Support NeoGAF

[Neoriceisgood]

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.

Please substantiate your claims, you just literally came into the thread to go "YOU GUYS ARE WRONG" without anything substantial to contribute.

It's kind of really gross.

 

[riotous]

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."

She didn't just say "this is how they perceive."

She actually said "this is all they know of us."

Which is an issue of perception; but she does so by pointlessly throwing con attendees under the bus and being needlessly insulting about totally unrelated things. What does online harassment and misogyny have to do with "not knowing how to dress?" If there is a correlation she certainly didn't explain it.. she just jumps into discussing harassment and incredibly misogynistic behavior.

 

[Foolishfellow]

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.

No kidding... There is an obvious right and an obvious wrong in this discussion.

Taking the middle ground is a fallacy. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

 

[Servbot #42]

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.

This is how i feel too, the only real thing gamergate has accomplished is showing the worst of our gaming culture to the mainstream audience. Nobody gives a fuck about gaming press media corruption anymore, at least not anyone in the mainstream, that ship sailed a long time ago. Gamergate is now all about death threats and bomb scares. Personally i don't give a shit if there are corrupt people out there, so fucking what. Nothing excuses the harassment woman have endured.

 

[Noaloha]

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

I posted about that earlier, in this thread or perhaps the Utah incident thread, but there is a distinction according to several dictionaries between the UK English usage of nepotism and the US English usage. Which is to say, all things considered it's a problem that belongs in Off-Topic boards nestled comfortably between the latest aluminum/aluminium thread and a bumped biscuits/cookies one.

 

[Mael]

I posted about that earlier, in this thread or perhaps the Utah incident thread, but there is a distinction according to several dictionaries between the UK English usage of nepotism and the US English usage. Which is to say, all things considered it's a problem that belongs in Off-Topic boards nestled comfortably between the latest aluminum/aluminium thread and a bumped biscuits/cookies one.

No really the term comes from nepos in Latin that says nephew.
the family ties is really needed for nepotism.
You'll have to show where US and UK English differ in the meaning of that word because even wiki don't see a difference here.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Actually got around watching some of Anita's videos. Given the reaction to her and my previous experience with people I saw labelled as "SJW", I expected to see an hour long incoherent rant about oppression by the patriarchy with gratuitous use of terms like "mansplaining", "microaggressions" and "male privelege" in every single statement.

What I got instead was "look at this stupid, obviously sexist crap" with very simple and accessible explanations. At some point I was even able to guess which examples she would bring up. I can see how one can disagree with some of the statements she makes, but it's not like she is even actually attacking anything. If people think this is radical, I am scared to think what they would say about some actual feminist bloggers I have come across.

Spoiler

Probably "wait, which language is this written in?"

I know, right? Her videos are really tame in tone and her examples are rarely controversial. Even if you dismiss the death threat senders as obvious nutcases, the vitriolic responses and accusations in general are simply disproportionate.

Most of the Giant Bomb guys have been on the shit list of GG for a while now actually, given comments they've made now and then.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeffgerstmann/status/505106389753024513

There's also a fair amount of inherent irony in accusing Jeff Gerstmann of media corruption and dishonesty I feel.

That's hilarious. I expected to see Carolyn Petit and Arthur Gies, but instead I see Keza MacDonald and Kevin VanOrd? lol, this is so fucking stupid

 

[GutZ31]

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

Annnnd I rest my point.
The link is one sided, and has half truths, lies, and conspiracy theories...

Anyone else on here could post an equally damning piece on how its all games journalists fault, and that the Zoe mess was the trigger to start the movement.

Both are half truths, full lies, and conspiracy theories, but if you are taking a side, you pretty much believe what you want to believe.

Most likely, this will go on until someone is taken in by the FBI, or admits to something.

I can understand both sides, as they both have extremists, and both have rational people.
Unfortunately, they both paint eachother with HUGE brush strokes that show how ignorant both sides are.

I think change in gaming media is something that needs to take place.
I think attacking ANYONE, threats included, is unacceptable.
I have seen reasonable discussion on both sides, and I have seen links like that one, that pretty much do nothing but show agendas.

If gamergate is to change the games journalism landscape, and stop gamergate is to stop threats and attacks on people, but gamergate is really about being misogynist straight, white guys, I am totally lost.

Everyone is making this what they want it to be. discussion is either one sided, or non-existent.
It looked like both sides of this had a pretty clear agenda at first, but somehow, the waters are so full of poo, from all the flinging, that its hard to tell whats real, and what has no bases.

 

[Galactic Fork]

She didn't just say "this is how they perceive."

She actually said "this is all they know of us."

