Ghost is Bad
Banned
what is gamergate and why is everyone acting like it's the second coming of osama bin hitler
-
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.
SXSW cancels a panel on "Overcoming Harassment in Games" due to threats of violence
- Thread starter crimsonheadGCN
- Start date
From my understanding, "Leader" is applied to every post made in the GG section there. That site is essentially the "home" of GG, where many of these idiotic "Operations" were cooked up by everyone and their sockpuppets.
And you may have the best intentions in the world. You may be for everything GG falsely claims they are for but the simple fact is this: Associating with a group that has been labeled as a hate group by countless people and organizations, caters to white supremacists, and is known far and wide for harassing people for OVER A YEAR NOW, is not going to help you out.
Stop associating with them. Stop believing the propaganda. Strive for the change you believe in without the toxic association that comes with following that cesspool of a group. Even if you say you don't agree with the near inhuman atrocities that they are doing, you are still supporting them whether you like it or not by waving their banner loud and proud. There is no saving that group or that name. Not after all the terrible things they've done.
EDIT: Actually, having just taken a quick look on Twitter, I'll say one more thing. The person you decided to ask there about the Operation you simply cannot believe as being real? He's a pretty big fan of GG and Milo. Naturally, his response would be to deny anything. He's feeding you the company line. If you decide to believe their lies, that's all on you at this point and there's really nothing more to say if that's the case.
I don't understand why GG-ers who oppose the harassment don't create a new group or actually speak out against their harassing minority. It's either naivete about being able to turn public opinion about the group and what it stands for or it's just plausible deniability. It's easy to hide behind an anonymous group that doesn't have a leader because you can say no one is organizing it.
GG has absolutely no track record of working en masse to better the landscape in the ways it hides behind. It has done nothing substantial to deal with sponsored events, review embargoes, advertising conflicts-of-interest, or anti-consumer practices. And even then, it attracts gullible users who actually believe it's about ethics--mostly because they won't check to see how unethical GG has been.
GG has absolutely no track record of working en masse to better the landscape in the ways it hides behind. It has done nothing substantial to deal with sponsored events, review embargoes, advertising conflicts-of-interest, or anti-consumer practices. And even then, it attracts gullible users who actually believe it's about ethics--mostly because they won't check to see how unethical GG has been.
I highly doubt the dorks who believe reviews are paid for are against the camp who hate women.
GG started on the back of a questionable blog post made by Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend alleging (among many other irrelevant things) that she paid for a positive review on Kotaku with sexual favours. The review didn't actually exist, but this spun out into what is now a year+ long hate campaign.
Your two camps are intrinsically tied. GG has been an overlong tantrum akin to "8.8", except instead of there being a minor meltdown on the Gamespot forums we've had multiple lives ruined in the pursuit of AAA games not being given a lower score because of "bias."
Milo is a champion of the GG cause, there's really no questioning this. KiA and 8chan are also the home of GG and you'd be hard pressed to find any sort of actual consumer activisim in those places. They're largely concerned with what the "SJWs" are up to and how they can right the ship of video games to be like they were back in the good ol' days.
Yes, there you go! Adam Baldwin, he doesn't even play video games, coined the hashtag over Zoey's sex life which were all debunked. Him and everyone who joined in on the hashtag immediately went and attacked her in full force, never once questioning the men who were in higher positions. They are only in it to hurt and ruin women and right wings are in it to fight against feminists and none of them play games either. Heck, stormfront even invaded GamerGate too. All these things invaded GamerGate and have used it as a recruiting platform for their own whether it's conservatisim, white supremecy, MRA, or whatever else.
EDIT: Oh yeah, GamerGate even side with Jack Thompson.
This is the second time I've seen someone utter this sentiment this evening. I wonder if it's the Dawkins connection or the fact it's about trans people that caused the difference. (Or my personal guess - it's about students)
Everything GG did says the contrary. And somehow, they have yet to take any kind of action that was actually about game journalism.
The "ethics in game journalism" smokescreen doesn't work, and it hasn't since the fucking start.
You associating with them because of what you said makes no sense. Imagine someone joining a fucking white supremacist group just because they happen to have the same view as you in an unrelated matter that isn't racial.
Maybe create a actual movement that actually does the things they say they are set out to do instead of going aboard of a hate group train. Seems like common sense.
