Laurie Penny on a 'culture war' that includes #GamerGate: http://laurie-penny.com/why-were-winning-social-justice-warriors-and-the-new-culture-war/
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
#GAMERGATE: The Threadening [Read the OP] -- #StopGamerGate2014
- Thread starter besada
- Start date
- Status
The fundamental difference here is that GamerGate was not hijacked by crazies -- it was started by crazies. Eventually the campaign started fooling a chunk of moderate, disenfranchised gamers into following along and supporting their cause. I recommend reading this: http://deathofgamergate.tumblr.com/
stuminus3
Member
Ugh, more engaging idiots at an idiot's level. This is a prime example of why this whole thing is a worthless shambles on all fronts.
Man, seeing the interactions between Boogie and others here just sort of breaks my heart. The guy seems like he's genuinely one of the sweetest people to post on video game websites period, and he totally has his heart in the right place, but to see someone struggle with and get seriously frustrated over trying to understand the opposition to GamerGate and feminism due to misinformation and genuine misunderstanding here makes me sad, and reading about his health issues just made me sadder 
.
.This video is terrible. Basically it brought up one known fact, Fez received angel funding from some indie devs, and extrapolated from that, with no evidence, to form some crazy conspiracy that Kellee Santiago is some corrupt, greedy IGF judge. I don't know why anyone would listen to this.
Happy-Bunny
Banned
Wasn't GamerGate started by Adam Baldwin? I mean the hashtag in response to the Quinnspiracy Youtube videos by InternetAristocrat.
Maddy Myers - A Ship Sailed Into Port: On Bias, Controversy and My Friends' Games
http://www.pastemagazine.com/articl...led-into-port-on-bias-controversy-and-my.html
Really, really good read about this whole controversy from a woman's perspective. She touches on harassment, "objective journalism," women in games, and bias.
http://www.pastemagazine.com/articl...led-into-port-on-bias-controversy-and-my.html
Really, really good read about this whole controversy from a woman's perspective. She touches on harassment, "objective journalism," women in games, and bias.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
It seems like the message from many on the anti-"gamer" side is that there is no discussion to be had until all harassment stops. If you are trying to have a discussion about any of this while the harassment still goes on, then "fuck you."
That's just the vibe I've got from casually watching this and listening to podcasts. Seems reasonable at face value, since the harassment stuff is absolutely unacceptable and needs to stop, but it's completely realistic when you take a moment to understand that "gamers" aren't some unified group and the people doing the harassment are not necessarily linked to anyone trying to have a discussion about this stuff. This just leads to angering the "gamers" not participating in harassment and makes them think that the journalists and people on the "other side" are unreasonably grouping them with a bunch of a shit heads.
What a mess. People on both sides need to stop drawing lines in the sand and turning this into a "you're with us or against us" thing. I'm sure that won't happen, though.
That's just the vibe I've got from casually watching this and listening to podcasts. Seems reasonable at face value, since the harassment stuff is absolutely unacceptable and needs to stop, but it's completely realistic when you take a moment to understand that "gamers" aren't some unified group and the people doing the harassment are not necessarily linked to anyone trying to have a discussion about this stuff. This just leads to angering the "gamers" not participating in harassment and makes them think that the journalists and people on the "other side" are unreasonably grouping them with a bunch of a shit heads.
What a mess. People on both sides need to stop drawing lines in the sand and turning this into a "you're with us or against us" thing. I'm sure that won't happen, though.
ArkkAngel007
Member
I'm just about to take the same rule I now have on 'unknown' Youtube channel posts to these types of blogs. All they seem to be is one extreme viewpoint to another, YouTube for #GAMERGATE and blogs in opposition. Every time I've convinced myself maybe this time it will be different, I finish with regret.
It essentially reads that misogynists and bigots are 'losing' on the basis of...that these misogynists/bigots are doing these things in the first place due to social change? Which is somewhat in contrast to her earlier lines on how this is just a game for them. But she tries to fit the game concept as if this is a crusade with a clear goal to achieving dominance, but she's missing the point.
