I'm not sure why anti-feminists would stand against everything feminism vouches for, but I'm guessing it's because they see feminism as a monolithic dogma instead of a variety of different forms, so if they don't agree with a few things about feminism, they see themselves as fundamentally disagreeing with everything feminist.
#GAMERGATE: The Threadening [Read the OP] -- #StopGamerGate2014
- Thread starter besada
- Start date
- Status
Pretty sure Hoff Sommers also denies the wage gap entirely (or more accurately, believes that it's justified based on the fact that women work different hours and jobs, but neglects the fact that jobs that are traditionally female-dominated tend to be extremely undervalued by society).
Señor Coyote
Banned
Perhaps not moderate according to a lot of people in this particular thread but his stance as a whole isn't all that controversial This is the exact type of manipulation I'm talking about though. There are several people here hell-bent on trying to reframe the situation to make those they disagree with as horrible fringe types despite the fact that if you stepped out of this thread for a moment and actually looked on Twitter or Youtube you'd see that the opinions shared here don't really reflect the communities as a whole ( Of course this doesn't make your opinion wrong or irrelevant though)
People here for the most part were pretty dismissive of his grievances and instead more interested in trying to guilt trip him over to their particular beliefs. You don't win hearts by making people feel like shit, you can keep telling yourselves that those that use #GamerGate are coming from a position of bigotry but in the mean time all you are doing is driving moderates to view people with a more progressive outlook as people who look down upon them. That's just my honest feelings on the matter.
Uh, yikes.
I understand the idea you're proposing, where compromise with different viewpoints can get them to sympathize much easier than convincing them of the opposite, but there is no compromise on something like rape culture. It deals with a far too common violent crime that is disproportionately against women. Compromising on something like objectification I can get, but if someone disagrees with rape culture, I would rather try to convince them otherwise than get their support.
Alex_Mexico
Member
Thanks for taking the time to address some of my concerns. I truly appreciate it. These past couple of weeks have been very depressing for my favorite hobby.
And thanks for the clarification. I know who Francis is. Didn't know that that character and Boogie were the same person.
PS: I reiterate what I said about Baldwin. I liked him in firefly and Full Metal Jacket but he's behaved like a complete scumbag on twitter over all this. I wish he'd stop.
#NotYourShield seems like a very positive movement from the video description and video itself. Am I wrong? Is there something I'm supposed to find problematic with this, or can I support this without being called a misogynist and be accused of perpetuating harassment?
Mind you, I have not encountered this hashtag before but it seems the opinion on it is negative here but I can't really discern with how much this thread is moving.
I want to support better journalistic standards but I do not want to get involved in any negative movements.
Arkage
Banned
I'm interested in this current part of the conversation since I'd like to know where people draw lines for "moderate" feminism verses "extreme." According to the thread so far Sommers is too conservative to be considered a moderate as boogie claims (though for the population at large, I wonder what they're perspective is of her? I thought, generally speaking, most women don't like to be called a feminist, which seems a step even more conservative than Sommers). On the other hand there is the other extreme, a contingent most would consider too liberal in their approach to feminism, who are probably the ones most associated with women thinking feminism "isn't for them" even though they want equal rights.
Now I don't know much about the current female voices that are really behind the movement, so I was wondering if my assessment is correct. That there is a "too liberal - moderate - too conservative" Goldilocks principle assessment you make when encountering a feminist and their arguments, and where and why you draw those lines in the sand.
Now I don't know much about the current female voices that are really behind the movement, so I was wondering if my assessment is correct. That there is a "too liberal - moderate - too conservative" Goldilocks principle assessment you make when encountering a feminist and their arguments, and where and why you draw those lines in the sand.
This microcosm nonsense has got to stop.
Guys (I'm generalizing here) who are defensive and being jerks by making threats:
Who cares? Enjoy your hobby. Eat a cheesesteak and enjoy a sunset. Maybe take up an outside hobby like marbles or turtle racing. There's light at the end of the tunnel.
