Support NeoGAF

[Gestault]

He hasn't expanded at all about what he meant. Am I just supposed to guess?

The motivations and underlying goals of bullying, if you apply it to the people behind Gamergate, can help you understand what kinds of responses will be tantalizing and which will be a foil to the bully. And specifically why people who feel disempowered or bullied can themselves see a perverse sort of draw in bullying. It helps you understand why there's any sort of justification on their part, even if it's delusional.

There are important differences between a physical schoolyard and long-distance harassment, but it should be a useful lens.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

He hasn't expanded at all about what he meant. Am I just supposed to guess?

Sorry about that, but thats why I'm studing Literature... to someday try to express that in words. I'm not being snarky or condescendent, Maybe thats why I understand Jeff need to be silent.

Man, I still cannot put it in words...

Ignore him, he's been doing the same bankrupt, pseudo-philosophical shit in the main GG thread.

Jesus... Believe what you want to believe, but still try to take remember my words at a time of need. I'm being honest

 

[Devolution]

That is a shame.

The motivations and underlying goals of bullying, if you apply it to the people behind Gamergate, can help you understand what kinds of responses will be tantalizing and which will be a foil to the bully. And specifically why people who feel disempowered or bullied can themselves see a perverse sort of draw in bullying. It helps you understand why there's any sort of justification on their part, even if it's delusional.

There are important differences between a physical schoolyard and long-distance harassment, but it should be a useful lens.

But how is this a refutation of the idea that victims should not be silent and others should condemn behavior they find deplorable? Neither he nor you are bridging the gap here.

 

[scytherage]

I listened to a podcast that was trying to describe it for people just joining in, and it doesn't make any freaking sense. It does remind me of politics with two sides attacking each other without there being any actual unity amongst either group.

The impression I get is it's specific people getting threats/harrassed by anonymous internet people and somehow it's now about women's rights or something.

To me it feels like a schoolyard fight blown up into some national issue.

 

[Gestault]

But how is this a refutation of the idea that victims should not be silent and others should condemn behavior they find deplorable? Neither he nor you are bridging the gap here.

This isn't an all-or-nothing case of "ignore harassment," and that idea wasn't promoted in that way in the editorial you're responding to. But more directly, I hope you can understand why the motivations for bullying might would give perspective on why actively paying attention to the people bullying/harassing through mass-media might be a bad idea.

 

[Haunted]

So the only public figurehead for this gamergate harassment campaign is this Milo character?

Because it's going to be fairly tough for the police to track down anonymous death and bomb threats made via some proxys on Twitter.


It saddens me that I haven't heard about anything fruitful about the ongoing investigations and these gamergate misogynists are still able to continue their bullying and harassment.

 

[Devolution]

This isn't an all-or-nothing case of "ignore harassment," and that idea wasn't promoted in that way in the editorial you're responding to. But more directly, I hope you can understand why the motivations for bullying might would give perspective on why actively paying attention to the people bullying/harassing through mass-media might be a bad idea.

I understand the perspective on bullying pretty well but we're not talking dissecting someone's individual reason whether it's attention or well beyond that. We're talking about just finger waving the behavior and making it apparent that the vast majority of people don't condone it. Harassment is harassment, and there needs to be a united front to squash it.

 

[Lime]

So the only public figurehead for this gamergate harassment campaign is this Milo character?

Because it's going to be fairly tough for the police to track down anonymous death and bomb threats made via some proxys on Twitter.

These are the people https://medium.com/@poopsockholmes/the-bad-apples-of-gamergate-ba39f8fd485

 

[Cyborg]

What am I reading? Can someone catch me up?

 

[Haunted]

These are the people https://medium.com/@poopsockholmes/the-bad-apples-of-gamergate-ba39f8fd485

Wow, some of them actually seem to use their real names associated with these twitter accounts for this. That's just absolutely crazy to me. It's shitty enough to be a mysoginistic bully in your personal life, but openly displaying this on social media, so everyone can easily notice what human trash they are... that kinda freaks me out.

 

[Gestault]

I understand the perspective on bullying pretty well but we're not talking dissecting someone's individual reason whether it's attention or well beyond that. We're talking about just finger waving the behavior and making it apparent that the vast majority of people don't condone it. Harassment is harassment, and there needs to be a united front to squash it.

