Support NeoGAF

[SJurgenson]

you must be incredibly sheltered to not know about the 'send nudes' meme and find it that offensive. it's crap but lets not make it something it isn't.

So, here's the thing: context. Is that image, absent any context, rather innocuous? Yes. It's something that would be totally fine to send to a friend as a joke. It could be posted in a forum, where it would be rather obviously be a rather harmless gaff.

Can that image also be harassment? Sure, we can imagine ridiculous scenarios where it is used for unambiguous harassment: E-mailing to someone 3600 times a day. Carving it in forehead of a decapitated horse and leaving it in the bed of your crush. Setting it as someone's screensaver with background audio of you screaming "I HOPE YOU DIE". We can all pretty much agree those uses of that image are not innocuous, they are harassment.

We all agree that the image can be innocuous in certain contexts, and harassment in other contexts.

Here's the scenario as I understand it, and why I think it's harassment:
1. He is chatting with a female about a shirt. Nothing sexual is discussed, nothing romantic, nothing non-platonic at all.
2. Apropos of nothing at all, he just drops that image in there.

There's no flirting going on. There's no hint that they are close friends. Nothing. Just talking about a goddamn shirt, and he immediately goes to 'SEND NUDES'.

Here's the reason it's harassment: Everyone wants to be treated as a person, with feelings and substance and a purpose in life. We've all heard of the 'Golden Rule': Treat others are you would like to be treated.

If you were chatting with the mailman about the New York Yankees because you saw his Yankees socks as he delivered your mail, that would be a meaningful person-to-person interaction. You like the Yankees, he likes the Yankees -- you get a nice human bonding moment there, talking about your shared love of the Yankees.

If the mailman ended the conversation, out of the blue, by calling you a "piece of shit" and walking off -- you would feel angry, you would feel harassed. You had been having an on-the-level, person-to-person conversation -- and then he just demeaned you by saying you were not a person, but instead a pile of human waste. You feel harassed because you were demeaned, and you had your very value as a person questioned by that demeaning action. You'd wonder why he would see you that way, and you would question if he valued even the basic person-to-person conversation you had shared mere moments ago.

The 'SEND NUDES' image is the same thing. Nick and the woman were having a rather bland personal discussion about a tee shirt, and he just drops that image in. Does that image imply the woman was a piece of shit, like in the example with the mailman? No -- it implies she is just an object for relieving his sexual desires. He took an innocuous conversation between two people, and tuned it into a harassing, demeaning moment. He made it clear he did not actually care about the woman as a person, he just wanted to get his rocks off.

In that context, that is harassment. The reason you can send the 'SEND NUDES' image to your long-term girlfriend, but cannot send it to your congresswoman is context. With your GF, you've slowly established the bounds of your relationship -- together you both took the time to understand each other's boundaries, and moved those boundaries together and with permission. To shove someone's boundaries aside without permission is harassment. Be it physical harassment (copping a feel of a stranger on a subway) or Internet harassment ('SEND NUDES') it is still harassment.

Would you suggest that musician be dropped by their label and ostracised from the industry? Should an athlete that does this be cut by his team?

This guy is clearly a creep but I don't know about people calling from him to be fired and never work in the industry again.

I guess a personality driven website has different considerations but if my workplace found out I'd sent some sleazy texts to people who didn't work there outside of work, HR wouldn't give the slightest shit.

It's rather clear he was harassing people in the same industry as him, and fans of his professional work -- making it clearly a workplace issue.

 

[the_darkness]

Using the culture surrounding football and pornography as a template for how we should treat women is like the single dumbest argument in this entire thread.

So it's ok because of her line of work?

Point is, this shit happens everywhere. It's shit every time it happens, let me be clear, but it happens with athletes, musicians and actors all the time.

Why is it that the fringe "celeb" writing for a videogame website inspires all the outrage?

Perhaps that's the right reaction but why does Nick Robinson get shit on from such great heights for something a fuckton of people do all the time?

