus Christ.

Hadn't it been for the abuse, the whole gamergate thing would be pretty hilarious. People overreacting about some writers generalizing "gamers", so they start a movement that's pretty much about generalizing all of games journalism as a result. As for the "corruption" issue, fuck all of actual corruption has been uncovered since "Doritosgate," and that's not for lack of trying. People are pissing in the wind here and have been since this started.

 

[unbias]

What's so bad about that? Generalizing, yeah, but is that the worst people can find in these articles? Mountains out of molehills is an understatement when we're talking about this shit, Jesus Christ.

Eh, I agree it is blown out of proportion, but I do, honestly, believe in the philosophy of a mindset is wrong to use in instant X, that mindset shouldn't be used. I think it creates fights where there need not be. You shouldnt, I dont think, expect everyone to think through the implications, and when you do this you empower those who are just looking for a reason to explode. I agree these people will find something, but staying away from philosophical mindsets that are not healthy is a way you prevent it.

If it is wrong to use the mindset on a minority(literally) then the philosophical mindset just shouldn't be used. That is why I disagreed with it... Also I think when you make definitive statements without backing it up with substantive evidence you are being purposely dishonest.

 

[Sneds]

What's so bad about that? Generalizing, yeah, but is that the worst people can find in these articles? Mountains out of molehills is an understatement when we're talking about this shit, Jesus Christ.

I'm a bit torn on this.

On the one hand I think vitriol can be useful and necessary. I think that things had gone on for so long with misogynistic abuse of AS and ZQ that it was time for someone to say "enough is enough, fuck you guys."

At the same time, I do feel some empathy for those people who do see the label of gamer as an important part of their life and feel that Leigh was resorting to the same old tired stereotypes. I can understand why people feel hurt, especially if they were bullied for being a 'nerd' in the past.

 

[Gotchaye]

When was the last time a black journalist or commentator at a mainstream publication (not a comedian) got away with writing something about black people and black culture as insulting as what Leigh Alexander wrote about gamers and their culture? I'm reminded of Bill Cosby's extremely controversial Pound Cake speech. To say that this sort of stuff happens all the time and is uncontroversial is a bit much.

When a Republican says "Republicans aren't willing to stand up for their principles" they're positioning themselves with their audience against an undefined and possibly imaginary subset of fake Republicans. This isn't a good example. This is like a Republican declaring that Republican voters are ignorant hillbillies who watch Nascar all day long and hate gays. This doesn't happen (or at least it doesn't happen without significant fallout).

To be frank the entire piece is so all over the place I don't think it's really possible for any of us to know what her actual intent was.

I think this is a very weird read of reactions to Cosby's speech. It was not controversial because it was insulting, although I note that if that was merely "controversial", it's hard to see how Alexander's piece about gamers can amount to more than an annoyance at worst. The main criticism of the stuff Cosby gets up to is that he's wrong and unhelpful, that he's contributing to white racism by providing an excuse to blame black people for their situations, etc. No one really gets mad about black people talking in basically exactly this way to audiences of other black people. Hell, Obama has made fairly pointed criticisms of this sort, without all the tangents about rap music, and hasn't taken a whole lot of heat for them, and what criticism he has received has tended to be along those same lines - that what he's doing is just not helpful (enough, perhaps) given the influence he wields with the rest of the country.

Moving on to Republicans, the establishment / Tea Party split is often pretty acrimonious. The Tea Party doesn't like being treated like idiots, and the establishment doesn't like being treated as amoral opportunists, but the distinction is hardly fictional. Yes, you see lots of criticism of criticism. But this isn't "this is outside the bounds of polite conversation" criticism. It's "this is wrong and stupid" criticism. It's the defensive reactions of the people who are being criticized and who are correctly recognizing that they are the targets. And... it's a little hard not to think that that's what's going on with angry reactions to Alexander's piece.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

I'm a bit torn on this.

On the one hand I think vitriol can be useful and necessary. I think that things had gone on for so long with misogynistic abuse of AS and ZQ that it was time for someone to say "enough is enough, fuck you guys."

At the same time, I do feel some empathy for those people who do see the label of gamer as an important part of their life and feel that Leigh was resorting to the same old tired stereotypes. I can understand why people feel hurt, especially if they were bullied for being a 'nerd' in the past.

How hard would it have been for her to make a clear distinction in her article between nerd-gamers and the minority of a minority who are the toxic internet harassers? There just isn't any way to excuse her article.

 

[flatearthpandas]

So, does anyone remember eegra?