People deliberately taking anti-social actions seek out the reaction that comes from people not condoning what they're doing, and the more they're given the signs of their acts having significant impact, the more satisfied they are. The idea of squashing an idea like this through sheer numbers just doesn't apply. These people don't get canceled out. That's why extremism is so disruptive; it only takes one. This editorial is part of a concerted reaction that calls out the insidious underbelly of the movement, makes doubly clear that it's unacceptable, but characterizes it as the petty act it is. It's not hyping the movement, or giving the bullies the satisfaction of having every detail of the effects of their actions described over mass media.

 

[A Black Falcon]

Shockingalberto made a good criticism of that one paragraph in which Jeff argues that silence isn't complicity:

And there's an intrinsic perversity in the silence. The main objective of this campaign is to silence these women, these sites, or any discording voice. Scream "NO. ENOUGH." is showing that they're powerless and can't really silence anyone or everyone else. The more join the "NO.ENOUGH." scream the more difficult it is for them to achieve that objective.

Indeed. Most of Jeff's article was good, but the last couple of paragraphs were horrible! Bullies don't stop bullying people just because the target shuts up and/or doesn't fight back, it just makes it more likely that the abuse will continue. The unbelievably hateful sexists of the "GamerGate" campaign MUST be pushed back against, or else they win. If people stop pushing back on this, the harassment will continue, and more and more women will leave the industry. The only way to stop it is to show how wrong the sexists are.

The tone of Jeff's last few paragraphs is somewhat like that of some of Erik Kain's articles on this -- that somehow the side who is clearly right is "wrong" simply because they're actually arguing back. That's absolutely absurd, you can't win a debate by saying nothing, and you can't change society to reduce discrimination and convince people that beliefs like those of GamerGate are wrong unless you actually ARGUE BACK AGAINST IT. Ignoring them is a terrible idea and will lead to nothing but more harassment and threats.

You simply quoted and respond to the italicized text. I do think you mischaracterize it, or at least misunderstand it. My impression was that this piece promotes a position that isn't in any way neutral, but also doesn't engage those orchestrating the harassment in the terms they've chosen. No more than we'd engage a child having a tantrum.

They aren't children having a short-lived tantrum, though. They are adults, and they are not going to stop if people ignore them. They are going to continue their sexist bullying, and ignoring them gives them cover to continue.

 

[Devolution]

People deliberately taking anti-social actions seek out the reaction that comes from people not condoning what they're doing, and the more they're given the signs of their acts having significant impact, the more satisfied they are. The idea of squashing an idea like this through sheer numbers just doesn't apply. These people don't get canceled out. That's why extremism is so disruptive; it only takes one. This editorial is part of a concerted reaction that calls out the insidious underbelly of the movement, makes doubly clear that it's unacceptable, but characterizes it as the petty act it is. It's not hyping the movement, or giving the bullies the satisfaction of having every detail of the effects of their actions described over mass media.

You're misunderstanding me, I don't care to squash it all out, I know that's a pipe dream but with sheer number comes the overwhelming shaming of individuals who might stop. You don't get that with "ignore the problem it will go away."

These people aren't bullying for attention, they're bullying for control of the conversation.

 

[TharpDaddy]

Wow, some of them actually seem to use their real names associated with these twitter accounts for this. That's just absolutely crazy to me. It's shitty enough to be a mysoginistic bully in your personal life, but openly displaying this on social media, so everyone can easily notice what human trash they are... that kinda freaks me out.

Unfortunately they don't see it in a rational way like most people. They think what they're doing is justified, or they're young and don't understand the implications of attaching their name to something so messed up. At least, I hope it's one of those explanations, otherwise it means people are willingly being horrible people and not caring to hide who they are. That's much scarier than immaturity or ignorance.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

The problem is that these people are explicitly trying to silence voices they do not like.

I feel like not saying anything doesn't deter them. Maybe they enjoy the attention, too, but that possibility is not enough reason to roll over.

 

[Devolution]

The problem is that these people are explicitly trying to silence voices they do not like.

I feel like not saying anything doesn't deter them. Maybe they enjoy the attention, too, but that possibility is not enough reason to roll over.

When their target gets a bit quieter, that's what they want, so it's pretty dumb logic to tell victims "hey just like don't talk about it."

