Support NeoGAF

[thefil]

- I firmly condone the action of silencing and harassing and threats. It has happened to a friend of mine in the past for something unrelated and I have actively condoned it on the web as well

For future reference, so you do not get misunderstood in an embarrassing way:

condone: accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue.

I believe you meant condemn.

 

[riotous]

Social rejection, especially over a long stretch of time causes empathy to rocket down. People around you become strangers.

Until they reflect and release that hurt, of course!

Certainly. For some people that is their reaction to social rejection.

That's a poor sterotype of the people she described though; as she didn't merely describe complete social rejects. Not everyone who dresses or acts a bit awkward is a bitter social reject; most aren't. Not to mention I think saying "not knowing how to dress or behave" is a poor sterotype for con attendees. This to me makes it an article not necessarily worth defending; the focus should be on why people are reacting and calming them down not trying to claim her article wasn't offensive.

snip

edit: Going to just agree to disagee with most and leave it at that... thanks for the response Galactic Fork but I feel like I'd just be repeating myself if I responded to that. My opinion is she's purposefully being insulting to a wider swatch of gamers than she needed to be to make her point. There isn't much else to say about it; if you think she wasn't purposefully being offensive I disagree. Gamasutra's audience isn't only professionals any more than ESPN is only for athletes to read. It's a different view of the industry; but the site is meant to be read by people interested in the indusrtry.. not just people in the industry.

 

[MYeager]

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

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

So fucking rational guys.

I'm guessing they don't see the hypocrisy of that statement. I mean they're accusing game writers en mass for a lack of ethics because of the (falsely accused) actions of a couple, and certainly didn't want to be told to ignore it and go back to playing games.

 

[Galactic Fork]

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

Because it's part of the stereotype. And we've allowed misogyny and harassment to be part of the stereotype as well by giving them such a loud voice in gaming. The loud vocal minority can only be loud and vocal if the rest are silent.

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

I'm not sure how this is relevant because the article wasn't a call to end harassment... It was a call to developers and publishers to expand the market beyond the stereotype (that's actually most of the title). To stop focusing on a narrow view of "gamer" which has also been further poisoned by misogyny and harassment.

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

Gamasutra isn't a gaming site though. It's for game-makers. Her article was to developers. Gamers weren't her audience.

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

I disagree. Because calls to game makers to expand their focus are awesome. Also, I'm ok with people being offended (not that people need my permission), but to accuse the article of doing something its not is another (they totally need my permission). They could be honest about it.

 

[faceless007]

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

It's classic deflection and minimization of what is quite obviously a larger cultural and sociological problem, and telling people to stop talking about it serves literally no purpose other than to shift the attention away from the actual problem (harassment, death threats, rampant misogyny, downright sociopathic behavior) and instead put the onus of responsibility onto the group being targeted as if they're the ones doing something wrong. It's essentially "Stop caring about something that affects you because I'm such a self-absorbed dipshit that I don't want to hear about it and you talking about is inconvenient for me." Why should anyone accede to that request? What is to be gained from it? Has any social problem in the history of anything ever been solved by ignoring it and wishing it would go away?

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

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

Its defeatist and doesn't stand up against what's wrong. If you want ethics, honesty and accountability in the gaming industry by standing up for what you believe in because you think its wrong, why can't you do the same against the toxic heads who represent your movement the same way? Hypocritical at best.

 

[MrHoot]

For future reference, so you do not get misunderstood in an embarrassing way:



I believe you meant condemn.

Yes, I was already corrected, but went to eat my supper Forgot to edit

 

[Mael]

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

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

I'm only just looking at it....
and well if Jim is reading me :
Good job mate, I love your work more and more actually.
I'd say "baby steps?"
at least the representation isn't as offensive as it used to be....
I mean the design for the female character in Unity is really good (the fact that you have no choice but have to play that random dude and only that dude when they made Watch Dogs this very same year is even more baffling).

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

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

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


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

Well considering that they're using internet, I feel like they have no benefit of the doubt when using a word like that.
It's only a google request away after all.
It makes them look even more like crying little know-nothing children on top of everything else.

 

[Substrata]

Characterizing misogynists and people who send death threats as 'jerks' is ridiculous.

Well, they are jerks. What should we call them instead? Harsher insults? I don't understand you.