If they do try that, then they are attacked for that. Also having other groups means there is responsibility and none of them want to take any sort of responsibility because that would make them identifiable. I remember suggesting them to make a forum of their own so they could prove they could have civil discourse and everyone in their group identifiable enough to reign some people in their movement in and reduce any harassment. They won't because none of them want to be identified, they want anonymity and chaos.
it's an ant worker that can lay eggs
Several sites and large YouTubers did update their ethics policies in the initial wake of GG. I haven't seen many GGers around since they left 4chan but I wager most of the moderate members actually trying to do stuff about ethics have left since then. I'm not going to pretend I know or care what they're up to now.
IIRC people who want to talk about ethics are referred to as "ethics cucks" now, since GG has always been about fighting the SJW menace and only just decided to admit it.
eyeball_kid
Member
It's pretty sad when you cancel a panel about overcoming harassment because you were harassed. Thing is, why would the SXSW organizers think this would pacify the GamerGate people who made threats against the conference? They cancelled the GG panel! I doubt GG will just go quiet over this.
The real question is, when is the FBI going to crack down on GG as the hate group that it is? This has really got to stop.
The real question is, when is the FBI going to crack down on GG as the hate group that it is? This has really got to stop.
The only consumer activism GG has organized has been trying to remove sponsors from any website that gives a game a lower score because of "bias" about content they believe a review shouldn't cover, which is any content they don't care about.
You can have opinions on stealth mechanics, combat, graphics, level design, AI, anti-aliasing, NPCs, and overall world building, but not on whether or not the world has any people of color in it. That's an unnecessary opinion! You can have thoughts about how badass a costume looks or if it gives you extra power ups, but not on whether or not it exposes an uncomfortable amount of skin. Nobody asked you! (Sure I clicked on the link and read your review, but I was only asking you to care about the kinds of things I care about, not the things you care about that I don't. Collusion!)
For an organization that claims to care about the consumer, they certainly spent almost all their time focused on small developers almost nobody had heard about and going after reviewers who might tarnish the image of their favorite AAA. I guess they are very in favor of consumers who agree with them and want precisely the same kind of content they do in exactly the same way it's always been.
You can have opinions on stealth mechanics, combat, graphics, level design, AI, anti-aliasing, NPCs, and overall world building, but not on whether or not the world has any people of color in it. That's an unnecessary opinion! You can have thoughts about how badass a costume looks or if it gives you extra power ups, but not on whether or not it exposes an uncomfortable amount of skin. Nobody asked you! (Sure I clicked on the link and read your review, but I was only asking you to care about the kinds of things I care about, not the things you care about that I don't. Collusion!)
For an organization that claims to care about the consumer, they certainly spent almost all their time focused on small developers almost nobody had heard about and going after reviewers who might tarnish the image of their favorite AAA. I guess they are very in favor of consumers who agree with them and want precisely the same kind of content they do in exactly the same way it's always been.
Yeah it was exactly what it was now from the start.
I mean, he fucking linked that Five Guys video in that first use of the hashtag and everything.
How anybody can pretend otherwise is amazing to me.
Citadelofmythoughts
Banned
Yeah, one only has to look at the front page of KotakuInAction on reddit to put the lie to it being about ethics. It's full on reactionary, right-wing garbage with increasing trips into serious conspiracy theory and KiA is GG's HQ on reddit. They speak for the group as much as anyone can.
They're so desperate for allies that they've happily accepted the worst people on the site up to and including actual neo-nazis.
You'd think that that sort of organized non-competition would just drive people away from the group altogether. It seems like digging just a little into it would reveal it as a group that is wholly different from the sales pitch.
Weren't most of those just to disclose when a writer had contributed to Patreon or Kickstarter? I won't deny that that's a positive, but that was really early on when GG was actually trying to rationalize their attacks.
Yep, sounds like something they'd say. I find the whole situation quite sad though, because I do feel there is a culture of excessive political correctness, outrage, and self-censorship today. But there's no movement engaging in positive debate in these spaces, just these extremist clowns.
GamerGate is a symptom of the much larger issue of online harassment and sadly we won't be able to get anywhere until we can deal with that larger problem. In fact, harassers will only be emboldened by events like this. It seems like in most cases, law enforcement runs into a couple issues in terms of Online Harassment. Either they
A) Don't have the resources to deal with the issue or
B) Don't take the issue seriously enough to invest the resources when they do have them. There seems to be an attitude in general that these threats go nowhere most of the time, so they don't matter or that the harassed should just avoid these online communication tools (A laughable assertion).
