Support NeoGAF

[Sylas]

I would much rather see laws and enforcements in place but I understand how serious of a proposition that is as well

I would much rather see both. It's hard to live in America and not believe that corporate interests influence law-making decisions.

 

[Lime]

Tell who to fuck off. The people doing this are just a bunch of anon assholes on the internet. Who the hell goes to their company for protection when you get harassed? You go to the police, or the FBI. You think Nintendo telling a bunch of assholes to stop being assholes is gonna accomplish something?

This has been my point but looks like a am an Nintendo apologist

.

1. If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.

2. Not only this, but Nintendo was directly related to why these bigots were so irrationally mad.

3. It also sends a message to people who aren't familiar with Gamergate and their tactics about what is going on and who to support and empower (it also avoids the whole "both sides" bullshit that people, especially here on GAF, spout). Nintendo carries cultural weight and people listen to them and take them seriously. If they had said something, I bet you the entire bibliography of Audre Lorde that it would have made a difference.

 

[tim.mbp]

Are their any petitions out there to put my name on? I don't know if Alison would want her job back, but I'd like NOA to hear that they should stick up for it employees in case of any future personal attacks.

 

[pringles]

It's astounding to me the knots people will tie themselves into to excuse the simple and evident fact that Nintendo let their employee twist in the wind for months, as bullies used her as a pinata.

That happened.

You can say, "well, it wouldn't have changed anything," if they had publicly defended her if you want to, but that's now just a hypothetical, isn't it?

If you're the person who is or isn't being defended by their employer, maybe it means a great deal.

To me, if I was labeling Nintendo's behavior here, "honorable" is not the adjective I would choose.

To me it just seems like something you can't expect major corporations to get involved in. My company's CEO wouldn't jump to my defense if I was attacked on social media. Why should Nintendo be held to some kind of standard where they need to get highly involved with issues centered on one employee on certain social media/Message boards?

And imagine if they came out with some huge statement, big defense of Alison and tried to stop the GG thing. Then a few weeks later they fire her because she violated company policy with her second job. It would be a disaster.

 

[LudicrousSpeed]

Some of you need to use your god dam brain. What does her being harassed have to do with corporate policy. She broke company policy. Just because the news came from someone we hate doesn't make her immune. If the KKK started harassing me to quit my job at Fedex and then they revealed I was sharing company secrets with competitors, I should somehow be absolved from it? Thats not the way the world works.

Someone been harrased does not absolve them from wrongdoing

It is not at all uncommon for corporate policy to be structured in a way so that violations of what is technically corporate policy are actually routinely ignored by the company. For example, if you were at work right now and posting this, there's most certainly a corporate policy that says you can be fired for that. In 99% of cases, would they fire you over that? Probably not. But if the company decides they want you gone, and they want to create a smokescreen for the real reason you've been fired, that clause would give them cover to do and to say "I don't know where you got the idea that Orin was fired for <real reason>, he was fired because he was posting on an internet forum during work hours."

Nintendo's behavior is gross enough without getting into the firing, but it's going to take some more evidence on their part to convince me that this second job nonsense was anything other than a flimsy pretext so that they don't have to acknowledge that they're actually getting rid of her because they're bowing to the will of loudmouthed bigots.

 

[cr0w]

If I go to the mall during my lunch break every day at work and the same guy is waiting just inside every day to push me over and spit on me, is it my employer's job to defend me?

No. That's ridiculous.

Nintendo's only obligation, like any other company in the world, is to protect its employees from internal harassment.

Yeah it'd be great if they said something before they had to fire her. They didn't. No company would. Sad but true. Stop buying Mario Kart games if you feel like that'll teach them a lesson I guess.

In a perfect world, the mall would throw the dude off the property with extreme prejudice. It's their responsibility, much as it is the responsibility of social media sites to protect their users against harassment which, as we all know, is very far down on the totem pole. Your employer has zero to do with it unless it happens on their watch.

 

[SturokBGD]

Yes and while these examples are inspiring.. for a company living in our capitalist society I dont expect most corporate interests to extend past profits and image

If the corporate interest from the videogame industry even got that far it would be at least be a start. The video game industry looks like pure garbage right now and it isn't doing a damn thing about it. This is a complete regression. It's comic book industry stuff.