Which is an issue of perception; but she does so by pointlessly throwing con attendees under the bus and being needlessly insulting about totally unrelated things. What does online harassment and misogyny have to do with "not knowing how to dress?"

It's part of the stereotype. Can you really deny that? I mean, read neogaf. There are and have been lots of references to awkwardness, or basement dwelling, or smelly, or nerdy things in general. How would you describe the gamer stereotype? Hell, I've seen "socially awkward" used as an excuse for some people's bad behavior at cons.

 

[JackDT]

Nice wrapup of the overall picture:

For a movement allegedly about journalistic ethics, it got off on the wrong foot – it put the emphasis on the developer, not the journalists. I suspect that’s because they know they had very little. You may still see people saying “but Nathan Grayson reviewed her game”. The problem is that he didn’t. He listed her game as one of fifty indie games over on Rock, Paper, Shotgun and he mentioned it again in a Kotaku article about a game jam. Neither of these are the reviews that many in GG claim.

Here’s my core issue with GG: it’s built on a lot of misinformation, and that misinformation is still getting passed around as fact.

Rock, Paper, Shotgun gets continually listed as a site that had a ‘gamers are dead’ article written for it. It didn’t, it merely linked to one of the others. But knowing that would require fact-checking, right?
...
But enough of that for now. Let’s look at what GG has proven, shall we? The GameJournoPros list is the big one. Of course, ask GG to point to what actual collusion they’ve seen happen on there, and you’ll get very little beyond ‘they decided not to cover the Quinnspiracy stuff’. This is barely a conspiracy. What’s more interesting is that the writers that wrote the notorious ‘gamers are over’ articles are mostly not on that list. So the claims that those articles were co-ordinated via that list? Sorry, wrong.

This “operation” is basically saying that blacklisting journalists who give lower scores (and since when is 7.5 a low score?) is okay. It’s also a bit weird, since apparently, the fact Polygon dissented from the common consensus on the game is a problem now – whereas, if anything, that shows a lack of collusion on their part!

But many in GG are no longer at a point where the actual ethics are something to consider. They’re at a point where anyone who disagrees with them is seen as an ‘enemy’ of sorts. Because apparently, when someone like me (critical of GG from the start!) says that this is a bad idea, what some of GG see that as is ‘this is a great idea, because she disagrees’. Source/archive. This isn’t the behaviour of a movement concerned with actually sorting out ethics. This is the behaviour of a movement concerned with being right.

http://theflounce.com/gamergate-seem-understand-ethics-nearly-well-thinks/

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Annnnd I rest my point.
The link is one sided, and has half truths, lies, and conspiracy theories...

Anyone else on here could post an equally damning piece on how its all games journalists fault, and that the Zoe mess was the trigger to start the movement.

Both are half truths, full lies, and conspiracy theories, but if you are taking a side, you pretty much believe what you want to believe.

Most likely, this will go on until someone is taken in by the FBI, or admits to something.

I can understand both sides, as they both have extremists, and both have rational people.
Unfortunately, they both paint eachother with HUGE brush strokes that show how ignorant both sides are.

I think change in gaming media is something that needs to take place.
I think attacking ANYONE, threats included, is unacceptable.
I have seen reasonable discussion on both sides, and I have seen links like that one, that pretty much do nothing but show agendas.

If gamergate is to change the games journalism landscape, and stop gamergate is to stop threats and attacks on people, but gamergate is really about being misogynist straight, white guys, I am totally lost.

Everyone is making this what they want it to be. discussion is either one sided, or non-existent.
It looked like both sides of this had a pretty clear agenda at first, but somehow, the waters are so full of poo, from all the flinging, that its hard to tell whats real, and what has no bases.

Hey

Where are your links

 

[Mael]

Annnnd I rest my point.
The link is one sided, and has half truths, lies, and conspiracy theories...

Can you give an example straight from the link?

 

[ICKE]

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.

I hope you bought all the armor upgrades lol. I do understand this sentiment in the sense that as Neogaf leans towards the stop GG side of things, people tend to post specific updates claiming that they represent the "regressives" as a whole. This is what people in reddit and other places do when they use the GG tag and post opinion pieces to support their views. It is just human nature and if you bring this up then it is seen as making bullshit excuses, not taking a stand or what have you. If you follow political discussion it is just routine and if you don't personally talk with conservatives/progressives then you might have a borderline conspiratorial view of the other. In the Internet this is impossible, because it is just voice and these GG loons are extremely vocal.

#CNN-GAF

 

[The Technomancer]

Annnnd I rest my point.
The link is one sided, and has half truths, lies, and conspiracy theories...

Anyone else on here could post an equally damning piece on how its all games journalists fault, and that the Zoe mess was the trigger to start the movement.