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

You're misunderstanding me, I don't care to squash it all out, I know that's a pipe dream but with sheer number comes the overwhelming shaming of individuals who might stop. You don't get that with "ignore the problem it will go away."

These people aren't bullying for attention, they're bullying for control of the conversation.

Bullyng for attention and control doesn't exclude each other.

The tone of Jeff's last few paragraphs is somewhat like that of some of Erik Kain's articles on this -- that somehow the side who is clearly right is "wrong" simply because they're actually arguing back. That's absolutely absurd, you can't win a debate by saying nothing, and you can't change society to reduce discrimination and convince people that beliefs like those of GamerGate are wrong unless you actually ARGUE BACK AGAINST IT. Ignoring them is a terrible idea and will lead to nothing but more harassment and threats.
.

This is the thing: YOU ARE NOT IN A DEBATE

 

[Devolution]

Bullyng for attention and control doesn't exclude each other

No but if the control they want is for their targets to quiet down then you're part of the problem asserting that "yeah maybe they should pipe down." At this point who cares if it's about attention as well, the last thing you should be suggesting is that victims or people who don't like this shit keep quiet about it.

 

[Shingro]

You simply quoted and respond to the italicized text. I do think you mischaracterize it, or at least misunderstand it. My impression was that this piece promotes a position that isn't in any way neutral, but also doesn't engage those orchestrating the harassment in the terms they've chosen. No more than we'd engage a child having a tantrum.

I think this is the right call personally. The people willing to send death threats over the gender of video game commentators are not rational, nor do they care what people think of them. they're so ideologically comitted no amount of censure will change their minds.

the best you can do is reduce their impact.

 

[BlastProcessing]

People deliberately taking anti-social actions seek out the reaction that comes from people not condoning what they're doing, and the more they're given the signs of their acts having significant impact, the more satisfied they are. The idea of squashing an idea like this through sheer numbers just doesn't apply. These people don't get canceled out. That's why extremism is so disruptive; it only takes one. This editorial is part of a concerted reaction that calls out the insidious underbelly of the movement, makes doubly clear that it's unacceptable, but characterizes it as the petty act it is. It's not hyping the movement, or giving the bullies the satisfaction of having every detail of the effects of their actions described over mass media.

I bothers me that we are supposed to comport our actions based on how the worst of a community will react to them. I think you will be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks it is possible to completely squash this, (or any) idea. Speaking out is more about not letting a relatively small group define a situation through lies, half-truths and innuendo.

I find it hard to care about what satisfaction bullies might feel due to my actions. If you go and look at their little clubhouses they will pat each other on the back about anything and everything. They possess a pretty good ability to distort a wide range of outcomes into personal victories. At this point, I feel that their tribalism will reinforce their behaviors with or without public reaction.

Instead I want to focus on highlighting the truth of the situation and supporting people who are being hurt.

 

[A Black Falcon]

This is the thing: YOU ARE NOT IN A DEBATE

There are two choices here: argue back against the sexist bullies, or ignore them and allow the harassment to continue indefinitely and maybe even get worse. There isn't a third option.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

I've just started to see those who prefer that people be quiet as having something to gain from the harassed not receiving support.

 

[Devolution]

It just boggles my mind that people think silence will make these people go away, maybe they'll move on to another target but they're still going to fuck with people regardless. I'd rather people be open about their treatment so they can be swarmed with sympathy and support than suffer in silence.

 

[Gestault]

I've just started to see those who prefer that people be quiet as having something to gain from the harassed not receiving support.

If I'm following you correctly, please don't. I haven't seen anyone, and certainly not this editorial, make the overriding point that there should be no commentary on this topic, and that victims should not respond in any way. You're chasing a strawman, and if it's not a strawman, it's not a point of view worth being concerned about.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

If I'm following you correctly, please don't. I haven't seen anyone, and certainly not this editorial, make the overriding point that there should be no commentary on this topic, and that victims should not respond in any way. You're chasing a strawman, and if it's not a strawman, it's not a point of view worth being concerned about.

The arguments I'm seeing in this thread and related ones are that journalists, pubs, and devs shouldn't say anything to avoid giving the harassment attention, but it's not about that, it's about showing support for colleagues being attacked and making an unequivocal stand against inappropriate and illegal activity.