 

[PersonAndStuff]

Honestly, if was just the "Send Nudes" things I could maybe chalk that up to momentary stupidity. But the way everyone seems to have turned on him says that maybe this is the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

[kairu]

you must be incredibly sheltered to not know about the 'send nudes' meme and find it that offensive. it's crap but lets not make it something it isn't.

Being a meme does not disqualify something from also being harassment. Asking a stranger to "send nudes" just because they've watched some videos with you in them on youtube does not mean that it is no longer gross.

 

[Mediking]

So, here's the thing: context. Is that image, absent any context, rather innocuous? Yes. It's something that would be totally fine to send to a friend as a joke. It could be posted in a forum, where it would be rather obviously be a rather harmless gaff.

Can that image also be harassment? Sure, we can imagine ridiculous scenarios where it is used for unambiguous harassment: E-mailing to someone 3600 times a day. Carving it in forehead of a decapitated horse and leaving it in the bed of your crush. Setting it as someone's screensaver with background audio of you screaming "I HOPE YOU DIE". We can all pretty much agree those uses of that image are not innocuous, they are harassment.

We all agree that the image can be innocuous in certain contexts, and harassment in other contexts.

Here's the scenario as I understand it, and why I think it's harassment:
1. He is chatting with a female about a shirt. Nothing sexual is discussed, nothing romantic, nothing non-platonic at all.
2. Apropos of nothing at all, he just drops that image in there.

There's no flirting going on. There's no hint that they are close friends. Nothing. Just talking about a goddamn shirt, and he immediately goes to 'SEND NUDES'.

Here's the reason it's harassment: Everyone wants to be treated as a person, with feelings and substance and a purpose in life. We've all heard of the 'Golden Rule': Treat others are you would like to be treated.

If you were chatting with the mailman about the New York Yankees because you saw his Yankees socks as he delivered your mail, that would be a meaningful person-to-person interaction. You like the Yankees, he likes the Yankees -- you get a nice human bonding moment there, talking about your shared love of the Yankees.

If the mailman ended the conversation, out of the blue, by calling you a "piece of shit" and walking off -- you would feel angry, you would feel harassed. You had been having an on-the-level, person-to-person conversation -- and then he just demeaned you by saying you were not a person, but instead a pile of human waste. You feel harassed because you were demeaned, and you had your very value as a person questioned by that demeaning action. You'd wonder why he would see you that way, and you would question if he valued even the basic person-to-person conversation you had shared mere moments ago.

The 'SEND NUDES' image is the same thing. Nick and the woman were having a rather bland personal discussion about a tee shirt, and he just drops that image in. Does that image imply the woman was a piece of shit, like in the example with the mailman? No -- it implies she is just an object for relieving his sexual desires. He took an innocuous conversation between two people, and tuned it into a harassing, demeaning moment. He made it clear he did not actually care about the woman as a person, he just wanted to get his rocks off.

In that context, that is harassment. The reason you can send the 'SEND NUDES' image to your long-term girlfriend, but cannot send it to your congresswoman is context. With your GF, you've slowly established the bounds of your relationship -- together you both took the time to understand each other's boundaries, and moved those boundaries together and with permission. To shove someone's boundaries aside without permission is harassment. Be it physical harassment (copping a feel of a stranger on a subway) or Internet harassment ('SEND NUDES') it is still harassment.



It's rather clear he was harassing people in the same industry as him, and fans of his professional work -- making it clearly a workplace issue.

Great post.

 

[BTA]

So it's ok because of her line of work?

Point is, this shit happens everywhere. It's shit every time it happens, let me be clear, but it happens with athletes, musicians and actors all the time.

Why is it that the fringe "celeb" writing for a videogame website inspires all the outrage?

Perhaps that's the right reaction but why does Nick Robinson get shit on from such great heights for something a fuckton of people do all the time?

...I guess I quoted right as you edited because this suddenly got more confusing.