Until we can deal with the way law enforcement treats online harassment, we won't get anywhere. There needs to be real consequences for those that pull this kind of crap.
Yes it was very early on, within the first few weeks. There were a lot of sincere people on board back then though. Whether it was just people latching on to the "smokescreen" or what have you. I just know a lot of people meant good back then. But yes, most of the changes had to do with transparency. Disclosing conflicts of interest mainly.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
I only found out too late that he was a Gator.
I feel like a fool.
A fool of a took!
It's in the blazing heart of the dumpster fire.
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
GG is a text book example of "non-linear warfare"
It is a master class in definition by not defining itself, leaving "aGG" a target it could never possibly attack consistently. The second someone lays into Milo? someone will tweet "There are lots of people in GG who do not agree with Milo, you are wrong" and the people who DO agree with Milo can slink off into the background - leaving aGG to slug it out with a time sink.
This can be applied across the board to any subject matter - the situation moves fluidly to the extent that "one voice is not Gamergate" but simultaneously , in the blink of an eye, "the whole of gamergate" when someone takes up the batton. This NLC tactic is used day in , day out. It also affords a lack of responsibility - someone does something crazy? they aren't GG! they aren't us all! 3rd party trolls etc. It's as blatant and predictable as Sommers chuckle before a statement she needs people to disagree with (NLP 101 class - prompting)
In terms of Ethics in Games Journalism - i was surprised to see "NEOGAF is pro-censorship" - i suspect that's because GG as a subject has been largely kept out of the forum because, for all my moaning about NeoGAF, it being "pro-censorship" wouldn't make a top 20 cut
. Hell, if anything, the exposition of awful games journalism and questionable advertising was being attacked YEARS before GG even splattered itself across twitter.
"educating" or "reforming" Games Journalism is like fitting wheels to a tomato. Completely unnecessary. Even taking the GG stance - the tip point has been crossed: lets say Kotaku cave and "surrender" to "GG demands" ... would anyone even care about their coverage from that point on? Of course not. It's an argumentative cul de sac where even "victory" changes nothing.
It is a master class in definition by not defining itself, leaving "aGG" a target it could never possibly attack consistently. The second someone lays into Milo? someone will tweet "There are lots of people in GG who do not agree with Milo, you are wrong" and the people who DO agree with Milo can slink off into the background - leaving aGG to slug it out with a time sink.
This can be applied across the board to any subject matter - the situation moves fluidly to the extent that "one voice is not Gamergate" but simultaneously , in the blink of an eye, "the whole of gamergate" when someone takes up the batton. This NLC tactic is used day in , day out. It also affords a lack of responsibility - someone does something crazy? they aren't GG! they aren't us all! 3rd party trolls etc. It's as blatant and predictable as Sommers chuckle before a statement she needs people to disagree with (NLP 101 class - prompting)
In terms of Ethics in Games Journalism - i was surprised to see "NEOGAF is pro-censorship" - i suspect that's because GG as a subject has been largely kept out of the forum because, for all my moaning about NeoGAF, it being "pro-censorship" wouldn't make a top 20 cut
. Hell, if anything, the exposition of awful games journalism and questionable advertising was being attacked YEARS before GG even splattered itself across twitter."educating" or "reforming" Games Journalism is like fitting wheels to a tomato. Completely unnecessary. Even taking the GG stance - the tip point has been crossed: lets say Kotaku cave and "surrender" to "GG demands" ... would anyone even care about their coverage from that point on? Of course not. It's an argumentative cul de sac where even "victory" changes nothing.
CaviarMeths
Member
Fuck sakes, that shit's enough to make your blood boil. So pissed that we can't even have a talk about online harassment without these euphoric fedoralords showing up and taking a big steamy dump all over the place.
Dear GG,
Fuck off.
Signed,
Everyone
And yeah, definitely bad form from SXSW. This only gives legitimacy to abusive movements like GG. It tells them that if they take a big enough dump, they can achieve results.
Edit: Now to make myself feel better, I'll engage in some schadenfreude and delight in accounts that get nuked because they think they're being super clever with thinly-veiled gatorism.
Dear GG,
Fuck off.
Signed,
Everyone
And yeah, definitely bad form from SXSW. This only gives legitimacy to abusive movements like GG. It tells them that if they take a big enough dump, they can achieve results.