Right

But they would be wrong

Because they wouldn't have any evidence

Like the evidence that I just linked you to

 

[Cyrano]

I don't think these women are saints. I think they are probably mean and often irresponsible put-downers. :\

I don't really want to defend their offensive behavior. I just want to make others realize why the anger on the other side is extremely disproportional. Both sides have made evil caricatures of themselves. I can't really do much besides try to keep saying "So what? It happened. Put it behind you and forgive."

But that's not the discussion either side wants to have. At. All.

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/5ndnit/jessica-s-feminized-atmosphere
I wouldn't exactly say that it's difficult to see why.

Not to mention that you're establishing a false dichotomy here. Gamergate is a hate group, people who are against it are not organized and I wouldn't even say the StopGamerGate hashtag has actually formed a real united front. Not that it hasn't made people more aware, which is vital in stemming a hate group (for the most part, hate groups tend to shrink drastically in numbers when people are aware of what they're part of).

 

[partyphone]

buncha crap

how can you expect anyone to take your point seriously if you don't actually argue it?

 

[Auctopus]

Searched for this article being posted but couldn't find it: Anita Sarkeesian talks to Rolling Stone Magazine.

Article is alright but the first two paragraphs are worded really badly...

She started with a YouTube account and wound up on the front page of the New York Times. In between, all that the Canadian-American feminist cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian did, via her video series Feminist Frequency, was calmly, comprehensively collect and explain examples of the shoddy portrayal of women in video games. Titled "Tropes vs. Women," her series on gaming pointed out that the roles most often available to women — from princesses to be rescued to prostitutes to be murdered — are both sexist and unimaginative. If these roles were rethought, diversified and expanded, Sarkeesian argues, gaming's creative class and audience would be diversified and expanded in turn, and games would become more fun to boot.

Hardly controversial stuff, you'd think. But for this, Sarkeesian has been treated like Public Enemy Number One by a reactionary community of hardcore gamers who've gathered under the "#GamerGate" hashtag. Under the guise of pushing for journalistic reform and anti-censorship in gaming, GamerGate has targeted prominent women critics and designers like Sarkeesian, Zoë Quinn, Brianna Wu and Leigh Alexander with a relentless campaign of threats and harassment. Sarkeesian has been driven from her home by the threats; just this week, she canceled a speaking engagement at Utah State University after an anti-feminist detractor threatened a mass shooting when police refused to search attendees for weapons, citing the state's concealed-carry law.

After the bolded is when the writer explains the hastag, that fullstop is misleading.

Edit: I read through the article a couple more times and actually it's very one-sided. I'm not saying that #GamerGate deserves a spokesperson but with the dismissal of GG comes the dismissal of genuine criticisms with the femfreq videos, which is what I said I was worried would happen a few pages ago. Are all Rolling Stone interviews just set-up questions which could be replaced with an essay of the interviewee's answers?

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

I hope you bought all the armor upgrades lol. I do understand this sentiment in the sense that as Neogaf leans towards the stop GG side of things, people tend to post specific pictures and twitter updates claiming that they represent the "regressives" as a whole. This is what people in reddit and other places do when they use the GG tag and post opinion pieces to support their views. It is just human nature and if you bring this up then it is seen as making bullshit excuses, not taking a stand or what have you.

#CNN-GAF

Let's see

You like the Amazing Atheist because he "doesn't back down" from being a misogynist asshole

You make multiple "just give up" posts in here

And now you're patting this on the back

 

[L Thammy]

I tend to assume that the people who are most aggressive in their opinion that everyone needs to stop talking tend to be Gamergate supporters. Sure, some people aren't knowledgeable about the situation, so they assume it's trolling or think that claiming a moderate position will let them win the argument. But Gamergate is the group that really benefits from silence. They want to stop women fro speaking for themselves. They want to stop journalists from looking at video games and the Gamergate situation critically.

Aggressive neutral positions tend to strike me as "I don't know how to argue my point, but if you shut up, I win."

 

[riotous]

It's part of the stereotype. Can you really deny that? I mean, read neogaf. There are and have been lots of references to awkwardness, or basement dwelling, or smelly, or nerdy things in general. How would you describe the gamer stereotype? Hell, I've seen "socially awkward" used as an excuse for some people's bad behavior at cons.

I asked how it relates to misogyny and harassment, not whether or not it's a stereotype.

LOADS of people self identify with aspects her description who have nothing to do with online harassment and misogyny. You think everyone calling for changes to the industry is a well dressed socialite?

Not to mention the fact her real life example was incredibly flawed; almost every gamer who posts online, who would be the audience for her article, is someone who would like the chance to go to a game convention. And in fact the demographics of a game convention are more like the demographics of NeoGAF than the demographics of 4chan / GamerGaters in my experience.