Games press (I'm doubling down on the generalizing) who blow things out of proportion and are having a "bad week":
If nasty words are the worst of it, that's awesome. Yeah, it sucks that your friends are being threatened with bad language and old-fashioned close-mindedness, but that pales in comparison to what happens to real people out in the real world everyday. Sticks and stones, right?
Perspective for all:
There were two young men--actual journalists, if you will--beheaded because of what... pure hatred? Is evil too antiquated in this case? I get sick just thinking about why, but it happened twice in the last month. Perspective for all outside of this hobby might be sobering and cause everyone to stand the heck up, dust themselves off and maybe apologize for being a jerk over such a petty thing. Well, at least the jerks should apologize. That guy with the hat that looks like a canary can just keep on keeping on. He's pure light.
Sorry for being such a spoiler, but I think about those guys' families and then this Twitter storm stuff that spawns 10,000 forum pages just really doesn't matter that much to me. Putting a "gate" on it makes me roll my eyes, regardless, but the substance is just not that important in the scheme of things, either. Again, it's a microcosm of a bummer, but have some perspective about what a bad week(s) is. Hit the Introspection horn and then clean that lint out of your bellybutton for hygiene.
Guys (I'm generalizing here) who are defensive and being jerks by making threats:
Who cares? Enjoy your hobby. Eat a cheesesteak and enjoy a sunset. Maybe take up an outside hobby like marbles or turtle racing. There's light at the end of the tunnel.
Games press (I'm doubling down on the generalizing) who blow things out of proportion and are having a "bad week":
If nasty words are the worst of it, that's awesome. Yeah, it sucks that your friends are being threatened with bad language and old-fashioned close-mindedness, but that pales in comparison to what happens to real people out in the real world everyday. Sticks and stones, right?
Perspective for all:
There were two young men--actual journalists, if you will--beheaded because of what... pure hatred? Is evil too antiquated in this case? I get sick just thinking about why, but it happened twice in the last month. Perspective for all outside of this hobby might be sobering and cause everyone to stand the heck up, dust themselves off and maybe apologize for being a jerk over such a petty thing. Well, at least the jerks should apologize. That guy with the hat that looks like a canary can just keep on keeping on. He's pure light.
Sorry for being such a spoiler, but I think about those guys' families and then this Twitter storm stuff that spawns 10,000 forum pages just really doesn't matter that much to me. Putting a "gate" on it makes me roll my eyes, regardless, but the substance is just not that important in the scheme of things, either. Again, it's a microcosm of a bummer, but have some perspective about what a bad week(s) is. Hit the Introspection horn and then clean that lint out of your bellybutton for hygiene.
Even when it's very easy to prove often nothing comes of it. It's telling that this fear of false allegations of rape gets equal consideration to actual rape despite it being extremely uncommon and false rape statistics include when victims have been pressured into dropping charges by police (because of their precious resources and statistics) or when they just can't face their rapist in court and the inevitable disgusting questions and accusations by the defence. It's another example of male privilege and misogyny.
Feminists have been pushing for consent lessons at schools for a long time. Hopefully we'll see that happen eventually...
I went to a gaming college. The consensus on rape culture was that it didn't exist. >__>
I'm ashamed at myself for blindly following the herd, but everytime I tried to convince people otherwise I got looks of bewilderment.
Needless to say, I never really went to any parties or got drunk. Lol.
TaroYamada
Member
Some maintain that those are sock puppet accounts from 4chan or rather that 4chan sock puppets are leading that hashtag, I disagree, though there probably are some sock puppets.
ArkkAngel007
Member
I jumped straight to the Zoe Quinn part, which is my litmus test for these discussions that works as:
Good- Discusses what the situation is, but recognizes that 'sexual favors for reviews' bit is not supported. Keeps an open mind that Quinn may or may not have doxxed her own account or had bad relations with other parts of the industry or community.
