#GAMERGATE: The Threadening [Read the OP] -- #StopGamerGate2014
- Thread starter besada
- Start date
- Status
TaroYamada
Member
I'm just joking, I know it was a typo
I saw that too and was like "Was that intentional because that's a dick move..." but also decided it had to be a typo.
I don't know, maybe there are too many hotheads in #gamergate, but the fact you write that supporting #gamergate is bad it's the best thing why everyone should support #gamergate.
PR Media tried to attack and deride #gamergate, show that it did not have support from minorities, then they attacked it putting IRC logs that were CUT and taken out of context and now a new tag appeared: #gameethics. This is... just too strange.
Just my 2c
edit: of course I did not want to mean "noo, don't do what Toodles does", but in the sense, all of this was overblown out of proportions just because media lashed back at gamers telling they were obsolete. In a sense they are right, but you can't promote end to harassment by starting harassment on some group that was already harassed in the past.
Neoriceisgood
Member
all I have done and all that I will do with the #gamergate hashtag is to encourage all people involved to have an intelligent debate which is moderate, kind, and emphatic. I'll also continue to say that 4chaners shouldnt attack zoe and the gaming journals shouldnt attack gamers. I'm fairly certain that's obvious from my history on the subject.
I think I have made the decision that anyone who thinks I shouldn't be doing that, or thinks less of me for doing so, is not someone whose opinion I'm going to value. I'll simply agree to disagree on this matter and hope we can debate again on something else later.
I think the issue people have is that without further elaboration a generalized" support" for the hashtag can easily be misconstrued.
Just like all the random out of context tweets people try to lump into a discussion people can easily take non-specific things like "I support #gamergate" to mean "I'm on this side of this war".
I think most of the individual tweets you post proclaiming that people should be nice & your support towards Zoe are absolutely harmless and even positive. But they're also fairly seperate from the hashtag itself.
(As you might've noticed in this very thread, people quickly ignore or misrepresent stuff like individual tweets to mean whatever they want it to mean. This is the biggest concern I assume most people have, I don't think anyone here doubts your morals at all.)
I think it's more that the #gamergate hashtag itself is rotten, it didn't need proving that it had it's origins in some targeted misogynistic shit. By continuing to use it (esp as somebody with a significant amount of followers/reach) you give legitimacy to those using it for awful means, regardless of how positive you're trying to be. It also hurts your own goals.
Considering the people that have left the industry over this I'd say it's more about being responsible than anything.
Soodanim
Member
I read the first and third links in the OP then wrote a long post about how I don't get why anyone gives a fuck about any of this and that it's easy to ignore the nonsense articles because we the consumers have more choice than anyone. Then I went back and read the middle article by David Auerbach and realised that his last paragraph essentially said it all.
I don't read review sites, I just come here. I've always valued the varied and likely unbiassed opinions you get on GAF, so I don't need the opinion of one man and his editor, or even three sets of that.
It still seems like an issue where most of the points can be addressed in a few sentences and doesn't need to be given this much attention. Biassed articles? Don't read them, or read them, point out the bias, and move on. Slagging off gamers? Disagree, and move on or discuss ideas like an adult. It's what happens here for the most part. It gives too much power to the article to get that upset about it. And I still think it's a vocal minority issue here. Same with those. Sharing angry anonymous tweets, troll of serious, gives more power to them. Reporting a tweet takes seconds, and it blocks at the same time. There's your solution right there. "There are assume tweets!" No shit, it's twitter. Any celebrity tweet will have responses ranging from creepy devotion to vitriol.
I don't read review sites, I just come here. I've always valued the varied and likely unbiassed opinions you get on GAF, so I don't need the opinion of one man and his editor, or even three sets of that.
It still seems like an issue where most of the points can be addressed in a few sentences and doesn't need to be given this much attention. Biassed articles? Don't read them, or read them, point out the bias, and move on. Slagging off gamers? Disagree, and move on or discuss ideas like an adult. It's what happens here for the most part. It gives too much power to the article to get that upset about it. And I still think it's a vocal minority issue here. Same with those. Sharing angry anonymous tweets, troll of serious, gives more power to them. Reporting a tweet takes seconds, and it blocks at the same time. There's your solution right there. "There are assume tweets!" No shit, it's twitter. Any celebrity tweet will have responses ranging from creepy devotion to vitriol.
TaroYamada
Member
Obviously anecdotal but I did start checking up on the #gamergate hashtag in my rarely used twitter account (still, eternally and forever, not a fan of this 140 character limit) most of what I see is positive. I think Boogie must be having a similar experience, otherwise he would probably ditch it.