It is a game that is used to put down minorities and certain sects of the industry, but it's just pure entertainment to them. Any pull or push fuels the game, and they love it.
This movement is rooted and driven by misogyny at its core, but that doesn't require the blind assumption that its some blitzkrieg to a greater mission goal when it's nothing more than the moment by moment tweet or article.
Also, this is rather terrible writing that is exactly what I've quoted above.
JSoup
Banned
About that blog. I notice they put an 'integrity' spin on why the story wasn't being initially covered. Is that actually true? We had a number of bloggers and mods (a few Gaf mods as well) in the last several topics about this saying they were being harassed and doxed into removing chatter and banning users who bring it up. Was the proven to be overblown or otherwise localized to a few specific places, or is it being ignored?
what points do you want people to address? and please don't post #benghazi-style infowars diagrams or youtube videos brought to us by zoe's vagina if you want people to take you seriously
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I side with the general perspectives in most cases, but this antagonistic perspective is really starting to bother me. Its never been as bad as most detractors claim it is (most of the time I've seen the "they're attacking us" reaction to any form of artistic or thematic criticism) but I'm also increasingly seeing articles like this and the Leigh Alexander one (of which I again, agreed with a good chunk of the actual textual content) that frame this as a "war" or a "crusade" and it just seems so...counterproductive. This stuff should always be coming from a perspective of education. It shouldn't be about defeating people, it should be about educating them on your perspectives. And what I see is people writing pieces like this under the misapprehension that the people resistant to their perspectives are entirely the same people engaging in genuine misogynistic harassment
You can't educate those guys, I get that. You shouldn't bother, I've given up bothering, if they're at the point where they're threatening rape on twitter they're a lost cause and I don't particularly see the need to try and engage in high-minded discussion with them
But I've been knee deep in these discussions here on GAF for years now, and so so many of the people who don't agree or who don't see the culture stuff as "a big deal" aren't malicious. They really really aren't. And the single best way to make them turn malicious is to lump them in with the genuine harassers. And that's what I see happening when you frame this as a "war". Suddenly people who weren't aware they were on one side of a battle are being told that they are, by the people "fighting" them, and it just causes a defensive entrenchment of position. Its honestly disheartening, because I've seen first hand how people can change their minds. Hell, I've been that guy. And it makes me wonder if these authors are too focused on "winning"
To the credit of a lot of moderates inside the hashtag they are trying desperately to claw the narrative away from the actual sexists and misogynists... but at the same time they're conflating "SJW agenda" with corruption and "death of a gamer" so there's no clear narrative besides feminism=bad in video games.
It's commendable, but as long as people still retweet Adam Baldwin and his ilk it'll always be a tainted movement.
Actually, the hashtag #gameethics was created to discuss ethical issues in the games industry and press without the baggage of #GamerGate. I suggest you check it out.
Happy-Bunny
Banned
Well the problem for any kind of discussion about "petty corruption" in the game industry at the moment is that the things that happened to and around Zoe were used as a steppingstone. The discussion is already over before it happens because there are too many different ideologies and agendas connected to it.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Not me. This is exactly part of what's wrong here. Everyone's so charged up and ready to make assumptions that your first reaction was to assume I am on a side (apparently the GamerGate side).
Didn't know about that. I'll take a look.
What kind of prompted my last post was a variety of things, but ultimately triggered by the conversation between Patrick Klepek and Alex Navarro, which pretty much boiled down to "wait until the harassment of my friends stops completely before trying to have a conversation about any of this stuff."
Happy-Bunny
Banned
Well that's a beginning. Thanks!
Lalalandia
Member
Pretty much this, you can't save something started by assholes to provide cover for their assholery. If you can't see that fine but if you continue to don the robes of assholes don't be surprised if you get treated like one.
If you do care about ethics there are tags under which this topics are being discussed and you will get civil discourse. If you're demanding a conversation under this GG tag I'd question how much the ethics debate really matters to you.
