NoblesseOblige
Banned
Darnit. There's like six Jons at work (where I currently am) so my brain auto typed Jon. Fixed it in my post though.
#GAMERGATE: The Threadening [Read the OP] -- #StopGamerGate2014
- Thread starter besada
- Start date
- Status
Darnit. There's like six Jons at work (where I currently am) so my brain auto typed Jon. Fixed it in my post though.
Gutsy Frog
Banned
I've used Tumblr since 2011 and I've seen Tumblr celebs unironically act like that. It's really hard to tell the difference between parody and reality when it comes to silly internet kids.
So he clearly is acting toward ethical journalism, but is targeted over any major institution because he doesn't hate women enough, by a group acting under the banner of improving ethics?
FF Seraphim
Member
You got to admit though that polygon article was pretty bad...
However, yeah it is weird #GG never "attacked" WB for how they handled SoM with youtubers.
You have to remember that when GG says "ethics" they mean "we hate vocal women and anyone who supports them".
Relaxed Muscle
Member
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/13/gamergate-right-wing-no-neutral-stance
Hear that, centrists? You are literally worse than harassers. Also made of slime, which is nice I guess.
Looks to me like an opinion piece, not really an stance of the Guardian. I think the both sides comment from leigh comes from this:
Basically there aren't two sides, just people that are against of what GG stands for. And because of what GG stands for you can't take a neutral stance, by taking it you're supporting their subversive right-wing ideas.
Personally, I believe that the time for GG to grow into something better and cut their right-wing roots is long gone.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
Yes, exactly. The group that claims to be all for 'journalistic integrity' in gaming has made one of their opponents a large voice that's been calling for better journalistic ethics in the game industry for years now.
partyphone
Banned
there is little to no difference. you're exchanging currency for content.
and you need to define what you mean by friend. because most of these relationships would be defined as aquantences at best.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Its not weird, its just very telling and I'd like to hear anyone actually defend it
But there isn't anything better. There's GG who actively hate vocal progressive critics and then there's EVERYONE ELSE who actually are against journalistic corruption.
The only way to grow into something better is to abandon their hate movement and just be against corruption like everyone else.
Gutsy Frog
Banned
See this earlier post someone else made:
Except he got something wrong: Patricia Hernandez literally dated Christine Love. And also lived with Auntiepixelante.
As others have mentioned, I believe it would have something to do with those (most, if not all?) whom are actually concerned with these issues have distanced themselves from this movement (as that 'good' has already been done), and are instead using other avenues to combat this problem.
FF Seraphim
Member
You bring up a great point and it needs to stick to show others who support #GG that they are not about ethics.
If they cared so much about ethics they would have stuck it to WB.
Does he mention whether any of these threats involved someone proving they know his home address?
Messofanego
Banned
All I see is a a breakdown. And that "I think gamergate is shit, industry is inundiated with corruption....but Quinn is a lying whore who lies and fuck her"
Edit : Yeaaaaah... Not the best "rational person" example. A "Zoe is a liar" post, an interesting retweet and a "Anita is a liar" post all in one
Fuck, I thought BroTeamPill was one of the more rational people. I guess behind all that satirical personality, there is some conspiracy false flag stuff. I hope he's just misinformed and misguided, and realises the error.
RubberJohnny
Banned
What is the middle? That women deserved half of the harassment?
That no-one thinks unethical stuff is uh, ethical, because there aren't even disagreements for that?
What?
Relaxed Muscle
Member
That's what I'm saying: GG had the chance to cut their ties with the right-wing crazies, and become something honest with their "objectives", now is too corrupted.
Boy would you be shocked if you knew some of the crap that went on in music journalism!
Gutsy Frog
Banned
Calm down bro.
But yeah you're right, she wasn't saying 'they're more harmful'. Still, chill.
I'm familiar with that kind of rhetoric, and a lot of it comes from people who put up with all kinds of terrible treatment in their day to day lives and deal with the stress by venting online. That doesn't make it good to say things like "Ugh I really hate white people," but it's far more understandable as a response to legitimate victimization than coming from people defending the "gamer identity."
People generally aren't being treated badly in real life because of playing video games. They're not getting harassed in the street, denied job opportunities, physically attacked, or otherwise shunned by society for playing video games. In fact, video games are pretty fuckin' normalized these days. It's widely accepted that kids and teens play all kinds of video games. Consoles and gaming PCs are an expected thing for college students, and they aren't at all out of place in an adult's entertainment center. And apart from that, literally everyone and their mom plays some form of game on their phone or tablet. Video games, by and large, are considered pretty acceptable.
The entire GG movement hinges on the imagined fear that people who play video games could become a major social pariah. As I've said before, it's akin to Christians who are motivated to action because they think their religion is being attacked in the Western world. It's an argument that's completely contrary to reality, but a lot of people are still convinced by it.
Gutsy Frog
Banned
"The media in general is corrupt" doesn't really discredit the criticism directed towards Hernandez.
Neuromancer
Member
Yeah I don't think gun thing is the primary issue, it's the disgusting and disturbing threats made against her causing her to cancel that is the real story here. Like I said I'd make a thread about it but it's hard copying and pasting a lot on iPad and I'm not near a computer.
You only want me to 'chill' because I exposed your hateful rhetoric for what it was. I don't need to chill, you need to stop intentionally misunderstanding what otherwise reasonable people are saying in regards to the shitshow that is GG.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
But she wasn't gonna cancel it, even with the threats.
Gutsy Frog
Banned
There have been calm and reasonable people ITT that changed my mind about some things but ranting about pisswater won't change any minds.
There have been disagreements over the Patreon stuff right on this very page. I think it's subjective, it's not inherently ethical/unethical.
gutterboy44
Member
It seems pretty clear in the Guardian article that it was specifically that due to Utah gun laws, it was impossible for the venue to be gun free, which is the final reason she canceled. Pat downs or metal detectors were not permitted for that venue. Which, even as a good ol' yank who enjoys firearms, fucking insane to me. There is a time and a place for guns, and "every where" is not one of them.
I am so disgusted to even be associated with "gamers" in the wake of gamersgate and each new low these "men" are stooping to to continuously harass Anita and others. Absolute scum. Making threats like that is about the most pathetic impotent thing you could do. Anita is more of a "man" then any of these feckless twitter fucks.
I am so disgusted to even be associated with "gamers" in the wake of gamersgate and each new low these "men" are stooping to to continuously harass Anita and others. Absolute scum. Making threats like that is about the most pathetic impotent thing you could do. Anita is more of a "man" then any of these feckless twitter fucks.
Your string of posts seems to suggest that I should ignor the terrorism, ignor the inconsistencies and horrible bullying, ignor the pattern of aggression, and instead consider that this one thing might have happenend years ago involving inappropriate woman behavior in games journalism and because there are tweets that were insensitive to your conditions. You are putting your plight up against real life terrorism. You are putting them side by side saying look, i shouldn't have to condemn terrorism, someone on twitter said insensitive things. that's your angle? There is no middle.
tonysidaway
Member
Bludgeoning kittens: for or against? Mmm, tricky. Let's sit and debate all sides.
When you get something as nasty as Gamergate, being on the fence is just saying that, although you'll wring your hands a bit, you're not that bothered about women being driven away by death threats.
FF Seraphim
Member
I hope for everyone's sake that the issues stays with the threats and not the gun laws. Because if it mergers to deal with that, then it will not be pretty at all.
Nothing makes a situation worse than adding gun nuts to group of people who hate women already.
Can someone explain to me what happened with the GaymerX thing? I pretty staunchly oppose GamerGate but I didn't really see how what they did was wrong there, but I guess I got a lot of my information from GamerGaters who were arguing with me on another site so I didn't really get the full end of that story.
Saying "anti-GGers are a group" makes about as much sense as "people who like the colour blue are a group". They have similar traits and they might communicate with each other, but they don't have a real affiliation and they don't grant the whole group any more visibility just by speaking. The only way they can be classified in a group is if you yourself label them for convenience.
When you tag your tweets with #GamerGate, you're creating visibility to the group as a whole. And, as Twitter analysis has repeatedly shown, the vast majority of #GamerGate activity is concerned with its targets and defending itself rather than any actual ethical issues.
Now, #StopGamerGate2014 can be called a group. It's more upfront in its purpose, however. I haven't seen any complaints about the group aside from expected #GamerGate defensiveness.
As for the horrible Muslim argument that keeps coming up. Notice how many radical Muslim organizations have their own names. Most western Muslims don't want to be associated with them, actively denounce them, and don't use the names they use. Sure, they may all call themselves "Muslim", but there are denominations within that anyway. Denominations with their own names that they use to identify themselves. Muslim is an umbrella term with or without the radical element.
I think most people agree that moderate members of #GamerGate, the ones concerned about ethical issues and things of the sort, really just need to switch their label. They need to distance themselves from the soured one. They need to make it clear that they aren't the bad guys, that they're denouncing them, that they don't want to support them at all. As of right now, #GamerGate isn't even an umbrella term, everyone who supports it is supporting the whole, and the brunt of the whole is absolutely terrible.
When you tag your tweets with #GamerGate, you're creating visibility to the group as a whole. And, as Twitter analysis has repeatedly shown, the vast majority of #GamerGate activity is concerned with its targets and defending itself rather than any actual ethical issues.
Now, #StopGamerGate2014 can be called a group. It's more upfront in its purpose, however. I haven't seen any complaints about the group aside from expected #GamerGate defensiveness.
As for the horrible Muslim argument that keeps coming up. Notice how many radical Muslim organizations have their own names. Most western Muslims don't want to be associated with them, actively denounce them, and don't use the names they use. Sure, they may all call themselves "Muslim", but there are denominations within that anyway. Denominations with their own names that they use to identify themselves. Muslim is an umbrella term with or without the radical element.
I think most people agree that moderate members of #GamerGate, the ones concerned about ethical issues and things of the sort, really just need to switch their label. They need to distance themselves from the soured one. They need to make it clear that they aren't the bad guys, that they're denouncing them, that they don't want to support them at all. As of right now, #GamerGate isn't even an umbrella term, everyone who supports it is supporting the whole, and the brunt of the whole is absolutely terrible.
- GaymerX didn't want to take sides on GG.
- Some people told them how awful GG was and implored them to take a stand against it.
- GaymerX declares themselves anti-GG.
- This somehow constitutes bullying on the part of anti-GG people.
You would never hear an actual conversation on this matter over the sound of obnoxious people shouting at each other on twitter, which from where I'm standing, pretty much sums up this whole thing.
I mean look at this thread. Every page it's "look at what this dude said on twitter! Because we all know twitter is the best venue for well thought out and intelligent discourse, so these 140 characters must totally represent their complete opinion on this very complex issue!"
Obviously one side is wayyyyyyy worse than the other but I think the so-called reasonable people handled it in the worst way possible.
Son of Cervantes
Member
I had heard they'd dated but didn't include that because I didn't have a source.
That makes it even worse. All the inconsequential GamerGate whining and meanwhile Hernandez's actions (remember how Totilo had to get her to rewrite the Cards Against Humanity piece also), which are legitimately harmful to gamers ("buy this awesome game..,which I won't tell you my ex made.") get almost no attention.
RicoTheMad
Banned
That makes it OK? Because it's the status quo?
Gutsy Frog
Banned
I think people aren't focusing on it much because it was already dealt with, though. She isn't gonna pimp her friends' games anymore. The (admittedly flawed, I don't like the guy) IA videos mention it so I think most people know, they just moved past it.
outunderthestars
Banned
Not to sound flippant or dismissive, but I think it is important to remember that these people are reporting about video games. Even if everything that the GG people claim is true, they would still be freaking out about media coverage of electronic toys.
That just seems absurd to me.
People that interact within the field they are covering are inevitably going to sometimes find connections to people in said field.
this too.
Son of Cervantes
Member
Yeah, just makes me wonder what else the folks at Kotaku have tolerated from their writers (or have been in the dark about) until it gets brought to their attention.
That, and I honestly don't understand why Patricia Hernandez still has a job.
partyphone
Banned
now we're talking about something completely different than supporting a patreon. so I don't know why you think kotaku's broad anti-patreon policy is a good thing.
tonysidaway
Member
So if they're "silly internet kids" (or in this case, clearly parodies) why compare them to a deadly serious hate mob?
RicoTheMad
Banned
Nobody's complaining about loose connections. I think the point is, that when you write an article basically saying "Buy my SO's game, it's awesome" that is a far different thing than "Hey I met this person at a party and they pitched me their game and it's pretty cool, go buy it"
It is in every way possible, a conflict of interests. How is this even a point we can argue?
You think that the 'bad ones' can't just change their label too? (I don't use twitter, but I don't think it's particularly hard to use a different hash-tag).
The solution isn't to "change the hashtag" it's to actually deal with the reasonable part of #GG, and convince them they don't need to be there - at that point #GG becomes irrelevant.
But, it seems people prefer the idea of 'defeating them on the battlefield' and 'not giving an inch' - which is rather noble, and (IMHO) incredibly stupid.
It's the law in Utah. Universities aren't allowed to limit concealed carry rights on campus under any circumstances. Take it up with the state of Utah. This has nothing to do with gun laws, and it annoys the hell out of me that this whole thing is dragging the gun control debate into this mess as well. This is about threats made on a woman, and cancelling an event because of those threats. Concealed carry permitted or not, a threat of violence is still a threat of violence. Let's not twist this into the state of Utah's problem, that's just a disservice to the issue. The issue is that people who have different opinions are getting death threats all the damn time.
chrominance
Member
Plus the Muslim faith has been around for centuries and has a long, storied history. When someone says they are proud to be Muslim, they could be referring to many wonderful things about being a Muslim that have nothing to do with terrorism or religious extremism.
Gamergate has been around for two months and is overwhelmingly associated with forcing women out of the gaming industry. There is no religious faith denoted by the term Gamergate, no lengthy history, no meaning whatsoever besides what's been given to it in the past few weeks. The one legitimate cause Gamergate is said to have by some of its supporters existed long before the label ever did, and will continue to exist long after the label is dead and buried.
Gutsy Frog
Banned
Hash tags are just a way of communicating dude. Even if they stop using a hashtag it will still be considered a 'group' and still get shat on for being composed of "ex-GGers".
I see alot of nuance in the people that talk about GG as something of value.
Most people I see;
Are against misoginy
Are against the death threats and doxxing
Think that gaming journalism needs a change
But, on the other hand, they have no idea about:
What specific issues need to be adressed with gaming journalism
How to solve those issues
How to help flesh out misoginy when they see it
I also see people asking for imopssible things, and treating them as completely necessary, like all gaming sites to refuse review copy of games, or for journalists to disclose every single relationship they have, not only hte ones that would potentially bring a conflict to a specific piece they are writing, etc.
My assessment, and that is going by youtube and twitter which I have been following alot regarding GG so dont treat this as anything more than my own experience and not the absolut truth, is that the majority of people see the end result as something positive and worth discussing, mainly ethics, but they have no idea how to go about it or what would be a resolution that would appease them. It always seem like they need more things when they reach a milestone, as they see it, like the intel thing.
I see the death threats to anita, which are horrible and no one should never go through this, as a different thing, not relating to the average GG supporter. Is it possible that the stupid kid who did that to her is a supporter of GG, even active within it? Sure. But I dont see him representing the entire movement.
Most people I see;
Are against misoginy
Are against the death threats and doxxing
Think that gaming journalism needs a change
But, on the other hand, they have no idea about:
What specific issues need to be adressed with gaming journalism
How to solve those issues
How to help flesh out misoginy when they see it
I also see people asking for imopssible things, and treating them as completely necessary, like all gaming sites to refuse review copy of games, or for journalists to disclose every single relationship they have, not only hte ones that would potentially bring a conflict to a specific piece they are writing, etc.
My assessment, and that is going by youtube and twitter which I have been following alot regarding GG so dont treat this as anything more than my own experience and not the absolut truth, is that the majority of people see the end result as something positive and worth discussing, mainly ethics, but they have no idea how to go about it or what would be a resolution that would appease them. It always seem like they need more things when they reach a milestone, as they see it, like the intel thing.
I see the death threats to anita, which are horrible and no one should never go through this, as a different thing, not relating to the average GG supporter. Is it possible that the stupid kid who did that to her is a supporter of GG, even active within it? Sure. But I dont see him representing the entire movement.
Son of Cervantes
Member
If people honestly think there's nothing wrong with a journalist encouraging readers to buy her girlfriend's and roomie's games, and not even revealing the relationship until her editor adds a disclosure like a year later, what IS considered unethical? How far are journalists allowed to go?
My mind boggles at the thought that anyone could defend Hernandez's actions.
Depends on how they do it. #Gamergate itself was a way for #TheQuinnspiracy to pretend to be a legitimate group. It never had a legitimate goal, and its claimed goal was so incredibly vague.
But if you can keep your goals well defined, it may be possible to maintain the new label's focus. There are some people who are upset about the word #Gamer becoming a way to refer to a negative stereotype of gamers, for instance. If you start a tag to promote good gamers and denounce harmful ones - ignoring journalistic ethics or any other issue - it's easier to maintain focus.
The best situation would be for the moderates to not just leave Gamergate, since that might be a repeat of the TheQuinnspiracy -> Gamergate thing, but to split up into multiple groups depending on their distinct interests. That also makes it a bit harder for Gamergate's proponents to turn the labels.
- Status