Bull :shit: and more bull :shit: and lots of bull :shit: (content warning: StarGate)
-
Just because someone has a wide reach doesn't mean they have to become a platform for opposing beliefs.
The point isn't that they oppose those beliefs but that they censor due to an outside interest group. The classic journalist response would be to want to publish something more when someone didn't want it to be published (the Streisand effect before there was one).
-
Again, time after time, people here say that GG condones harassment. Time after time, people in GG directly say they don't support it. How anyone ever reaches the first point is a complete mystery to me.
It's really simple: It's because GamerGate started out as the name of a harassment campaign. A campaign that targeted a female game developer and ignored journalists. There are other reasons, but that's the fundamental one.
Now, in theory origins don't matter. In theory, the fact that some people were trying to clean up games journalism and decided to do so under the same banner as a harassment campaign wouldn't matter; their concerns about journalism would be taken seriously, at face value.
In theory.
But in practice, in the real world, origins matter. For example, April Chambers says she's part of an organization that's deeply concerned about people dumping trash at the side of the road. She may even be quite sincere. But that doesn't matter, because the fact that the organization's name is the Ku Klux Klan means people are going to dismiss her as a racist — even if she isn't one — and assume that her concern for the environment is insincere.
The problem is, GamerGate comes from chan culture, where everybody is anonymous, it doesn't matter who says something, and you can't make judgements based on where an idea originated. But it has collided with the real world, where people make judgements like that all the time. It might not be strictly logically correct to do so, but that's the reality of how people think.
Many anti-GamerGate people are concerned with the shitty state of video game journalism and the conflicts of interest that frequently occur. But they're never going to associate their concerns with an utterly toxic brand like GamerGate. (Particularly not after GamerGate has deliberately damaged journalistic independence by pressuring advertisers to try and get reviewers fired.)
The way I see it, GamerGate is really damaging the cause that it purports to champion, because it has now gotten to the point where words like "ethics" and "games" and "journalism" can't even appear in the same paragraph without the reader assuming that the author is a Gater.
-
It's really simple: It's because GamerGate started out as the name of a harassment campaign. A campaign that targeted a female game developer and ignored journalists. There are other reasons, but that's the fundamental one.
False. 100% false. It started when Zoe Quinn attacked the members of Wizardchan, who said insulting things about her in their obscure corner of the internet, and she started complaining about harassment to get some publicity, resulting in thousands of people telling a bunch of suicidally depressed guys that they are the worst people in the world and should have their balls cut off.
In the midst of the general anger this caused, it got the name when journalists attacked their own readership, and the angry people rebelled.
You are stating something which is completely wrong, and if that's the point you're working from, you are wrong in everything you say from here on.
-
It started when Zoe Quinn attacked the members of Wizardchan
Some people's beef with Zoe Quinn might have started back then, but the name GamerGate was first coined for the Zoe Quinn harassment campaign started by Eron Gjoni. And his Zoe post wasn't anything to do with the Wizardchan stuff.
-
but the name GamerGate was first coined for the Zoe Quinn harassment campaign started by Eron Gjoni
Nice history rewrite idiot. Go check who coined the term, when, and why. You could not be more wrong.
-
Oh, that's an easy one. Actor Adam Baldwin coined the term GamerGate when he posted links to two videos on Twitter. Date was 2014-08-27, here's the tweet. He came up with the name to describe two videos which were about Eron Gjoni's (false) allegations of Zoe Quinn sleeping around.
Why, what bullshit origin story did they get you to believe?
-
He came up with the name to describe two videos which were about Eron Gjoni's (false) allegations of Zoe Quinn sleeping around.
Ha ha! See @kian and @cartman82, I was totally right!
-
Okay, I was wrong. I thought it was during the Gamers are Dead part.
Eron Gjoni's (false) allegations of Zoe Quinn sleeping around.
Right, so you've now said something that the people involved (Grayson) admitted to didn't happen. Well done, chap. But do you really think you can call that a 'harassment campaign' at that time? When all anyone cared about was a journalist sleeping with a developer?
Seriously, the point is, that just got people riled up. They were already wary, after the Doritos thing, and they already disliked her, after the Wizardchan thing. Especially so when she doxxed the Fine Young Capitalists. So everyone was pretty upset. But GG was never the label of a 'harassment campaign' to anyone but Zoe Quinn's friends at that time. If anything, it was applied to Grayson.
Then Leigh Alexander and co all decided to publish their articles, which is the point that GG actually began to have real relevance, as people rebelled. And by rebelling, I mean they started writing letters to sponsors of websites. They handled things in an incredibly clean manner. But any time someone harasses Zoe Quinn, apparently it's the evil 'harassment campaign' GamerGate. As if a 'harassment campaign', a serious organized thing, exists.
-
Okay, I was wrong. I thought it was during the Gamers are Dead part.
