Support NeoGAF

[Galactic Fork]

i think if it was more about silencing people than a sick voyeuristic thing we'd see a lot more of the USU type public threats.

Except not everybody goes to public speaking engagements? There's not always opportunity.

 

[zeldablue]

You need to re-read my post, friend. My problem is TB offering advice under the cover of a bullshit false equivalency. He can't relate to what these women are going through and that's my issue. How dare he try to give advice. If he could relate, I'd acknowledge. His own callousness and lack of empathy paints the picture of someone who's had a much lighter experience.

Boogie is a sucker from YT who got banned the previous day. That's all I know about him. That's all I care to.

You make me sad. :C

If you want someone to empathize than you need to empathize for those you don't agree with.

 

[bootski]

Except not everybody goes to public speaking engagements? There's not always opportunity.

there'd always be a way to fuck with people on a much more serious level than twitter threats though. everyone's been doxxed enough times that they could just be swatting them, their parents etc. the reason i don't think stuff like that happens is that the abuser doesn't get a chance to revel in the pandemonium the way that they do when their twitter threat gets reposted over and over again.

 

[Squire]

You make me sad. :C

If you want someone to empathize than you need to empathize for those you don't agree with.

Believe it or not, I do practice what I preach.

My patience has run dry for people like TotalBonehead and Booger though. By continually making that fallacious "both sides" argument and refusing to take a hard stand against GG, they implicitly condone the movement and it's actions. They're rubbish like the rest.

 

[Messofanego]

How do you know those threats haven't happend to him? Becasue he isn't screaming/bringing attention to it?

Because they are not happening. Public figures outside of gaming space aren't attacking him. Terrorist threats aren't being made to public institutions wherever he has a presentation. Filmmakers like Joss Whedon or Jon Ronson are not talking about him or wondering what it's all about. He's not having to leave his house. He's not in the national news. He's not being talked about in spaces outside of gaming. It just hasn't come to that level compared to other women where even if they ignored it, people would still have the chance to ruin their lives.

 

[Auctopus]

I do think it's impressive that TB managed to take death threats against other people and make them about himself.

Always hated him in that regard, he's so self righteous it's unbelievable. I'm always surprised people care so much about his opinion and eagerly anticipate his 'opinion' videos. He's just used the confusion and the meta state that gamergate has reached to just talk about himself.

 

[bootski]

Believe it or not, I do practice what I preach.

My patience has run dry for people like TotalBonehead and Booger though. By continually making that fallacious "both sides" argument and refusing to take a hard stand against GG, they implicitly condone the movement and it's actions. They're rubbish like the rest.

ewww now you sound like those crazy right wingers talking about "Obongo and the libtards". you may need to take a step back yourself and see that you're just a gamergater from the far opposite side now.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Because they are not happening. Public figures outside of gaming space aren't attacking him. Terrorist threats aren't being made to public institutions wherever he has a presentation. He's not having to leave his house. He's not in the national news. He's not being talked about in spaces outside of gaming. It just hasn't come to that level compared to other women where even if they ignored it, people would still have the chance to ruin their lives.

Booyah

 

[dumbo]

My patience has run dry for people like TotalBonehead and Booger though. By continually making that fallacious "both sides" argument and refusing to take a hard stand against GG, they implicitly condone the movement and it's actions. They're rubbish like the rest.

So, if any bad action was taken by "your side" (whatever that is), then you would abandon your fight against GG?

Because, logically that's precisely what you're asking them to do. To ignore whatever merit GG might have in their eyes, and abandon ship because a part of GG are 'rubbish'.

 

[shacklesmcgee]

So, if any bad action was taken by "your side" (whatever that is), then you would abandon your fight against GG?

Because, logically that's precisely what you're asking them to do. To ignore whatever merit GG might have in their eyes, and abandon ship because a part of GG are 'rubbish'.

errr well no, it started with rubbish, it has achieved rubbish, and has aimed to do nothing but rubbish. Closer to the truth would be "part of GG are OK", but even then the number is so low, the movement is solely known as being rubbish

 

[Messofanego]

i guess we just have a disagreement on what the abusers endgame is then. with the exception of the public threat that was made to USU, most of the threats have been made privately and directly to people. i personally doubt that they'd be expecting someone to quiver in fear from those messages but are probably hoping that the victim is disturbed enough by the message to repost it.

i think if it was more about silencing people than a sick voyeuristic thing we'd see a lot more of the USU type public threats.

Disagree. Twitter is not private. Emails are. A lot of threats are coming through Twitter, a public space where everyone can see what your plans are. It's not just USU, other institutions like PAX or wherever these people talk, there are threats of violence from public forums like reddit or 4chan. It's silencing in that they don't want these people in their spaces talking about games and also attention-grabbing so they can have validation of their pitiful existence, so it can be both if they're different goals.