In my view, anyone opposed to that has some reason.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

I'm glad Jeff said something, but I still feel like he's perhaps missing the underlying point.

 

[Nerokis]

Interesting to see people so adamant about the injustice of basically a single line. The letter was overall quite good. It gave people context for the whole GamerGate thing, showed them what it is in reasonable and clear terms, and condemned it unequivocally. But because he was not militant in his condemnation, because he dared to diverge on a single point, suddenly the entire thing is compromised? You guys do realize the people in your bubble, the people who have soaked up every piece of related news, practically every notable tweet, and who over the course of discussing the same angles for the past ~2 months developed specific issues/sensitivities, are not the only audience that should be spoken to here?

Regardless of the rigid conclusions you've come to, very few people actually have clarity on this situation, and probably not that many are sure who the good guys or the bad guys are. Those are the people in the "middle" Jeff spoke of. Not necessarily people who see grey in both sides, but those who remain somewhat distant from the situation. People who are approaching this with less hardened viewpoints. And considering those people probably make up the huge majority, isn't it good to see someone on your side communicating with them in an effective way?

And that's the bigger point here: he's very clearly on your side. He sees what GamerGate is, and wants it to go away. He is pro-peace. You can invoke Martin Luther King or Churchill or Burke or whoever, but his "silence is not complicity" statement is not actually that bad. Silence is sometimes golden. After a shooting, it is a good idea for the media to be silent. In response to someone seeking attention in obnoxious ways, sometimes it is a good idea to be silent. Maybe sometimes you're just going through something, or have a lot on your plate, and inevitably you end up being silent on something that could use some attention. You have to be able to measure abstract ideals against practical realities. Not every loud voice is productive, and sometimes someone's silence is absolutely not complicity. Now, was Jeff/Giant Bomb's relative silence actually productive, though, was it the best move? You can debate that, of course, but the militancy is completely unnecessary.

I think the backlash in this thread pretty aptly demonstrates that whole "but some of the people falling on the 'anti-' side of the GamerGate are employing the same sort of 'you are with us or against us' mentality" sentiment Jeff talked about in the letter.

 

[Metroidvania]

It just boggles my mind that people think silence will make these people go away, maybe they'll move on to another target but they're still going to fuck with people regardless. I'd rather people be open about their treatment so they can be swarmed with sympathy and support than suffer in silence.

The arguments I'm seeing in this thread and related ones are that journalists, pubs, and devs shouldn't say anything to avoid giving the harassment attention, but it's not about that, it's about showing support for colleagues being attacked and making an unequivocal stand against inappropriate and illegal activity.

I don't think Jeff's saying that victims shouldn't be open about what's happening to them.

The point, from my perspective, is to deny the Gamergate crowd leverage by failing to acknowledge their position at the table, due to past and ongoing harassment, amidst other issues like non-concrete goals. Rather than sink to shit-slinging, provide a Non-violent (vocal, in this case) response to violence, basically. (Again, discounting death threats).

But rather, amidst reporting the death threats and the like to the authorities, to, as Brianna Wu is doing, continue making video games, and to not let the harassers win.

My interpretation is, of course, my own, and not Jeff's.

 

[njean777]

There are two choices here: argue back against the sexist bullies, or ignore them and allow the harassment to continue indefinitely and maybe even get worse. There isn't a third option.

False dichotomy is not a valid argument. There are always more options.

 

[Devolution]

I don't think Jeff's saying that victims shouldn't be open about what's happening to them.

The point, from my perspective, is to deny the Gamergate crowd leverage by failing to acknowledge their position at the table, due to past and ongoing harassment, amidst other issues like non-concrete goals. Rather than sink to shit-slinging, provide a Non-violent (vocal, in this case) response to violence, basically. (Again, discounting death threats).

But rather, amidst reporting the death threats and the like to the authorities, to, as Brianna Wu is doing, continue making video games, and to not let the harassers win.

My interpretation is, of course, my own, and not Jeff's.

They're already at the table. It's way past the point of just a few rowdy jerks. These are people who want to control the conversation through threats in order to silence targets and critics. Saying that they don't deserve attention isn't really the focal point of why they're doing it.