 

[Sylas]

To me it just seems like something you can't expect major corporations to get involved in. My company's CEO wouldn't jump to my defense if I was attacked on social media. Why should Nintendo be held to some kind of standard where they need to get highly involved with issues centered on one employee on certain social media/Message boards?

And imagine if they came out with some huge statement, big defense of Alison and tried to stop the GG thing. Then a few weeks later they fire her because she violated company policy with her second job. It would be a disaster.

How? Their statement already says that she was fired due to her second job violating corporate policy. If anything, it'd be easier to compartmentalize why she got fired and it probably wouldn't have been more than a passing news headline instead of... Whatever this is.

 

[thefro]

I would much rather see laws and enforcements in place but I understand how serious of a proposition that is as well

Most people on GAF seemed to be against even letting the FBI unlock the iPhone of a terrorist with a court order, so it's going to be pretty hard to write a law that would both protect privacy and allow the police to throw people who harass folks online anonymously into jail.

Not saying the government shouldn't try, but the nature of the Internet makes it very difficult.

 

[maxiell]

We don't know whether they helped her go to the police or what they said in private, or what other support was offered.

It only takes the most cursory reading of this thread and articles about the situation to know that what you are saying is just obfuscation and FUD. They didn't support her &#8212; they targeted her just like her harassers. Then they fired her. How much clearer does it get?

We don't need a law. We need a powerful corporation with resources not to act like this.

 

[akidnamededdy]

In a perfect world, the mall would throw the dude off the property with extreme prejudice. It's their responsibility, much as it is the responsibility of social media sites to protect their users against harassment which, as we all know, is very far down on the totem pole.

Exactly. The only party enabling anybody here is Twitter.

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

If I go to the mall during my lunch break every day at work and the same guy is waiting just inside every day to push me over and spit on me, is it my employer's job to defend me?

No. That's ridiculous.

Nintendo's only obligation, like any other company in the world, is to protect its employees from internal harassment.

Yeah it'd be great if they said something before they had to fire her. They didn't. No company would. Sad but true. Stop buying Mario Kart games if you feel like that'll teach them a lesson I guess.

Your just arguing for the status quo. Nintendo could have easily done what was right but decided to be cowards. Just like people saying this was Nintendo's only choice.

 

[DrROBschiz]

Most people on GAF seemed to be against even letting the FBI unlock the iPhone of a terrorist with a court order, so it's going to be pretty hard to write a law that would both protect privacy and allow the police to throw people who harass folks online anonymously into jail.

Not saying the government shouldn't try, but the nature of the Internet makes it very difficult.

Yeah we are in a very tough time where society has to figure out how to handle this sort of thing

And we expect Nintendo to take a stand? No we decide and the companies will follow the populance

 

[Draxal]

Exactly. The only party enabling anybody here is Twitter.

Ayup, twitter is really the biggest nondiscussed issue here.

 

[DannyDanger]

It's astounding to me the knots people will tie themselves into to excuse the simple and evident fact that Nintendo let their employee twist in the wind for months, as bullies used her as a pinata.

That happened.

You can say, "well, it wouldn't have changed anything," if they had publicly defended her if you want to, but that's now just a hypothetical, isn't it?

If you're the person who is or isn't being defended by their employer, maybe it means a great deal.

To me, if I was labeling Nintendo's behavior here, "honorable" is not the adjective I would choose.

What exactly was Nintendo supposed to do? Go beat them up?

Seriously tho... How do u suggest they would have effectively "defended" her?

Keep in mind this the Internet, would an official statement bringing more attention to the situation really have helped?

 

[Sylas]

Most people on GAF seemed to be against even letting the FBI unlock the iPhone of a terrorist with a court order, so it's going to be pretty hard to write a law that would both protect privacy and allow the police to throw people who harass folks online anonymously into jail.

Not saying the government shouldn't try, but the nature of the Internet makes it very difficult.

You'd be surprised how much information people post in a very public manner that would easily tell you who they are and who they work for. It'd be one thing to expose IP addresses and another to use the stuff people freely post as ways to enforce law.

It's especially strange when it's coming from people who spew vile, hateful things while saying: "Proud father! Works at <x> and does <y>!"

 

[Bright]

It's either that, or the current story that now they're a toxic workplace for women that punishes the victim and rewards harassers. The way they handled it was not much better.