Now those reacting ridiculously irrationally to this are likely doing so for another reason; I just don't think her actual article is all that worthy of defending directly or trying to construe her argument in a way that isn't offensive to people.. who are offended by it.

 

[KTallguy]

I think because there have been a good amount of chatlogs showing the hashtag was co-opted by a few people who pushed a very specific message, the actual origin of the movement seems fairly cut and dry, even if the individuals within the movement are concerned with more important issues.

That's why a lot of people (myself included) believe that the legitimacy of the #gamergate movement is not a nuanced question. It started as a hate movement, even if some are using it for good.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Annnnd I rest my point.

Did you just come in here to tell people they're wrong without any sort of substance on your side?

 

[Riposte]

Please substantiate your claims, you just literally came into the thread to go "YOU GUYS ARE WRONG" without anything substantial to contribute.

It's kind of really gross.

I don't agree with him overall (or maybe at all?), but as someone who wants this thread to be his one (and ideally only) source of GamerGate information, sometimes I have doubts about some of the stuff people post here.

A post begins with "Look at what they are doing now!" and then posts some image, tweet, or screencap of a forum post (likely excluding replies or the post being replied) displaying some wacky/ugly behavior created by essentially someone no one knows (perhaps someone who is a troll). The problem with that there's no real context or explanation (aside from some condemnation). Out of all the anonymous words or images being posted, why is this one relevant outside some point-at-the-freak zoo appeal?

Moreover, if you are going to say it represents a lot of people, I'd hope there would be reasoning why it represents even some people. I wasn't sure the Bayonetta/Polygon boycott image mattered, so I had to look it up myself, because the way it was first presented didn't really make it look like anything more than some dumb image posted once (it wasn't even sourced IIRC). Maybe people are like condemn-first, understand-second. And I don't really see the appeal of that, not in the defense of GamerGate, but the kind of discussion it creates is just petty (but maybe therapeutic for some?).

 

[crowphoenix]

Annnnd I rest my point.
The link is one sided, and has half truths, lies, and conspiracy theories...

Anyone else on here could post an equally damning piece on how its all games journalists fault, and that the Zoe mess was the trigger to start the movement.

Both are half truths, full lies, and conspiracy theories, but if you are taking a side, you pretty much believe what you want to believe.

Most likely, this will go on until someone is taken in by the FBI, or admits to something.

I can understand both sides, as they both have extremists, and both have rational people.
Unfortunately, they both paint eachother with HUGE brush strokes that show how ignorant both sides are.

I think change in gaming media is something that needs to take place.
I think attacking ANYONE, threats included, is unacceptable.
I have seen reasonable discussion on both sides, and I have seen links like that one, that pretty much do nothing but show agendas.

If gamergate is to change the games journalism landscape, and stop gamergate is to stop threats and attacks on people, but gamergate is really about being misogynist straight, white guys, I am totally lost.

Everyone is making this what they want it to be. discussion is either one sided, or non-existent.
It looked like both sides of this had a pretty clear agenda at first, but somehow, the waters are so full of poo, from all the flinging, that its hard to tell whats real, and what has no bases.

Can you please provide your sources for the other side? I would like to at least see what you're talking about before fully engaging.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Seems to me that #Gamergate is separated into main groups:
- one group focused on harassing women and spouting general misogyny (including regurgitating rhetoric about Five Guys, whining about SJWs ruining games, etc.)
- the rest is focused on denying that they're misogynists and that "this is about journalism ethics not misogyny", but never actually deal with real ethical issues. They're just being defensive. #notallgamers etc

So on the other hand, you got the bad apples. On the other hand, you have those denying they're the bad apples, but doing pretty much nothing else. #GGers focused on actual, concrete ethical issues? Just not happening.

 

[ICKE]

Let's see

You like the Amazing Atheist because he "doesn't back down" from being a misogynist asshole

You make multiple "just give up" posts in here

And now you're patting this on the back

Nice misrepresentation bro.

-I said I respected AA's resilience against internet trolls.
-Stated that he has problems in his messaging and can come across as heartless.
-Have repeatedly been sceptical as to how the gaming community can move forward from the ongoing negativity but that is just a result of witnessing all the hate for over 15 years. But I don't believe I've said Sarkeesian or anyone else should give up, I'm just rather pessimistic because Internet is what it is.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Annnnd I rest my point.
The link is one sided, and has half truths, lies, and conspiracy theories...

Anyone else on here could post an equally damning piece on how its all games journalists fault, and that the Zoe mess was the trigger to start the movement.