Saying that what the worst elements of GamerGate have done isn't news... is offensive and demonstrably untrue (in that you know, it HAS actually been a major news story).

He didn't say "it isn't news". He fact that some people are jerks online isn't news. Maybe he didn't understand he was being flippant? I've seen plenty of death threats on twitter towards all members of the gaming press and other users too, but they are not mentioned simply because the best strategy against them is to report them and move on. I think by Anita making light of threats like these is going to make her more of a target (I'm not saying she shouldn't report them however)

Saying that it's not really worth thinking about why there are sexist assholes sending death threats in the name of a cause... you're totally okay with that?

There's nothing I can do about them, so why be concerned? If the people sending these threats listened to reason they wouldn't be sending threats in the first place.

 

[zeldablue]

Certainly. For some people that is their reaction to social rejection.

That's a poor sterotype of the people she described though; as she didn't merely describe complete social rejects. Not everyone who dresses or acts a bit awkward is a bitter social reject; most aren't. Not to mention I think saying "not knowing how to dress or behave" is a poor sterotype for con attendees. This to me makes it an article not necessarily worth defending; the focus should be on why people are reacting and calming them down not trying to claim her article wasn't offensive.

edit: Going to just agree to disagee with most and leave it at that... thanks for the response Galactic Fork but I feel like I'd just be repeating myself if I responded to that. My opinion is she's purposefully being insulting to a wider swatch of gamers than she needed to be to make her point. There isn't much else to say about it; if you think she wasn't purposefully being offensive I disagree.

Oh yeah. No defense for anything here. :]

I just went to a con and dressed pretty ridiculous myself. It feels good! Some just need to understand what insecurity does. There ought to be no shame in being yourself. Exclusionary insults of any kind are designed to hurt where it hurts the most. And that's bad, especially when it's coming from SJWs who want things to be better.

However, being a straight up harasser/stalker is not being "yourself," I assure you. :\

 

[plagiarize]

I'm guessing they don't see the hypocrisy of that statement. I mean they're accusing game writers en mass for a lack of ethics because of the (falsely accused) actions of a couple, and certainly didn't want to be told to ignore it and go back to playing games.

It must be pretty difficult to try to distance yourself from a group of people you have no problems with, while simultaneously trying to argue that you aren't one of *those* people and trying to make sure that anti feminists understand that GamerGate welcomes them.

 

[L Thammy]

I'm guessing they don't see the hypocrisy of that statement. I mean they're accusing game writers en mass for a lack of ethics because of the (falsely accused) actions of a couple, and certainly didn't want to be told to ignore it and go back to playing games.

I do wonder how Gamergaters react to seeing evidence that their own movement began as nothing more than a harassment campaign. Do they just deny it because it's different from what they were told, or is there some other format that could help them digest the information?

FAKE EDIT: Just remembered the whole "she probably faked it" phenomena while typing this. Nevermind.

Well, they are jerks. What should we call them instead? Harsher insults? I don't understand you.

Terrorists, maybe? A friend of mine's been using that word. I think it's a good fit.

 

[The Blackrose]

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

I'm sorry, but I was with you right up until the emphasized statement (I'll get to your last sentence in a second).

Just because your cause is just does not give you an excuse to cause abhorrent circumstance yourself. Sanitizing what is ultimately just another form of abuse "for the cause" ignores the ramifications of that abuse, which may include (nonequivalent) escalation, the use of the instance of abuse as a rallying and/or talking point, and other consequences.

Your last sentence is correct, in that it does need to be actively condemned, and should not invalidate the cause. However, you can't precede that by saying that the means (which in this case are abusive) justifies the end goal. That never ends well.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

There's nothing I can do about them, so why be concerned? If the people sending these threats listened to reason they wouldn't be sending threats in the first place.

So then I don't think GGers should get mad if people associate there movement with those people...Since clearly they don't listen to reason.

 

[NoCryingUntilTheEnd]

I do wonder how Gamergaters react to seeing evidence that their own movement began as nothing more than a harassment campaign. Do they just deny it because it's different from what they were told, or is there some other format that could help them digest the information?

They call the person that tells them this a "shill" and then inform them that GamerGate is not about "Literally Who" or whatever she's called nowadays.