Bad-Discusses the situation, shapes it to us vs them, and saying that no doubt Quinn traded sexual favors for reviews, that only contest is censorship or 'misogynist'. Primarily focuses on the sex aspect. Quinnspiracy that everyone is in on it or for the fact she is a woman.
They were step in step with the latter.
It's the very first subject that sparked all of this madness. If you can't get it right or approach it as objectively as possible at this point, then nothing else is worth listening to.
I honestly believed Boogie when he said he just wanted everyone to be kind and that this wasn't about politics or whatever. I thought he just didn't get why he was coming across so politically charged. Then he's goes and lauds a women who is only involved in gamergate because of those politics.
I am up an hour past my bedtime because Zeliard tricked me, so I can't respond in as much depth as I might like, but you might appreciate this book as background information. It's the best general history of feminism I've read; I'd also suggest the entry on feminism in Men & Masculinities: A Social, Cultural, and Historical Encyclopedia. Your library might have it in the reference section.
Night~
Your questions seem quite loaded? Could it be that you already made up your mind?
TaroYamada
Member
I think he mentioned in this thread that he was opposed to a lot of the political slant he was seeing in games writing. That's part of what this movement is about, so it's going to have a political element. It's not included in the OP but I'd read the forbes article if I were you, Erik Kain acknowledges the political element in what I perceived as a rather balanced article overall.
They are loaded because it happened before and I do not want to be involved in that manner anymore. And there is a lot of "if you're not entirely on one side then you're entirely on the other side" mentality going on.
Perhaps instead of assuming things on my part you could be helpful and answer my question instead.
The main issue people have with the hashtag is that it was created on and perpetuated by 4chan to basically serve as a shield (heh) to #GamerGate. It was not created in good faith and many of the people using it were not using it in good faith.
It's the equivalent of the Westboros Baptist Church creating a #NotYourShield tag for gay Christians so people look bad attacking the Westboros Baptist Church for their homophobia.
I dunno if this has been posted yet but I found this was a pretty good piece.
Why GamerGate Is Destined To Fail
http://deathofgamergate.tumblr.com/post/96929549057/why-gamergate-is-destined-to-fail
Why GamerGate Is Destined To Fail
http://deathofgamergate.tumblr.com/post/96929549057/why-gamergate-is-destined-to-fail
Señor Coyote
Banned
To be honest you can't. It's a lot like the Occupy protests. There is no leader there is no defined message, it's goals are admittedly unfocused and at times the blame is held to the wrong people (in the case of Occupy Wall Street, Banks and investors were blamed but it's government deregulation that caused it and in the case of #GamerGate Zoe and depression quest are not the problem.) Also like the occupy movement I don't think it's essentially going to change anything but it will hopefully start a dialogue between a perhaps out of touch gaming press and an at times misguided gaming community.
I'd say this is the theme of most of the topic. Subjective stances being claimed as objective reality. I've seen almost all subjective view points claimed as definitive viewpoints without anything substantial backing it up. Essentially ignoring the rules of the topic.
Rules 4 and 2 just straight up dont get followed half(I'm being generous) the time in this topic. I guess at this point, I need to just step away from this topic.
I only asked. It could have been you made already your mind up, in all kinds of directions.
#NotYourShield is about women and minorities used as a weapon against... gamers I guess. It is used by the #Gamergaters to attack "SJWs". It isn't really worth it.
Señor Coyote;128943080 said:
Hey there, Occupy didn't have harassment roots. And how is the gaming press-entity out of touch?
#Notyourshield is actually...a shield. -___-
They get so happy when they think they have something good...it's so saddening.
They need anything they can grab to justify their anger towards feminism.
They get so happy when they think they have something good...it's so saddening.
Like Toxi said, #NotYourShield does a reasonable thing in pointing out that not everyone who supports the hashtag is a white male, but it seems like some people are using it to deflect criticism via a "I have black friends" angle.
"Not your shield, OUR shield!" isn't much of an improvement.
"Not your shield, OUR shield!" isn't much of an improvement.