The answer's simple, though. It's almost like setting a precedent of not letting shit slide in a space we care about is a good thing.

 

[VeeP]

So it's ok because of her line of work?

Point is, this shit happens everywhere. It's shit every time it happens, let me be clear, but it happens with athletes, musicians and actors all the time.

Why is it that the fringe "celeb" writing for a videogame website inspires all the outrage?

Perhaps that's the right reaction but why does Nick Robinson get shit on from such great heights for something a fuckton of people do all the time?

So it's okay because other people get away with it, Nick Robinson should too? There's been athletes at colleges that get away with Rape, or Universities that sweep that shit under the rug, does that make Rape okay? (Using this because you used athletes as an example)

Nick Robinson get's shit on from such great heights because he is part of the gaming community, this is a gaming website. If we can prevent this type of shit in our community, we should. We shouldn't encourage it. We shouldn't sweep it under the rug - which seems to be what your suggesting (unless I've misunderstood).

What do you think? Do you think what he did was okay? Do you think he should keep his job? Do you think we as a gaming community should ignore it and let it continue happening?

 

[chubigans]

So, here's the thing: context. Is that image, absent any context, rather innocuous? Yes. It's something that would be totally fine to send to a friend as a joke. It could be posted in a forum, where it would be rather obviously be a rather harmless gaff.

Can that image also be harassment? Sure, we can imagine ridiculous scenarios where it is used for unambiguous harassment: E-mailing to someone 3600 times a day. Carving it in forehead of a decapitated horse and leaving it in the bed of your crush. Setting it as someone's screensaver with background audio of you screaming "I HOPE YOU DIE". We can all pretty much agree those uses of that image are not innocuous, they are harassment.

We all agree that the image can be innocuous in certain contexts, and harassment in other contexts.

Here's the scenario as I understand it, and why I think it's harassment:
1. He is chatting with a female about a shirt. Nothing sexual is discussed, nothing romantic, nothing non-platonic at all.
2. Apropos of nothing at all, he just drops that image in there.

There's no flirting going on. There's no hint that they are close friends. Nothing. Just talking about a goddamn shirt, and he immediately goes to 'SEND NUDES'.

Here's the reason it's harassment: Everyone wants to be treated as a person, with feelings and substance and a purpose in life. We've all heard of the 'Golden Rule': Treat others are you would like to be treated.

If you were chatting with the mailman about the New York Yankees because you saw his Yankees socks as he delivered your mail, that would be a meaningful person-to-person interaction. You like the Yankees, he likes the Yankees -- you get a nice human bonding moment there, talking about your shared love of the Yankees.

If the mailman ended the conversation, out of the blue, by calling you a "piece of shit" and walking off -- you would feel angry, you would feel harassed. You had been having an on-the-level, person-to-person conversation -- and then he just demeaned you by saying you were not a person, but instead a pile of human waste. You feel harassed because you were demeaned, and you had your very value as a person questioned by that demeaning action. You'd wonder why he would see you that way, and you would question if he valued even the basic person-to-person conversation you had shared mere moments ago.

The 'SEND NUDES' image is the same thing. Nick and the woman were having a rather bland personal discussion about a tee shirt, and he just drops that image in. Does that image imply the woman was a piece of shit, like in the example with the mailman? No -- it implies she is just an object for relieving his sexual desires. He took an innocuous conversation between two people, and tuned it into a harassing, demeaning moment. He made it clear he did not actually care about the woman as a person, he just wanted to get his rocks off.

In that context, that is harassment. The reason you can send the 'SEND NUDES' image to your long-term girlfriend, but cannot send it to your congresswoman is context. With your GF, you've slowly established the bounds of your relationship -- together you both took the time to understand each other's boundaries, and moved those boundaries together and with permission. To shove someone's boundaries aside without permission is harassment. Be it physical harassment (copping a feel of a stranger on a subway) or Internet harassment ('SEND NUDES') it is still harassment.