If they gave a PR statement against harassment and a final warning to Alison Rapp, would that at least be a nice compromise? Because otherwise they just come off as bad.

I doubt the "toxic workplace for women" will gain much traction outside of online communities. What Nintendo is probably worried about is poking the bear of the large scale sensationalist media. I think The Mirror already had an article that was basically 'Nintendo Axes Paedophile'. Nintendo will come out of this relatively unscathed, but if they supported her or acknowledged that they knew what she was posting, there would certainly be a backlash--even in your compromise scenario.

 

[SunBroDave]

Jim Fucking Sterling Son tearing into Nintendo
http://www.thejimquisition.com/nintendos-corporate-culture/

 

[NinjaCoachZ]

I doubt the "toxic workplace for women" will gain much traction outside of online communities. What Nintendo is probably worried about is poking the bear of the large scale sensationalist media. I think The Mirror already had an article that was basically 'Nintendo Axes Paedophile'. Nintendo will come out of this relatively unscathed, but if they supported her or acknowledged that they knew what she was posting, there would certainly be a backlash--even in your compromise scenario.

I feel pretty certain this'll gain some serious ground among women interested in working in the gaming and tech community. We're already seeing places like Jim Sterling, Kotaku, and NYMag report on it, plus people like a Warcraft dev with nearly 200k followers on twitter.

 

[pringles]

It is not at all uncommon for corporate policy to be structured in a way so that violations of what is technically corporate policy are actually routinely ignored by the company. For example, if you were at work right now and posting this, there's most certainly a corporate policy that says you can be fired for that. In 99% of cases, would they fire you over that? Probably not. But if the company decides they want you gone, and they want to create a smokescreen for the real reason you've been fired, that clause would give them cover to do and to say "I don't know where you got the idea that Orin was fired for <real reason>, he was fired because he was posting on an internet forum during work hours."

Nintendo's behavior is gross enough without getting into the firing, but it's going to take some more evidence on their part to convince me that this second job nonsense was anything other than a flimsy pretext so that they don't have to acknowledge that they're actually getting rid of her because they're bowing to the will of loudmouthed bigots.

Nintendo had issues with her social media behaviour from months after she was hired. From her own account it sounds like she had plenty of "warnings", at which point a violation of company policy can easily get you fired instead of getting you ANOTHER warning. We also have good reason to think the second job was something Nintendo would not in any way want to be associated with.

How? Their statement already says that she was fired due to her second job violating corporate policy. If anything, it'd be easier to compartmentalize why she got fired and it probably wouldn't have been more than a passing news headline instead of... Whatever this is.

It would look pretty bad to come out to defend her publically, only to fire her a few weeks later. Like the headlines would write themselves. "Nintendo fires employee shortly after publically defending her". I think it would get a bigger spread in the media. It could also look bad if they defend a person publically that holds some... strange.. opinions in terms of the whole child-porn/age-of-consent stuff. Sadly I think Alison's questionable social media behaviour made it impossible for Nintendo to make a big public defense for her.

 

[KingBroly]

Exactly. The only party enabling anybody here is Twitter.

It most likely goes farther than twitter, although they're a big source of it.

I think people need to stop asking and reacting to companies that are reactive and demand they be proactive. If you're being reactive to something, you're clearly trying to play both sides of the coin, instead of being proactive, which not many do, and usually only do when the timing is right.

 

[Sylas]

It would look pretty bad to come out to defend her publically, only to fire her a few weeks later. Like the headlines would write themselves. "Nintendo fires employee shortly after publically defending her". I think it would get a bigger spread in the media. It could also look bad if they defend a person publically that holds some... strange.. opinions in terms of the whole child-porn/age-of-consent stuff. Sadly I think Alison's questionable social media behaviour made it impossible for Nintendo to make a big public defense for her.

It's very, very, very easy to write up a PR statement that doesn't bring up the specifics of Alison Rapp being harassed while also saying you don't condone harassment. If a company is unable to draft a statement that doesn't implicitly, or explicitly, bring up specific employees, they have an incredibly piss-poor PR team.

People are free to draw conclusions as they will, but they don't have to say, "Stop harassing Alison Rapp." They can just say, "Don't harass our employees." or even, "Don't harass people." The headline, "Nintendo axes paedophile" would still be infinitely more relevant to the publications and websites that care to report on the subject as such.