Both are half truths, full lies, and conspiracy theories, but if you are taking a side, you pretty much believe what you want to believe.

Most likely, this will go on until someone is taken in by the FBI, or admits to something.

I can understand both sides, as they both have extremists, and both have rational people.
Unfortunately, they both paint eachother with HUGE brush strokes that show how ignorant both sides are.

I think change in gaming media is something that needs to take place.
I think attacking ANYONE, threats included, is unacceptable.
I have seen reasonable discussion on both sides, and I have seen links like that one, that pretty much do nothing but show agendas.

If gamergate is to change the games journalism landscape, and stop gamergate is to stop threats and attacks on people, but gamergate is really about being misogynist straight, white guys, I am totally lost.

Everyone is making this what they want it to be. discussion is either one sided, or non-existent.
It looked like both sides of this had a pretty clear agenda at first, but somehow, the waters are so full of poo, from all the flinging, that its hard to tell whats real, and what has no bases.

Everyone except you right?

 

[The Technomancer]

Seems to me that #Gamergate is separated into main groups:
- one group focused on harassing women and spouting general misogyny (including regurgitating rhetoric about Five Guys, whining about SJWs ruining games, etc.)
- the rest is focused on denying that they're misogynists and that "this is about journalism ethics not misogyny", but never actually deal with real ethical issues. They're just being defensive. #notallgamers etc

So on the other hand, you got the bad apples. On the other hand, you have those denying they're the bad apples, but doing pretty much nothing else. #GGers focused on actual, concrete ethical issues? Just not happening.

This is what really kills it for me. I would give them the befit of the doubt if all of these "GamerGate people" who decry the misogyny and death threats were instead actually focusing their attention on ethical issues. But time after time, turn after turn, there has been no leveraging of the GamerGate attention towards either addressing actual ethical concerns (Shadow of Mordor mess) or supporting people who discuss actual ethics in the game industry (Jim Sterling). It has consistently been about "the SJWs" and the critics who don't toe the line of bland approval and whatever else fits into an essentially conservative agenda.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

I don't agree with him overall (or maybe at all?), but as someone who wants this thread to be his one (and ideally only) source of GamerGate information, sometimes I have doubts about some of the stuff people post here. A post begins with "Look at what they are doing now!" and then posts some image, tweet, or screencap of a forum post (likely excluding replies or the post being replied) displaying some wacky/ugly behavior created by essentially who-knows (perhaps someone who is a troll). The problem with that there's no real context or explanation (aside from some condemnation). Out of all the anonymous words or images being posted, why is this one relevant outside some point-at-the-freak zoo appeal? Moreover, if you are going to say it represents a lot of people, I'd hope there would be reasoning why it represents even some people. I wasn't sure the Bayonetta/Polygon image mattered, so I had to look it up myself, because the way it was first presented didn't really make it look like anything more than some dumb image posted once (it wasn't even sourced IIRC). Maybe people are like condemn-first, understand-second. And I don't really see the appeal of that, not in the defense of GamerGate, but the kind of discussion it creates is just petty (but maybe therapeutic for some?).

I'm just gonna bring this up, but could you please segment your posts into paragraphs?
As someone with Dyslexia your posts genuinly give me headaches to read as I have legitimate issues with the lack of "breaks".

Anyway my complaint is that his post is literally "you're wrong" without specifying posts or examples of what's bothering him/her. If there'd be actual examples
there'd be something to discuss, at the moment there isn't.

 

[GutZ31]

Hey

Where are your links

Can you give an example straight from the link?

I hope you bought all the armor upgrades lol. I do understand this sentiment in the sense that as Neogaf leans towards the stop GG side of things, people tend to post specific pictures and twitter updates claiming that they represent the "regressives" as a whole. This is what people in reddit and other places do when they use the GG tag and post opinion pieces to support their views. It is just human nature and if you bring this up then it is seen as making bullshit excuses, not taking a stand or what have you.

#CNN-GAF

Right

But they would be wrong

Because they wouldn't have any evidence

Like the evidence that I just linked you to

If I post a link, I better be able to back it up with evidence, not just a sole link.

I won't be nit picking anything apart either, because I am a coward.
I have seen the 4chan paste bins as well, and they are just as loaded for their agenda.
I don't have the armor, or time to fight for/against BOTH sides of this debate, I just find it scary sometimes reading these stories.

I am probably a very unwelcome poster at this point.
I only wish that more thought than just "us against them" was used by everyone.
I will now crawl in my hole for not bringing any real discussion to the table.