 

[Galactic Fork]

there'd always be a way to fuck with people on a much more serious level than twitter threats though. everyone's been doxxed enough times that they could just be swatting them, their parents etc. the reason i don't think stuff like that happens is that the abuser doesn't get a chance to revel in the pandemonium the way that they do when their twitter threat gets reposted over and over again.

This isn't just about twitter. They get emails, and postal mail, phone calls, their parents get phone calls, and dead squirrels in their mailboxes.

 

[Squire]

Because they are not happening. Public figures outside of gaming space aren't attacking him. Terrorist threats aren't being made to public institutions wherever he has a presentation. Filmmakers like Joss Whedon or Jon Ronson are not talking about him or wondering what it's all about. He's not having to leave his house. He's not in the national news. He's not being talked about in spaces outside of gaming. It just hasn't come to that level compared to other women where even if they ignored it, people would still have the chance to ruin their lives.

Thank you.

So, if any bad action was taken by "your side" (whatever that is), then you would abandon your fight against GG?

Because, logically that's precisely what you're asking them to do. To ignore whatever merit GG might have in their eyes, and abandon ship because a part of GG are 'rubbish'.

There are no sides. There's GG and then there's people who are sick of it or don't even know about it; There's a mob of passionless losers on the internet that feel their hobby is under attack and then there's the rest of the world. All GG is is hatred and misery manifested to some fallacious "cause".

 

[jim-jam bongs]

So, if any bad action was taken by "your side" (whatever that is), then you would abandon your fight against GG?

Because, logically that's precisely what you're asking them to do. To ignore whatever merit GG might have in their eyes, and abandon ship because a part of GG are 'rubbish'.

If your soup had a trace of the Ebola virus in it, would you throw it away? Even if it was very tasty soup, with like croutons and shit?

 

[Auctopus]

I'm going to have to phrase this very carefully as I've only followed the GG happenings from afar.

Do you think after GG ends, in whatever state it does end, that critics like Anita Sarkeesian will become bulletproof? I ask this because I've never really agreed with the points in her video and found her research in to some titles usually comes up shallow but someone voicing their opinion (man or woman) should never have to be forced in to hiding for fear of their life, it's sickening.

However, I do feel like she might become untouchable after this as anyone who publicly calls her our regarding a FF video will just be called out for being a gamergater/sexist etc.

 

[GamerJM]

I'm going to have to phrase this very carefully as I've only followed the GG happenings from afar.

Do you think after GG ends, in whatever state it does end, that critics like Anita Sarkeesian will become bulletproof? I ask this because I've never really agreed with the points in her video and found her research in to some titles usually comes up shallow but someone voicing their opinion (man or woman) should never have to be forced in to hiding for fear of their life, it's sickening.

However, I do feel like she might become untouchable after this as anyone who (in search of a better phrase) puts up a fight will just be called out for being a gamergater/sexist etc.

Absolutely not, everyone has the right to criticism and be criticized. However, criticism does not mean that people should condemn her. Even if you disagree with her, she has the right to make videos. I think most people in this topic would agree that legitimate criticism of Sarkeesian's points (criticism that isn't personally insulting to her or any of her supporters) is extremely welcome, as it opens up and broadens the discussion about sexism in gaming.

 

[Corto]

So, if any bad action was taken by "your side" (whatever that is), then you would abandon your fight against GG?

Because, logically that's precisely what you're asking them to do. To ignore whatever merit GG might have in their eyes, and abandon ship because a part of GG are 'rubbish'.

What merit GG has to this point? What have they achieved towards a better representation of gamer identity, video games press ethics and the end of corruption in the industry?

 

[jim-jam bongs]

I'm going to have to phrase this very carefully as I've only followed the GG happenings from afar.

Do you think after GG ends, in whatever state it does end, that critics like Anita Sarkeesian will become bulletproof? I ask this because I've never really agreed with the points in her video and found her research in to some titles usually comes up shallow but someone voicing their opinion (man or woman) should never have to be forced in to hiding for fear of their life, it's sickening.

However, I do feel like she might become untouchable after this as anyone who (in search of a better phrase) puts up a fight will just be called out for being a gamergater/sexist etc.

Frankly I hope not. Tropes vs Women in Gaming is an interesting piece of critique, but it should be a discussion point rather than the end of the conversation. I think gamers are too hostile towards viewpoints with which they disagree, be they reviews or Sarkeesian's videos. That's why things get ugly.

 

[zeldablue]

I'm going to have to phrase this very carefully as I've only followed the GG happenings from afar.

Do you think after GG ends, in whatever state it does end, that critics like Anita Sarkeesian will become bulletproof? I ask this because I've never really agreed with the points in her video and found her research in to some titles usually comes up shallow but someone voicing their opinion (man or woman) should never have to be forced in to hiding for fear of their life, it's sickening.