 

[akidnamededdy]

Your just arguing for the status quo. Nintendo could have easily done what was right but decided to be cowards. Just like people saying this was Nintendo's only choice.

I'm arguing that all this venom and ire directed at Nintendo is missing the point. Nintendo didn't launch an organized harassment campaign against Rapp and Nintendo didn't turn a blind eye while people used the social media platform they created to carry it out. Attacking them will do nothing to stop GG from doing this again. It's pointless shouting.

 

[Deserted Maniac Island]

This is garbage (and a little bit racist, to be honest). Nintendo in an international corporation and should learn to behave like one.

Elaborate on what's racist (Are cultural differences racist? idk). I'm quite offended that you say what I wrote is racist.

Yes Nintendo is well known brand worldwide, they are still a Japanese company, that operates in America (NOA reports to Nintendo HQ in Japan). Comparing them (In terms of Social "Progressiveness") to other American companies, is not constructive. Their cooperate structure may be obtuse (I'm not sure about the specifics), and I don't think it's like other International corporations.

Plus don't expect large multinational corporations to act in a way you like, buddy. Sure it seems nice when a company says somethings nice, but a lot of corporations are screwing people in other ways (Like tax evasion, in the case of Apple, or harming environment or abusing works in the so-called Third World). PR doesn't equal actual "progressiveness."

[I advocate the criticism of Nintendo, but don't outright dismiss other people arguments, just because you so set in your belief.]

 

[pringles]

We don't need a law. We need a powerful corporation with resources not to act like this.

That's not how the world works. They may be a "powerful" company in the gaming world, a company with a lot of resources in the GAMING world. But they are not equipped to deal with social media harassment or personal legal issues in any meaningful way. What can 500 programmers do to help Alison? What can 100 people workin with localisation do? What can writers, digital artists, PR people do? They are not police officers or lawyers. You have unreasonable expectations on Nintendo here.

It's very, very, very easy to write up a PR statement that doesn't bring up the specifics of Alison Rapp being harassed while also saying you don't condone harassment. If a company is unable to draft a statement that doesn't implicitly, or explicitly, bring up specific employees, they have an incredibly piss-poor PR team.

People are free to draw conclusions as they will, but they don't have to say, "Stop harassing Alison Rapp." They can just say, "Don't harass our employees." or even, "Don't harass people." The headline, "Nintendo axes paedophile" would still be infinitely more relevant to the publications and websites that care to report on the subject as such.

It's incredibly piss-poor PR to just issue a random statement that says "we don't condone harassment, stop it people". If that's how a major corporation operated they would not do anything but issue statements all day long. They said all they needed to say in the statement after firing Alison. In fact that's more than you should have expected.

 

[DrROBschiz]

That's not how the world works. They may be a "powerful" company in the gaming world, a company with a lot of resources in the GAMING world. But they are not equipped to deal with social media harassment or personal legal issues in any meaningful way. What can 500 programmers do to help Alison? What can 100 people workin with localisation do? What can writers, digital artists, PR people do? They are not police officers or lawyers. You have unreasonable expectations on Nintendo here.

Thank you

 

[Lime]

That's not how the world works. They may be a "powerful" company in the gaming world, a company with a lot of resources in the GAMING world. But they are not equipped to deal with social media harassment or personal legal issues in any meaningful way. What can 500 programmers do to help Alison? What can 100 people workin with localisation do? What can writers, digital artists, PR people do? They are not police officers or lawyers. You have unreasonable expectations on Nintendo here.

They have a large cultural impact and hold a prominent position as one of the few major console companies with tons of high-profile games for their brand. People listen to them, they take what Nintendo say seriously. It sends a message to people who aren't familiar with Gamergate and their tactics about what is going on and who to support and empower (it also avoids the whole "both sides" bullshit that people, especially here on GAF, spout). Nintendo carries cultural weight and people listen to them and take them seriously. If they had said something, I bet you the entire bibliography of Audre Lorde that it would have made a difference.

 

[Aaronrules380]

It's very, very, very easy to write up a PR statement that doesn't bring up the specifics of Alison Rapp being harassed while also saying you don't condone harassment. If a company is unable to draft a statement that doesn't implicitly, or explicitly, bring up specific employees, they have an incredibly piss-poor PR team.