 

[plagiarize]

Well, they are jerks. What should we call them instead? Harsher insults? I don't understand you.

More appropriate terms perhaps? Like criminals maybe?

He didn't say "it isn't news". He fact that some people are jerks online isn't news. Maybe he didn't understand he was being flippant? I've seen plenty of death threats on twitter towards all members of the gaming press and other users too, but they are not mentioned simply because the best strategy against them is to report them and move on. I think by Anita making light of threats like these is going to make her more of a target (I'm not saying she shouldn't report them however)

There's nothing I can do about them, so why be concerned? If the people sending these threats listened to reason they wouldn't be sending threats in the first place.

I'm not entirely sure how much of this is just bad writing and how much of it is dangerous thinking. You think Anita made light of the death threats, or did you mean to say she shone light on the death threats? Those are two very very different things.

Either way, it stinks a bit of victim blaming to suggest she makes herself more of a target by complaining about receiving death threats. Whether that's true or not, when someone sends you death threats to shut you up, you are well within your rights to complain about those death threats. I mean... seriously.

'There's nothing I can do about them, so why be concerned?'

That's your opinion on death threats? 'I can't stop them, so why should I be concerned about them? Or are you talking about a different *them* in that paragraph? The people making the threats or the threats? This seems *hugely* charged, but I can see room for misinterpretation on my part, so I'm desperately seeking some clarity.

 

[willooi]

Eurogamer's weighed in with a really good piece, with perhaps these particular lines standing out:

What does GamerGate really stand for? It claims to oppose corruption in the games media. But its initial claims about Quinn's relationship with a journalist were debunked and since then, to our knowledge, it has not turned up a single credible example. All it has proved is that many people in the games press and business know each other, speak to each other and share similar views. The only persistent thread to GamerGate is vehement disagreement with those views - the views of the so-called "social justice warrior" - which hold that improved diversity and social representation in the games industry and in game content are necessary for the long-term health of video games as a medium.

And that's the thing: for any passionate gamer out there, how could growth possibly be seen as a bad thing? When the strides games have made over recent decades now means we have rich stories and characters that appeal to many, and where critics like Sarkeesian are able to analyse them from a basis of respect for their capacity to positively influence - and NOT from a Jack Thompson-esque form of moral panic as seems to be the reaction - to simply highlight areas of weakness. What exactly is there to fear from such introspection? That games might feature actual people as they are in reality? "They're trying to take over our culture!!!" Which brings up the question of what, and whose, culture is this, exactly? The culture that's incorporated mainly Japanese, American, and European developers who have come up with games of vast variety, and yet is somehow threatened by more diversity?

As for Anita, to disagree with some of her points is completely understandable. To ignore, or worse, dismiss, everything she says is denial.

David Gaider, the lead writer of the Dragon Age series, gave an excellent lecture at GDC'13 last year summing up how Bioware's focus on romance in Baldur's Gate was received so well that they decided to expand on them to make their later titles more accessible to a wider audience, and in doing so sales weren't being affected, more people got to join in and feel included, and they were achieving progress. He then addresses Sarkeesian, privilege (in a completely non-disparaging way, merely that the word means that other people *gasp* may have different life views or experiences to what you yourself know), and how we can't proclaim that games are 'so much more than that' but then, in the face of reasonable criticism, dismiss them as being 'only games'. And it's sad that it's that latter point that keeps on coming up in this whole ordeal, that they're only games - yet at the same time we want ethics in their coverage but NOT for them to come to terms with 21st century social realities.

(*Totally recommend watching the video for those who haven't as this summary doesn't even come close to doing it justice.)

All of which makes that HuffPost video with the "three strong female GG supporters" so disappointing, where they say there's no place for politics in games, flat out deny there's ANY problem with sexism in games to begin with, regurgitate the ridiculous "objective reviews" idea, and display a fundamental misunderstanding of what feminism even is.

In having those young ladies represent the 'face' of GG, I can't help but think of when the BNP in the UK, basically an anti-immigration 'keep England white' hate group, promoted on their website a video of an Indian-British supporter to seemingly lend their organisation some credibility, where he's speaking passionately about his pride in his identity while all these hate-speech-spewing skinheads are raving like madmen behind him.