However, I do feel like she might become untouchable after this as anyone who publicly calls her our regarding a FF video will just be called out for being a gamergater/sexist etc.

It is very surface level and shallow.

But then again, who are the videos really for? Just people who want to educate themselves? I think on a very surface level she picks out common problematic depictions of women, and that's a good start for the dialogue. This is especially nice for game writers who are looking for insight. I don't understand/agree with all her points, but she makes me think about things I haven't or didn't want to think about. Which is nice for a lot of people who don't think that deeply about things. I like to have my thoughts challenged so I never felt any need to tell her to kill herself.

 

[Fredescu]

However, I do feel like she might become untouchable after this as anyone who publicly calls her our regarding a FF video will just be called out for being a gamergater/sexist etc.

I've seen people complain that they disagree with some of what she says and would like to have the debate, but don't feel right about it with all the abuse she's copping and would rather show solidarity for now. So, if GG ever really does "stop", I'd hope for the opposite. That reasoned disagreement and debate would become easier.

Edit: eg: https://twitter.com/introskeptive/status/521784621072007168

 

[lord_of_flood]

I'm going to have to phrase this very carefully as I've only followed the GG happenings from afar.

Do you think after GG ends, in whatever state it does end, that critics like Anita Sarkeesian will become bulletproof? I ask this because I've never really agreed with the points in her video and found her research in to some titles usually comes up shallow but someone voicing their opinion (man or woman) should never have to be forced in to hiding for fear of their life, it's sickening.

However, I do feel like she might become untouchable after this as anyone who publicly calls her our regarding a FF video will just be called out for being a gamergater/sexist etc.

In a sense it's kind of happening already, though not nearly on the scale you're describing, so it is very much possible that it could happen when it's all over, or heck, while it's still going on. It's a shame because while no one should condemn/threaten her for what she's doing, as it brings very important topics to the table, she shouldn't be impervious to legitimate criticism either. There shouldn't ever be one voice dominating the conversation.

 

[Gutsy Frog]

I don't really know if I agree with what GG as a group have been doing as of late (primarily the whole "getting funds pulled from gaming sites" thing) so I've stopped outwardly saying "wow keep going viva la revolución good sirs!!!!!!!!!!". So, no, I'm not what you'd call a "GG supporter" at this point. I'm not "anti" either; I just choose to stay out of it and debate people nicely because conversation is the one thing I'm 100% sure is universally good. Everything else I'm not convinced of either way and I'd rather not do something I'm going to regret in the future.

And yes, obviously anyone sending or justifying death threats is trash.

But, I do think the bullying from the other side is really depressing for one reason alone: unlike the *chan scumbags doing it under a nickname or total anonymity because they know what they're doing is totally awful and don't want to ruin their real life with it, the people bullying under the name of "anti-GG" genuinely think they are doing a good thing.

This dude I know on Tumblr (no he's not straight or white, also he identifies as feminist and is pro-social justice) got his home address sent to him via Twitter and had his entire family threatened with murder and rape, including his 7-year old brother. What did he do about it? Well...

...damn.

GaymerX were harassed into apologizing for taking a stance that was basically "we disagree with #GG but we don't think they're all irredeemable people".

The Guardian literally used the wording "you're either with us or against us" and Leigh Alexander referred to fence-sitters as "slimy" on her Twitter.

GG as a general group might be flawed and there's plenty of ways to criticize them, but just to be fair, I'd like to ask one thing: has any pro-GGer half as popular as Bob Chipman literally made the point of "my ideological opponents deserve death threats and doxxing"? Because, well... Bob Chipman did:

This isn't just 'some douchebag'; I've even seen him get retweeted by Jonathan McIntosh. The man has nearly 15 thousand followers.

This is not a rhetorical question; I'm genuinely curious. If any influential e-celeb on the pro-GG side did this, I'd change my stance significantly.

 

[Eteric Rice]

I think a lot of people just don't want political bullshit in their video games. I can understand this. People play video games to escape work, life, politics, and now people are trying to push issues into the very things we they to use to escape daily life.

I think a lot of these Gamergate people are pissed because a lot of the people critiquing their hobby aren't even people that actually play video games as a hobby. They see people like Anita as opportunists trying to make a career out of critiquing a hobby that they were never actually a part of.

Honestly, I don't think there'd have been such a shit storm if the person critiquing the industry was someone who avidly played video games.

I'm not a Gamergate person. I know there's a lot of problems in the industry. But I think in the end a lot of people just want their video games to be video games, and not laced with political agendas.

Honestly, I think the people that want better standards in gaming journalism should split off from Gamergate. It's tainted with trolls and nutters now.

 

[Gutsy Frog]

I think a lot of people just don't want political bullshit in their video games. I can understand this. People play video games to escape work, life, politics, and now people are trying to push issues into the very things we they to use to escape daily life.