I snipped most of this, my apologies, but I'm on my phone now. I think Immru' Al-Qays addressed this very well. This comic is about people who made Portal jokes. As you said, it is clearly about a specific type of incident that we all either participated in or didn't and--either way--made a joke about what it might look like from outsiders.

The article begins with a negative, insulting description of people lining up for a gaming convention. Not bothering anyone. Not doing anything to annoy anyone except to exist. This is something many of us can relate to and don't deserve to be mocked for. There's no good natured ribbing in this discussion. There's not even a cringe worthy but harmless VGX joke. There is disgust, judgment, and ultimately accusation.

Are you talking about this:

<<
If you think it is, then you’re in our way, and the work I do specifically exists to dispossess you of your sense of relevance. If you don’t like it, good. I’m much louder than you. And we have an army.
>>

Because it's not from that article?

That is what I meant. Thank you for pointing this out.

 

[Lime]

I'm not trying to generalize Gamergaters here - it's just a funny image:

 

[Myggen]

Eh, I agree it is blown out of proportion, but I do, honestly, believe in the philosophy of a mindset is wrong to use in instant X, that mindset shouldn't be used. I think it creates fights where there need not be. You shouldnt, I dont think, expect everyone to think through the implications, and when you do this you empower those who are just looking for a reason to explode. I agree these people will find something, but staying away from philosophical mindsets that are not healthy is a way you prevent it.

If it is wrong to use the mindset on a minority(literally) then the philosophical mindset just shouldn't be used. That is why I disagreed with it... Also I think when you make definitive statements without backing it up with substantive evidence you are being purposely dishonest.

I'm not saying I agree with her and it's a dumb thing to say, but it's such a minor thing. A writer you probably already don't agree with or like said some semi-mean thing about a subset of gamers? Yeah it's dumb, but not worth getting upset about. And I've waited in lines to buy games, I'm a fucking nerd...but who gives a shit what some columnist writes? This whole thing blew up from a handful of columnists writing similar articles to THE GAMES PRESS HATES US AND IT CORRUPT!!!!!!! which is fucking laughable.

Also, the "corruption in media" types have no legs to stand on and have not proven a single case of even light corruption, but maybe that's not part of this specific topic.

 

[Gsak]

Well, Phil Fish was the first victim.

Leigh Alexander also wrote this which people weren't all too happy about "If you don&#8217;t like it, good. I&#8217;m much louder than you. And we have an army."

#GamerGate, ended up being way louder than Alexander and it kinda is an "Army". And we all know how this keeps unfolding. Ironic, isn't it?

 

[Shingro]

This is the problem right here. No one, adult or otherwise, should have to endure the level of harassment some people have endured. It's easy to preach about thick skin, but when you have to endure constant verbal harassment, death threats, rape threats, people calling up your employer and coworker to tell them what a terrible person you are, people implying that they know where you live, etc. it's not that easy. I consider myself to have fairly thick skin, and I'm not going to be bothered by a singular moron calling me names on the internet, but I would not be able to endure that level of constant harassment.

And while I think the people doing these attacks are an extreme vocal minority, that doesn't really help the person being attacked by them.

So I don't begrudge the people who have left the industry over these attacks. I'm sad that they feel that is necessary, but never having been in their shoes I can't tell them their choice is the wrong one.

I'd say that it is absolutely their choice whether to leave or stay or react how they want I'd never take that from them.

However, consider what the person sending a rape threat/harassment wants? It's the same thing that's been true since middle school bullying, they want to know they've gotten to you, they want to get a reaction, the bigger reaction the better they feel. They want to hurt and know you've been hurt. It's been true from schoolyard bullies to people posting Mario appreciation threads on Sega boards to death threats to Akira Toriyama because Goku didn't show up this episode.

Trolls are *looking* for a negative reaction, there's entire subsections of trolling dedicated to getting people riled by any means necessary whether you believe or don't believe what you say.

So we've got a troll/harassment problem in gaming, worse, because it's the internet it's an anonymous troll problem. Calling out the harassment is fine, but due to the nature of anonymity it's (in my opinion) mostly ineffective because these people don't care about social censure against their fake twitter account or "budsmokah420" gaming tag. There's no personal investment to apply the censure to. It's a fire and forget missile.

This does happen in other mediums, actors/movie studios/critics get plenty of harassment, most of the time they seem to follow a "do not engage" policy.