It's rather clear he was harassing people in the same industry as him, and fans of his professional work -- making it clearly a workplace issue.

Excellent, excellent post.

 

[Mezoly]

So, here's the thing: context. Is that image, absent any context, rather innocuous? Yes. It's something that would be totally fine to send to a friend as a joke. It could be posted in a forum, where it would be rather obviously be a rather harmless gaff.

Can that image also be harassment? Sure, we can imagine ridiculous scenarios where it is used for unambiguous harassment: E-mailing to someone 3600 times a day. Carving it in forehead of a decapitated horse and leaving it in the bed of your crush. Setting it as someone's screensaver with background audio of you screaming "I HOPE YOU DIE". We can all pretty much agree those uses of that image are not innocuous, they are harassment.

We all agree that the image can be innocuous in certain contexts, and harassment in other contexts.

Here's the scenario as I understand it, and why I think it's harassment:
1. He is chatting with a female about a shirt. Nothing sexual is discussed, nothing romantic, nothing non-platonic at all.
2. Apropos of nothing at all, he just drops that image in there.

There's no flirting going on. There's no hint that they are close friends. Nothing. Just talking about a goddamn shirt, and he immediately goes to 'SEND NUDES'.

Here's the reason it's harassment: Everyone wants to be treated as a person, with feelings and substance and a purpose in life. We've all heard of the 'Golden Rule': Treat others are you would like to be treated.

If you were chatting with the mailman about the New York Yankees because you saw his Yankees socks as he delivered your mail, that would be a meaningful person-to-person interaction. You like the Yankees, he likes the Yankees -- you get a nice human bonding moment there, talking about your shared love of the Yankees.

If the mailman ended the conversation, out of the blue, by calling you a "piece of shit" and walking off -- you would feel angry, you would feel harassed. You had been having an on-the-level, person-to-person conversation -- and then he just demeaned you by saying you were not a person, but instead a pile of human waste. You feel harassed because you were demeaned, and you had your very value as a person questioned by that demeaning action. You'd wonder why he would see you that way, and you would question if he valued even the basic person-to-person conversation you had shared mere moments ago.

The 'SEND NUDES' image is the same thing. Nick and the woman were having a rather bland personal discussion about a tee shirt, and he just drops that image in. Does that image imply the woman was a piece of shit, like in the example with the mailman? No -- it implies she is just an object for relieving his sexual desires. He took an innocuous conversation between two people, and tuned it into a harassing, demeaning moment. He made it clear he did not actually care about the woman as a person, he just wanted to get his rocks off.

In that context, that is harassment. The reason you can send the 'SEND NUDES' image to your long-term girlfriend, but cannot send it to your congresswoman is context. With your GF, you've slowly established the bounds of your relationship -- together you both took the time to understand each other's boundaries, and moved those boundaries together and with permission. To shove someone's boundaries aside without permission is harassment. Be it physical harassment (copping a feel of a stranger on a subway) or Internet harassment ('SEND NUDES') it is still harassment.



It's rather clear he was harassing people in the same industry as him, and fans of his professional work -- making it clearly a workplace issue.

This post should be referenced whenever someone say that the send nudes part is fine. Context matters!

 

[mjp2417]

Perhaps that's the right reaction but why does Nick Robinson get shit on from such great heights for something a fuckton of people do all the time?

For the simple reason that the culture surrounding video game criticism tends to be more progressive (at least in certain spheres) than the culture surrounding Ole Miss football. This is a good thing! You're asking why can't we be more like Mississippi. That has never been a good question to ask.

 

[Nekketsu Kõha]

So, here's the thing: context. Is that image, absent any context, rather innocuous? Yes. It's something that would be totally fine to send to a friend as a joke. It could be posted in a forum, where it would be rather obviously be a rather harmless gaff.