I think it's worth pointing out that Laurie Penny consistently receives misogynistic abuse, sometimes anti-semantic in nature. Someone also once threatened to fire bomb her house. The reason I mention that is because for her it must very much feel like a war. A war with high stakes.
ArkkAngel007
Member
Very few people view Gamers as a single entity. That argument is little more than a straw man that came down to either to distract the issues that were being levied at the movement to people associating way too closely to the label that they couldn't separate themselves from the criticism.
Here's the issue: Despite that there are a lot of decent people involved in #GAMERGATE, the movement was founded and is being constantly and consistently manipulated by people who don't have an interest in ethics. They just want a show for their own entertainment and be given the excuse to continue harassing and committing shady acts under the guise of a righteous cause.
When these are the prevailing issues:
- No specific goal or message
- Basing arguments on videos from known misogynists like InternetAristocrat
- Taking in all claims with no interest in evidence
- Ignoring longstanding ethical codes and evidence contrary to claims
- Hiding behind #notallgamers
it's hard to really see #GAMERGATE transcending what the extremists have shaped it to be.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Sure, but that's kind of what I'm talking about: I feel like they've lost sight of who "the enemy" is, and have begun treating anyone who disagrees with them as if they're a part of the genuinely hateful crowd. Because the majority of people resistant to the change of this "culture war" aren't genuinely hateful, they just don't understand or respectfully disagree
i just want someone
anyone at all
to raise a real point worth addressing
people keep talking about how the vast majority of people tweeting about #gamergate are fine people with reasonable concerns but nobody can actually tell me what those concerns are beyond crazed conspiracy theories and hatred for any kind of opinionated writing
I am sorry, but you can't claim that it's just a minority of people, considering even in topics related only to harassment, half the comments are about doubting the motivation of the person attacked. And they are not extremists by any means. They don't support or partake in harassment. But many feel like they have to be defensive and bend the narrative and question character motivations such that the one to be blamed is the harassed and not the harassers. So, the problem is not only the harassment, but the defensive justifications that come from regular people who feel the need to resolve their mental dissonance in the wrong way.
bigwinnerx
Member
If you (royal you) still have journalistic pitchforks waving during a time when people are getting verbally assaulted and doxxed and can't separate that might be an issue that needs to be resolved before having the little gaming editorial roundtable you want, you're delusional. The GB guys are 100% correct and will tell you to go somewhere else in the meantime as well.
This is why Rami tried to switch hash tags to talk with people about the actual issues.
It's because the tenor, volume, and selective targeting of much of the #gamergate 'discussion on journalistic integrity' is so off base as to be a kind of harassment in itself.
The 'discussion on journalistic integrity' has largely consisted of youtube videos on Zoe Quinn sleeping for the non-existent reviews for her free game getting millions of views, Jenn Frank turned into the face of journalistic corruption over an op-ed, picking through everything Danielle Riendeau has written because she didn't like the art in Dragon's Crown. The targets are generally op-ed or culture writers who bring up social issues, mostly women which already isn't common in games, and freelance writers making a pittance on Patreon. "I just want to talk about journalistic integrity" everyone keeps proclaiming as they go after these people, collating Gone Home reviews, indie game patreons, etc.
The present 'journalism discussion' just happens to be picking on the same people who talks about women in games, the same people who the 'anti-sjw' crowd is so fired up about. Over and over and over so far.
And I'm sad that I do see honestly nice and well intentioned people who just see some vague notion of, "Are they saying gamers are awful people because they play games? What?" #GAMERATE because that doesn't sound right!"
Lalalandia
Member
I have to commend you on this, it's really nicely put. I think cognitive dissonance really is a significant factor for the people who backed GamerGate before having learnt what it really was but now want to redefine it. If they can redefine the GamerGate label it becomes a double triumph their concerns are addressed and they 'saved' a Gamer movement and thus by implication 'Gamers'.
I agree with what you're saying and Penny's article wasn't a nuanced look at #Gamergate and why people support it. But I think the piece does reflect the understandable anger felt by women in the media about the incessant abuse they receive.