The trouble is that you can't "stop" harassment in a world of free, anonymous, disposable accounts. There's just no vehicle to apply force to do so, they don't fear connection to their real life, nor to their disposable mask, and there will always be terrible people in every community. Think of it this way *the sort of person who would act on sending a rape threat to a woman in 2014 isn't going to be educated.*

So presumably the more effective idea is to reduce their megaphone, or reduce their inclination to act on their damage. In more mature commercial art mediums it gets mitigated because they feel it won't matter or change anything. Even North Korea's military threats don't get movies pulled from shelves, Budsmokah420 doesn't stand a chance.

Instead the modern gaming press is bent on *amplifying* their megaphone, retweeting their words, embedding them, broadcasting them, and making *everyone* react to them. To the harasser it's like they're the center of the universe all of a sudden. They're making people fight each other, angry words, people write articles, and even leave the industry. Suddenly everything anyone is talking about in gaming is because of the abusers, that's a huge power rush to a troll.

That's not going to make them stop harassing people, it'll make them harass more people and harass them harder because it's likely the most power they feel in whatever conditions their lives are in that generates such a person.

That's the idea at least, and from what I've seen it's a valid way to handle them. Personally I think it has way more of a chance of success then basically asking them sternly to stop when we can't *make* them stop.

If you're the sort of person who can't stand by, say something nice to the person being harassed, encourage and support them. That's another way to mitigate the harm done. We can't keep the arrow from leaving the quiver, in the end, that's just not possible so long as the internet is anonymous (and there will always be a way to be anonymous.) So the next best thing is providing good medical care.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

Bringing back? Has any gaming website ever tried this?
.

Man you don't know about The GIA? That was a great damn website. And the letters section was great too.

 

[APF]

That is what I meant. Thank you for pointing this out.

It was written years ago IIRC (at least a year ago). There was no blowup at the time.

 

[The Silver]

Well, Phil Fish was the first victim.

Leigh Alexander also wrote this which people weren't all too happy about "If you don’t like it, good. I’m much louder than you. And we have an army."

oh wow, never saw this before.

this is the exact kind of thing people mean when they talk about driving away the people who would otherwise be on your side.

it's kinda sad, she's letting her very understandable anger and frustration undermine the very goal she hopes to achieve.

 

[Sneds]

How hard would it have been for her to make a clear distinction in her article between nerd-gamers and the minority of a minority who are the toxic internet harassers? There just isn't any way to excuse her article.

An ex-gf is a radical feminist and once when I was at her place I started reading a book she owned about feminism. The author would write things like 'men do x'. I said to my gf that, as a man, I didn't feel as though I personally did x and that it was hard not to get defensive. My gf pointed out that of course the woman did not mean all men, and the reader was intended to understand that, but that it would undermine the rhetorical style if the writer had to say 'some men', 'a majority of men', etc.

I would make the same argument about Alexander's article. It's clear that she isn't talking about all gamers. It only takes an ever so slightly sophisticated reading to realise that.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

An ex-gf is a radical feminist and once when I was at her place I started reading a book she owned about feminism. The author would write things like 'men do x'. I said to my gf that, as a man, I didn't feel as though I personally did x and that it was hard not to get defensive. My gf pointed out that of course the woman did not mean all men, and the reader was intended to understand that, but that it would undermine the rhetorical style if the writer had to say 'some men', 'a majority of men', etc.

I would make the same argument about Alexander's article. It's clear that she isn't talking about all gamers. It only takes an ever so slightly sophisticated reading to realise that.

It's clear she's not talking about all gamers. What is not clear is who exactly she is talking about. If she's only talking about harassers then why is she mentioning the guys in mushroom hats queuing up for posters "who don't know how to dress or behave"?

 

[APF]

Does anyone who is saying victims of harassment should ignore their harassers realize the irony in saying this when a primary grievance here appears to be someone wrote an article some people thought was harassing?

 

[Arkage]

I agree that it seems like an insurmountable problem, but the reason why you aren't seeing any effects of people speaking up or supporting the victim right now is because of the structural and cultural perceptions of online harassment that need solid and thorough vigilance to be altered. There are way too many people who still think that the Internet doesn't have an effect on real life, that the Internet is the Wild West and anything is allowed there, that "boys will be boys", that we cannot do anything against online bigots so why bother, etc. And by the cultural and structural perceptions on online harassment, the significance and the effects and the accountability of online harassment

I agree it is a tough problem. But I still think that we as a culture have a lot to learn about how to act on the Internet and educating and informing will go a long way in the future to curb the prevalence of online harassment.