I think a lot of these Gamergate people are pissed because a lot of the people critiquing their hobby aren't even people that actually play video games as a hobby. They see people like Anita as opportunists trying to make a career out of critiquing a hobby that they were never actually a part of.

Honestly, I don't think there'd have been such a shit storm if the person critiquing the industry was someone who avidly played video games.

I'm not a Gamergate person. I know there's a lot of problems in the industry. But I think in the end a lot of people just want their video games to be video games, and not laced with political agendas.

Honestly, I think the people that want better standards in gaming journalism should split off from Gamergate. It's tainted with trolls and nutters now.

That's another thing I disagree with many GG people on, I'm not pro-'objectivity'. I don't want reviews to be objective and if someone wants to give Bayonetta a lower score because they have sex-negative feminist views then that's their right. I also have my right to comment and openly disagree with them and I will.

I do think there are other serious issues with recent trends in game journalism and the influence they have on devs big and small but I'll elaborate that in a future post.

 

[BigDes]

I think a lot of people just don't want political bullshit in their video games. I can understand this. People play video games to escape work, life, politics, and now people are trying to push issues into the very things we they to use to escape daily life.

I think a lot of these Gamergate people are pissed because a lot of the people critiquing their hobby aren't even people that actually play video games as a hobby. They see people like Anita as opportunists trying to make a career out of critiquing a hobby that they were never actually a part of.

Honestly, I don't think there'd have been such a shit storm if the person critiquing the industry was someone who avidly played video games.

I'm not a Gamergate person. I know there's a lot of problems in the industry. But I think in the end a lot of people just want their video games to be video games, and not laced with political agendas.

Honestly, I think the people that want better standards in gaming journalism should split off from Gamergate. It's tainted with trolls and nutters now.

Games have always been laced with political agendas. It's only when the political agendas change from fuck yeah military industrial complex to hey women are people too that the anger seems to arise.

 

[GamerJM]

I don't really know if I agree with what GG as a group have been doing as of late (primarily the whole "getting funds pulled from gaming sites" thing) so I've stopped outwardly saying "wow keep going viva la revolución good sirs!!!!!!!!!!". So, no, I'm not what you'd call a "GG supporter" at this point. I'm not "anti" either; I just choose to stay out of it and debate people nicely because conversation is the one thing I'm 100% sure is universally good. Everything else I'm not convinced of either way and I'd rather not do something I'm going to regret in the future.

And yes, obviously anyone sending or justifying death threats is trash.

But, I do think the bullying from the other side is really depressing for one reason alone: unlike the *chan scumbags doing it under a nickname or total anonymity because they know what they're doing is totally awful and don't want to ruin their real life with it, the people bullying under the name of "anti-GG" genuinely think they are doing a good thing.

This dude I know on Tumblr (no he's not straight or white, also he identifies as feminist and is pro-social justice) got his home address sent to him via Twitter and had his entire family threatened with murder and rape, including his 7-year old brother. What did he do about it? Well...

...damn.

GaymerX were harassed into apologizing for taking a stance that was basically "we disagree with #GG but we don't think they're all irredeemable people".

The Guardian literally used the wording "you're either with us or against us" and Leigh Alexander referred to fence-sitters as "slimy" on her Twitter.

GG as a general group might be flawed and there's plenty of ways to criticize them, but just to be fair, I'd like to ask one thing: has any pro-GGer half as popular as Bob Chipman literally made the point of "my ideological opponents deserve death threats and doxxing"? Because, well... Bob Chipman did:

This isn't just 'some douchebag'; I've even seen him get retweeted by Jonathan McIntosh. The man has nearly 15 thousand followers.

This is not a rhetorical question; I'm genuinely curious. If any influential e-celeb on the pro-GG side did this, I'd change my stance significantly.

Here's the thing: No one deserves death threats and doxxing. What happened to that guy in the Tumblr screenshot is reprehensible, though it's good that the girl realized she was wrong.

Here's the other thing: There is no movement of people "against" GamerGate. There's GamerGate, and then there's everyone else. You don't get to pin doxxing and death threats on "anti-GamerGate," people like you can pin them on GamerGate because GamerGate is a direct cause of the doxxing and death threats. The people who don't identify as GamerGate aren't doxxing people and sending death threats to people under the guise of a movement for "journalistic integrity," they're just doing it because they're shitty.

 

[Some Nobody]

Bit of advice: If you're honestly interested in "journalistic integrity" or whatever it is #gamergate people are for....stop. Just, stop. Like, it's a wrap. I saw on Facebook an article about Anita cancelling an appearance for fear of a mass shooting. That's literally it.

I'm saying this to anyone who's even a half-decent human being that's still on the side of #GamerGate. Find a new name for yourself. This one's over. Your movement is now toxic because whenever it's mentioned, people either don't know WTF you're talking about or will immediately associate it with this like the above.