 

[JackDT]

Seems to me that #Gamergate is separated into main groups:
- one group focused on harassing women and spouting general misogyny (including regurgitating rhetoric about Five Guys, whining about SJWs ruining games, etc.)
- the rest is focused on denying that they're misogynists and that "this is about journalism ethics not misogyny", but never actually deal with real ethical issues. They're just being defensive. #notallgamers etc

So on the other hand, you got the bad apples. On the other hand, you have those denying they're the bad apples, but doing pretty much nothing else. #GGers focused on actual, concrete ethical issues? Just not happening.

I think that's accurate. In weeks, the only thing at least supposedly about gaming journalism in gamergate was the campaign to get Nintendo to stop sending review copies to Polygon. Everything else is either outright trolling, or people mad at people saying mean things about gamergate.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Nice misrepresentation bro.

Where did I lie

Your feelings on the Amazing Atheist can be confirmed in the Anita thread in OT

Your multiple posts lamenting our continued skewering of GG can be found strewn throughout this thread

 

[plagiarize]

People keep tweeting 'historyofgamergate.com' to try to set the record straight on 'what GamerGate is really all about'. This is on the front page of that site. Highlights mine.

They think this is the *rational* face of their campaign: Don't blame us for the minority of our group sending death threats. But death threats aren't news. Heck, they aren't even worth thinking about.

So fucking rational guys.

 

[endless dave]

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.

I'm not going to bat you over the head over how base of a statement this is because we've been doing it over and over and over for hundreds of pages to dozens of people at this point, but let me say this on the "both sides!" comments:

I think we can all concede that there are people on "both sides" of this that have uses lies and deception and bullying as tactics. I don't think that's a disingenuous statement in and of itself. Just by sheer numbers, that's expected. it's the extrapolation from there to say "both sides have no merit, based on the actions of some actors in the campaigns" that's wrong. you have to look at which side is actively and openly using them- as in, which side has principle members engaged in them. it's also a matter of where those actions are being targeted and why. and then it's the simple equation of: which side is the one advancing the more positive narrative and cause. THat in turn should forgive some of the more distressing tactics employed by its (loose, non-centralized) adherents. Not to say they should be tolerated whole heartedly and not called out, but certainly they shouldn't be evidence to throw the entire baby out with the bathwater

 

[Mman235]

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.
And there's really good reasons why gaming should be more inclusive, it's simply growth.
We have a great example of that with the rise and fall of Nintendo between 2006 and 2013.
They recently chose to stop catering to a more narrow demographic of their users and ...they saw their customer base shrink as a result.

Yeah, while it's certainly some influence (the "no Woman on box art" thing recently shows that), the idea that AAA pubs are going out of their way to suppress positive portrayals of Woman implies too much malice to it. I'm not sure where the specific quotes are, but developers who were influenced by Tropes vs Woman have said that they didn't use those lazy tropes and characterisations because they were forced to, but simply because it's so endemic in the industry they didn't even think about being more creative until it was pointed out to them.

 

[partyphone]

I don't agree with him overall (or maybe at all?), but as someone who wants this thread to be his one (and ideally only) source of GamerGate information, sometimes I have doubts about some of the stuff people post here. A post begins with "Look at what they are doing now!" and then posts some image, tweet, or screencap of a forum post (likely excluding replies or the post being replied) displaying some wacky/ugly behavior created by essentially someone no one knows (perhaps someone who is a troll). The problem with that there's no real context or explanation (aside from some condemnation). Out of all the anonymous words or images being posted, why is this one relevant outside some point-at-the-freak zoo appeal? Moreover, if you are going to say it represents a lot of people, I'd hope there would be reasoning why it represents even some people. I wasn't sure the Bayonetta/Polygon boycott image mattered, so I had to look it up myself, because the way it was first presented didn't really make it look like anything more than some dumb image posted once (it wasn't even sourced IIRC). Maybe people are like condemn-first, understand-second. And I don't really see the appeal of that, not in the defense of GamerGate, but the kind of discussion it creates is just petty (but maybe therapeutic for some?).

If you have some magical source where pro-gg people aren't being stupid I would like to see it. because having the hashtag open in a tab certainly isn't it.

 

[The Technomancer]

If I post a link, I better be able to back it up with evidence, not just a sole link.

I won't be nit picking anything apart either, because I am a coward.
I have seen the 4chan paste bins as well, and they are just as loaded for their agenda.
I don't have the armor, or time to fight for/against BOTH sides of this debate, I just find it scary sometimes reading these stories.

I am probably a very unwelcome poster at this point.
I only wish that more thought than just "us against them" was used by everyone.
I will now crawl in my hole for not bringing any real discussion to the table.

WHAT AGENDA? The anti-GamerGate side consists of people who think "harassment is bad and cultural criticism isn't evil". That's not an agenda, and it doesn't form the basis for a side any more then at a murder trial you have "anti-murder" and "pro-murder" sides

 

[Mael]

If I post a link, I better be able to back it up with evidence, not just a sole link.