"Solid and thorough vigilance" you say - but what do these words really mean in context of policy and law and things that *actually* change shit? Do you want stronger governmental oversight, IP tracking and removing anonymity completely? Should websites immediately report harassing IPs to the victim so they can file police reports? In other words, how far are you willing to go with policy and law to actually make actions have consequences? I'm highly skeptical of the "changing hearts and minds" plan when sites like RotK and etc are in full bloom and one can revel in an insular community of misogynists that tell them to blacklist your educational speeches. Additionally, a large percentage of these harassers already know they're doing bad things; that's the point. They don't care about the moral implications because there are none for them - they're anonymous.

 

[Vlade]

It's clear she's not talking about all gamers. What is not clear is who exactly she is talking about. If she's only talking about harassers then why is she mentioning the guys in mushroom hats queuing up for posters "who don't know how to dress or behave"?

I wish i had a mushroom hat and was queued up with folks with a common interest. I'm just at work, often with an expression on my face like i don't even know which thing to work on now. Also reading gaf

 

[Sneds]

It's clear she's not talking about all gamers. What is not clear is who exactly she is talking about. If she's only talking about harassers then why is she mentioning the guys in mushroom hats queuing up for posters "who don't know how to dress or behave"?

She isn't just talking about harassers either. She's talking about the 'gamers' who are so tied up in their hobby that they don't want to let anyone else in. The people I see all the time in gaf who get incredibly defensive whenever someone posits that a game might include some sexist, homophobic or racist imagery or tropes. The gamers who want to maintain the status quo. The gamers who become furious when a reviewer dares to give the latest Zelda game an 8.8.

That's who I felt she was talking about anyway.

 

[unbias]

I'm not saying I agree with her and it's a dumb thing to say, but it's such a minor thing. A writer you probably already don't agree with or like said some semi-mean thing about a subset of gamers? Yeah it's dumb, but not worth getting upset about. And I've waited in lines to buy games, I'm a fucking nerd...but who gives a shit what some columnist writes? This whole thing blew up from a handful of columnists writing similar articles to THE GAMES PRESS HATES US AND IT CORRUPT!!!!!!! which is laughable.

Again, I agree, it is overkill for the situation, but it did show that there are a...recognizable amount of people who do employ, what I view, as unhealthy philosophical views. There is a very pervasive view out there(in no way limited to game press, in fact this goes with people in general) that a philosophical stance is good, as long as you agree with the sentiment the philosophical mindset is being used for, but the moment you flip that philosophical mindset on the group or person, it automatically becomes worse.

While everyone may not be able to articulate why it bothers them, I honestly believe this is a good reason why you see people attaching themselves to the twitter mob, because they want to tell them(everyone, not just press) they dont like "corruption". It's why when you go ask people what they want, they cant articulate it in a comprehensible manner. The principle of non-contradiction I think is an important one, and one that I think is applied to argument so little, specially on the internet, that it is effectively absent, to the point where you have to have idea's by committee to be able to justify why something bothers you.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Does anyone who is saying victims of harassment should ignore their harassers realize the irony in saying this when a primary grievance here appears to be someone wrote an article some people thought was harassing?

I'm not sure publishing an article full of negative stereotypes on a prominent industry website fits anyone's definition of "harassment."

She isn't just talking about harassers either. She's talking about the 'gamers' who are so tied up in their hobby that they don't want to let anyone else in. The people I see all the time in gaf who get incredibly defensive whenever someone posits that a game might include some sexist, homophobic or racist imagery or tropes. The gamers who want to maintain the status quo. The gamers who become furious when a reviewer dares to give the latest Zelda game an 8.8.

That's who I felt she was talking about anyway.

Yes, she's talking about the gamers who are so tied up in their hobby they don't want to let anyone else in etc etc. And she's assimilating them to the gamers in mushroom hats at conferences "who don't know how to dress or behave," which is a trope (yes!) that a lot of gamers suspect applies to them. There is no reason to include this little bit of anthropological flair in your article unless you intend to insult people for their belonging to a subculture in addition to their behaviors and beliefs.

 

[APF]

She isn't just talking about harassers either. She's talking about the 'gamers' who are so tied up in their hobby that they don't want to let anyone else in. The people I see all the time in gaf who get incredibly defensive whenever someone posits that a game might include some sexist, homophobic or racist imagery or tropes. The gamers who want to maintain the status quo. The gamers who become furious when a reviewer dares to give the latest Zelda game an 8.8.

That's who I felt she was talking about anyway.

From her FAQ posting:

<<
Self-identified nerds are often so obsessed with their identity as cultural outcasts that they are willfully blind to their privilege, and for the sake of relatively-absurd fandoms — space marines, dragons, zombies, endless war simulations — take their myopic and insular attitudes to “art” and “culture” with tunnel-visioned, inflexible, embarrassing seriousness that often leads to homogeneity, racism, sexism and bullying.