The attacks on #gamergate have typically been well-founded in some common sense and internet savviness. The cutting of IRC logs is arguably someewhat necessary when being delivered in a "look at what I have" fashion through Twitter. Zoë has mentioned several times on her Twitter that the full logs are available and waiting if any press wants to pick them up (plus I think the logs were released anyway? I recall someone in this thread picking through them, vast as they were). The #gameethics tag was started by Adriel Wallick and Rami Ismail, two of the very nicest, smartest, most well-spoken and good-intentioned indie devs out there, specifically as a means to separate a worthwhile conversation from an ugly #hashtag banner.
My understanding of that situation is that nobody told gamers they were obsolete -- there was an argument put forth that "gamer" had outgrown its use as a relevant cultural term. From this, mayhaps due to questionable presentation of the argument, people misconstrued and took it personally.
Yeah good point, I mean maybe it is now? But I think to a lot of people (inc. Me) it's just associated with such negativity.
Thanks for the answer, I'll lurk #gameethics more (afterall it's just a new open tab).
This was how Leigh Alexandra originally presented the topic:
And also:
You are right about it being a questionable presentation.
Thank you for your time however.
Give this opinion piece a read, with Leigh's at the back of your mind. It's dealing with the same wider topic but walks you through the argument to its eventual conclusion, rather than throwing the conclusion at your face as an opener and discussing the justification as you flinch and pick yourself back up off the grass.
I don't understand how the topic is being turned away from being one about journalistic integrity and corruption, to one of hate speech.
There are always assholes out there that will attack others for whatever reason, but the real problems this has all presented are valid and troubling, and I think many are losing sight of that b/c of all the noise that certain parties with a stake in keeping the status quo going are putting out.
There are always assholes out there that will attack others for whatever reason, but the real problems this has all presented are valid and troubling, and I think many are losing sight of that b/c of all the noise that certain parties with a stake in keeping the status quo going are putting out.
Probably because the discussion started because of something (the Quinn crap) that had nothing to do with journalistic integrity and corruption and everything to do with hate. The continuation of debating journalistic integrity and corruption under #gamergate (as a specific banner) undermines this. It links the Quinn stuff to the matter being discussed, when there's no connection. Ultimately, the anon shits who started this whole thing did so because they want Quinn to be associated with corruption and doubtful integrity. It would be good to deny them that.
Have the conversation under a different banner.
EDIT: For what it's worth, I don't really know how I feel about having this conversation in a thread with "#GAMERGATE' in the title, ha.
JackAubrey
Member
Thanks for that link, it's a great piece of work.
Yeah, of course. Sensed that maybe that was not the way to type it out, but to be this unfortunate of a typo, damn. Sorry.
Kadayi
Banned
Well the first thing anyone should always do is ask the question 'Am I right in this? Is there a case?' It's important to regularly question your belief systems.
Amused at the proposition that journalistic integrity is somehow an add on. I've been banging on about this sort of thing for years, well before ZQ appeared on the scene.
Weltall Zero
Member
I can't believe what I'm reading.
Good piece of work, but I disagree on one thing.
There's a reason the anti- games journalism crowd isn't waiting- it's because they feel like they've been ignored for too long. They felt like if they waited they'd just get ignored again. Throw in the fact that ZQ is a particularly unsympathetic figure, and combine that with the Leigh Alexander "gamers are dead" clickbait article, and they were willing to get out their own long-simmering pitchforks and torches, even if this had nothing to do with the ZQ incident.
Two arguments both got fanned and intersected at the time at a cross angle- and that's something I've rarely seen before.
That's the big reason this crap has gone on for so long- you've got two groups, each of whom feels not just right but righteous, each of whom is trying to talk over each over, each of whom isn't used to dealing with their own tactics being used against them. The #gameovergate had some vile stuff on it earlier today. This is why the stuff isn't going to die down anytime soon (though I think both sides are starting to get a little tired thankfully)
To be fair, most of what I saw from the #gameethics side was game journos showing legit grievances developers have towards sketchy publisher practices- which is a very legitimate argument. Many of which were also cases of misogyny.
I do hope his article comes true in the future, and I do agree with most of it, but each side here is being self-righteous and loathesome in their behavior. In my case, what it did was it made me view both sides as bad. It felt like each side cared more about suppressing the other side than trying to put out their argument.
Personally, I think the social justice of things has a more important grievance, and a much more black-and-white case. It's just harder to have sympathy when you see all the poo being flung around all over the place- you just want it to stop.
Me neither to be honest.
There are white people out there who are racist and will treat you badly without any provocation. There are misogynists in the world who don't think women are the equal of men and will treat you accordingly without any provocation.
Racists, sexists, homophobes and transphobes don't need provocation.
How polite was MLK? How did he end up?
And more on topic - what did Jenn Frank to do provoke anyone?