When you get into "don't feed the trolls" nonsense you're predicating everything on "they'll go away once you stop responding" and it frankly isn't true.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

If I couldn't open up my inbox or social media account without a near constant stream of filth streaming out of my monitor and into my fucking face, talking about a middle-ground would seem kind of insane to me too, honestly.

If this started affecting my actual day-to-day life, yeah, I'd be pretty militant about it. I'd hope others would empathise and help me.

 

[kyser73]

Silence isn't complicity is a privilege argument (to use the current parlance) of someone who isn't on the end of the wider scope of sexism in society. It's up there with 'If you've got nothing to hide intrusive surveillance is OK' school of thinking.

GG has become an extension of a great many internet-driven harassment campaigns against prominent females that encompasses the hacked nude shots to the day-to-day shit you see on many twitter feeds & comments in forums.

The editorial was a post by someone seemingly deeply naive about the world outside of gaming, and how gaming sits in that world. It's not on a par with the 'gaming exists in a vacuum' post I saw in a locked thread on here, or the 'any problem goes away if you ignore it long enough' on here (here's a hint mate - you're going to end up a fucking mess if you think that), but it displays a lack of awareness.

 

[mcw]

Hate will never fix hate.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Interesting to see people so adamant about the injustice of basically a single line. The letter was overall quite good. It gave people context for the whole GamerGate thing, showed them what it is in reasonable and clear terms, and condemned it unequivocally. But because he was not militant in his condemnation, because he dared to diverge on a single point, suddenly the entire thing is compromised? You guys do realize the people in your bubble, the people who have soaked up every piece of related news, practically every notable tweet, and who over the course of discussing the same angles for the past ~2 months developed specific issues/sensitivities, are not the only audience that should be spoken to here?

Regardless of the rigid conclusions you've come to, very few people actually have clarity on this situation, and probably not that many are sure who the good guys or the bad guys are. Those are the people in the "middle" Jeff spoke of. Not necessarily people who see grey in both sides, but those who remain somewhat distant from the situation. People who are approaching this with less hardened viewpoints. And considering those people probably make up the huge majority, isn't it good to see someone on your side communicating with them in an effective way?

And that's the bigger point here: he's very clearly on your side. He sees what GamerGate is, and wants it to go away. He is pro-peace. You can invoke Martin Luther King or Churchill or Burke or whoever, but his "silence is not complicity" statement is not actually that bad. Silence is sometimes golden. After a shooting, it is a good idea for the media to be silent. In response to someone seeking attention in obnoxious ways, sometimes it is a good idea to be silent. Maybe sometimes you're just going through something, or have a lot on your plate, and inevitably you end up being silent on something that could use some attention. You have to be able to measure abstract ideals against practical realities. Not every loud voice is productive, and sometimes someone's silence is absolutely not complicity. Now, was Jeff/Giant Bomb's relative silence actually productive, though, was it the best move? You can debate that, of course, but the militancy is completely unnecessary.

I think the backlash in this thread pretty aptly demonstrates that whole "but some of the people falling on the 'anti-' side of the GamerGate are employing the same sort of 'you are with us or against us' mentality" sentiment Jeff talked about in the letter.

Being against women in the industry getting harassed because they dare to speak seems like a pretty self-evident position

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Interesting to see people so adamant about the injustice of basically a single line. The letter was overall quite good. It gave people context for the whole GamerGate thing, showed them what it is in reasonable and clear terms, and condemned it unequivocally. But because he was not militant in his condemnation, because he dared to diverge on a single point, suddenly the entire thing is compromised? You guys do realize the people in your bubble, the people who have soaked up every piece of related news, practically every notable tweet, and who over the course of discussing the same angles for the past ~2 months developed specific issues/sensitivities, are not the only audience that should be spoken to here?

Regardless of the rigid conclusions you've come to, very few people actually have clarity on this situation, and probably not that many are sure who the good guys or the bad guys are. Those are the people in the "middle" Jeff spoke of. Not necessarily people who see grey in both sides, but those who remain somewhat distant from the situation. People who are approaching this with less hardened viewpoints. And considering those people probably make up the huge majority, isn't it good to see someone on your side communicating with them in an effective way?