MHWilliams
Member
Sommers hopped in on her own. I dislike this article, but it has many of her tweets.
It started from 4Chan to make their GamerGate-related operation look better. At this point, many of the posts are probably real, so it's just a matter of if you have a problem with its origins.
Read the OP, skip the rest. You won't miss anything, we are still trying to figure out what #Gamergate wants.
Arkage
Banned
And this is why attaching a racial component to an argument that could otherwise be made without it is a mistake. Claiming Argument A is invalid because it's made by white males doesn't help when said white males can recruit non-white non-males to their cause relatively easily.
neurosisxeno
Member
Vox and Forbes have decent rather neutral explainations.
I think the writer is wrong. GamerGate was not a failure. It was a complete success for the people who stood to benefit from it, namely those who dislike progressive viewpoints creeping into the gaming sphere. Vocal progressives have been harangued out of the industry. The "gamer" audience has become more vicious and resistant to discussion and the games media (Which included many people with progressive viewpoints) lost a lot of reputation. I've seen discussion of GamerGate on other discussion boards and it's generally angry and ugly.
So Time Magazine or the Guardian reports negatively on GamerGate. I'm sure those who felt hurt by those articles insulting "gamers" will mind the negative press, but the folks who just used this entire thing to justify harassment and misogyny? They don't feel shame. They're only happy to have a bigger crowd angry about being maligned and willing to listen to them, as well as less people with opposing viewpoints willing to step into gaming. A bad reputation for "gamers" only helps them.
If she's right, GamerGate is an inevitable loss if you're actually concerned with ethical journalism or promoting a positive image for gamers, but a huge success if you're a dickwad.
ArkkAngel007
Member
It's in opposition of the prevailing #GAMERGATE #WHATERVERGATE narrative but it's on the entire opposite of the spectrum of still being on a bit of an extreme on it being that gamers did it due to them being man children and those gamers not a part of the behavior are still the problem as being a part of that community.
They are also misjudging the situation on what 'success' means for folks in [insert relevant hashtag]. Sure, I'm sure many people after watching InternetAristocrat menus and hearing the cries of poor Redditors jumped on to the bandwagon and view their cause right by what they have been lead to believe, but the core group I doubt truly cares about that.
Once again, this is all just sport to these people. Cause the biggest mess they can, grab the popcorn after cleaning themselves up a little, and carry on in enjoying the show. Like all fads, yes, these hashtag movements will fade off in one form or other, but these people will just jump start a new one if they can find an avenue suitable to their needs. They've already done so in regards to the celebrity leaks from last week.
They can only succeed.
I'm aware of who she is and that she has been involved. But at the time, Boogie was not necessarily bringing it into the #GAMERGATE subject from what I could tell and was just a manner of his personal views. Once he actually started applying it in those discussions and using it as a salve for the apparent hurt he received in not being supported by victims of #GAMERGATE did it seem involved. Up until then, those views weren't something evidenced in his content.
Toxi~!! Haven't we learned not to generalise yet? You basically called yourself vicious and resistant to discussion.
You make it sounds like all hope is lost in that last sentence, Ark D;
And I do agree with that it's won in the one aspect of pushing people out and the constant gatekeeping.
Well, we were and still are pretty vicious and resistant on both sides of the fence.
I think it's a fair assessment to say that beside here and a few other places, it's impossible to not be tossed on one side or the other.
Yes, I would call myself that, moreso after gamergate. I think people become vicious and resistant to discussion after seeing the worst in an argument, because they assume everyone arguing is meaning the worst and jump to conclusions. And I have seen so much bullshit poorly concealed by a nicer facade that it is much more difficult for me to believe people are arguing in good faith in favor of #GamerGate.
Everyone is less willing to listen to what other people have to say, which suits the assholes I was talking about just fine. That's why they're the real winners of gamergate.
scoobidoo112
Member
Probably the most damning of his messages so far, its obvious that this is not some sober attempt to fix game journalist for him, that sounds extremely personal and with some baggage.