Well respected designer Greg Costikyan posted this very blunt rant on Gamesutra, and then they deleted it later. The "I want to tell you some stories" section is heartbreaking.
Probably because the discussion started because of something (the Quinn crap) that had nothing to do with journalistic integrity and corruption and everything to do with hate. The continuation of debating journalistic integrity and corruption under #gamergate (as a specific banner) undermines this. It links the Quinn stuff to the matter being discussed, when there's no connection. Ultimately, the anon shits who started this whole thing did so because they want Quinn to be associated with corruption and doubtful integrity. It would be good to deny them that.
Have the conversation under a different banner.
EDIT: For what it's worth, I don't really know how I feel about having this conversation in a thread with "#GAMERGATE' in the title, ha.
I can't see how it wouldn't be appropriately under this banner. How didn't it have anything to do w/ journalistic (or in general) integrity? From what I've read, her... activities... are what brought that whole thing into the light, and she's not really relevant to the discussion any longer.
I feel like the hate/misogyny/etc discussion is constantly going on in pretty much every other avenue, is separate, and is likely not appropriate, for this topic. It's a smokescreen to confuse the issue, and everyone needs to focus, despite the efforts of some to continually derail it due to their interests.
And there are assholes out there that will act like all of these just for fun, not because they actually feel that way. Hard to separate them out, though, and no reason to call it a concerted hate-effort when it may just be trolling.
Have a video then: Logs
Fuck #gamergate, it's a load of shit for idiots. Fuck it all. Of course Zoe's unsympathetic, I'd be surprised if she had any empathy left after all this.
Fucking gamers indeed.
boogie2988
Banned
Well respected designer Greg Costikyan posted this very blunt rant on Gamesutra, and then they deleted it later. The "I want to tell you some stories" section is heartbreaking.
This was a pretty moving testimonial. Glad you have a cap of it to share.
In the case of ZQ, AS and others it was a concerted hate-effort. And it isn't 'just trolling' when it goes on for months and forces people to leave their homes and jobs.
And if you act like a bigot for fun? Then you're a cunt.
Twitter chatter says Gamesutra deleted it, but I'm not 100% sure that is the case.
Kadayi
Banned
Pretty much. This whole 'sit down, shut up' and maybe we (the gaming press) will talk about it if we feel inclined assuming no one (and we mean no one) says anything we construe as hateful at your end doesn't really cut it when they're wantonly pig-piling the generalized insults on themselves.
*Greg Kassavin rant*
Admirable as his passion is, I'm not sure I can wholly get behind the presumption that a woman can do no wrong. I certainly don't advocate harassment, but I also don't presume that 'girls are made of sugar and spice and all things nice' . That's some sexual inequality going on right there.
Yeah, but none of that was even substantiated. And AS is like "Hey, I had to leave my home, why don't you donate more money to me?" - that's very suspicious, to me, and I'm not sure how credible either of them are at this point, to be honest.
AFAIK, when you contact the cops about threats, one of the first thing they tell you is NOT to publicize them, or even that you're getting them, because they want the threats to keep coming in order to trace them and catch the perps.
So, while we can be sure they HAVE been harassed, the question may be (and again this is really derailing the really important discussion), is it legitimately any more than normal, and how much of their response is damage control/support of such, rather than actual concern?
Another question is: why are so many of these game-people defending or deflecting what's obviously going on in their industry, and is ultimately harming it more than what they're purporting to be defending is?
boogie2988
Banned
to try and exemplify how absurd it is that the idea of tweeting a hashtag is the equivalent of assault.
you should read my just posted blog on that topic, in fact.
Link?
But you don't need to exemplify it. It's not going to contribute to anything positive.
boogie2988
Banned
neither is expressing the idea that the use of a hashtag is the equivalent of a physical assault. I don't create these dialogues I simply participate in them.
my blog on the topic is here:
http://boogie2988.tumblr.com/post/96871675573/on-gamergate-and-my-role-in-it
Unless my understanding of things is incorrect, no. Also, aaaagh!
Whatever private matters occurred between Quinn, her ex, whoever else, no substantial link has been established between that and matters of journalistic integrity. This was brought into the light because an ex boyfriend acted spitefully. The association with journalism was suggested because some anon shit bags saw an opportunity, under their own #gg hashtag, to character assassinate someone they hold a grudge against.
Any time someone sees the #gamergate journalistic ethics discussion and, in the back of their mind, links Quinn as a questionable individual to it however briefly or uncertainly, the character assassination attempt scores a point.
The problem is, by now, Quinn's private life and matters of her integrity are so widespread in their association with #gg that the hashtag can't fail to propagate that impact on her character. The hashtag should be dropped, in lieu of some widespread "that quinn stuff was all horseshit guys seriously" mass PSA.