Penny's message to those abusers - fuck you we're winning - is worth saying.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I agree with that, and I absolutely empathize with her anger. I just worry that the way the dialogue is being framed by some pieces now is inadvertently creating the very enemy they plan to "defeat". Maybe Leigh Alexander's piece is a better example of this: her "we have an army" closer just exemplified everything I find wrong with this attitude of pursuing "victory" by overshouting the dissenters instead of educating them on your perspectives
What is saddening is that for me this blow up in videogaming is extremely familiar. I saw the same thing happen to the atheist/skeptic internet sphere I was part of, and partook in the same kind of conversations, the similarity is chilling. One woman, who was a speaker at this convention, made a video talking about this inappropriate behavior she experienced by a man, and just told guys to not do it. Just as a tip, nothing malicious. Then the atheist internet sphere blew up with harassment and threats against the woman, with conspiracy theories galore, and it spread. More women were targeted, be accused of being divisive, their motivations were doubted, and many decided that they would quit writing in the internet. There was also Thunderf00t, which is another similiarity, I guess. Point is, in both cases, it was a thing that happened mainly to women, and people lashing out because they felt threatened by these others that they looked at as outsiders.
Moon_frogger
Member
Isn't it dangerous to characterize the misogyny as Being perpetuated by a bunch of faceless, 20 something angry white insidious evildoers? Uneducated malcontents living in their parents basement? As if they are stereotypical bad guys spewing hate and screaming obscenities with every breath? If that was the root of the misogyny problem wouldn't we have stamped it out by now? I mean, black men can be misogyists too, right? Or your doctor. Or your guidance counsellor or pastor. Doesn't it make it difficult to battle if we stereotype the misogyny? I'm not saying this cause my feelings are hurt, I'm just wondering who is this stereotype? Does it really exist? Aren't these people also loving fathers, husbands brothers and even In some cases sisters, daughters, mothers?
I agree.
And in terms of how you reach fence-sitters, I think this is where privileged allies have the most work to do. We should probably be more patient and willing to explain basic concepts and be less dismissive of those we think can be reached.
So much this. That is why I say, it's not just some extremists or minorities or stereotypical people.
What exactly is this industry list of twitter accounts?
I don't even really know. I got linked to a few pastebins (are those allowed to be linked here?) that had stuff about "industry ban list" accounts and some other gamergate things, and the link was to a list of accounts that someone named chris grant (I guess he's the EIC of polygon?) had banned. There were a few other gaffers on there, including Neuromancer. I never even heard of the guy or have tweeted at him before so I wonder how or why he blocked me lol
I wonder if it's because I called out how bad Polygon's layout was back when it launched. I had a pretty constructive conversation about how to improve it with Phil Kollar though, so oh well.
Just thought it was a little odd.
ArkkAngel007
Member
The one that Chris Grant bragged on Twitter about? Or the 4000+ list? I've avoided both since I've had a two year hiatus from Twitter and have avoided getting involved since I've logged back in last week, but I know some social circles are blocking out anyone who disagrees or uses a particular tag, the latter I believe is what happened with Chris Grant who separated himself from it later.
Depending on the particular list and who all shares it, it may or may not be relevant but is a further breakdown of the communication in the Twitter landscape.
Edit: Here's the closed thread where we were discussing it before Bish shut it down.
Honest question: has anyone seen the Gamergate folks attack/call out major publishers/huge developers, with their track record of bribing Metacritic sites and asserting pressure with their vast marketing budgets?
I see tons and tons and tons of tweets/posts/blogs attacking Sarkeesian, Quinn, and against developers/journalists like Rami Ismail of Vlambeer who happen to support them. These guys are a tiniest micro fraction of the industry, and irrelevant as far the next wave of blockbuster games (GTAs, CoDs and Battlefields) are concerned. I see no hard evidence against these so-called "SJWs" either, but lots of 4chan graphics and fabricated evidence like this.
To a casual observer it looks like bullying. Am I wrong or is there some genuine movement to expose any of the major players of the industry if they are unethical? Or is it all just picking on the weak?