And that's the bigger point here: he's very clearly on your side. He sees what GamerGate is, and wants it to go away. He is pro-peace. You can invoke Martin Luther King or Churchill or Burke or whoever, but his "silence is not complicity" statement is not actually that bad. Silence is sometimes golden. After a shooting, it is a good idea for the media to be silent. In response to someone seeking attention in obnoxious ways, sometimes it is a good idea to be silent. Maybe sometimes you're just going through something, or have a lot on your plate, and inevitably you end up being silent on something that could use some attention. You have to be able to measure abstract ideals against practical realities. Not every loud voice is productive, and sometimes someone's silence is absolutely not complicity. Now, was Jeff/Giant Bomb's relative silence actually productive, though, was it the best move? You can debate that, of course, but the militancy is completely unnecessary.

I think the backlash in this thread pretty aptly demonstrates that whole "but some of the people falling on the 'anti-' side of the GamerGate are employing the same sort of 'you are with us or against us' mentality" sentiment Jeff talked about in the letter.

I like this because of how you reacted to the sentiment and not the actual words people were saying in a post where you excoriate people for reacting to sentiment and not actual words.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

No but if the control they want is for their targets to quiet down then you're part of the problem asserting that "yeah maybe they should pipe down." At this point who cares if it's about attention as well, the last thing you should be suggesting is that victims or people who don't like this shit keep quiet about it.

I'm not suggesting to be quiet about it. But be smart about it. I can respect people being outspoken but not people blaming other people because being outspoken has not worked as well.

In anycase, sorry if I came across as incoherent But it was a long night and I'm still bleeding in my nose and I need to sleep. Devolution (and Labor), I really don't mean ill, and I'm sorry if it come across that way. But I will take issue of being associated by silence when the result of being outspoken is "intellectual dishonesty" acusation.

Silence isn't complicity is a privilege argument (to use the current parlance) of someone who isn't on the end of the wider scope of sexism in society. It's up there with 'If you've got nothing to hide intrusive surveillance is OK' school of thinking.

GG has become an extension of a great many internet-driven harassment campaigns against prominent females that encompasses the hacked nude shots to the day-to-day shit you see on many twitter feeds & comments in forums.

The editorial was a post by someone seemingly deeply naive about the world outside of gaming, and how gaming sits in that world. It's not on a par with the 'gaming exists in a vacuum' post I saw in a locked thread on here, or the 'any problem goes away if you ignore it long enough' on here (here's a hint mate - you're going to end up a fucking mess if you think that), but it displays a lack of awareness.

Jeff? Naive? that is a new one... a pretty good one

 

[Gestault]

The arguments I'm seeing in this thread and related ones are that journalists, pubs, and devs shouldn't say anything to avoid giving the harassment attention, but it's not about that, it's about showing support for colleagues being attacked and making an unequivocal stand against inappropriate and illegal activity.

In my view, anyone opposed to that has some reason.

I don't mean to be dismissive, but that's simply not the impression I've gotten from people in this conversation, or really what most would mean when they say "don't fan the flames around the issue." You'll hopefully see that considering the number of editorial essays covering the topic and criticizing the Gamergate element of it, that also press the importance of responding in a way that won't feed-back with exactly what the harassers want, there's substance to what I'm saying.

You seem to be looking at this as though there are only two possible responses to those aware of it. Complete silence isn't a wise reaction. Hence why very, very few make that point.

 

[Devolution]

I'm not suggesting to be quiet about it. But be smart about it. I can respect people being outspoken but not people blaming other people because being outspoken has not worked as well.

In anycase, sorry if I came across as incoherent But it was a long night and I'm still bleeding in my nose and I need to sleep. Devolution (and Labor), I really don't mean ill, and I'm sorry if it come across that way. But I will take issue of being associated by silence when the result of being outspoken is "intellectual dishonesty" acusation.

I don't know what this means.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

I don't mean to be dismissive, but that's simply not the impression I've gotten from people in this conversation, or really what most would mean when they say "don't fan the flames around the issue." You'll hopefully see that considering the number of editorial essays covering the topic and criticizing the Gamergate element of it, that also press the importance of responding in a way that won't feed-back with exactly what the harassers want, there's substance to what I'm saying.

You seem to be looking at this as though there are only two possible responses to those aware of it. Complete silence isn't a wise reaction. Hence why very, very few make that point.

If that's not the impression you get then fine, that's how you see it.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

I don't know what this means.