Nerds escaped high school. Some of them made millions making video games. Digital literacy doesn’t make you special, it makes you baseline employable. Fantasy is on mainstream cable.

Meanwhile, actual systemic oppression is punishing people not just where they wish to participate in games, but in every day of the rest of their lives. For many people, profound and violating inequalities show no sign of ease, and their “fellow outcasts” collude to reject them from the clubhouse when they try to join in .
>>

 

[Sneds]

From her FAQ posting:

<<
Self-identified nerds are often so obsessed with their identity as cultural outcasts that they are willfully blind to their privilege, and for the sake of relatively-absurd fandoms — space marines, dragons, zombies, endless war simulations — take their myopic and insular attitudes to “art” and “culture” with tunnel-visioned, inflexible, embarrassing seriousness that often leads to homogeneity, racism, sexism and bullying.

Nerds escaped high school. Some of them made millions making video games. Digital literacy doesn’t make you special, it makes you baseline employable. Fantasy is on mainstream cable.

Meanwhile, actual systemic oppression is punishing people not just where they wish to participate in games, but in every day of the rest of their lives. For many people, profound and violating inequalities show no sign of ease, and their “fellow outcasts” collude to reject them from the clubhouse when they try to join in .
>>

I was right!

 

[Arkage]

She isn't just talking about harassers either. She's talking about the 'gamers' who are so ties up in their hobby that they don't want to let anyone else in. The people I see all the time in gaf who get incredibly defensive whenever someone posits that a game might include some sexist, homophobic or racist imagery or tropes. The gamers who want to maintain the status quo. The gamers who become furious when a reviewer dares to give the latest Zelda game an 8.8.

That's who I felt she was talking about anyway.

Then I'd have to say you're extrapolating a whole lot based on your own notions of what sounds reasonable, rather than letting the article speak for itself. I don't see why it's so hard for us to say it was a poorly written and moderately offensive article even if her heart was in the right place. One can say that gamer's need to do more to promote a better culture without resorting to constant ad-hominem attacks.

 

[Deitus]

I'd say that it is absolutely their choice whether to leave or stay or react how they want but consider what the person sending a rape threat/harassment wants? It's the same thing that's been true since middle school bullying, they want to know they've gotten to you, they want to get a reaction, the bigger reaction the better they feel. It's been true since the beginning of trolls with people posting Mario appreciation threads on sega boards.

Trolls are *looking* for a negative reaction, there's entire subsections of trolling dedicated to getting people riled by any means necessary.

I don't disagree that many trolls and bullies are ultimately seeking attention and to get a reaction out of their victims. I was pointing out that it's a lot easier to offer suggestions over the internet to "just ignore them and they'll go away" when you aren't the one being bullied. In fact, lots of people have tried exactly that advice (both for internet bullies and real life bullies), and in some cases it works, and in other cases the bully simply escalates their behavior since they weren't getting the response they were hoping for. It's frequently not something that simply ignoring it will resolve, and even if it was, that still ignores the emotional trauma it can inflict in the meantime.

Instead the modern gaming press is bent on *amplifying* their megaphone, retweeting their words, embedding them, broadcasting them, and making *everyone* react to them. To the harasser it's like they're the center of the universe all of a sudden. They're making people fight each other, angry words, people write stuff, and even leave the industry.

That's not going to make them stop harassing people, it'll make them harass more people because it's likely the most power they feel in whatever conditions their lives are in that generates such a person.

Now this I absolutely agree with. Giving trolls a larger platform, by broadcasting their behavior on major websites is only going to encourage their behavior. There may not be a surefire way to make them go away, but it's a certified guarantee that if you give them a spotlight, they are only going to stick around longer (and multiply in number).

If you're the sort of person who can't stand by, say something nice to the person being harassed, encourage and support them. That's another way to mitigate the harm done. We can't keep the arrow from leaving the quiver, in the end, that's just not possible so long as the internet is anonymous (and there will always be a way to be anonymous) So the next best thing is providing good medical care.

And this is certainly something we could all do more of. We will never stop harassment and bullying altogether, just like we will never stop all crime. Even if we drastically reduce the occurrences, and take away a lot of the power to do damage, some people will still engage in bullying. We should be better at helping victims of harassment to deal with the effects.

 

[APF]

I'm not sure publishing an article full of negative stereotypes on a prominent industry website fits anyone's definition of "harassment."