I won't be nit picking anything apart either, because I am a coward.
I have seen the 4chan paste bins as well, and they are just as loaded for their agenda.
I don't have the armor, or time to fight for/against BOTH sides of this debate, I just find it scary sometimes reading these stories.

I am probably a very unwelcome poster at this point.
I only wish that more thought than just "us against them" was used by everyone.
I will now crawl in my hole for not bringing any real discussion to the table.

You said it was full of half truth and outright lies, surely you can provide even a specific part that really bothers you.
i mean if someone gives us a link saying something we'll point out the parts that look weak to us.
We just want to know where you're coming from.
You can stay or go that's your choice (unless you get banned that is)

 

[The Technomancer]

Yeah, while it's certainly some influence (the "no Woman on box art" thing recently shows that), the idea that AAA pubs are going out of their way to suppress positive portrayals of Woman implies too much malice to it. I'm not sure where the specific quotes are, but developers who were influenced by Tropes vs Woman have said that they didn't use those lazy tropes and characterisations because they were forced too, but simply because it's so endemic in the industry they didn't even think about being more creative until it was pointed out to them.

Its a bit old, so I don't know how much things have changed (my guess: a little, but not a whole lot) but this Jimquisition is very relevant: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7044-The-Creepy-Cull-of-Female-Protagonists

 

[Neoriceisgood]

If I post a link, I better be able to back it up with evidence, not just a sole link.

I won't be nit picking anything apart either, because I am a coward.
I have seen the 4chan paste bins as well, and they are just as loaded for their agenda.
I don't have the armor, or time to fight for/against BOTH sides of this debate, I just find it scary sometimes reading these stories.

I am probably a very unwelcome poster at this point.
I only wish that more thought than just "us against them" was used by everyone.
I will now crawl in my hole for not bringing any real discussion to the table.

You realise posting with the express intent of "not wanting discussion" is generally against GAF's rules right?

You literally just came in this thread to insult the general participants & admit to not wanting to actively debate.

 

[Substrata]

They think this is the *rational* face of their campaign. Don't blame us for the minority of your group sending death threats. But death threats aren't news. Heck, they aren't even worth thinking about.

I don't think he's excusing death threats. Sounds more like he is trying to say is that some people are always going to be dicks. So if you can't stop them, just ignore them and don't feed their need for attention. Whats the issue with that?

 

[zeldablue]

She didn't just say "this is how they perceive."

She actually said "this is all they know of us."

Which is an issue of perception; but she does so by pointlessly throwing con attendees under the bus and being needlessly insulting about totally unrelated things. What does online harassment and misogyny have to do with "not knowing how to dress?" If there is a correlation she certainly didn't explain it.. she just jumps into discussing harassment and incredibly misogynistic behavior.

Social rejection, especially over a long stretch of time causes empathy to rocket down. People around you become strangers. I know this because I had terrible problems with empathy when I was depressed/lonely. Over time it becomes less about being marginalized and turns into loosing trust and faith in people who aren't like you. Games are a refuge. The crazy amounts of hostility comes from the feeling that everyone who isn't a gamer is an "other."

It's a "They don't understand us or our struggles" kind of thing.

Social rejection is definitely going to lead to straight up repressed hatred for men and especially women. It's a sensitive topic, but the driving force of the problem. We think those who are bullied learn to empathize, but it's the opposite. People who are really racist or sexist do it because it feels so good to blame something and drive out those hidden frustrations. Not even going to lie, I was a straight up "misogynist" because of where I placed my blame on other women. We hold onto that pain and wait for someone to release it on. Someone who represents what we hate.

Until we reflect and release that hurt, of course!

 

[Riposte]

I'm just gonna bring this up, but could you please segment your posts into paragraphs?
As someone with Dyslexia your posts genuinly give me headaches to read as I have legitimate issues with the lack of "breaks".

Anyway my complaint is that his post is literally "you're wrong" without specifying posts or examples of what's bothering him/her. If there'd be actual examples
there'd be something to discuss, at the moment there isn't.

That was intended to be a paragraph, but I understand your point and will try to be mindful of that in the future.

I'm not disagreeing with your complaint, it is just something that came to mind based on what he said (which was very vague lol). I think there are articles out there that do a good enough job of summarizing (and in turn, criticizing) GamerGate and its foundations, but sometimes people "on ground" do a very poor job of reporting on things they see (and make claims based on it nevertheless), probably because they just want to vent their anger.

I expect some degree of care put into putting forth a piece of evidence, especially in this thread given the additional rules.