Edit: Now to make myself feel better, I'll engage in some schadenfreude and delight in accounts that get nuked because they think they're being super clever with thinly-veiled gatorism.
Have they stated that the threats were directed at the non-GG panel? As I understand it various GG events have been bomb threatened into cancellation. It's entirely possible there was harassment directed at both sides.
Which is not to equate the two, of course. Merely to recognize that there are shitty people everywhere, and the internet has a way of fomenting rage. Plus third-party trolls presumably love all things GG-related as great opportunities to wreak havoc.
What is a gator by the way? I've seen the term a couple times but only here on gaf in these kinds of threads, and as you may have noticed I'm fairly new here, just a few months. I gather it's a term for people who are pro-GG or something. Just want to be clear about my previous comments if that's the case, because it feels very threatening in my ignorance.
TatteredHat
Member
What a bloody mess.
I think it's a faux-nickname for someone in GG. I know on Twitter that people will say Goobers/GooberGate to avoid the scorn of GG-ers who use search to harass anyone who mentions them. I've had them descend on me after using Goober, so I think that's an older/more common one.
I see, thanks for clearing that up for me. For some reason it feels very scary to post my opinions here which tend to be more of a middle ground just relying my flawed observations. I guess I'm used to the anonymity of 4chan.
Doctor Ironic
Member
Sorry, what's there to be "neutral" about a hate group, again?
crimsonheadGCN
Banned
This is blowing up on SXSW. There are a lot of websites and programs covering this right now.
CaviarMeths
Member
The thing with "middle ground" in the case of GG is that it doesn't really exist. What GG is about is misogyny and harassment, which doesn't deserve any level of discussion. Reading "discussions" on KiA and 8chan is enough to make my stomach turn. It's just a hotbed for disgusting views on under-represented or marginalized groups of people, not just in video games, but in real life as well.
What they say it's about (unethical journalism) is a pretty small, isolated problem, if it even exists at all. We've had GG panels before and all it has really amounted to is 5+ year old examples of unethical games coverage that sort-of-maybe even applies to the fake ideals that GG claims to support.
There has not been one proven example of a publisher outright buying positive reviews. Not one. There have been instances of publishers trying to affect reviewer scores with controlled events like Konami's MSGV review "boot camp", but those events are quickly called out and criticized by reviewers themselves.
The thing is that GG, in their smokescreen tactics to try and fool people into thinking it's about Ethics in Journalism™, tend to target small publishers and indies, people who don't have the time or resources to try bullshit consumers. It started with Zoe Quinn's game, a little game that she was giving away for free, and a fake, non-existent review that she purchased with sex. This was proven to be a total sham, as has every other instance of GG actively, purposefully attempting to ruin lives.
GG is a hate group and deserve to be branded as domestic terrorists.
Signed: Someone who believed the lies a year ago (before I become a member of GAF), but am now ashamed of my words and deeds.
Personally, I have always considered the internet to be a virtual but public space for a global community. It goes back to simple institution theory that communities eventually come up with a set of behavioral rules in order to maintain a certain level of peace. Over time these rules manifest as law. That is what's missing from the internet.
I know that a lot of people are downloading content illegally - doesn't make it right. A lot of people are harrassing other people - doesn't make it right. Wrong behavior on the internet has to eventually be sanctioned in some way, everything else is anarchy. If you threaten to hurt someone, then that person should be allowed to draw the attention of the authorities to that threat. As soon as real consequences ensue, the amount of bullying, harrassment and hate on the internet will decrease.
If you can't even talk about harrassment without being threatened, I guess change is overdue.
I know that a lot of people are downloading content illegally - doesn't make it right. A lot of people are harrassing other people - doesn't make it right. Wrong behavior on the internet has to eventually be sanctioned in some way, everything else is anarchy. If you threaten to hurt someone, then that person should be allowed to draw the attention of the authorities to that threat. As soon as real consequences ensue, the amount of bullying, harrassment and hate on the internet will decrease.
If you can't even talk about harrassment without being threatened, I guess change is overdue.
In that they are now in full control of the earth they scorched, yes.
I just went to 8chan to check it out myself. Seems like there's a lot of in-fighting. Honestly, I don't know why I even post in these kinds of threads. It's like slowly walking off a cliff, wanting to stop but not being able to and before you know it you're sucked in. And I suppose I say I take a middle stance is because I'm ignorant and cynical. And if you're cynical, you have a hard time convincing yourself you're not ignorant. It's like a loop. Anyway, screw this. I'm going to play some video games.