I see tons and tons and tons of tweets/posts/blogs attacking Sarkeesian, Quinn, and against developers/journalists like Rami Ismail of Vlambeer who happen to support them. These guys are a tiniest micro fraction of the industry, and irrelevant as far the next wave of blockbuster games (GTAs, CoDs and Battlefields) are concerned. I see no hard evidence against these so-called "SJWs" either, but lots of 4chan graphics and fabricated evidence like this.
To a casual observer it looks like bullying. Am I wrong or is there some genuine movement to expose any of the major players of the industry if they are unethical? Or is it all just picking on the weak?
Darth Ghandi
Banned
Shit, my heart broke reading that.
This whole affair has made me sic to my stomach.
How people will pervert anything to "protect gaming".
I'm not sure why topics like this get so much attention not only on social media but also here at neogaf? I remember reading a post from a thread regarding Anita Sarkeesian that compared thread from when she first started her kickstarted and then compared to how many replays her videos got here on neogaf. And even compared with news like the PS4 unveiling her threads had many times the replies.
It really does seem that feminism does strike some cord among people with this hobby, why is that?
OHHHHHH, it's merged with Kuchera's...
Okay, that makes sense then, because I've called him out a few times on Twitter dating back to his ArsTechnica days. Thanks for clearing that up. I admit I have no idea really what the entire gamergate thing is about so when I saw my twitter account listed in stuff talking about it, it made me wonder what I did.
RicoTheMad
Banned
Conversations evolve. There's nothing stopping any hashtag from evolving or devolving into mudslinging if the majority of the people are doing so. I think gameethics is fine but I don't see the conversation moving there because 1) The movement wasn't started by a #gamergate person, thus will be untrusted and 2) if you looked at it as a "strategy" people will see it as "them" trying to divide the movement.
Both sides of the gamergate discussion seem to be engaging in ridiculous mudslinging the main difference is, it seems like the GamerGate crowd is at least *trying* to put together some semblance of proof to their claims, regardless of how you/I feel about the legitimacy of it. Some press members are behaving in a less than stellar manner.
Calling all gamers "nerds" or "sexist white cisgendered jerks" isn't the way you push a civil rights movement. Any smart person would look at history and see that the most successful people have changed people's views not through hate speech, blacklisting and threats. That is shameful behavior that in this day and age should not be rewarded, but chastised. You do not get to be a dirtbag to other human beings to further your agenda, regardless of how swell your agenda may be. Perhaps my own ethical compass is strange, but I feel these are basic tenets of human decency.
When you look at the press blacklisting devs and gamers, chanting "gamers are sexist pigs because you disagree with me", who's acting with more maturity and trying to create an actual conversation? The people bringing up conversation topics, or the folks sitting in a corner plugging their ears and calling the others doo doo heads?
I'm honestly embarrassed by how a lot of people are dealing with this whole thing. I can't say I blame the people questioning game ethics for doing so. If you have nothing to hide, deflecting questions and conversations is not necessity. In a truly clean press environment you'd see a lot more dissenting opinions, so can you blame someone for being suspicious of the current game press environment?
Hell even on TV you have your Conservative/Liberal media outlets and stations, each spouting some degree of insanity or another. How come the game press can put out timed articles all dealing with the same topic with the same spin on it? I'd say that sort of thing would look... off... even to an outsider.
I want games media to have more than one facet to it, more than one voice. I don't care if I disagree with their POV, we need more differing viewpoints in the industry, this is not a healthy press environment when you compare it to other more mature outlets.
If you don't believe me, just read through a few different press sites. How is it possible that among the sea of games being developed each day, by people of ALL kinds of nationalities, sex, cultures and walks of life, these sites all focus in on the same 5 - 6 stories every day?
Nobody else finds this weird? Are we really fine with this as readers, gamers, developers?
People tend to attack the same way they've been attack. Someone labels you, you label them. Someone stereotypes you, you stereotype them. Someone tries to silence you, you silence them...etc.