People are free to draw conclusions as they will, but they don't have to say, "Stop harassing Alison Rapp." They can just say, "Don't harass our employees." or even, "Don't harass people." The headline, "Nintendo axes paedophile" would still be infinitely more relevant to the publications and websites that care to report on the subject as such.

I'm curious, but what do you think this would actually achieve?

 

[Bright]

I feel pretty certain this'll gain some serious ground among women interested in working in the gaming and tech community. We're already seeing places like Jim Sterling, Kotaku, and NYMag report on it, plus people like a Warcraft dev with nearly 200k followers on twitter.

Exactly, just online communities. Like I said, a storm in a teacup. This'll get an article or two coverage on most game sites and be forgotten about. I seriously doubt it'll effect any prospective women heading into the industry. I imagine the biggest effect it'll have is teaching anyone that's paying attention to keep a professional distance between their company's image and their controversial opinions/part-time job. Not a bad idea.

 

[JP_]

I'm arguing that all this venom and ire directed at Nintendo is missing the point. Nintendo didn't launch an organized harassment campaign against Rapp and Nintendo didn't turn a blind eye while people used the social media platform they created to carry it out. Attacking them will do nothing to stop GG from doing this again. It's pointless shouting.

Nintendo couldn't have clarified that Rapp has nothing to do with the Fire Emblem localizations she was getting attacked over?

 

[DrROBschiz]

They have a large cultural impact and hold a prominent position as one of the few major console companies with tons of high-profile games for their brand. People listen to them, they take what Nintendo say seriously. It sends a message to people who aren't familiar with Gamergate and their tactics about what is going on and who to support and empower (it also avoids the whole "both sides" bullshit that people, especially here on GAF, spout). Nintendo carries cultural weight and people listen to them and take them seriously. If they had said something, I bet you the entire bibliography of Audre Lorde that it would have made a difference.

Gross

Guess we needed Nintendo instead of Martin Luther King Jr amiright guys?

"Thanks to Nintendo I am not Pro Gay marriage, anti racist and a better person!"

 

[GatticusFinch]

To me it just seems like something you can't expect major corporations to get involved in. My company's CEO wouldn't jump to my defense if I was attacked on social media. Why should Nintendo be held to some kind of standard where they need to get highly involved with issues centered on one employee on certain social media/Message boards?

And imagine if they came out with some huge statement, big defense of Alison and tried to stop the GG thing. Then a few weeks later they fire her because she violated company policy with her second job. It would be a disaster.

I think lots of people posting about this have never worked for a major corporation or never worked in a management context. They simply do not have the inclination to white knight for an employee, rightfully or wrongfully. If you want to keep your job, you can't be stirring up shit (even if you're in the right) while also not be meeting all your employer's expectations to the letter.

She was becoming a headache, they allegedly found legitimate reasons to get rid of her, and they acted upon them. This isn't even a case where you can allege what they did was employment discrimination and pretext for firing her, because they could have legally fired her anyway just for tweeting about the stuff.

Are we forgetting that she advocated for the legalization of child pornography? And she works at a company that caters to minor children? What company in that context would be okay with her saying that? Imagine if the PR manager for Fisher Price tweeted that out. Frankly, I'm shocked she wasn't fired sooner.

When you're an employee and you hold view outside the norm, you need to decide what you value most and be careful what you say. That's just the way of the world.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Nintendo couldn't have clarified that Rapp has nothing to do with the Fire Emblem localizations she was getting attacked over?

I don't think GamerGate would've cared regardless. They're attacking her because she's a women in the video game industry. The FE localizations and other stuff is just a thinly veiled excuse. They don't actually care about it

 

[marrec]

Gross

Guess we needed Nintendo instead of Martin Luther King Jr amiright guys?

Now you're being completely disingenuous. Where at all in Lime's post did you get enough to warrant this level of hyperbolic bullshit?

 

[JP_]

I don't think GamerGate would've cared regardless. They're attacking her because she's a women in the video game industry. The FE localizations and other stuff is just a thinly veiled excuse. They don't actually care about it

The core gator soldiers, sure. But gamergate has always been able to draft less-informed people to their cause by spreading lies and Nintendo clearly debunking those lies would diffuse at least some of that.