 

[Mael]

Yeah, while it's certainly some influence (the "no Woman on box art" thing recently shows that), the idea that AAA pubs are going out of their way to suppress positive portrayals of Woman implies too much malice to it. I'm not sure where the specific quotes are, but developers who were influenced by Tropes vs Woman have said that they didn't use those lazy tropes and characterisations because they were forced too, but simply because it's so endemic in the industry they didn't even think about being more creative until it was pointed out to them.

Exactly.
If you take the example of the female protrayal in games like Mario, I don't think that what you have to take from it is that people at EAD are full on thinking that women's only worth is being the reward for the players.
I think it's more about them giving a justification or a story so that they can make their game part with it being out of the way.

 

[Kinyou]

More on Biddle- the complete lack of humor and levity in this entire this is what is getting me now. it's a culture war and no one wants to take a step back and go "ok everyone, let's just remember this is ostensibly video games and video games journalism we're talking about." which is not to say anti-GG (which I firmly put myself into) shouldn't call out the constant awful stuff GG-aligned people are doing, but can we please not stridently hold this terribly dry and flat Less Wrong stance on the whole thing. Can we not mock their ridiculous, bullshit beliefs even a little?

There's a bit of a difference between mocking beliefs and "Hey, lets beat up nerds" "Bullying is great"

That's neither funny nor clever, just dumb and deserves to be called out.

 

[plagiarize]

I don't think he's excusing death threats. Sounds more like he is trying to say is that some people are always going to be dicks. So if you can't stop them, just ignore them and don't feed their need for attention. Whats the issue with that?

Numerous things obviously. Characterizing misogynists and people who send death threats as 'jerks' is ridiculous. Saying that what the worst elements of GamerGate have done isn't news... is offensive and demonstrably untrue (in that you know, it HAS actually been a major news story). Saying that it's not really worth thinking about why there are sexist assholes sending death threats in the name of a cause... you're totally okay with that?

 

[The Technomancer]

Exactly.
If you take the example of the female protrayal in games like Mario, I don't think that what you have to take from it is that people at EAD are full on thinking that women's only worth is being the reward for the players.
I think it's more about them giving a justification or a story so that they can make their game part with it being out of the way.

This is really worth checking out: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7044-The-Creepy-Cull-of-Female-Protagonists

Its only a year old and I don't think things have changed that much

 

[endless dave]

Searched for this article being posted but couldn't find it: Anita Sarkeesian talks to Rolling Stone Magazine.

Article is alright but the first two paragraphs are worded really badly...



After the bolded is when the writer explains the hastag, that fullstop is misleading.

Edit: I read through the article a couple more times and actually it's very one-sided. I'm not saying that #GamerGate deserves a spokesperson but with the dismissal of GG comes the dismissal of genuine criticisms with the femfreq videos, which is what I said I was worried would happen a few pages ago. Are all Rolling Stone interviews just set-up questions which could be replaced with an essay of the interviewee's answers?

I would expect someone who has been targeted in a major, violent way by people directly and tangentially related to Gamergate for years now to be a little one sided about it. It's also an interview with her, not some one sheet facts page about Gamersgate. Why the desire for that to be "two-sided?"

 

[Noaloha]

No really the term comes from nepos in Latin that says nephew.
the family ties is really needed for nepotism.
You'll have to show where US and UK English differ in the meaning of that word because even wiki don't see a difference here.

Yeah, I'm aware of the root and I myself have always used nepotism for interfamilial relationships. I was also going to laugh at it but decided I'd just google it first and was surprised that the Collins Dictionary (well respected in the UK) gives these examples:

US .. favoritism shown to relatives, esp. in appointment to desirable positions

UK .. favouritism shown to relatives or close friends by those with power or influence


Again though, I consider it a little whatever. It did strike me odd though that seemingly everyone is GG is using that word, and I did wonder if that had anything to do with handed-down infographics within the hashtag ("remember: these are your talking points!"). But that's nothing but idle baseless speculation on my part.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

That was intended to be a paragraph, but I understand your point and will try to be mindful of that in the future.

I'm not disagreeing with your complaint, it is just something that came to mind based on what he said (which was very vague lol). I think there are articles out there that do a good enough job of summarizing (and in turn, criticizing) GamerGate and its foundations, but sometimes people "on ground" do a very poor job of reporting on it, probably because they just want to vent their anger.

I expect some degree of care put into putting forth a piece of evidence, especially in this thread given the additional rules.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

I understand what you're saying, but vague "you're all wrong" posts are generally frowned upon on gaf and only allow for people's interpretation of the post.

I don't assume people mean "logical thing x" when they deliberately make vague inflammatory posts. I expect them to substantiate their claims themselves.