Funny enough, that was one of GG's selling points with the Vivian James thing: "I just want to play games" as if the poor consumer was distracted by discussions of very real social issues and lesser-known works. Not to lump you in, but it's also of note that GG has taken a stake as the "this is too much, I just want to game" crowd.
I think it's reasonable to feel overwhelmed by all the drama. Not to mention that while there are social issues worth discussing there are some people who go so far in their crusade they wind up promoting censorship, and that is also worth a discussion. But either way it's easy to just save myself the headache and tap out which is what I did.
RipperGrim
Member
Every time they react like this it just gives the people doing it more power. Beef up security if you must but canceling the whole thing is just an overreaction that gives these assholes more power.
kamineko
Does his best thinking in the flying car
I haven't really been following sxsw, so I was kind of amazed that a large, mainstream event planned to give oxygen to what basically evolved from some angry ex-boyfriend's personal army of vengeance. Fueled by lies, no less. That's not a fucking philosophy suitable for fruitful discussion. Fucking lol. I mean, SVU did an episode inspired by gg. My parents knew about galacticallygross, and they don't know anything about video games.
Doubly shameful about the cancellation, but given their nonstandard idea of "big tent" the whole thing might have been doomed from the start. Hopefully sxsw takes an opportunity to reflect on their shitty decisions.
Doubly shameful about the cancellation, but given their nonstandard idea of "big tent" the whole thing might have been doomed from the start. Hopefully sxsw takes an opportunity to reflect on their shitty decisions.
Chû Totoro
Member
Threats is something taken very seriously... while it shouldn't be imo when coming from stupid ass holes.
I don't even care of the terrorists threats regarding Paris and French people... it's now how many years they said they'll attack us? They did for sure and they'll keep trying but I want to leave as a free person so f*ck them like f*ck all the people who are using Internet to insult and threat people.
Also it's a bigger problem than just something related to gaming... a lot of people are insulted on the Internet, just look at Youtube channels that have a decent amount of subscribers and you'll see in the comments a lot of insults ad threats. This should be punished by law and Google, Twitter and all the big actors should do something about it but as far as I'm concern the best thing for now is not to give the people insulting others some attention.
Maybe I'm not understanding well the issue since it seems to be very very important for some in the US (maybe there has been very big consequences I've missed).
Like I said we have the same thing in every country and we just learned not to care... till the law changes so people could be in a court for this but since Internet started as the place where freedom of speech is very important I don't really know how it could be handled without putting dangerous censorship in some cases.
Empyrean Heaven
Member
Eh, she's fine 99% of the time. It's just she gets REALLY pissed about female representations in media. She almost turned off Supergirl halfway through this week because she didn't like how Kara was portrayed. And while she thinks my intentions are good, she thinks that in most cases when guys claim they are feminists, they are doing so to make themselves appealing to women.
Again, my issue is against ALL harassment, not just against women. Admittedly she mostly cares about the one that affects her directly, being a woman in gaming. Admittedly she's a bit of a stereotypical one as she loves games like Pokemon and Yoshi (we're playing through Woolly World right now and having a blast) but man, you should have seen her a couple years back when I played through Other M. She was FURIOUS, and she doesn't even give two shits about Metroid. I was too yes, but admittedly it wasn't to her level, because as a man who identifies as such, it's impossible for me to face anti-female harassment. And I think that's the crux of her argument, which is how can I be against it if I've never faced it? I respond to her with my belief that all harassment is wrong, and she agrees, but her focus is on gender inequality.
I hope that makes things come off better. My wife is actually a lovely person, she just feels very strongly, and is admittedly rather near-sighted, on this issue.
PrioritySe7en
Banned
Pretty much. GG are shitbirds and shouldn't be catered to.
crimsonheadGCN
Banned
The Open Gaming Society, which is run by the moderator of the pro-GG panel, released "The Doctrine of Gaming"
http://www.theopengamingsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/the-doctrine-of-gaming-4-0.pdf
smh
http://www.theopengamingsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/the-doctrine-of-gaming-4-0.pdf
smh
Who is that everyone-guy you are talking about, and why does he sound like a dumb strawman?
Dreadx_Jecht
Banned
They exposed a lot of widespread corruption. Those in power don't like that.
Similar threads
- Locked