This sucks so bad, as a fan of the guy its a shame that someone that is capable of showing empathy ended up supporting people with the same kind of mentality of the ones that have abused of him in the past, a shame someone so sweet can post something so sour and still pretend that his message is of peace and love.
Why do some people suddenly act as if you´re Boogie´s disappointed parents? The dude has been nothing but kind, intelligent and civil and yet you're willing to instantly vilify him because his opinions on feminism differ from yours. Pathetic. You have no respect for people, only those who parrot your own opinions for you. Very sad to see this. Show some respect for the guy.
Just because he agrees with some of Sommers Tweets doesn't mean he stands for everything she stands for. He agrees with her on gamergate and that's it.
EDIT: More specific
Could you directly reply to posts instead of making such a broad statement?
That's basically giving up. If you can't even lie to yourself and pretend to be reasonable then why even have the thread then?
Seriously focusing on the worst parts of both sides and extrapolating to the entire group is what brought us to this point. If even after 3 weeks we are still seeing this then I give up.
Not helping...
Trolls will always exist. If we just roll over at the slightest bullshit then why even bother doing anything? Why even ask for better transparency in games journalism? Why even ask for less vitriol or reasonable discussion? Why even get on the internet?
Care to point out the users? We could forward those to mods so they can take care of that people you referred to as "pathetic" that are vilifying him.
Maybe I'm more out of the loop than I thought but I'm pretty amazed that a Twitter hashtag is being labelled as a movement. Even more perplexing is the fact that people are saying the "movement" is not about harassing people. I mean, what the hell else can you accomplish on Twitter?
This has been ongoing for 3 weeks? I had no idea. Was anything reached besides 3 women leaving the industry over harassment and death threats connected to the adress?
I have to admit that while I have things to say about games journalism, what's being called GamerGate is really six or seven different issues and I come into this megathread on Page 53 and people are discussing feminism and identity politics, and it's just not the same issue as the one with the gaming press.
People are bringing up Occupy Wall Street, and it is similar, but in a different way than what's being discussed -- GamerGate as a movement is too broad and its goals are too ambiguous. The whole thing comes across as disorganized and confused, and thus the loudest voices are the ones that are heard. Unfortunately, the measured opinions come with quieter voices. This makes the whole thing all too easy to write off from the outside -- again, like Occupy Wall Street.
People are bringing up Occupy Wall Street, and it is similar, but in a different way than what's being discussed -- GamerGate as a movement is too broad and its goals are too ambiguous. The whole thing comes across as disorganized and confused, and thus the loudest voices are the ones that are heard. Unfortunately, the measured opinions come with quieter voices. This makes the whole thing all too easy to write off from the outside -- again, like Occupy Wall Street.
scoobidoo112
Member
Nothing ban-worthy, just incredibly sad and disappointing to see people have nice and respectful interactions with him here, but then when he likes someone's tweets he's branded a traitor and a horrible person behind his back. What matters are his actions and his words, not the actions and words of someone else that he happens to agree with on one subject, and in my opinion Boogie's action and words have been tolerant, intelligent and respectful. The least people could do in return is be respectful and intelligent themselves.
You are right. I made some edits.
MHWilliams
Member
Those quotes seem to be on the low scale of villification.
Boogie in this case has championed the views of Christina H. Sommers, an activist whose views some in the thread find... wrong. That he has done this is his right.
And we have the right to be disappointed in him for it.
Holding disagreeable views while being nice doesn't soften the first part. Calmly and moderately being racist (random choice, not related to Boogie or Sommers) doesn't change the fact that you're being racist.
Pretty much.
Vipershark
Member
I find it pretty disheartening that there has been basically ZERO discussion on the ShortFatOtaku video that was posted a few pages ago and the only posts that have even referenced it so far only really spoke about the intro.