To put it in all perspective, again from the EG article:

And let us acknowledge for a moment the awful irony that, after decades of defending video games from accusations that they inspire school shootings, we now have a threatened school shooting explicitly inspired by games culture

 

[Mael]

Having seen Jim's vid on that specific subject (female protag)...
I feel like making a thread about how fucking full of shit everyone pulling the "let devs make what they want" card are.
Seriously we have actual examples of devs wanting to put more females in games and being told that they can't do that.
And when it's about the very same white male with short haircut we see a dime a dozen you got this contingent of idiots defending that with "let them do what they want"
When actually they were told to do that by marketing!
Fuck them!

 

[jstripes]

I do wonder how Gamergaters react to seeing evidence that their own movement began as nothing more than a harassment campaign. Do they just deny it because it's different from what they were told, or is there some other format that could help them digest the information?

They don't see it.

 

[plagiarize]

And that's the thing: for any passionate gamer out there, how could growth possibly be seen as a bad thing? When the strides games have made over recent decades now means we have rich stories and characters that appeal to many, and where critics like Sarkeesian are able to analyse them from a basis of respect for their capacity to positively influence - and NOT from a Jack Thompson-esque form of moral panic as seems to be the reaction - to simply highlight areas of weakness. What exactly is there to fear from such introspection? That games might feature actual people as they are in reality? "They're trying to take over our culture!!!" Which brings up the question of what, and whose, culture is this, exactly? The culture that's incorporated mainly Japanese, American, and European developers who have come up with games of vast variety, and yet is somehow threatened by more diversity?

As for Anita, to disagree with some of her points is completely understandable. To ignore, or worse, dismiss, everything she says is denial.

Jack wasn't just critiquing games. He wasn't just talking about the messages in them that he saw as harmful. He actively campaigned to get the sale of games restricted by laws. That was the issue.

If he had just been a guy going 'maybe these aren't games we want our kids to play. Here are the themes I think are harmful to children' whether I agreed with him or not, I would have staunchly supported his right to express his opinions. But that's not what he did.

To see people equating the two things as if they are equivalent... it's incredibly frustrating. Jack and I go back. I'm proud to have been personally insulted by that asshole... but I'm a totalitarian when it comes to free speech.

Boogie in one of his videos said something like 'I'll always defend gamers' or something along those lines. It reminded me of how angry people get if you criticize their family members, even if the criticisms are absolutely true.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

. Jack and I go back. I'm proud to have been personally insulted by that asshole...

Leave your kinky fetishes out of this please.

Spoiler

sorry.<3

 

[endless dave]

I'm sorry, but I was with you right up until the emphasized statement (I'll get to your last sentence in a second).

Just because your cause is just does not give you an excuse to cause abhorrent circumstance yourself. Sanitizing what is ultimately just another form of abuse "for the cause" ignores the ramifications of that abuse, which may include (nonequivalent) escalation, the use of the instance of abuse as a rallying and/or talking point, and other consequences.

Your last sentence is correct, in that it does need to be actively condemned, and should not invalidate the cause. However, you can't precede that by saying that the means (which in this case are abusive) justifies the end goal. That never ends well.

I actually agree with all this. I suppose I was more referring to the instinct many have to see the nasty actions on both sides and assume that's the only part of the equation to consider when asking "is this side worth supporting or not?" The answer shouldn't (solely) be "the side who treats the topic the most academically and calmly." The answer, at the end of the day is "the side that is the most just." Not that that side is absolved of guilt for its participants' bad deeds, but that sheer presence of those bad deeds still doesn't mean their side is "wrong."

 

[Septic360]

This is possibly the dumbest most irrelevant question that's been asked in this thread. At least top 10.

Ah I was just trying to lighten up the mood when linking the video whilst also making a tongue in cheek point about being able to talk about the sexuality of women in a topic with such divisive issues.

I didn't mean offence. Sorry I'm new here

 

[Neoriceisgood]

I didn't mean offence. Sorry I'm new here

It's hard to tell if you're being tongue in cheek if people don't know you yet.

Plenty of gaf posters say similar stuff without a hint of irony (e.g.: lovely miyamoto thread)

 

[Ayt]

I am convinced, at this time, that both sides of this fight are using half truths, conspiracy theories, and bold face lies to push their own narrative.