This is no longer the way to get your point across. NOTHING ELSE GOOD can come from claiming to be a member of #GamerGate. Burn it down. Create a new name, and a new movement. Start again. And this time be very fucking plain about being un-welcoming to sexist and/or misogynist behavior.

 

[Galactic Fork]

I think a lot of people just don't want political bullshit in their video games. I can understand this. People play video games to escape work, life, politics, and now people are trying to push issues into the very things we they to use to escape daily life.

I too want to escape to worlds where most people are white men and women are generally treated like crap. Ah escape.

I think a lot of these Gamergate people are pissed because a lot of the people critiquing their hobby aren't even people that actually play video games as a hobby. They see people like Anita as opportunists trying to make a career out of critiquing a hobby that they were never actually a part of.
Honestly, I don't think there'd have been such a shit storm if the person critiquing the industry was someone who avidly played video games.

Anita Sarkeesian has played video games since she was a kid.

I'm not a Gamergate person. I know there's a lot of problems in the industry. But I think in the end a lot of people just want their video games to be video games, and not laced with political agendas.

Honestly, I think the people that want better standards in gaming journalism should split off from Gamergate. It's tainted with trolls and nutters now.

So the status quo is fine to you.

 

[Corpekata]

The prominent E celebs on GG's side don't say they deserve death threats. They just say they were fake, false flags, or the person is being a drama queen.

 

[Some Nobody]

Here's the thing: No one deserves death threats and doxxing. What happened to that guy in the Tumblr screenshot is reprehensible, though it's good that the girl realized she was wrong.

Here's the other thing: There is no movement of people "against" GamerGate. There's GamerGate, and then there's everyone else. You don't get to pin doxxing and death threats on "anti-GamerGate," people like you can pin them on GamerGate because GamerGate is a direct cause of the doxxing and death threats. The people who don't identify as GamerGate aren't doxxing people and sending death threats to people under the guise of a movement for "journalistic integrity," they're just doing it because they're shitty.

Haha, nah. This is disingenuous. You have no idea how many people don't care about GamerGate and don't even know what the fuck it is. There's definitely a group of people against GamerGate--my timeline is full of people mocking that movement, so I'm not sure where you got this from. Saying otherwise is to say that "there's right, and then there's gamergate".

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Games have always been laced with political agendas. It's only when the political agendas change from fuck yeah military industrial complex to hey women are people too that the anger seems to arise.

 

[Corto]

Gutsy Frog. There's no anti-GG movement. There are people that disagree with GG and find it abhorrent as is explained to exhaustion in this thread. Despicable acts of people against GGers are exactly that. Individual acts that can't be used to fabricate the narrative of "equivalence" and quid pro quo. That doesn't exist. GG has a very well established origin. It's a hate movement. It will bring hate towards it. It's inevitable.

 

[danm999]

I think a lot of these Gamergate people are pissed because a lot of the people critiquing their hobby aren't even people that actually play video games as a hobby. They see people like Anita as opportunists trying to make a career out of critiquing a hobby that they were never actually a part of.

If this is their objection then why the fuck is Milo Yiannopoulos a darling of their movement?

 

[zeldablue]

.

This makes me hope that the people sending out threats are actually kids. At least then I can rest easy to know that they are still growing and learning. Then the sheer level of ignorance wouldn't hurt so bad. :C

Why would anyone actually call or email with threats? That is absolutely crazy to me. I admit I did stuff like that when I was ten, but the internet was young and so was I. How does this happen, now?

It's literally just internet tribalism. When the person is an avatar and 140 simple characters of text...

EDIT: Zoe also said the people who called her on the phone were quiet and timid as well. Most of the callers would be shocked to know they were attacking living, breathing people. It's like an existential epiphany striking these people in mid-speech. Hatred is nothing but masked pain and sadness.

 

[Squire]

The prominent E celebs on GG's side don't say they deserve death threats. They just say they were fake, false flags, or the person is being a drama queen.

"Just ignore it!"

 

[GamerJM]

Haha, nah. This is disingenuous. You have no idea how many people don't care about GamerGate and don't even know what the fuck it is. There's definitely a group of people against GamerGate--my timeline is full of people mocking that movement, so I'm not sure where you got this from. Saying otherwise is to say that "there's right, and then there's gamergate".

Those people aren't actually organized in an actual movement. They're all just people who happen to disagree with a movement to various degrees and for various reasons.

Like, think of it like this. You show that people outside of GamerGate are harassing and threatening people inside of GamerGate. What exactly does that prove? The answer is nothing, other than that people in general do shitty, terrible, terrible things, which is something basically everyone already knows. There is a very large body of evidence that basically proves that GamerGate is a hate organization, which is why people are against it.

 

[Corpekata]

Also, fairly certain that Moviebob one is misrepresented. If you look at the posts, he says that at the exact same time he's asked about doxxing (10:34 for both). Giving he's having a large conversation with the person (and the person doesn't freak out on him) I think he may have been replying to something else.