No, that came much later. (Or at least, it seemed much later. Probably only a week or two?)
But do you really think you can call that a 'harassment campaign' at that time?
An angry ex-boyfriend sets out to cause maximum embarrassment to a woman by falsely and publicly accusing her of sleeping around? He targets his accusations carefully to get as many people as possible to take his side and flame her? Yeah, I'd call that a harassment campaign.
Even if she had slept with a bunch of journalists, it's just slut-shaming. Gjoni himself admitted he wasn't concerned with any journalism angle and just wanted to "warn people" about what a horrible person Zoe was.
As if a 'harassment campaign', a serious organized thing, exists.
There was an IRC channel used to coordinate the harassment. You can read the logs if you like. Fun exchanges like:
"I kind of want to just make her life irrepairably horrible. At this point."
"but what if she suicides"
"Good"BTW, kudos for admitting you were wrong about the origin of the name. Seriously.
-
"I kind of want to just make her life irrepairably horrible. At this point."
"but what if she suicides"
"Good"You know, journalism ethics.
I like how you just ignored that she did exactly that to people not long before. No, it doesn't excuse that it happened to her too. But how much outrage was there that she did it? How about the time she faked doxxing herself? How about when she got a guy swatted? She will never answer for the horrible things she did. But no one is asking her to. The way she has been treated is not justified, but she is no innocent. You would never treat a man like this much of a victim.
Look, GamerGate has never been an organized harassment campaign. Yes, there was an angry ex trying to get even. What was called GamerGate was the idea that journalists had been caught in a scandal. You may have decided that it applies to a bunch of idiots, but you aren't correct. Unlike you, I don't assume people who disagree with me are brainwashed sheep. I consider you personally an idiot. It isn't slut shaming to say that a bunch of journalists slept with a developer, it's questioning the ethics of those journalists. She can sleep with whoever she wants. They can't. She was never the subject of Gamergate, they were. But she needed more publicity, and Journalists liked her.
-
It isn't slut shaming to say that a bunch of journalists slept with a developer, it's questioning the ethics of those journalists. She can sleep with whoever she wants. They can't. She was never the subject of Gamergate, they were. But she needed more publicity, and Journalists liked her.
Except you've yet to prove that her sleeping with them resulted in them writing positive articles about her. Until you show evidence of that, there was no conflict of interest and no unethical conduct. So airing their personal relationship drama is harassment.
-
-
Yes, there was an angry ex trying to get even.
(h/t https://twitter.com/FeministShit/status/628713553994850304 )
-
No, pretty sure it's harassment.
-
I still have this thread on mute.
-
How about when she got a guy swatted?
[citation needed]
You would never treat a man like this much of a victim.
Largely because gaters don't go after men with anything like the same level of viciousness.
But actually, what GamerGate did to Phil Fish — and continues to do to him — was shitty and utterly uncalled for. How's that?
Look, GamerGate has never been an organized harassment campaign.
It was the name given to what most people see as an campaign of harassment — as you admit, an angry ex trying to get even. Said campaign was clearly organized. So, organized campaign of harassment.
What was called GamerGate was the idea that journalists had been caught in a scandal.
Except it wasn't the journalists who were on the receiving end of the death threats, doxing, and so on. It wasn't the journalists that were being talked about in all the #gamergate-tagged discussions. And the very idea that the journalists were involved was lies from a jealous ex — someone that anyone with an ounce of sense would have thought carefully before trusting as a source of accurate reportage. It's time to swallow the fact that you and many others were duped by Gjoni into helping him with a personal vendetta.
-
You apparently won't ever understand, but I'll say It one more time: There is no shadowy group plotting their next harassment method. You are an insane conspiracy theorist. The ones who decided that gamer gate was the name of people harassing other people were the people trying to white knight for one of the worst human beings on the planet. And even if you believe that gamer gate only has victims and has done nothing good, which is blatantly false, some time you should do a count of the victims. Leigh Alexander and co victimized everyone who calls themself a gamer, and anyone who tried to be neural gets death threats or worse from people claiming to be against gamer gate. We're talking millions of victims vs something like 12.
-
one of the worst human beings on the planet
Perspective, please! There are many people who are worse. :( This is something we ought to be ashamed of as a species…
-
Someone who tried to shut down charities for women because someone she doesn't like donated to them, and whose hobby was doxxing people, and who gets people swatted? There can't be many.
-
Someone who tried to shut down charities for women because someone she doesn't like donated to them, and whose hobby was doxxing people, and who gets people swatted? There can't be many.
Well, let me introduce you to one Brett Kimberlin fellow...
-
The ones who decided that gamer gate was the name of people harassing other people were
the person that coined the term.A better question would be, why did a group of people concerned with ethics in journalism appropriate a term used to describe a couple of videos that attacked a person? Also, you STILL haven't provided a single link with evidence that Quinn, despite how terrible a person she may be, received favorable reviews in exchange for sex. Or conceded that she didn't. You have to do one of the two.