Granted, I'm not saying I agree with the intro in question (because yeah, I do think it's dumb) but for anyone that's been paying attention and has seen the previous videos, that's just a general intro that's been used in ALL of the "Quinnspiracy Theory" videos and isn't exclusive to this one (outside of the Phil Fish specific stuff). Do I think the intro is good? No. Should it be used in the future? No. Not to mention the fact that immeidiately after the intro ends, the narrator flat-out tells everyone to leave Zoe Quinn (and everyone else!) alone because all the fighting is detracting from other issues.
Regardless, that's not the point.
There has been a video posted with allegations of possible legitimate corruption going on with evidence sourced from Polytron's own leaked financial documents (so it's not like they're just pulling data out of thin air) in which they specifically had to seek legal counsel and make a legal statement just to be able to even post the video, and the entire thing just got buried under irrelevant discussion of whether Boogie and Sommers are okay people or not.
What's the point of having a thread of discussion about GamerGate if things that aren't anti-GamerGate just get immediately buried and/or blown off?
I'm not even trying to argue in favor of GamerGate here, but it's pretty clear that this thread isn't unbiased at all when discussion beyond decrying pro-Gate people doesn't even start.
Granted, I'm not saying I agree with the intro in question (because yeah, I do think it's dumb) but for anyone that's been paying attention and has seen the previous videos, that's just a general intro that's been used in ALL of the "Quinnspiracy Theory" videos and isn't exclusive to this one (outside of the Phil Fish specific stuff). Do I think the intro is good? No. Should it be used in the future? No. Not to mention the fact that immeidiately after the intro ends, the narrator flat-out tells everyone to leave Zoe Quinn (and everyone else!) alone because all the fighting is detracting from other issues.
Regardless, that's not the point.
There has been a video posted with allegations of possible legitimate corruption going on with evidence sourced from Polytron's own leaked financial documents (so it's not like they're just pulling data out of thin air) in which they specifically had to seek legal counsel and make a legal statement just to be able to even post the video, and the entire thing just got buried under irrelevant discussion of whether Boogie and Sommers are okay people or not.
What's the point of having a thread of discussion about GamerGate if things that aren't anti-GamerGate just get immediately buried and/or blown off?
I'm not even trying to argue in favor of GamerGate here, but it's pretty clear that this thread isn't unbiased at all when discussion beyond decrying pro-Gate people doesn't even start.
Well a couple pages back you suggested he was doing it for the views.
So there's that.
I see good things happening from this.
1. I think major developers will take feminist critique more seriously after seeing this. And the majority will side with inclusion.
2. I think game developers, journalists and social media will pay better attention to cyber harassment, especially harassment directed at developers.
3. I think journalists will stop talking down to their audience like everyone is a bigot.
4. I think the indie game scene will take inclusiveness more seriously.
5. I think people who are really sexist will be forced into the "spiral of silence" when they see all of their peers and role models conform towards a more inclusive future.
Aaaand 6. I hope to see a few harassers and hackers go to jail/get sued.
That would be beautiful.
To me, the #notyourshield tag is a little nonsensical as far as #gamergate itself is concerned, insofar as the same people want #gamergate to be seen as being about ethics, and not being anti-feminist or anti-women in gaming.
Criticism of the gamergate tag has generally proceeded from the fact that many people - including Zoe Quinn, Phil Fish, Anita Sarkeesian, Jenn Frank - are receiving tons of harassment by people using that tag as cover. The only conceivable people who could complain about being used as a "shield" for that pushback are the people actually being harassed. If Jenn Frank was to say, whoa, don't use me as an example to criticize gamergate, I'm not your shield - that would be something, however impossibly unlikely.
The random people using the #notyourshield tag, on the other hand, have zero claim to being used as a "shield" by game journalists in the ethics or misogyny debates. And, as has been noted repeatedly, what they're literally doing is trying to create a human shield around the #gamergate tag for the purposes of, say, the misogyny debate - this tag can't be about misogyny, I'm a woman! That sort of thing. But they weren't being used as a shield by anyone until they signed onto that tag.