I am surprised at how little fact checking on both sides is being done.
Neogaf is usually pretty good about focusing on facts over rumor/feelings, but this subject has opened something that scares the crap out of me; ignorance on all sides.

It is good you came in with a stack-o-facts to set things right.

 

[willooi]

Jack wasn't just critiquing games. He wasn't just talking about the messages in them that he saw as harmful. He actively campaigned to get the sale of games restricted by laws. That was the issue.

If he had just been a guy going 'maybe these aren't games we want our kids to play. Here are the themes I think are harmful to children' whether I agreed with him or not, I would have staunchly supported his right to express his opinions. But that's not what he did.

To see people equating the two things as if they are equivalent... it's incredibly frustrating. Jack and I go back. I'm proud to have been personally insulted by that asshole... but I'm a totalitarian when it comes to free speech.

Boogie in one of his videos said something like 'I'll always defend gamers' or something along those lines. It reminded me of how angry people get if you criticize their family members, even if the criticisms are absolutely true.

We're on the same page here, I may have been unclear.

Definitely, Jack used games and moral panic to have them shut down entirely on the basis of games turning players into killers, whereas Anita wants them to improve. Yet she's seen as an equivalent or even greater threat to their existence, as if somehow she's going to inject evil equality into them.

 

[mo60]

It looks like mercedes-benz has removed their advertising campaign from gawker because of what sam wrote on his twitter account.

 

[Duane Cunningham]

And let us acknowledge for a moment the awful irony that, after decades of defending video games from accusations that they inspire school shootings, we now have a threatened school shooting explicitly inspired by games culture

Wow. Sobering.

 

[L Thammy]

It looks like mercedes-benz has removed their advertising campaign from gawker because of what sam wrote on his twitter account.

For those of us who have trouble keeping up, do you mind explaining? Who is Sam and what did he write?

 

[mo60]

For those of us who have trouble keeping up, do you mind explaining? Who is Sam and what did he write?

He said the bullying should be brought back when he was talking about gamergate. I don't think he was suggesting to bring bullying back in that post. He was talking about what gamergate is trying to do. I do not like what he wrote anyway.Another gawker editor wrote something else that was more offensive on twitter

 

[kmax]

For those of us who have trouble keeping up, do you mind explaining? Who is Sam and what did he write?

Thanks Gawker writer Sam Biddle. Thanks Gawker.

https://twitter.com/samfbiddle if you want to try to figure out the context to see if it makes what he says make sense.

I for one don't really care what stance he has in this controversy, his comments are despicable.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

He said the bullying should be brought back when he was talking about gamergate. I don't think he was suggesting to bring bullying back in that post. He was talking about what gamergate is trying to do. Another gawker editor wrote something else that was more offensive on twitter

He had one that said bring bullying back, another one that said gamergate proves nerds should be shamed into submission. Not smart

 

[besada]

I for one don't really care what stance he has in this controversy, his comments are despicable.

Agreed. Frustrations are running high all over the place, but that's no excuse to suggest that people be bullied and harassed.

 

[axisofweevils]

I actually do hold Intel responsible for the second wind of #GamerGate. It was dying down until they removed advertising, and that gave #GG ammo: "Hey, advertisers listen to us!"

The Guardian makes a good point here:

“Overall, the pattern is clear,” writes Marcotte: “#gamergate opposes ethical journalism. They just claim the opposite, for the same reason conservatives say liberals are the ‘real’ racists and anti-choicers claim they want to ‘protect’ women and homophobes say they are trying to ‘protect traditional marriage’”.

Many discussions on the topic have opened by suggesting that the answer is somewhere in the middle, that there’s good points made on both sides, that the majority of gamergate is interested in ethical journalism. But none of that is true. Nick Davies would call this “false balance” – the flawed assumption that if there are two identifiable sides, conflicts between them must be presented as an equal debate.

http://www.theguardian.com/technolo...buse-feminist-new-york-times-anita-sarkeesian

 

[L Thammy]

Ohhhh, that guy. Thanks. Yeah, maybe this is a good thing. Let's not respond to a harassment campaign with harassment.

 

[guggnichso]

You know what GG reminds me of? The anti vaccine movement. The rhetoric is the same, the style of their videos is the same, hell, Adam Baldwin is an anti vaccine loon.