 

[DrROBschiz]

Now you're being completely disingenuous. Where at all in Lime's post did you get enough to warrant this level of hyperbolic bullshit?

Sorry but Come ON

Ridiculous to entitle corporations to that level of social importance

Its the opposite of what our society should strive for.

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

I'm arguing that all this venom and ire directed at Nintendo is missing the point. Nintendo didn't launch an organized harassment campaign against Rapp and Nintendo didn't turn a blind eye while people used the social media platform they created to carry it out. Attacking them will do nothing to stop GG from doing this again. It's pointless shouting.

No one is "attacking" Nintendo. We are holding Nintendo's feet to the fire for allowing the harassment of one their employees happen and saying nothing about it. For legitimizing a hate group when they had the opportunity to publicly call gg out. Of course it's the only one blame for this situation but they also bear some of the blame.

Gross

Guess we needed Nintendo instead of Martin Luther King Jr amiright guys?

"Thanks to Nintendo I am not Pro Gay marriage, anti racist and a better person!"

Wow. Took long enough for someone to throw the MLK card.

 

[Sylas]

I'm curious, but what do you think this would actually achieve?

You aren't curious, because I've stated it multiple times over the course of the thread. If not on this page, than the previous one.

I'll reiterate what I've said, however. I think it would have caused a meltdown amongst the crowd doing the harassment. Considering their ire was centered around a Nintendo product to begin with--and their reaction to other people telling them to fuck off, it would have done something because they can't very well launch a smear campaign against Nintendo.

It might have convinced some people to stop doing what they're doing. I'm not educated enough on the psychological profile of people who harass others on the internet, but it could have changed any number of things. It could have achieved any number of things.

And, in all likelihood, it would have cost them nothing.

 

[LudicrousSpeed]

That's not how the world works. They may be a "powerful" company in the gaming world, a company with a lot of resources in the GAMING world. But they are not equipped to deal with social media harassment or personal legal issues in any meaningful way. What can 500 programmers do to help Alison? What can 100 people workin with localisation do? What can writers, digital artists, PR people do? They are not police officers or lawyers. You have unreasonable expectations on Nintendo here.

Nintendo has a responsibility to protect their employees from the nonsense sexist harassment that was ongoing if only because Nintendo has had a significant hand in spawning the sexist movement that was doing the harassment in the first place.

Gamergate isn't just something that happened, it's a culture that was cultivated by 30 years of "standard industry practices" from companies like Nintendo. The harassment brigade that calls itself Gamergate is just those chickens coming home to roost.

 

[Flame Lord]

You need to read, my dude. Few people are trying to handwave the fact that she got fired for breaking corporate policy.

People are upset that Nintendo did nothing to tell people to fuck off with harassment when they had a very clear throughline and reason to do so. Again, you can say that their concerns are profits, but do you really think telling nasty people to stop harassing someone would have really affected their bottom line?

Do you really believe that gaming culture is so vile and toxic that saying, "Hey, we don't condone harassment," would have affected their sales so much?

Realistically, what would have happened if Nintendo said they didn't condone harassment? The harassers would have just stopped? No, if anything it probably would have made things worse. And really, why do they need to say they don't condone harassment? That should go without saying, I imagine they don't condone any illegal activities. Are they supposed to come out and make an individual statement about each and every single crime they don't condone?

 

[marrec]

Sorry but Come ON

Ridiculous to entitle corporations to that level of social importance

Its the opposite of what our society should strive for.

I agree, but we live in a future in which corporations are the people unfortunately best equipped to enable social change.

That doesn't mean the responsibility of the individual is absolved, but only that I (and many others) have expectations of corporate America based on the level of individual autonomy and power they've gained.

 

[SturokBGD]

Yes Nintendo is well known brand worldwide, they are still a Japanese company, that operates in America (NOA reports to Nintendo HQ in Japan). Comparing them (In terms of Social "Progressiveness") to other American companies, is not constructive. Their cooperate structure may be obtuse (I'm not sure about the specifics), and I don't think it's like other International corporations.

It doesn't matter where in the world their head office is, if you operate in a country you should behave appropriately in that country. This is Corporation 101.

 

[DrROBschiz]

No one is "attacking" Nintendo. We are holding Nintendo's feet to the fire for allowing the harassment of one their employees happen and saying nothing about it. For legitimizing a hate group when they had the opportunity to publicly call gg out. Of course it's the only one blame for this situation but they also bear some of the blame.