 

[Messofanego]

I think a lot of these Gamergate people are pissed because a lot of the people critiquing their hobby aren't even people that actually play video games as a hobby. They see people like Anita as opportunists trying to make a career out of critiquing a hobby that they were never actually a part of.

Honestly, I don't think there'd have been such a shit storm if the person critiquing the industry was someone who avidly played video games.

Maybe listen to the Idle Thumbs podcast with Anita Sarkeesian, and you'll have enough proof that she avidly plays games just like all of us. Probably more. She talks about Pac Man Battle Royale and Jake Rodkin is completely wrong by calling it Pac Man Vs, which he admitted on the GAF thread . That's just one thing. She constantly tweets about playing recent games and commenting on upcoming games, like any other gamer.

There shouldn't be a meritocracy to being a gamer, but some people need confirmation I guess.

 

[dumbo]

There are no sides. There's GG and then there's people who are sick of it or don't even know about it; There's a mob of passionless losers on the internet that feel their hobby is under attack and then there's the rest of the world. All GG is is hatred and misery manifested to some fallacious "cause".

Playing devils advocate:
"the Anti-GG group are a bunch of slanderous, misguided SJW who believe we're attacking women. All anti-GG is, is hatred and misery manifested to some fallacious cause".

IMHO there are always sides, and there always other viewpoints. You may not agree them (and some you certainly shouldn't), but seeing the other side as 'evil' is not really helpful to winning an argument.

 

[BigDes]

Playing devils advocate:
"the Anti-GG group are a bunch of slanderous, misguided SJW who believe we're attacking women. All anti-GG is, is hatred and misery manifested to some fallacious cause".

IMHO there are always sides, and there always other viewpoints. You may not agree them (and some you certainly shouldn't), but seeing the other side as 'evil' is not really helpful to winning an argument.

First you would have to explain to me why social justice is a bad thing

 

[zeldablue]

Playing devils advocate:
"the Anti-GG group are a bunch of slanderous, misguided SJW who believe we're attacking women. All anti-GG is, is hatred and misery manifested to some fallacious cause".

IMHO there are always sides, and there always other viewpoints. You may not agree them (and some you certainly shouldn't), but seeing the other side as 'evil' is not really helpful to winning an argument.

For sure. There is no way to truly validate perceptions or perspectives. But a lot of us are seeing the fruits of GGs labors. And we don't like what we're seeing. They target very specific targets and tend to attack first and ask questions later. They also tend to show a lot of disrespect for those who refuse to agree with them.

 

[Galactic Fork]

Playing devils advocate:
"the Anti-GG group are a bunch of slanderous, misguided SJW who believe we're attacking women. All anti-GG is, is hatred and misery manifested to some fallacious cause".

IMHO there are always sides, and there always other viewpoints. You may not agree them (and some you certainly shouldn't), but seeing the other side as 'evil' is not really helpful to winning an argument.

Anti-GG is a name they defined and name... GG is a group they defined and named.

 

[Gutsy Frog]

Here's the other thing: There is no movement of people "against" GamerGate. There's GamerGate, and then there's everyone else. You don't get to pin doxxing and death threats on "anti-GamerGate," people like you can pin them on GamerGate because GamerGate is a direct cause of the doxxing and death threats. The people who don't identify as GamerGate aren't doxxing people and sending death threats to people under the guise of a movement for "journalistic integrity," they're just doing it because they're shitty.

By that logic, though, "everyone else" is a "direct cause" of the anti-GG doxxing, bullying and death threats. Even if people stopped using the name "GamerGate", people could just as easily say "the d0xxing exists because of this purported nameless yet clearly-existing group going against game journalists, ergo you are all guilty". I don't feel that there's a way for them to "win" unless you give up on any and all attempts at organization. #GG is just a hash tag and it helps organization.

I don't believe in "objectivity" and "keep politics out of video games" and I think #GG would be much better if they dropped that angle, but the idea of uniting as a group is not something I'm against.

"There's GG and then there's everyone else" - I don't really agree with this. I don't think most of the people reading The Guardian or watching MSNBC really care about this too much either way; they'll just go "well if that's true, then that's pretty awful!" but they won't really care to research much beyond that because it doesn't concern their daily lives.

As far as the "gaming community" goes, people who care deeply about this stuff, it's more complicated. Compare the amount of favorites and retweets on this...

https://twitter.com/msnbc/status/521759830097145857

...to the amount of favorites and retweets on this.

https://twitter.com/JonTronShow/status/512023921936568320

I'm not saying all the people who liked that JonTron tweet must be "pro-GG", but I don't think they'd be on the side of "GG are all supporting misogynist bullying by being a part of GG" either.