One can say that gamer's need to do more to promote a better culture without resorting to constant ad-hominem attacks.

ha·rass verb \h&#601;-&#712;ras; &#712;her-&#601;s, &#712;ha-r&#601;s\
: to annoy or bother (someone) in a constant or repeated way

: to make repeated attacks against (an enemy)

Full Definition of HARASS

transitive verb
1
a : exhaust, fatigue
b (1) : to annoy persistently (2) : to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct
2
: to worry and impede by repeated raids <harassed the enemy>
&#8212; ha·rass·er noun
&#8212; ha·rass·ment noun


EDIT for Vlade: "definition of "harassment.""

 

[Vlade]

ha·rass verb h&#601;-&#712;ras; &#712;her-&#601;s, &#712;ha-r&#601;s
: to annoy or bother (someone) in a constant or repeated way

: to make repeated attacks against (an enemy)

Full Definition of HARASS

transitive verb
1
a : exhaust, fatigue
b (1) : to annoy persistently (2) : to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct
2
: to worry and impede by repeated raids <harassed the enemy>
— ha·rass·er noun
— ha·rass·ment noun

Don't make an equation with semantics.

 

[Myggen]

Again, I agree, it is overkill for the situation, but it did show that there are a...recognizable amount of people who do employ, what I view, as unhealthy philosophical views. There is a very pervasive view out there(in no way limited to game press, in fact this goes with people in general) that a philosophical stance is good, as long as you agree with the sentiment the philosophical mindset is being used for, but the moment you flip that philosophical mindset on the group or person, it automatically becomes worse.

While everyone may not be able to articulate why it bothers them, I honestly believe this is a good reason why you see people attaching themselves to the twitter mob, because they want to tell them(everyone, not just press) they dont like "corruption". It's why when you go ask people what they want, they cant articulate it in a comprehensible manner. The principle of non-contradiction I think is an important one, and one that I think is applied to argument so little, specially on the internet, that it is effectively absent, to the point where you have to have idea's by committee to be able to justify why something bothers you.

I get that, but to have the kind of violent reaction a lot of people have had to this is irrational and I, as a general rule, don't have time for irrational people in any setting. I see how some people feel offended by this, but the correct response is to ignore the writer and/or publication (I've ignored Leigh for years) and move on. Lashing out on social media because of some minor bullshit like this is something I will never be able to understand, and I don't think it can be defended.

Also again, I find it funny that so many people in threads like this one (not you) make a point of generalizing all of games media because of what a few columnists wrote, when what they're angry about is these columnist generalizing "gamer culture."

 

[APF]

I see how some people feel offended by this, but the correct response is to ignore the writer and/or publication (I've ignored Leigh for years) and move on.

Well that's so easy to do with a constant influx of misogynistic vitriol targeting you, your friends, and your career--but a culture article that you can sort of interpret as possibly talking about you because it's worded harshly? I don't see how that's reasonable.


Imru&#8217; al-Qays: oh I thought you wanted citations?

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

ha·rass verb \h&#601;-&#712;ras; &#712;her-&#601;s, &#712;ha-r&#601;s\
: to annoy or bother (someone) in a constant or repeated way

: to make repeated attacks against (an enemy)

Full Definition of HARASS

transitive verb
1
a : exhaust, fatigue
b (1) : to annoy persistently (2) : to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct
2
: to worry and impede by repeated raids <harassed the enemy>
— ha·rass·er noun
— ha·rass·ment noun


EDIT for Vlade: "definition of "harassment.""

Are you serious?

 

[BronsonLee]

Man, going through the hashtag on Twitter is a real weird thing at the moment. People spreading around a really shitty MS Paint proofreading of Totilo's article, a whole bunch of mixed up stuff, ignorance, etc etc etc.

It honestly feels like Occupy a bit, in that whatever their goal was, it's way off course now.

 

[Sneds]

Then I'd have to say you're extrapolating a whole lot based on your own notions of what sounds reasonable, rather than letting the article speak for itself. I don't see why it's so hard for us to say it was a poorly written and moderately offensive article even if her heart was in the right place. One can say that gamer's need to do more to promote a better culture without resorting to constant ad-hominem attacks.

Well, judging from the post above, it seems as though my interpretation was spot-on. And I don't think the article was poorly written. What I honestly think is that a lot of people are poor readers.

And for what it's worth, the gamers I mentioned in my previous post should be 'over'. The whole industry would be better off without them.

And when women are being threatened, abused and harassed, and you choose to spend your time and energy complaining about stereotypes of gamers? You can go too.

 

[Lime]

It honestly feels like Occupy a bit, in that whatever their goal was, it's way off course now.

Birther movement is a more apt description.

 

[Xtra]

I'd say that it is absolutely their choice whether to leave or stay or react how they want I'd never take that from them.