Wow. Took long enough for someone to throw the MLK card.

Yes it was extreme but man oh man. And people were calling me the Nintendo apologist

 

[GatticusFinch]

Realistically, what would have happened if Nintendo said they didn't condone harassment? The harassers would have just stopped? No, if anything it probably would have made things worse. And really, why do they need to say they don't condone harassment? That should go without saying, I imagine they don't condone any illegal activities. Are they supposed to come out and make an individual statement about each and every single crime they don't condone?

Nintendo was afraid of this headline: "Nintendo, maker of children's games, jumps to the defense of employee who advocates for legalization of child pornography."

Right now, they're pissing off a minority of a minority of a minority of their audience. They don't want every mom in the world to remember them as the defender of the person who said that. They just don't. The public would likely jump to the defense of the harassers at that point, if spun that way.

 

[Bright]

No one is "attacking" Nintendo. We are holding Nintendo's feet to the fire for allowing the harassment of one their employees happen and saying nothing about it. For legitimizing a hate group when they had the opportunity to publicly call gg out. Of course it's the only one blame for this situation but they also bear some of the blame.

Were people asking for Nintendo to make a statement when she was still employed? This finger-wagging's very helpful, but I think the train has left the station.

 

[Sylas]

Realistically, what would have happened if Nintendo said they didn't condone harassment? The harassers would have just stopped? No, if anything it probably would have made things worse. And really, why do they need to say they don't condone harassment? That should go without saying, I imagine they don't condone any illegal activities. Are they supposed to come out and make an individual statement about each and every single crime they don't condone?

How could it have made things worse? This is something that keeps popping up--but do you genuinely believe they would have said this specific instance instead of making a blanket statement?

It apparently doesn't go without saying or else you wouldn't have people spamming corporate hotlines and email addresses with what constitutes harassment. Staying silent continues the status quo. Saying anything challenges that, and it can change the mind of some people. Just because something isn't going to dismantle something in whole, does that mean you should do nothing?

Is it really an all-or-nothing approach?

Were people asking for Nintendo to make a statement when she was still employed? This finger-wagging's very helpful, but I think the train has left the station.

Yes. The thread that spawned when the harassment was originally ongoing had people wondering, and hoping, Nintendo would say something. Anything, really.

 

[Fuchsdh]

Exactly. The only party enabling anybody here is Twitter.

Yep. As much as people hate on Twitter and other platforms about free speech... they're private platforms, and they can kick anyone out whenever they want, whether for good reasons or bad. Twitter especially has apparently not been good about offering options for stemming widespread attacks from an internet mob, and I don't see that has changed at all since GamerGate brought these issues to the wider attention of the public.

 

[Kinsei]

Gamergate isn't just something that happened, it's a culture that was cultivated by 30 years of "standard industry practices" from companies like Nintendo. The harassment brigade that calls itself Gamergate is just those chickens coming home to roost.

Exactly.

Were people asking for Nintendo to make a statement when she was still employed? This finger-wagging's very helpful, but I think the train has left the station.

Yes people were.

 

[d9b]

I don't get why people are saying Nintendo should've came out in support of her. It's something a company would never do. By doing it, they'd essentially be supporting her controversial statements, which would end up being a PR nightmare. Of course Nintendo wouldn't be directly supporting the relaxing of child porn laws, or whatever she was advocating, but it would be very easy to spin that way. This is a storm in a teacup right now, but if they actually supported her publicly I'm sure larger media outlets and groups would've picked up on it and raised quite the stink.

Nintendo made the right move for Nintendo.

I agree, let's not forget child pornography was thrown in to the mix, you can imagine what mainstream media would do to Nintendo if they publicly supported Alison Rapp and her views... No corporation wants that kind of publicity.

 

[DrROBschiz]

I agree, but we live in a future in which corporations are the people unfortunately best equipped to enable social change.

That doesn't mean the responsibility of the individual is absolved, but only that I (and many others) have expectations of corporate America based on the level of individual autonomy and power they've gained.

The free market needs to be regulated, conformed and held accountable by Society at large

not the other way around

Its dangerous to inbibe them with that level of trust but I see what you are getting at here. This shit goes deep