Spoiler

I had a nose surgery last monday and I'm still bleeding, cannot breath welll right now and I could not sleep well last night. So maybe my point came across as totally inchoherent because of it

 

[Gestault]

If that's not the impression you get then fine, that's how you see it.

I hope you understand my point of how if your interpretation were accurate, there would be an incredible number of self-contradictory editorials out there talking about the importance of responding in a way which doesn't reinforce the goals of the harassers, which you seem to believe (even at odds with the sentiments of the people making the statements) that it's a push for victims and commentators to remain silent, full-stop.

 

[Karkador]

It just boggles my mind that people think silence will make these people go away, maybe they'll move on to another target but they're still going to fuck with people regardless. I'd rather people be open about their treatment so they can be swarmed with sympathy and support than suffer in silence.

It doesn't work for other crazy conspiracy theory people, and it probably wouldnt work here either.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

I hope you understand my point of how if your interpretation were accurate, there would be an incredible number of self-contradictory editorials out there talking about the importance of responding in a way which doesn't reinforce the goals of the harassers, which you seem to believe (even at odds with the sentiments of the people making the statements) that it's a push for victims and commentators to remain silent, full-stop.

I already said fine

Your interpretation is no more "accurate" than mine, it's just your interpretation

I"m watching the toll harassment and the lack of support for victims takes firsthand, so I'm going to go with my interpretation

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

I already said fine

Your interpretation is no more "accurate" than mine, it's just your interpretation

I"m watching the toll harassment and the lack of support for victims takes firsthand, so I'm going to go with my interpretation

I also have first hand exprience. i hope one day we could get to a semblance of understanding

 

[charlequin]

I don't mean to be dismissive, but that's simply not the impression I've gotten from people in this conversation, or really what most would mean when they say "don't fan the flames around the issue." You'll hopefully see that considering the number of editorial essays covering the topic and criticizing the Gamergate element of it, that also press the importance of responding in a way that won't feed-back with exactly what the harassers want, there's substance to what I'm saying.

The fundamental problem to framing this issue around whether people are "giving the harassers what they want" is that, fundamentally, what happens with the harassers doesn't matter. We have no way of knowing exactly what any given harasser wants or any way we can act that will guarantee they will not feel satisfaction; a lot of the reason miserable, disenfranchised people turn to harassment and social violence is that it's really hard to react to it in a way that keeps the harasser from enjoying themselves.

The correct framing is "what will help the people being targeted the most effectively," and the answer to that, as well established both by individual experience and academic study, is for people in privileged positions to actively respond in solidarity. The sooner people with less to lose stand up and say "this is unacceptable," the sooner it becomes more difficult to pull off additional harassment campaigns or to recruit useful idiots from the masses of people who simply don't realize what's really going on.

 

[Metroidvania]

They're already at the table. It's way past the point of just a few rowdy jerks. These are people who want to control the conversation through threats in order to silence targets and critics. Saying that they don't deserve attention isn't really the focal point of why they're doing it.

But are they really controlling the conversation? All I've seen reported are the vague terminology of 'more ethics' (read: we don't like 'x'), and the death threats.

Gamergate isn't actually contributing to a conversation with the industry or the journalists who report on it. it's sole contribution (afaik) beyond Kotaku being more careful in stating conflict-of-interests and something with Gamasutra advertising, has been to basically 'shield' hate speech/harassment and death threats in order to silence opposition, (with the accompanied result of driving women out of the industry). And hopefully, the authorities have gotten involved.

Essentially, the movement's point (if there was one) regarding ethics has been forsaken in the quest for harassment and threats. But, barring policing the entire internet, you aren't going to shut down the harassers. People can be determined assholes.

You'll win some of the masses reporting on (as in not being silent) evidence of GG's flawed nature and lack of effectiveness as it continues to come out, and hopefully, the movement dissolve due to the actions of the people who are showing the true story, but the real misogynists hidden within the movement are just going to move on to a new venue/platform. (I'm not saying that like it's a good thing, because it's not. It's really, really shitty)

When you get into "don't feed the trolls" nonsense you're predicating everything on "they'll go away once you stop responding" and it frankly isn't true.

But at the same time, if you do rage back at them, does that stop them?

The death threats need to stop. The harassment needs to stop. And since GG is associated with that, it needs to be denatured.