However, consider what the person sending a rape threat/harassment wants? It's the same thing that's been true since middle school bullying, they want to know they've gotten to you, they want to get a reaction, the bigger reaction the better they feel. They want to hurt and know you've been hurt. It's been true from schoolyard bullies to people posting Mario appreciation threads on Sega boards to death threats to Akira Toriyama because Goku didn't show up this episode.

Trolls are *looking* for a negative reaction, there's entire subsections of trolling dedicated to getting people riled by any means necessary whether you believe or don't believe what you say.

So we've got a troll/harassment problem in gaming, worse, because it's the internet it's an anonymous troll problem. Calling out the harassment is fine, but due to the nature of anonymity it's (in my opinion) mostly ineffective because these people don't care about social censure against their fake twitter account or "budsmokah420" gaming tag. There's no personal investment to apply the censure to. It's a fire and forget missile.

This does happen in other mediums, actors/movie studios/critics get plenty of harassment, most of the time they seem to follow a "do not engage" policy.

The trouble is that you can't "stop" harassment in a world of free, anonymous, disposable accounts. There's just no vehicle to apply force to do so, they don't fear connection to their real life, nor to their disposable mask, and there will always be terrible people in every community. Think of it this way *the sort of person who would act on sending a rape threat to a woman in 2014 isn't going to be educated.*

So presumably the more effective idea is to reduce their megaphone, or reduce their inclination to act on their damage. In more mature commercial art mediums it gets mitigated because they feel it won't matter or change anything. Even North Korea's military threats don't get movies pulled from shelves, Budsmokah420 doesn't stand a chance.

Instead the modern gaming press is bent on *amplifying* their megaphone, retweeting their words, embedding them, broadcasting them, and making *everyone* react to them. To the harasser it's like they're the center of the universe all of a sudden. They're making people fight each other, angry words, people write stuff, and even leave the industry. Suddenly everything anyone is talking about in gaming is because of the abusers, that's a huge power rush to a troll.

That's not going to make them stop harassing people, it'll make them harass more people because it's likely the most power they feel in whatever conditions their lives are in that generates such a person.

That's the idea at least, and from what I've seen it's a valid way to handle them. Personally I think it has way more of a chance of success then basically asking them sternly to stop when we can't *make* them stop.

If you're the sort of person who can't stand by, say something nice to the person being harassed, encourage and support them. That's another way to mitigate the harm done. We can't keep the arrow from leaving the quiver, in the end, that's just not possible so long as the internet is anonymous (and there will always be a way to be anonymous) So the next best thing is providing good medical care.

This is exactly how I feel, but could never hope to put this as well as you just did.

You know what I find hilarious in this whole thing? I can't help but think that a lot of the extremists on either side of this thing would be made for each other. They both seem to have such broad-strokes assumptions and self-assured realities that they would just click, you know if not for the misogyny and misandry.

In the end, I feel I have exhausted my energy for this subject for now once again so I will remove myself from the conversation. It was nice discussing this with you guys/girls.

 

[unbias]

I get that, but to have the kind of violent reaction a lot of people have had to this is irrational and I, as a general rule, don't have time for irrational people in any setting. I see how some people feel offended by this, but the correct response is to ignore the writer and/or publication (I've ignored Leigh for years) and move on. Lashing out on social media because of some minor bullshit like this is something I will never be able to understand, and I don't think it can be defended.

I agree, but look through history, specially mob history, and more specifically riots. Good things happened in riots, a lot of horrible shit has happened in abundance in them as well. Just because it is video games, doesn't mean human behavior patterns change. Specially when we are probably talking about the 50k(yearly salary) and under crowd. These are people probably the most frustrated, both people getting attacked in horrible ways(journalsits ect), and then others attaching to, what I view, as a damaging hashtag(because of perceived slights and probably a whole bunch of "at home" issues). People find solace in the weirdest things, when they use it as a form of escape. I should clarify, I was not specifically talk about gamesgate, I think the hashtag is doing more damage then good.

I understand boogie trying to subvert it, but it wont work, you cant control twitter, no leader will be able to control the mob, the riot has already begun, it is too late, but understanding what created the mob in the 1st place, beyond the witch hunt, is important. Because there is no way you get a riot, over a sex scandal, unless there was already tensions brewing. That hashtag isnt simply popular because 4chan, 4chan isnt a democracy, it is anarchy, and if anarchy can come together, it probably is more then just about sex scandals.