 

[Galactic Fork]

I don't really know if I agree with what GG as a group have been doing as of late (primarily the whole "getting funds pulled from gaming sites" thing) so I've stopped outwardly saying "wow keep going viva la revolución good sirs!!!!!!!!!!". So, no, I'm not what you'd call a "GG supporter" at this point. I'm not "anti" either; I just choose to stay out of it and debate people nicely because conversation is the one thing I'm 100% sure is universally good. Everything else I'm not convinced of either way and I'd rather not do something I'm going to regret in the future.

What exactly do you think is the "debate"?

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Casual reminder that "SJW" is a fairly shallow attempt at insulting anyone and everyone outspoken about social justice issues in various ways (be it constructive or not) rather than a legitimate self-defined "movement".

It's a fairly bad analogy to draw to #Gamergate considering people only self-identify as "SJW" as a joke.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

yea it's real life but one party is completely 100% anonymous, for all intents and purposes. if you get death threats, take it to the police and be done with it. publicizing it all over the internet is only gonna make the next anonymous asshole do the exact same thing, so they can watch the drama unfold. much like swatting of streamers, they're getting off on actually watching the shit go down. if they had nothing to see, they'd have nothing to enjoy.

i don't think TB is saying suffer in silence and don't go to the police. i think he's saying go to the police and don't give the abuser free publicity on your own twitter, because that's basically all they get out of it in the first place.

it's don't feed the trolls, on the craziest level i've ever seen.

As I said before

"Don't feed the trolls" means absolutely fucking nothing when many other people are willing to feed, clothe, and shelter them while also cupping their balls while they piss on common sense.

 

[Gutsy Frog]

Casual reminder that "SJW" is a fairly shallow attempt at insulting anyone and everyone outspoken about social justice issues in various ways (be it constructive or not) rather than a legitimate self-defined "movement".

It's a fairly bad analogy to draw to #Gamergate considering people only self-identify as "SJW" as a joke.

I don't understand why the "well, they have a name" angle is important. Just because they're united under a name doesn't mean #GGers don't come under many shapes and sizes.

I know this is a weird comparison to make, and no, I'm not saying dumb video game bullshit is even remotely comparable to real-world social justice issues so please for the love of god do not accuse me of comparing them in matter of importance, but what you're saying is comparable, to an extent, to holding reasonable feminists accountable for the actions of radical feminists. "You're uniting under a name, so you're responsible for whatever awful thing other people under that name do". I feel that it's very disingenuous.

 

[Lucifon]

I find all this Gamergate stuff incredibly frustrating to read from either perspective. To me it just seems to simple, it basically boils down to - "don't be a dick". It's overcomplicating something which is fairly simple human morality.

Sadly our industry is more internet focused than most, which leads to people sat behind a screen, which leads to keyboard warriors and trolls who take pleasure in actually being a dick.

I think Team America summed it up pretty well.

Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves...

 

[zeldablue]

By that logic, though, "everyone else" is a "direct cause" of the anti-GG doxxing, bullying and death threats. Even if people stopped using the name "GamerGate", people could just as easily say "the d0xxing exists because of this purported nameless yet clearly-existing group going against game journalists, ergo you are all guilty". I don't feel that there's a way for them to "win" unless you give up on any and all attempts at organization. #GG is just a hash tag and it helps organization.

I don't believe in "objectivity" and "keep politics out of video games" and I think #GG would be much better if they dropped that angle, but the idea of uniting as a group is not something I'm against.

"There's GG and then there's everyone else" - I don't really agree with this. I don't think most of the people reading The Guardian or watching MSNBC really care about this too much either way; they'll just go "well if that's true, then that's pretty awful!" but they won't really care to research much beyond that because it doesn't concern their daily lives.

As far as the "gaming community" goes, people who care deeply about this stuff, it's more complicated. Compare the amount of favorites and retweets on this...

https://twitter.com/msnbc/status/521759830097145857

...to the amount of favorites and retweets on this.

https://twitter.com/JonTronShow/status/512023921936568320

I'm not saying all the people who liked that JonTron tweet must be "pro-GG", but I don't think they'd be on the side of "GG are all supporting misogynist bullying by being a part of GG" either.

The vaaaaaaaaaaaast majority of men and women are supporters of "misogyny." That's not even a debate. Of course the majority is in love with the idea that everything is fine as is. This is the reason sexism and racism "don't exist." Because bringing it up is extremely unpopular and can get you killed.

GG, however was facilitated death threats and has escalated violence and brought acceptance to hatred. That's not cool.

Just some more thoughts on the tribalism stuff. It definitely applies to both sides:

Origins of Hate

The passions of hate arise from several features of our thinking process. These include wanting to assign blame for misfortune, protecting our self-esteem, a desire to strengthen our community, the need to avoid toxins, alleviating our fears, and several types of errors in reasoning. The ability to quickly separate friend from foe is essential to self-defense and safety and provides the origins of hate. Each of these contributing factors are explained in more detail below.