FF Seraphim
Member
Okay... so this will work for you and me because we agree with how #GG has started. But you cannot honestly say this blog is made for anyone other than the people who already agreed that #GG isn't the spring board where one can talk about ethics/understanding/whatever.
Blogs like this are just preaching to the choir, I do not need to validate my stance neither do you. I honestly do not see how this will make people who are like Boogie to stop supporting #GG. It links to no facts, it is emotionally driven, and it feels like it is talking down to people.
Stuff like this needs to stop because all it does is feed the trolls more fuel.
It is very much focused on indies at this point, which betrays its true motivations pretty clearly: A lot of the people orchestrating #GG don't give two shits about ethics, they just want to "end SJW influence" and continue the Quinnspiracy garbage.
The Blue Jihad
Member
Welcome to sanity!
Incendiary rhetoric begets incendiary rhetoric. And the rhetoric isn't stopping. And it will undermine the moral crusade, if it hasn't already compromised it. I view things much the same way as I view the past 13 years:
I vehemently disagree with much of what George W Bush did and said. There's a lot of crap I'll never, ever forgive him or his administration for, and I'm absolutely comfortable with that fact. But for as much idiocy that came spewing out, there is a single moment that I will always, always, always hold in the utterly worst regard:
The speech he gave near the start of the War on Terror, noting that the US was involved in a holy war, and that God was on our side.
FACE. PALM.
That was the moment when we lost all credibility because it instantly removed the one legitimate distinction between the war we were about to fight and the one that Al Qaeda was trying to wage. We had the moral high ground prior to framing this as another religious holy war. We could confidently, smartly, and definitively say that we were defending ourselves in the goal of global stability--a cause and rhetoric that could actually unite most countries. Instead, we chose highly subjective, intensely charged language that by its very nature created a powerful alienating effect, particularly for those who didn't hold those same religious beliefs.
Then the whole stance we took--Bush's speech late September, 2001, the whole "You're with us or you're [against us]."
The pattern (and it happens ALL THE TIME) is why I gave up on our species. The only sane option in an insane world is to light a cigar, flick the match away, and laugh while the whole thing burns.
And it fucking sucks, man.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
^Problem is I've seen plenty of people describe even something like Sarkeesian's videos as "incendiary" and an "attack on them", a claim that "these games are bad and the people who play them are bad" even when the videos are nothing of the sort. And its just kind of a long exercise in frustrating explanation trying to rectify that. Its frustrating when trying to convince people that no, you're not under attack by these critics, to then have to also deal with people who genuinely are being aggressive and making it into a blanket war between the progressive people and those who "aren't"
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
I can totally relate with Patrick and Alex in that regard. If it were my friends being harassed, I'd probably feel the same way and wouldn't be in any mood to discuss topics of journalism and such. Good thing I'm not a gaming journalist.
With that said, it's still painting everyone with the same brush, which is not right in my opinion. They are associating those doing the harassing with people trying to have a discussion about gaming journalism, the indie scene, and their respective integrity. For the record, I'm in neither camp and really just observing the situation since it keeps popping up here and in podcasts I listen to.
There may be some overlap, or even a lot of overlap, but to say that discussion isn't welcome until the harassment stops is implying that it's all one big coordinated group, which is nonsense.
MHWilliams
Member
A few USgamer-sanctioned words on this GamerGate stuff, outside of the many words that I've written in all of these threads. Of course, I'll still be talking here as well.
OK, that's a dealbreaker to me, my BS alarms are ringing like cowbells. If the movement truly was about integrity, surely it would be going after Activisions of this world, not some tiny indies no-one has ever heard about and who have no power to change even the most minute thing in the industry.
You know, I always wondered: these GG guys have painted Quinn like some modern day cross between Mata Hari and Aphrodite, her wiles effortlessly bending any male to her will, making them do whatever she wishes. Why did she then pick some obscure (and most likely dirt-poor) game journo to seduce, instead of, say, Bobby Kotick? Or why not Bill Gates?
And yes, I am aware all the accusations are based on hearsay. I've seen not a shred of solid evidence.
- Status