Does it excuse these little shits that attack everyone they can, to be as hurtful as possible? Fuck no, but you dont simply judge a riot by the casualties, and very few riots were simply about your soccer team losing. This applies to more things then the hashtags, but I'm trying to stay on-topic while explaining my view on things.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Well, judging from the post above, it seems as though my interpretation was spot-on. And I don't think the article was poorly written. What I honestly think is that a lot of people are poor readers.

What? The post above demonstrates absolutely nothing relevant to your argument.

 

[flatearthpandas]

I don't see why it's so hard for us to say it was a poorly written and moderately offensive article even if her heart was in the right place. One can say that gamer's need to do more to promote a better culture without resorting to constant ad-hominem attacks.

Exactly. We can agree ultimately with someone's cause without having to agree with every word they say.

What the article and every article that parroted it accomplished was to exacerbate the problem by making blanket insults that, yes, many people could identify with. Things they have no cause to shamed about.

It is really not something to be lauded, however great it would be to somehow ended bigotry.

 

[APF]

Well, judging from the post above, it seems as though my interpretation was spot-on.

More from that post:

<<
A lot of ‘proud nerds’ are people who used the fact they were picked on for their interests as children to maintain, as adults and and fathers (they are most often privileged men, now) a ‘secret clubhouse’ that lets them victimize and oppress other participants — despite the fact games are now a multi-billion dollar industry, increasingly stigma-free, and desperately in need of the creative and professional participation of multitudes of new voices.
>>

 

[The_R3medy]

He started it, quite literally.

Wait what? Adam Baldwin, as in the actor from Firefly, Chuck, and Last Resort, started this whole GamerGate thing?

 

[Lime]

Regarding the discussion on Alexander's supposedly inflammatory piece: I have reached a point where people have informed and clarified Alexander's article over and over again to such an extent that the people still feeling offended by its rhetoric must be either (1) (deliberately?) obtuse or (2) Poor or inexperienced readers in arguing in good faith (3) intentionally or unintentionally looking for an excuse to deflect the obvious issue of misogyny in video game culture by using their supposedly hurt feelings to justify pushing back against the claims of video game culture having a problem with inclusion of women and the boys club mentality. Because acknowledging that video games has a problem hurts more than trying to make the problem go away.

I'm sorry to say that, but those are the only explanations for why people keep having the need to keep the illusion of Alexander and her proponents are in the wrong and unjustified in their pursuit for more diversity and less misogyny that I can come up with. And with the way that people react towards any issue when it comes to women by denying and deflecting any issue that comes up in the usual video game discussion on this forum, explanation # 3 sometimes seem likely. The article has been explained over and over and over again that enough must be enough.

If people are still hurt that their hobby was critcized, then fine. If people still want to bang the drum that the article was too esoteric, then fine. *But* that doesn't affect the issue of how the broader issues of misogyny are still prevalent and thriving and actively hurting and excluding women from video games RIGHT NOW.

So could you please stop being outraged over your hurt feelings because of one article and put them aside and instead figure out how to better include diversity of voices and how to support them and help them in any possible way within reasonable limits? Because right now some women have little reason to be part of this culture along with a strong chilling effect.

 

[bigmf]

Regarding the discussion on Alexander's supposedly inflammatory piece: I have reached a point where people have informed and clarified Alexander's article over and over again to such an extent that the people still feeling offended by its rhetoric must be either (1) (deliberately?) obtuse or (2) Poor or inexperienced readers (3) intentionally or unintentionally looking for an excuse to deflect the obvious issue of misogyny in video game culture by using their supposedly hurt feelings to justify pushing back against the claims of video game culture having a problem with inclusion of women and the boys club mentality. Because acknowledging that video games has a problem hurts more than trying to make the problem go away.

I'm sorry to say that, but those are the only explanations for why people keep having the need to keep the illusion of Alexander and her proponents are in the wrong and unjustified in their pursuit for more diversity and less misogyny that I can come up with. And with the way that people react towards any issue when it comes to women by denying and deflecting any issue that comes up in the usual video game discussion on this forum, explanation # 3 sometimes seem likely. The article has been explained over and over and over again that enough must be enough.

If people are still hurt that their hobby was critcized, then fine. If people still want to bang the drum that the article was too esoteric, then fine. *But* that doesn't affect the issue of how the broader issues of misogyny are still prevalent and thriving and actively hurting and excluding women from video games RIGHT NOW.

So could you please stop being outraged over your hurt feelings because of one article and put them aside and instead figure out how to better include diversity of voices and how to support them and help them in any possible way within reasonable limits? Because right now some women have little reason to be part of this culture along with a strong chilling effect.

Explaining to people that they're dumb or malevolent for being offended never works.