Boogie - really liked your vid on not being a bigot. Something everyone out in the 'mainstream' (who may be gamers and don't know it) should understand.
That's the thing though - she's past being relevant to the discussion. No one should even be bringing her up anymore, let alone attacking her. The discussion should be centered around why the gaming industry and the industry that covers it has such an incestuous relationship?
It's fine to be friends w/ journos or game devs. What's not fine is letting it influence your work. When your game dev friend releases a game, perhaps you should be the one to say 'No, I can't be objective about this, one of my colleagues will have to handle it.' This apparently has spread to tainting indie game awards and other things as well.
boogie2988
Banned
thanks. as I said, I'm just trying to get through all of this with my hobby and my livelihood in tact, while still being able to sleep at night.
oh god
boogie2988
Banned
Just to clarify, I sincerely get a death threat about once a week. I've never doubted hers are real. I think anyone else who does so is silly. Death threats when you are on the internet and in the public eye is a right of passage.
I don't necessarily agree with the 'attack' comments,but I'd guess it was used in the critical context and wasn't actually conflating it with physical assault?
DICKS AHOY
Banned
Sort of amusing seeing the escapist 'interview' 4chan and mention a non-existent account system, but it doesn't look great. The IRC chats were made public for anybody to read through, right?
Good.Kamiya is right:
He very likely has no clue what Gamer Gate even is.
"But there are clearly not the only people that have lost their minds. Ive been told that even using the term #gamergate is assault and an attack on zoe. The logical steps that are required to reach this level of bizarre thinking are beyond me, so Ill just have to say I reject that ideal."
Do you honestly believe that is a fair summary of the criticism you have been receiving in this thread? I don't. You've stripped out all the actual substance of what people were saying to you.
After going to sleep, I thought people would let Gamergate go to rest and realize what movement they have been associating themselves with.
Looks like people still want to continue supporting the campaign, despite being aware it is specifically targeting women in video games.
I'm so tired of video games culture and gamers.
Looks like people still want to continue supporting the campaign, despite being aware it is specifically targeting women in video games.
I'm so tired of video games culture and gamers.
This isn't what he is implying.
It's not "defend any woman regardless." It is simply that if women generally have a serious problem with something, and it's largely agreed upon that it isn't an outlying problem. It would probably be better for you to realize that maybe there IS indeed a problem, even if it doesn't affect you.
If i said "you should try to be nice to everyone." I am almost certainly not saying you should be nice to serial killers and animal abusers. Because that sort of awfulness is not generally considered to be a representation of society of a whole
boogie2988
Banned
the logic, as I understand it (and I really do NOT understand it) is as follows:
A) #gamergate was supposedly started by zoe's ex boyfriend and there are screenshots to prove it.
B) Other misogynists joined the movement and have used it as as an excuse to bully women
C) because of this the word is now 'tainted' and must never be spoken because it encourages assault on women or pain to zoe or something along those lines.
Therefore any statement using #gamergate, even if its calling for gaming industry reform, or comforting a person whose been harassed is not allowed because the hashtag is built on 'rotten roots', i guess.
I don't really get it but that's my loose understanding. Please feel free to correct me.
boogie2988
Banned
the people who continue, including myself, mostly do not want to target women. we just disagree with your assessment that its the only thing this movement can possibly mean.
boogie2988, read gilianseed's post to you
DICKS AHOY
Banned
It was hardly going to be an overnight change in opinion across the board just because of one revelation a large number of people probably won't be aware of until another week.
Give it a month and by then the dust should have settled for the most part and a proper discussion can take part, especially once any legal proceedings take place so that aspect of the entire debate can be completely ignored.
Well respected designer Greg Costikyan posted this very blunt rant on Gamesutra, and then they deleted it later. The "I want to tell you some stories" section is heartbreaking.
I find THIS article surreal and sexist.
I wont defend all women, because i consider women people, i respect them as individuals with different opinions, ideas, personalities; gender (or sexual orientation) and sex are just two of the many factors associated to them, they dont define them. I will criticize (in a polite way) a man or a woman if they do something despicable, and surely not because of their sex.
Painting women with a broad brush like this person does, saying "they have to be defended no matter what" seems incredibly sexist. It just puts them all on one level, no matter what their merits (or demerits) are. I dont even know what to say about the "duel" part that follows right after that.
I just wish there was more common sense in this world.
Sort of, I actually replied to you earlier (last page) but don't know if you saw so I'll just quote myself like an ass cos it sums up my thoughts on it:
boogie2988
Banned
i've already read it and taken it into consideration. Its whats made me move to the position that if/when I use the hashtag I will only use it to preach moderation and civility on both sides. I made that decision not because of any lack of empathy, but because of a presence of it.
- Status