There is another debate in which using that tag makes "sense," where they could claim the "other side" was using them as a shield. That's the feminism/"SJW" debate. Where people will say things like "women feel unsafe in gaming spaces." So while most people recognize they don't mean "literally 100% of women everywhere without exception," that's a place where someone could reasonably go "I'm a woman and I love gaming space, I'm not your shield" and it would make sense. But this is completely unrelated to the game ethics argument - who in the world is saying only white straight men care about ethics in journalism?
So the net result is that the #notyourshield tag only makes sense in the context of pushback against feminists, or what many of its users would call "SJWs." Which undermines the premise that the #gamergate tag is all about ethics and corruption, and is totally divorced from bashing feminists.
This point of view is to some extent backed up by the video posted on the previous page (edit: two pages ago), which is not what I would call a "positive" video. One of the earliest examples in the video complains about how "stupid legbeards are making videogames really bad." Note that this reads as being about how "legbeards" - an insult for feminist women who don't shave their legs - are ruining games. Nothing about ethics in game journalism. It's worth mentioning that the clip immediately following the "stupid legbeards" slide is complaining about how the gaming media is strawmanning people and insulting them. It's a little weird to see those two things one after the other.
There are other clips that do touch on corruption. For example, someone who says "I'm a bisexual male - I'm not your shield against corruption and censorship." But as I've argued here, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Has anyone argued "corruption and censorship aren't real because of bisexual men"? Where is this "shield" bit coming from, if not strictly applied to diversity arguments from feminists, such as "bisexual men are underrepresented in the games industry and treated without respect in games"?
Criticism of the gamergate tag has generally proceeded from the fact that many people - including Zoe Quinn, Phil Fish, Anita Sarkeesian, Jenn Frank - are receiving tons of harassment by people using that tag as cover. The only conceivable people who could complain about being used as a "shield" for that pushback are the people actually being harassed. If Jenn Frank was to say, whoa, don't use me as an example to criticize gamergate, I'm not your shield - that would be something, however impossibly unlikely.
The random people using the #notyourshield tag, on the other hand, have zero claim to being used as a "shield" by game journalists in the ethics or misogyny debates. And, as has been noted repeatedly, what they're literally doing is trying to create a human shield around the #gamergate tag for the purposes of, say, the misogyny debate - this tag can't be about misogyny, I'm a woman! That sort of thing. But they weren't being used as a shield by anyone until they signed onto that tag.
There is another debate in which using that tag makes "sense," where they could claim the "other side" was using them as a shield. That's the feminism/"SJW" debate. Where people will say things like "women feel unsafe in gaming spaces." So while most people recognize they don't mean "literally 100% of women everywhere without exception," that's a place where someone could reasonably go "I'm a woman and I love gaming space, I'm not your shield" and it would make sense. But this is completely unrelated to the game ethics argument - who in the world is saying only white straight men care about ethics in journalism?
So the net result is that the #notyourshield tag only makes sense in the context of pushback against feminists, or what many of its users would call "SJWs." Which undermines the premise that the #gamergate tag is all about ethics and corruption, and is totally divorced from bashing feminists.
This point of view is to some extent backed up by the video posted on the previous page (edit: two pages ago), which is not what I would call a "positive" video. One of the earliest examples in the video complains about how "stupid legbeards are making videogames really bad." Note that this reads as being about how "legbeards" - an insult for feminist women who don't shave their legs - are ruining games. Nothing about ethics in game journalism. It's worth mentioning that the clip immediately following the "stupid legbeards" slide is complaining about how the gaming media is strawmanning people and insulting them. It's a little weird to see those two things one after the other.
There are other clips that do touch on corruption. For example, someone who says "I'm a bisexual male - I'm not your shield against corruption and censorship." But as I've argued here, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Has anyone argued "corruption and censorship aren't real because of bisexual men"? Where is this "shield" bit coming from, if not strictly applied to diversity arguments from feminists, such as "bisexual men are underrepresented in the games industry and treated without respect in games"?
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll