Support NeoGAF

[freddy]

off the top of my head, the last few charities GG has submitted to, under the banner of the hashtag, have been:

1. The excess funds for TFYC (an issue in itself) that went to a colon cancer society to help fight "butt hurt"

and

2. A suicide prevention hotline that they were giving when they (obviously erroneously) thought Zoe did not give money to in some sort of spite campaign. When it turned out she had donated, they were harassed

So I don't think it's cynical to think that the current wave to donate to an anti-bullying foundation (which does what exactly?) in the wake of mainstream attention that they're getting as a group that fosters and harbors harassers isn't some bullshit PR move. Added to that is the fact that it's already now a bullet point in the "told you so" campaign that GG seems most concerned with at this point, outside of any actual concerns. The war now is one of public perception and I haven't seen a legitimate concern of journalistic integrity in awhile beyond "this journalist said something bad about us."

Just on the bolded, I think the reason the guy suggested anti-bullying is Gawker media had some graphic on their site saying Gawker media supports Anti-bullying month, which is apparently happening through October in the US. So I think its some campaign or charity Gawker is supporting and not GG people.

 

[Substrata]

Funny thing is if you actually look at the portrayals of women in the coming AAA blockbuster market for this holiday season, it's way toned down compared to before.
To say that AAA is unlikely to budge is actually short sighted.

I can't think of many upcoming games with women at the forefront, but I actually think the gaming press has changed a lot more than the games themselves.

 

[MrHoot]

Right; lots of evidence that Anita and company won't really be successful outside of maybe pushing for more variety in the indie space (which maybe they and others already have succeeded at.)

Which calls into question the reaction even more; it seems unlikely anything is actually going to "change" other than "new change." AAA is unlikely to budge, and that's the target of the criticism.

Even for indies to be honest. As a dev and been among several others, most just...do what they want really. Sure you'll have some who'll want to do political commentary but it's their right and they're really a minority (mostly because political commentary in games is reaaaally hard to do)

Which is why, ultimately if I pick a side, it's not with gamergate and I think the hashtag ain't helping for the long run. The belief that sarkeesian has some "major influence" on AAA and indies is kinda facetious at best, ridiculous or bonkers at worst. It's easy to pick out her talks or her visit to dice and go "SEE ? SHE HAS INFLUENCE" but that seems just so damn ridiculous (and unfounded as well).

Again, the funny thing is that if the communication between her and her opposition was better, or most of all if people didn't jump on her case the moment she started her KS, a lot would agree with at least some of her points. Even on 4chan a shitload of people were tired of the generic 30-something white dude with bald/short brown hair looking down angrily at the cover and with the gravely voice

 

[Mael]

I can't think of many upcoming games with women at the forefront, but I actually think the gaming press has changed a lot more than the games themselves.

Not women at the forefront, the depiction of women in the games themselves.

 

[blitzcloud]

I'm not going to argue if you're strangely specific situation is a good analogy or not. If it helps, you win the argument because I don't see it as one worth pursuing.

i'm not trying to win anything. Do you see why assuming that people thinking that others can do very dishonest stuff doesn't constitute you thinking that way, yes or no? you're free to believe whatever you want of course. I just thought it isn't healthy to make those assumptions.

 

[Fantastapotamus]

On my phone right now, but the Eurogamer article is pretty good.

 

[Stet]

I don't mean you should be personally affected. But think of the big window. Think of the voluble people that buy into any kind of fashion move. Tell me you genuinely think that statements like that, backed by people that are feminist writers, would not stir trouble.

Comparing feminists and gamers is kind of disingenuous since one is a social movement for sex and gender equality and the other is a group of people who play video games.

 

[riotous]

Funny thing is if you actually look at the portrayals of women in the coming AAA blockbuster market for this holiday season, it's way toned down compared to before.
There's even a thread about it here.
To say that AAA is unlikely to budge is actually short sighted.

Interesting; I'll look into it.

It still calls into question why they are so concerned about being able to play games with these portrayals.

 

[MrHoot]

Just on the bolded, I think the reason the guy suggested anti-bullying is Gawker media had some graphic on their site saying Gawker media supports Anti-bullying month, which is apparently happening through October in the US. So I think its some campaign or charity Gawker is supporting and not GG people.

Nah, a lot of GG people actually passed around a link to a charity ( this one: https://www.crowdrise.com/GamerGateStompsOutBullying/fundraiser/loping).

Mostly, because a lot of people were saying "What positive thing has GamerGate actually done" and a lot thought "Well, we might actually make something positive out of this". Also it popped up after the biddle comment, who ironically is employed under gawker if I recall, who says to support anti-bullying. Of course, I won't stop you being cynical but as I'm not a believer in conspiracy theory, I would say it's mostly a response to part of the criticism they've gotten and some people actually genuinely want to do good with this

 

[NoblesseOblige]

I left the quotes out; sorry? Everyone here is aware there are quotes.. and the article title wasn't the main topic of my post.

I'm not talking about quotes. "'Gamers' are dead" and "gamers are dead" mean the exact same thing to me within this context. It's a hyperbolic statement not meant to be taken literally. I already likened it to the "punk is dead" backlash of yesteryear. But perhaps you weren't around during that era to understand it. My point was that it's not insulting to me because I know the effect the speaker is going for when they issue the statement. I was responding only to the opening prompt that declared a statement as offensive when it was not. Hence me only quoting that bit. I've not the time to respond to everything, especially at work.

I don't mean you should be personally affected. But think of the big window. Think of the voluble people that buy into any kind of fashion move. Tell me you genuinely think that statements like that, backed by people that are feminist writers, would not stir trouble.

I would then do exactly what I'm doing now and telling those people to calm down and read between the lines before getting their knickers in a twist. The statement wasn't a literal one.

 

[endless dave]

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/anita-sarkeesian-gamergate-interview-20141017

I enjoyed how call this interview with Antia, especially the talk of her series that came before the video games one and how they didn't receive this kind of vitriol

You've described yourself as a folk villain to a certain subset of gamers, and you've become a folk hero to another. I can't imagine these were your goals when you started making these videos.

[Laughs] No, they weren't. Feminist Frequency started in 2009 when I was in grad school. It was my way of pulling feminist theory out of academia into a more public space for a wider audience. I used popular culture because I'm a big geek, and these are the things that interest me: TV, movies, comic books, video games. But also, it's the common language that we speak. Most of us could walk into any room and not know anyone there, but we could probably start a conversation about whatever TV show was on last night, or what movie we saw, or what game we played, right? It's a common language that we can use to talk about these larger societal and social concerns.

What inspired you to do a whole series on video games?
In 2011, I made a series of videos called "Tropes vs. Women," looking primarily at harmful tropes that depict women poorly in movies and TV shows. That was actually met with a lot of positive responses. What I heard from a lot of people as they watched the videos was, "Yeah, I had noticed that thing in what I was watching, it made me uncomfortable, but I didn't know how to explain it."

I know it sounds super basic — Comm Studies 101 – but having the language to name things in the world is really powerful. Providing the language for these overarching patterns — identifying the trope, giving them a name and description, and explaining them — really helped improve people's literacy, their ability to unpack and to be more critical of the media they're watching. I wanted to do another series like that, and some of the tropes that I was thinking about doing were really prevalent in video games.

 

[Zona]

Looking at their constant use of "corruption", "nepotism", etc,
I'd say that they also don't know how words works too.

That's not the right bloody word! FFS if your going to make silly unfounded accusations with no basis in reality at least use the correct language! Cronyism is the word their looking for to describe the fantastical reality that exists only in various manifestos and to long YouTube videos. English already had a perfect word to use, don't muddle a different one.

 

[riotous]

I'm not talking about quotes. "'Gamers' are dead" and "gamers are dead" mean the exact same thing to me within this context. It's a hyperbolic statement not meant to be taken literally. I already likened it to the "punk is dead" backlash of yesteryear. But perhaps you weren't around during that era to understand it. My point was that it's not insulting to me because I know the effect the speaker is going for when they issue the statement. I was responding only to the opening prompt that declared a statement as offensive when it was not. It'

I was merely using it to refer to the article itself.. which would have been clear if you had read past the first sentence.

I do not believe the words "Gamers are over" are offensive at all.. and didn't argue that they were. I could have been more clear certainly.

 

[Substrata]

Not women at the forefront, the depiction of women in the games themselves.

Recently, I heard a reviewer gave Bayonetta 2 a lower score than other sites because he found her portrayal sexist, whilst i saw plenty of praise form other sources for her "embracing her sexuality" and how she was a "strong woman character". What a "positive" portrayal of women would be in games is subjective.

I'm not denying what is cited there are big games, but I could easily go back 10-15 years and pick out "positive" portrayals of women in major video games just like this. Has there really been a big change like people are saying? Or has the change they wanted always been there?

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

i'm not trying to win anything. Do you see why assuming that people thinking that others can do very dishonest stuff doesn't constitute you thinking that way, yes or no? you're free to believe whatever you want of course. I just thought it isn't healthy to make those assumptions.

Let me give you a Gaf-based example. Some time back we had threads about Justin Bieber making racist jokes on film, and many Gaffers said that everyone makes racist jokes as kids, that they did, that all kids are dumb. When people responded negatively, those posters got defensive and/or attacked. The idea that what they did was wrong or unpalatable made them uncomfortable and they lashed out.

 

[freddy]

Nah, a lot of GG people actually passed around a link to a charity ( this one: https://www.crowdrise.com/GamerGateStompsOutBullying/fundraiser/loping).

Mostly, because a lot of people were saying "What positive thing has GamerGate actually done" and a lot thought "Well, we might actually make something positive out of this". Also it popped up after the biddle comment, who ironically is employed under gawker if I recall, who says to support anti-bullying. Of course, I won't stop you being cynical but as I'm not a believer in conspiracy theory, I would say it's mostly a response to part of the criticism they've gotten and some people actually genuinely want to do good with this

Ahh, ok, I didn't look into it much just saw a pic beside the one I grabbed.

 

[Mael]

On my phone right now, but the Eurogamer article is pretty good.

at least give us something like the title.

Interesting; I'll look into it.

It still calls into question why they are so concerned about being able to play games with these portrayals.

I posted on the last page the topic about it here.
Having played for a long time I can say that it's really different to the usual big boobed bimbo with sidebreasts you tend to get...or say Cortana from Halo.
Why people would be so concerned about these portrayals?
IDK maybe we're a little fed up with the usual BS trope filled shitty portrayal of really everyone at this point.

 

[zeldablue]

off the top of my head, the last few charities GG has submitted to, under the banner of the hashtag, have been:

1. The excess funds for TFYC (an issue in itself) that went to a colon cancer society to help fight "butt hurt"

and

2. A suicide prevention hotline that they were giving when they (obviously erroneously) thought Zoe did not give money to in some sort of spite campaign. When it turned out she had donated, they were harassed

So I don't think it's cynical to think that the current wave to donate to an anti-bullying foundation (which does what exactly?) in the wake of mainstream attention that they're getting as a group that fosters and harbors harassers isn't some bullshit PR move. Added to that is the fact that it's already now a bullet point in the "told you so" campaign that GG seems most concerned with at this point, outside of any actual concerns. The war now is one of public perception and I haven't seen a legitimate concern of journalistic integrity in awhile beyond "this journalist said something bad about us."

Their undoing is actually a very good thing. As they try harder to be serious, they are starting to actually self-police, take in criticism and do exactly what they don't want to do in order to show that they are "good." They've talked about diversity, donated to good causes, helped women and hunted down misogynists. How is that a bad thing? The only reason this is "undoing" is because they're doing good things so that they can keep targeting specific targets while saying they've got a sort of nice image.

Now all we have to do is make their undoing, more sincere. Make them do good things because they genuinely care, not because they need to protect their superficial reputation.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

I was merely using it to refer to the article itself.. which would have been clear if you had read past the first sentence.

I do not believe the words "Gamers are over" are offensive at all.. and didn't argue that they were.

Then I apologize. I completely misunderstood that the quotations were meant to be around the entire sentence. I assumed it was those specifically around the word 'gamer' as others were talking about.

 

[MYeager]

i'm not trying to win anything. Do you see why assuming that people thinking that others can do very dishonest stuff doesn't constitute you thinking that way, yes or no? you're free to believe whatever you want of course. I just thought it isn't healthy to make those assumptions.

No.

I do think if you believe people are doing dishonest stuff without evidence otherwise and to an extreme that flies in the face of both common sense and logic than that is irrational and says more about the person with those beliefs than anything else.

Hope that answers your questions. If not, that's okay as well though I'm touched with your concern for my health, thank you.

 

[riotous]

I posted on the last page the topic about it here.
Having played for a long time I can say that it's really different to the usual big boobed bimbo with sidebreasts you tend to get...or say Cortana from Halo.
Why people would be so concerned about these portrayals?

Thanks, insteresting.

IDK maybe we're a little fed up with the usual BS trope filled shitty portrayal of really everyone at this point.

Maybe I'm not being clear.

I'm saying "Ask GG'ers why they are so concerned if these portrayals change."

Why are they so upset they may not be able to play a game with massive tits flying around in the future? Or have less games with ramapnt sexist portrayls?

Then I apologize. I completely misunderstood that the quotations were meant to be around the entire sentence. I assumed it was those specifically around the word 'gamer' as others were talking about.

No problem at all.. I should be more clear. I type fast and am multi-tasking and often don't explain my thoughts all that well lol. As you can see above someone thought I was questioning why anyone would care about sexism in videogames when I was actually questioning why anyone would care about it being REMOVED from videogames. lol

 

[Galactic Fork]

You just did it again.. completely ignoring that there is more to her article than the title of the article.

She associates this "Gamer" stereotype with con attendees and vastly generalizes them. That's the problem with the article.

It doesn't need to be defended is my point. It's a losing argument.

So you're agreeing she wasn't insulting all gamers?
I have no problem with saying the story was insulting. But the question was who is it insulting? Removing the quotes removes that. And so many people are removing the quotes and saying it means "everybody who plays games." There are plenty of people who meet the stereotype she was talking about. And you know what? They aren't the only audience publishers should focus on.

If you want to have a serious talk about what was said and who it was insulting, get the title right at least and don't imply she means everybody who plays games.

 

[tchocky]

at least give us something like the title.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-10-17-we-cannot-let-this-become-gaming-culture

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Why are they so upset they may not be able to play a game with massive tits flying around in the future? Or have less games with ramapnt sexist portrayls?

You'll just get some obnoxious bullshit reply about creative freedom & fighting censorship.

 

[Mael]

Recently, I heard a reviewer gave Bayonetta 2 a lower score than other sites because he found her portrayal sexist, whilst i saw plenty of praise form other sources for her "embracing her sexuality" and how she was a "strong woman character". What a "positive" portrayal of women would be in games is subjective.

I'm not denying what is cited there are big games, but I could easily go back 10-15 years and pick out "positive" portrayals of women in major video games just like this. Has there really been a big change like people are saying? Or has the change they wanted always been there?

I don't really give a shit about Bayonetta, I wasn't interested in the 1rst one and I likely won't play the 2nd. I follow no review and really if someone was offended by that, it's their right.

We're having characters in Call of Duty that are not actually offensive (and why the fuck would a game about war have anything to say about sex anyway?), think about that for a moment.

That's not the right bloody word! FFS if your going to make silly unfounded accusations with no basis in reality at least use the correct language! Cronyism is the word their looking for to describe the fantastical reality that exists only in various manifestos and to long YouTube videos. English already had a perfect word to use, don't muddle a different one.

Why are you so mad at me for their mishandling of a dictionary?

Thanks, insteresting.



Maybe I'm not being clear.

I'm saying "Ask GG'ers why they are so concerned if these portrayals change."

Why are they so upset they may not be able to play a game with massive tits flying around in the future? Or have less games with ramapnt sexist portrayls?

Sorry I misread you and to answer you I have no idea.
I think it would be good if I don't have to roll my eyes every time I see a minority portrayed in a game (basically anything not white male with short hairs).

 

[NoblesseOblige]

No problem at all.. I should be more clear. I type fast and am multi-tasking and often don't explain my thoughts all that well lol. As you can see above someone thought I was questioning why anyone would care about sexism in videogames when I was actually questioning why anyone would care about it being REMOVED from videogames. lol

It's completely understandable in a topic as rapid-fire as this. I'm at work myself so generally an opening sentence dictates how much investment I can award the rest.

 

[endless dave]

Nah, a lot of GG people actually passed around a link to a charity ( this one: https://www.crowdrise.com/GamerGateStompsOutBullying/fundraiser/loping).

Checking out the Vivian James picture on top, and the comments below, yeah, definitely not cynical to call this out

 

[BlackRock]

The fact that this is even an issue we have to discuss is so sad. I can only hope that the population of such mysogenist gamers is small but incredibly vocal. I want to believe that the vast majority of gamers are sickened by the threats and abuse women in gaming have been subjected to, particularly the outrageous assaults on Anita Sarkeesian. All of the gamers I personally know are furious about this. It is an attack on our entire community of gamers, and is reinforcing the worst stereotypes hardcore gamers face in the general public. The mysogenist savages in the community, however, deserve our utter contempt, and the full weight of the law.

 

[riotous]

So you're agreeing she wasn't insulting all gamers?
I have no problem with saying the story was insulting. But the question was who is it insulting? Removing the quotes removes that. And so many people are removing the quotes and saying it means "everybody who plays games." There are plenty of people who meet the stereotype she was talking about. And you know what? They aren't the only audience publishers should focus on.

I'm specifically calling out those that attempts to remove any concept of her being offensive from the article.. it's pretty obvious she is PURPOSEFULLY attempting to be insulting towards some gamers.. I think it's incredibly intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise. Some have.

I think overall considering how irrational many GG'ers are; as someone who feels they are in a more rational state.. arguing against this one article seems a waste of time. Even pointing out that she wasn't trying to insult "all gamers" because IMO she just didn't do a good enough job of that and it's too easy for GG'ers to focus on that first paragraph or 2.

I've yet to see a GG'er be convinced the piece isn't offensive; I'm suggesting instead of arguing it isn't, ask them why it's so important. All she's doing is calling for game producers to focus on multiple demographics.. once you remove the fact she maybe said some rude things that people have taken offense to, why does the logical conclusion to this mean #GamerGate is needed?

Perhaps it's a completely lost cause. But I do think that actually engaging them in specific arguments only strengthens their cause.

 

[Mael]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-10-17-we-cannot-let-this-become-gaming-culture

Good article indeed, it pretty much point out that the rest of the world sees GG as the proof that the culture is really about the stereotypical nerd that GG was so offended about in LA's article.

 

[dLMN8R]

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/anita-sarkeesian-gamergate-interview-20141017

I enjoyed how call this interview with Antia, especially the talk of her series that came before the video games one and how they didn't receive this kind of vitriol

This was a really good interview, and it warms my heart how much positive coverage Anita Sarkeesian has received recently.

In the last few weeks I've gone back and watched her pre-videogames videos, and they're pretty enlightening in ways I didn't expect. There are of course some moments where I feel like she's a tiny bit overboard in how she thinks certain examples back her conclusions (don't remember the specifics), but those moments are few and far between.


The "fridging" episode in relation to comics was especially amazing. I'd never considered how many female superheroes have been killed permanently and never brought back vs. male superheroes which never seem to be able to die a permanent death.

 

[GeordieMark]

So you're agreeing she wasn't insulting all gamers?
I have no problem with saying the story was insulting. But the question was who is it insulting? Removing the quotes removes that. And so many people are removing the quotes and saying it means "everybody who plays games." There are plenty of people who meet the stereotype she was talking about. And you know what? They aren't the only audience publishers should focus on.

I agree with the gist of the article, and the overarching message.

My only criticism is the tone and language used. It was unnecessarily combative and aggressive and that is why it has caused so much consternation.

It's an issue I see in so much internet communication, be it Twitter, YouTube, forums. People are really quick to fire of a snarky comment, or to be a smart arse, when it really isn't called for and ultimately serves to turn off people who would otherwise sympathise, or agree.

I think if that article had said exactly the same things, but worded it in a more diplomatic way, there wouldn't have been the backlash. Now when I say that, don't think for a second I'm in any way justifying death threats or abuse, because I don't and won't. I just mean it stirred emotions that a more considered article wouldn't have.

That said, I'm not so naïve that I don't recognise that Leigh was undoubtedly very deliberate in the way she worded her article for maximum impact and exposure. It's just a shame that it takes that approach to get your point across these days.

 

[Galactic Fork]

I'm specifically calling out those that attempts to remove any concept of her being offensive from the article.. it's pretty obvious she is PURPOSEFULLY attempting to be insulting towards some gamers.. I think it's incredibly intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise. Some have.

I think overall considering how irrational many GG'ers are; as someone who feels they are in a more rational state.. arguing against this one article seems a waste of time. Even pointing out that she wasn't trying to insult "all gamers" because IMO she just didn't do a good enough job of that and it's too easy for GG'ers to focus on that first paragraph or 2.

I've yet to see a GG'er be convinced the piece isn't offensive; I'm suggesting instead of arguing it isn't, ask them why it's so important.

Perhaps it's a completely lost cause.

Huh, I thought the later paragraphs, when she was talking about the history of "gamers" were the problematic parts. I thought the first few paragraphs were pretty clearly about public perception of "gamers."


Horribly un-stealth edit: There was also a bit of disillusionment mixed in those first few paragraphs. This was especially evident in the second paragraph with the line "Queuing passionately for hours, at events around the world, to see the things that marketers want them to see."

 

[dumbo]

the quotes really makes it funny.
'despicable actions'.

I prefer to use things that people don't react to, and also don't take 3 paragraphs to list in full .

This is not a thread to ban GGers or being against GGers,
it's a thread discussing what's happening.
There's not just 2 sides with GG and anti-GG.

Maybe - but it seemed to be more of a thread for people to discuss how outraged they were about GG than anything else. A kind-of "self-help group for the outraged".

Personally, I think it's an opportunity to 'rethink' an electronic society that seems to be allowing rape/death-threats with impunity. But, instead, I think it's just going to be an opportunity to throw mud at everyone (maybe it's theraputic? I don't really care any more).

 

[More_Badass]

Not sure if it's related but I couldn't help but think of all the feminist/anti-feminist discussion

Dev posted this update in the devlog for his game The Curious Expediton, a roguelike sim set in the 19th century
Comment beneath the pic is from a poster there

 

[meijiko]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-10-17-we-cannot-let-this-become-gaming-culture

Yesssss finally a comment section I can get behind.

 

[Foolishfellow]

Gamergate is a giant cluster fuck because a good portion of those engaging in the discussion on gaming sites are either children or lack the education to properly discuss media criticism, theory, and feminism.

On the internet, those with unintelligent views are unfairly given an equal speaking platform simply because the mainstream media still feigns ignorance and acts like "gaming" is an impenetrable subculture.

At this point I honestly have no idea what #GamerGate even means. All that I know is that it should be obvious that video games are disproportionately made by men and marketed to men. This is also a problem that plagues the film industry. Lots of intelligent women (and men) have come forward in opposition to that status-quo and have produced really important work. If you refuse to acknowledge that it is something that needs to change you should probably go back to school, read some books, and try to think outside your own self-centric delusional world view.

 

[Tye The Czar]

I am still trying to figure out how "Social Justice Warrior" is an insult.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/7-ways-...age&utm_campaign=new+article&wa_ibsrc=fanpage

Though the general consensus is someone that tries to force progressive views and attacks people with other views similar to the way GamerGate is right now.


Anyway, the conclusion we should all come to is this:
The GamerGate label is now a voluntary badge of shame. If we want to discuss ways to solve gaming journalism's problems, we need a new label to unite under to promote informed, constructive criticism of game journalism's relationship with the industry. What would be a good name for this?
Some ideas:

Gamers for Better Journalism
Better Gaming Journalism
NeoGAF for Gaming Journalism Integrity

 

[MrHoot]

Their undoing is actually a very good thing. As they try harder to be serious, they are starting to actually self-police, take in criticism and do exactly what they don't want to do in order to show that they are "good." They've talked about diversity, donated to good causes, helped women and hunted down misogynists. How is that a bad thing? The only reason this is "undoing" is because they're doing good things so that they can keep targeting specific targets while saying they've got a sort of nice image.

Now all we have to do is make their undoing, more sincere. Make them do good things because they genuinely care, not because they need to protect their superficial reputation.

Agree a lot with this. It's a pattern i've seen evolving for a while now. There's been more and more self policing within the GamerGate movement as it's been taken over by more and more people. At first it was the removal of the "List of SJWs sympathisers" (which a lot thought it was completely idiotic after a while), then the calling out of harassers and doxxers. It's an ever morphin process, but eventually the "undoing" of gamergate will actually lead to good things for people who support the hashtag as well, or so I hope. It will be a long, painful process but it will reach the point eventually.

Checking out the Vivian James picture on top, and the comments below, yeah, definitely not cynical to call this out

To be fair, Vivian has been the mascot and an easy rallying point for a lot of people for various reasons. I thought the idea behind her was pretty cute even though yes, some people mostly from /pol/ tried to use her as an ulterior motive. But at this point, she belongs to everyone

 

[crowphoenix]

?
- this thread's primary complaint against GG (quite rightly) is 'the despicable actions' carried out in it's name.
- the one thing this thread is NOT considering is preventing those actions.

For some reason, I don't think this thread is much interested in logic .

Your comment that I responded to stated:
1) Twitter is not our house to clean.
2) That is doesn't matter how hate is presented.
3) A statement claiming that if #GamerGate is banned and #GamerGate2 is created, we have accomplished nothing.

As to what the thread is about, it is about people understanding and responding to the issues around it. Where you have gotten that this thread is not about action, I don't know. You can see in just the last few pages people discussing Twitter conversations and articles they or colleagues have written. Those are actions.

Now, as to your first point, Twitter may not be a house, but it could be seen as an apartment. It is a internet dwelling where ideas can take root and grow. If you find an idea repugnant, it is your responsibility to speak against it. Doing otherwise is (at best) being irresponsible about the world you want.

As to your third point that if #GamerGate is banned and replaced by #GamerGate2, we made no strides. That is wrong. It shows that GamerGate has been rejected and found to be unacceptable by Twitter. #GamerGate2 would be immediately closed, and the cycle would repeat until the GGers give up and move to a new space. It is making strides.

However, I don't want them banned. I want them to learn that they are being cruel and hateful. I want them to willingly turn away from their hate.

 

[KTallguy]

Thanks for the link, going to check it out later as my mobile is dying. But I know a lot of women who are outright hostile towards feminism as it exists today, some of them in my immediate family. Individuals who have successful business careers or are house wives like my mother in law. That being said, my artist friends seem to be on the opposite side. I don't know what purpose this post serves but it's just weird to see this divide and it feels like it is growing or perhaps it is just the Internet playing it's part? Everyone is so mad and a lot of people don't even understand why....

The other issue is a small fringe group of feminists that call for all men to die or whatever, something crazy like that. That creates negative attitudes towards feminism in general. It doesn't represent what feminism started from and what it's truly about.

That's why I feel for people who actually care about discussions of ethics in gaming journalism that are tweeting under the gamergate hashtag. I think that's an important discussion and worth having. Just not under that hashtag, which at this point is synonymous with a hate campaign. Sadly, the misinformation spread by a few individuals has become incredibly rampant, and paints Zoe and Anita as big targets. Thus, these women = the corruption in game journalism in many people's minds.

And on top of it, there are those shitty people that are harassing/doxxing people who use the gamergate hashtag. That shit doesn't help anything.

Anyway it's a big shitstorm...

 

[GutZ31]

I am convinced, at this time, that both sides of this fight are using half truths, conspiracy theories, and bold face lies to push their own narrative.

I am surprised at how little fact checking on both sides is being done.
Neogaf is usually pretty good about focusing on facts over rumor/feelings, but this subject has opened something that scares the crap out of me; ignorance on all sides.

 

[Mael]

I prefer to use things that people don't react to, and also don't take 3 paragraphs to list in full .

Nothing better than to trivialize harassment people received I guess.

Maybe - but it seemed to be more of a thread for people to discuss how outraged they were about GG than anything else. A kind-of "self-help group for the outraged".

Personally, I think it's an opportunity to 'rethink' an electronic society that seems to be allowing rape/death-threats with impunity. But, instead, I think it's just going to be an opportunity to throw mud at everyone (maybe it's theraputic? I don't really care any more).

We're really discussing the events as they go.
We do not allow rape/death threats at all here too.
There's not really much more that really needs to be done.
There's no discussion in GG about journalism anyway and the 'gaming culture' that fosters this kind of behaviour is really not what this site is about anyway.

 

[The Technomancer]

I am convinced, at this time, that both sides of this fight are using half truths, conspiracy theories, and bold face lies to push their own narrative.

I am surprised at how little fact checking on both sides is being done.
Neogaf is usually pretty good about focusing on facts over rumor/feelings, but this subject has opened something that scares the crap out of me; ignorance on all sides.

What ignorance is on display from the anti-GG side? Here are some facts about the inception of GamerGate back when it was all about Zoe Quinn:
https://storify.com/davidsgallant/the-origins-of-gamergate

 

[meijiko]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/7-ways-...age&utm_campaign=new+article&wa_ibsrc=fanpage

Though the general consensus is someone that tries to force progressive views and attacks people with other views similar to the way GamerGate is right now.


Anyway, the conclusion we should all come to is this:
The GamerGate label is now a voluntary badge of shame. If we want to discuss ways to solve gaming journalism's problems, we need a new label to unite under to promote informed, constructive criticism of game journalism's relationship with the industry. What would be a good name for this?
Some ideas:

To be completely honest, I don't think we need a movement to discuss game journalism and its problems. I think opening dialog on forums as problems arise is doing fine.

Maybe - but it seemed to be more of a thread for people to discuss how outraged they were about GG than anything else. A kind-of "self-help group for the outraged".

Personally, I think it's an opportunity to 'rethink' an electronic society that seems to be allowing rape/death-threats with impunity. But, instead, I think it's just going to be an opportunity to throw mud at everyone (maybe it's theraputic? I don't really care any more).

This thread, for a while there, seemed to be the only place on the internet that saw GamerGate for what it was. Every other place discussing it was rife with GGers pushing their narrative about "corruption" and jumping down any insane conspiracy rabbit hole they could come up with. It was important to me that this thread existed, as it gave me a little hope that there were still reasonable people out there not being drowned out by the misguided anger.

 

[Galactic Fork]

I am convinced, at this time, that both sides of this fight are using half truths, conspiracy theories, and bold face lies to push their own narrative.

I am surprised at how little fact checking on both sides is being done.
Neogaf is usually pretty good about focusing on facts over rumor/feelings, but this subject has opened something that scares the crap out of me; ignorance on all sides.

Wow, it must be awesome to be the calm voice of reason in the eye of a cyclone of ignorance and stupidity. #bothsides

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

I am convinced, at this time, that both sides of this fight are using half truths, conspiracy theories, and bold face lies to push their own narrative.

I am surprised at how little fact checking on both sides is being done.
Neogaf is usually pretty good about focusing on facts over rumor/feelings, but this subject has opened something that scares the crap out of me; ignorance on all sides.

Citations needed

 

[Mael]

I am convinced, at this time, that both sides of this fight are using half truths, conspiracy theories, and bold face lies to push their own narrative.

I am surprised at how little fact checking on both sides is being done.
Neogaf is usually pretty good about focusing on facts over rumor/feelings, but this subject has opened something that scares the crap out of me; ignorance on all sides.

Ah, the good ole "both sides are really bad so I won't take a stand" without anything to explain how it came to that conclusion.

 

[Zona]

Why are you so mad at me for their mishandling of a dictionary?

I'm mad at them, I just quoted you because you mentioned their habit. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[crowphoenix]

I am convinced, at this time, that both sides of this fight are using half truths, conspiracy theories, and bold face lies to push their own narrative.

I am surprised at how little fact checking on both sides is being done.
Neogaf is usually pretty good about focusing on facts over rumor/feelings, but this subject has opened something that scares the crap out of me; ignorance on all sides.

What facts are we ignoring? I have had a hard time fully understand, so your impartial opinion would be worthwhile.