 

[mo60]

He had one that said bring bullying back, another one that said gamergate proves nerds should be shamed into submission. Not smart

I was reading the twitter posts in the wrong order.I was reading off of something a gamergate created on twitter.

 

[crowphoenix]

It looks like mercedes-benz has removed their advertising campaign from gawker because of what sam wrote on his twitter account.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0KzFdcIQAANDnc.png:large[/IM][/QUOTE]
That is wonderful news.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

You know what GG reminds me of? The anti vaccine movement. The rhetoric is the same, the style of their videos is the same, hell, Adam Baldwin is an anti vaccine loon.

I've actually made this comparison a few times before to explain *how* GG connects to threats.

"Vaccines causing autism" = "the alleged "(SJW") corruption"

Big Pharma = Games Journalism

The harassment = people dying from lack of vaccinations.

--

GG isn't "For" harassment in the same way anti-vaccers aren't for "people dying from disease".

But the link between the conspiracy and the enormous negative consequences are undeniable.

 

[ICKE]

It looks like mercedes-benz has removed their advertising campaign from gawker because of what sam wrote on his twitter account.

I don't like going after sponsors or advertisers, because of individual mistakes and possibly endangering the livelihood of people. People say stupid things but they should be allowed to rectify their mistakes later on unless it was a serious offence. This person was reacting badly in usual twitter fashion, many have done the same but don't face consequences because of anonymity.

I guess I'm making excuses too much now, because I'm accustomed to smack talk in competitive CS, CoD, SSF4 etc. The reaction from Mercedes is just a no brainer of course and the comment was really bad. This is really bringing the worst out of everyone and I'm no angel either. Better just tune out for now. :/

 

[bonercop]

Ohhhh, that guy. Thanks. Yeah, maybe this is a good thing. Let's not respond to a harassment campaign with harassment.

I'm sure he wrote that just to piss off gamegaters and doesn't earnestly believe it. But it's still kind of an awful thing to say regardless, seeing how many people unironically believe bullying builds "character" or whatever.

 

[jstripes]

You know what GG reminds me of? The anti vaccine movement. The rhetoric is the same, the style of their videos is the same, hell, Adam Baldwin is an anti vaccine loon.

It's a little closer to the "Red Scare", the 1950s communist panic.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

I don't like people going after advertisers either (because games writers needs LESS influence from advertisers, not "watch your step with your opinions or we'll email Activision"), but Biddle was being a jackass by saying that, even jokingly.

 

[plagiarize]

We're on the same page here, I may have been unclear.

Definitely, Jack used games and moral panic to have them shut down entirely on the basis of games turning players into killers, whereas Anita wants them to improve. Yet she's seen as an equivalent or even greater threat to their existence, as if somehow she's going to inject evil equality into them.

You weren't unclear. I was just adding my feelings on the matter. I should have thrown in an 'I concur' at the beginning.

 

[axisofweevils]

There's another hashtag: #tweetlikeagamergater. A lot of it is childish, but at least its pointing out the true nature of the campaign.

Here's one of the "better" tweets as an example:

#tweetlikeagamergater Our fictional mascot Vivian James is female therefore you can't accuse us of being sexist. Obvs.

https://twitter.com/MarkDuval/status/523107452259418112

 

[MYeager]

He had one that said bring bullying back, another one that said gamergate proves nerds should be shamed into submission. Not smart

Damn, that's just ridiculous. I can see why sponsors wouldn't want their product associated with that.

 

[The Blackrose]

It's a little closer to the "Red Scare", the 1950s communist panic.

Starting to drift into the absurd with that comparison. Call me when we have zombie McCarthy on the loose.

 

[mo60]

I'm sure he wrote that just to piss off gamegaters and doesn't earnestly believe it. But it's still kind of an awful thing to say regardless, seeing how many people unironically believe bullying builds "character" or whatever.

The longer this goes on the more people will react like Sam did which sucks. I hope gamergate slows down soon.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

I don't like Biddle's assumption that only stereotypical nerds "Get bullied" either.

 

[jstripes]

Starting to drift into the absurd with that comparison. Call me when we have zombie McCarthy on the loose.

Nah, it's not that absurd. Just look at a lot of the language, and substitute "feminists" for "communists".