Assigning Blame

Who do we hold responsible when bad things happen? If we want to affirm our stature, preserve our self-esteem, avoid shame, and preserve our pride, it does not help to blame ourselves. So we conveniently assign blame to “them”, the “others”, the Enemy. Since we don't like bad things to happen and since bad things are caused by the enemy, we hate them for it. We frame the opposition as the enemy. It's the victims versus the villains, good versus evil, us versus them, in-group versus out-group, and friend versus foe. It is often easier to reject the other than to work to understand their point-of-view.

Of course this line of reasoning is based on the fallacy of disproportionate responsibly and the fallacy of being right. Since many causes contribute to each result, we probably share in the blame along with many others, including unavoidable bad luck.

Strengthening the community

Hostility toward the out-group increases the cohesion of the in-group and increases our sense of loyalty and belonging to our local community. The in-group always finds reasons to see itself as superior. Hostility toward the out-group increases the solidarity of the in-group.

Avoiding Toxins

Disgust helps us avoid toxic substances. Contempt distances us from unworthy people. Hate is our defense against noxious behavior. We attempt to raise our self-esteem by contrasting ourselves with the evil, subhuman enemy. Pain, including psychological pain, mobilizes us psychically, mentally, and emotionally, to get away from the source (run) or remove the source (fight) of the pain.

Alleviating our Fears

Because the feared other—the enemy—seems dangerous, we feel compelled to escape the threat or destroy the enemy. Threat strongly arouses the simple and primitive urge to “kill or be killed”. Revenge is pursued with a vengeance to eliminate the threat.

Bias Toward Identifying Danger

When identifying a stranger as friend or foe, survival in primitive times may depend on a quick decision that does not mistake a foe. The result is a bias toward caution and the suspicion of danger. The safest assumption is that members of the out-group are dangerous. In security screening the consequences of a false negative—mistaking foe for friend—is much more dangerous than the cost of a false positive—mistaking a friend for foe. The resulting optimum decision threshold results in an inherent suspicion of strangers called xenophobia, even though this is based on the fallacy of overgeneralization. As a result we often overreact against a suspected foe.

Permission to Destroy the Enemy

Empathy, compassion, and cooperation are ubiquitous strengths of human nature. However, various errors in reasoning can overcome compassion and give us permission to destroy the enemy. This often involves seeing ourselves as the victims of an evil other. This gives us permission to do good by killing off the evil enemy and still regard ourselves as a good person. Because they are wrong, bad, evil, or subhuman they deserve to be killed. An asymmetrical view of the other, seen only from the first-person viewpoint, fuels hate. Viewing the other as very different from our self can allow hate to emerge. What begins as the other quickly becomes the beast. Denigrating the victim gives us permission to harm them.

Disrespect is the precursor to hate. Heed the warning. Reevaluate the evidence, eliminate the distorted thinking, correct the errors in reasoning, and reject the temptation to dismiss the other.

Other Errors in Reasoning

A wide variety of errors in reasoning allow us to sustain hate.

Common stereotypes include a variety of overgeneralizations about members of a group based on race, ethnicity, gender, nationality, or religious belief, along with profession and social class. These can create distorted and exaggerated negative images of the members of particular groups. This dehumanizes and demonizes “the other” and invites hate.

Misattributing benign behavior to evil intent can make us suspicious and fearful of others. Choosing to hate is an ineffective shortcut that avoids the hard work of analyzing the problem in depth. It attributes blame incorrectly.

Egocentrism, the unshakable belief that “I am correct”, self-justification, and the need to be right leads us too quickly to the conclusion that others are wrong, they are the obstacles, the source of our problems, evil, and need to be eliminated. We deny contrary evidence.

Stress and fear can lead us to revert to simplified and often incorrect primal thinking based on the fallacy of polarized thinking.

Hypersensitivity to criticism can cause us to revert to simplified, but incorrect rules governing other's behavior.

Our desire to go along with the group, including the Ashe Effect and other group-think tendencies, can compromise our good judgment.

 

[Gutsy Frog]

Gutsy Frog. There's no anti-GG movement. There are people that disagree with GG and find it abhorrent as is explained to exhaustion in this thread. Despicable acts of people against GGers are exactly that. Individual acts that can't be used to fabricate the narrative of "equivalence" and quid pro quo. That doesn't exist. GG has a very well established origin. It's a hate movement. It will bring hate towards it. It's inevitable.

See my earlier post about the MSNBC post vs. the JonTron one. It's not as simple as "GG vs everyone else" because most people do not care about this stuff. Not even most of the "core gamer" demographic cares. As far as people who do, who are involved more deeply in gaming culture enough to care about stuff like this, it's far close to parity.

What exactly do you think is the "debate"?

There isn't a single debate. That's why I'm saying it's complicated.