-
I don't * have* to. She isn't important, and everything to do with her fades in importance compared to what happened soon after anyway. Journalists are corrupt. You know that. They accept piles of gifts from publishers, and deals where they must give positive coverage. That's the part that matters. An awful harasser getting harassed by awful harassers isn't even important.
-
There can't be many.
Oh look, an optimist!
Look, I'm not saying that the people you're talking about aren't bad. I'm saying that there's altogether far too many who are worse. Some people are really quite astonishingly awful. You might say “yes, but those people are despots and terrorists and murderers” and you might be right, but they're still humans. Terrible, terrible humans.
-
That's fine. But my point is, a bunch of people harassing Quinn and her harassing others is like the constant wars between middle eastern countries. Neither side is pure.
What I have been against and am still against is people labeling a consumer revolt evil because of what a few people decided to pin on them.
No group is purely evil. When I say the people who harass people, I mean them and only them. Gamergate is not an evil movement because of the actions of a few, or we'd all have to agree that all feminists are evil, or that because of nazi science, all science is evil.
If you are willing to decide that a large group of people is inherently evil , you have simply proven yourself to be.
-
So you will continue to make vague accusations and neither back them up nor concede the point? That is how you end up with no credibility.
If you are willing to decide that a large group of people is inherently evil , you have simply proven yourself to be.
No one (here) is saying the group is inherently evil. That you are being used, maybe. That the label you choose to identify with is tainted and counterproductive to your stated goals, certainly. That many people that identify with the movement write misguided articles, like the one in the OP. That the group's focus on feminism is at odds with the stated goal, when major publishers outright bought and mailed pre-made reviews to sites.Let's put it this way: Do you have an example of #GamerGate protesting a major publisher's actions, like EA or Activision? Any kind of campaign like they did to get advertisers to dump controversial sites (and you wonder why the media doesn't like you)?
Also, considering the origin of the term, why do you think the group appropriated it?
-
If you are willing to decide that a large group of people is inherently evil
The only substantial group that is inherently evil is “the group of evil people” and that's by pre-selection. It's also a pointlessly tautologous thing to think about, to be honest. However, there are other groups where it is commonly the case to ignore the pain and suffering caused to other people (see my previous list) and they're often likely to be candidates for being evil; it is such disregard that is one of the key indicators of evil in the first place.
When someone sets an abstract cause above the harm caused to real people, they are treading close to the line where whatever good they are doing, they are still evil. It's common to regard purely selfish causes as being particularly unworthy in this balance, but I would hesitate to say that a selfless cause is automatically a guarantee that someone is beyond reproach.
I prefer to try to judge people for their own actions, and to try to hope for the best in others at least until some evidence shows otherwise. It mostly works well. :)
-
That's my point though. I've never heard someone who supports gg say anything other than that they condemn harassment, and frequently see them opposed as 'a harassment campaign'. There is no evidence that there is more than a very small portion of the many thousands who support gg have done anything wrong at all.
As I've said before, I think the goals have mostly been accomplished now, and have no need to be part of it. But I HATE misrepresentation.
-
-
We need feminists or the masculinists wouldn't be able to make babies.
-
Except that the feminists want all women to be lesbians.
-
On the moon!
-
Are you going all sea lion on us again?
-
-
-
Sea lions are the Symbolism of the Patriarchy!
-
For those interested in the journalism aspect of "gamergate", here's a pretty good overview of the uncovered "corruption".
Personally, I'm more interested in the ideology battle. These are all small potato issues IMO. But hey, if someone wants to track who invested chump change in whose kickstarter project, be my guest, I guess.
-
-
I want that t-shirt.
-
-
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41UmuZXWAVL.SY400.jpg
That's the most stupid thing I've ever seen. Who has a legendary belly button?
-
That's the most stupid thing I've ever seen.
It just misses a space. It's supposed to say THE LEG END, you know, pointing to where your leg ends.
-
The bad jokes topic is over there
-
That's the most stupid thing I've ever seen. Who has a legendary belly button?
And why is only the head a man? Is that a T-Shirt for post-full-body-op transvestites?
Filed under: and down there only the legend of what once was remains
-
Uh. The OneBox is the entire article. I didn't do that.
Here's the normal link.
Edit: Holy shit that was a spectacular onebox fail. Edited to not onebox. -bz
-
For someone who's not in this thread anymore, you certainly post a lot.
-
-
There are two possible interpretations of that shirt:
- He has very hairy breasts.
- This is a picture of Señor Cock-On-Face.
-
-
Like guns, always assume questions are loaded
Never point a question at anything you unless you are willing to live with the consequences of seeing it destroyed?
-
There are no stupid questions. Just stupid people.