But I'm not sure if shouting back repeatedly at what essentially seems like an ill-informed 'mob' is the most effective way to make that happen. (I'm not saying being utterly silent and hope it goes away is my response either, that'd be ludicrous)

My original point was moreso looking at Jeff's intention as not being to tell people 'shut up and it'll go away'. Rather, it was more to deny the trolls the possibility of furthering their conversation, while at the same time acknowledging and telling women in the industry 'don't give up'.

Edit: Is it the best argument? Probably not, but I don't necessarily see it as dismissive either.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

The fundamental problem to framing this issue around whether people are "giving the harassers what they want" is that, fundamentally, what happens with the harassers doesn't matter. We have no way of knowing exactly what any given harasser wants or any way we can act that will guarantee they will not feel satisfaction; a lot of the reason miserable, disenfranchised people turn to harassment and social violence is that it's really hard to react to it in a way that keeps the harasser from enjoying themselves.

The correct framing is "what will help the people being targeted the most effectively," and the answer to that, as well established both by individual experience and academic study, is for people in privileged positions to actively respond in solidarity. The sooner people with less to lose stand up and say "this is unacceptable," the sooner it becomes more difficult to pull off additional harassment campaigns or to recruit useful idiots from the masses of people who simply don't realize what's really going on.

Exactly. Case in point, I can go on my twitter account and tweet anti-gg sentiments and the most that happens is people say "nuh-uh" or in rare cases engage me in an actual conversation. I can be as nice or as nasty as i want to be and nothing much happens.

My female friends do the same thing and instantly get "fuck you/I'll burn you and rape your corpse/dumb bitch doesn't know what the fuck she's talking about" etc.

 

[ThreePiMatt]

Silence isn't complicity is a privilege argument (to use the current parlance) of someone who isn't on the end of the wider scope of sexism in society. It's up there with 'If you've got nothing to hide intrusive surveillance is OK' school of thinking.

GG has become an extension of a great many internet-driven harassment campaigns against prominent females that encompasses the hacked nude shots to the day-to-day shit you see on many twitter feeds & comments in forums.

The editorial was a post by someone seemingly deeply naive about the world outside of gaming, and how gaming sits in that world. It's not on a par with the 'gaming exists in a vacuum' post I saw in a locked thread on here, or the 'any problem goes away if you ignore it long enough' on here (here's a hint mate - you're going to end up a fucking mess if you think that), but it displays a lack of awareness.

You really have no idea who Jeff Gerstmann is, do you?

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

The fundamental problem to framing this issue around whether people are "giving the harassers what they want" is that, fundamentally, what happens with the harassers doesn't matter. We have no way of knowing exactly what any given harasser wants or any way we can act that will guarantee they will not feel satisfaction; a lot of the reason miserable, disenfranchised people turn to harassment and social violence is that it's really hard to react to it in a way that keeps the harasser from enjoying themselves.

The correct framing is "what will help the people being targeted the most effectively," and the answer to that, as well established both by individual experience and academic study, is for people in privileged positions to actively respond in solidarity. The sooner people with less to lose stand up and say "this is unacceptable," the sooner it becomes more difficult to pull off additional harassment campaigns or to recruit useful idiots from the masses of people who simply don't realize what's really going on.

The problem is you are no attacking the root, the studies are about offline and not media with emphasis in anonymity, and all points out, since UserNet days, that you are actually giving more attention to the harassers. Total silence is also unwise.

 

[Gestault]

The correct framing is "what will help the people being targeted the most effectively," and the answer to that, as well established both by individual experience and academic study, is for people in privileged positions to actively respond in solidarity. The sooner people with less to lose stand up and say "this is unacceptable," the sooner it becomes more difficult to pull off additional harassment campaigns or to recruit useful idiots from the masses of people who simply don't realize what's really going on.

Or sadly enough, are supportive enough of some elements of the justification for the harassment (faux or otherwise) to be comfortable being associated with it.

I will say though, my earlier point about a more pronounced reaction/rejection of the behavior doesn't cancel out the extremists actually carrying out the harassment. An audience against you is still an audience. It's why crafting your reaction thoughtfully matters so much in an emotionally potent set of events. My greater point (which you responded to part of) was that most reactions, including that from Giant Bomb, wasn't one of simply staying "stay silent." This is a discussion thread about the sort of reaction that's important.