Can that image also be harassment? Sure, we can imagine ridiculous scenarios where it is used for unambiguous harassment: E-mailing to someone 3600 times a day. Carving it in forehead of a decapitated horse and leaving it in the bed of your crush. Setting it as someone's screensaver with background audio of you screaming "I HOPE YOU DIE". We can all pretty much agree those uses of that image are not innocuous, they are harassment.

We all agree that the image can be innocuous in certain contexts, and harassment in other contexts.

Here's the scenario as I understand it, and why I think it's harassment:
1. He is chatting with a female about a shirt. Nothing sexual is discussed, nothing romantic, nothing non-platonic at all.
2. Apropos of nothing at all, he just drops that image in there.

There's no flirting going on. There's no hint that they are close friends. Nothing. Just talking about a goddamn shirt, and he immediately goes to 'SEND NUDES'.

Here's the reason it's harassment: Everyone wants to be treated as a person, with feelings and substance and a purpose in life. We've all heard of the 'Golden Rule': Treat others are you would like to be treated.

If you were chatting with the mailman about the New York Yankees because you saw his Yankees socks as he delivered your mail, that would be a meaningful person-to-person interaction. You like the Yankees, he likes the Yankees -- you get a nice human bonding moment there, talking about your shared love of the Yankees.

If the mailman ended the conversation, out of the blue, by calling you a "piece of shit" and walking off -- you would feel angry, you would feel harassed. You had been having an on-the-level, person-to-person conversation -- and then he just demeaned you by saying you were not a person, but instead a pile of human waste. You feel harassed because you were demeaned, and you had your very value as a person questioned by that demeaning action. You'd wonder why he would see you that way, and you would question if he valued even the basic person-to-person conversation you had shared mere moments ago.

The 'SEND NUDES' image is the same thing. Nick and the woman were having a rather bland personal discussion about a tee shirt, and he just drops that image in. Does that image imply the woman was a piece of shit, like in the example with the mailman? No -- it implies she is just an object for relieving his sexual desires. He took an innocuous conversation between two people, and tuned it into a harassing, demeaning moment. He made it clear he did not actually care about the woman as a person, he just wanted to get his rocks off.

In that context, that is harassment. The reason you can send the 'SEND NUDES' image to your long-term girlfriend, but cannot send it to your congresswoman is context. With your GF, you've slowly established the bounds of your relationship -- together you both took the time to understand each other's boundaries, and moved those boundaries together and with permission. To shove someone's boundaries aside without permission is harassment. Be it physical harassment (copping a feel of a stranger on a subway) or Internet harassment ('SEND NUDES') it is still harassment.



It's rather clear he was harassing people in the same industry as him, and fans of his professional work -- making it clearly a workplace issue.

.

 

[Poyunch]

So, here's the thing: context. Is that image, absent any context, rather innocuous? Yes. It's something that would be totally fine to send to a friend as a joke. It could be posted in a forum, where it would be rather obviously be a rather harmless gaff.

Can that image also be harassment? Sure, we can imagine ridiculous scenarios where it is used for unambiguous harassment: E-mailing to someone 3600 times a day. Carving it in forehead of a decapitated horse and leaving it in the bed of your crush. Setting it as someone's screensaver with background audio of you screaming "I HOPE YOU DIE". We can all pretty much agree those uses of that image are not innocuous, they are harassment.

We all agree that the image can be innocuous in certain contexts, and harassment in other contexts.

Here's the scenario as I understand it, and why I think it's harassment:
1. He is chatting with a female about a shirt. Nothing sexual is discussed, nothing romantic, nothing non-platonic at all.
2. Apropos of nothing at all, he just drops that image in there.

There's no flirting going on. There's no hint that they are close friends. Nothing. Just talking about a goddamn shirt, and he immediately goes to 'SEND NUDES'.

Here's the reason it's harassment: Everyone wants to be treated as a person, with feelings and substance and a purpose in life. We've all heard of the 'Golden Rule': Treat others are you would like to be treated.

If you were chatting with the mailman about the New York Yankees because you saw his Yankees socks as he delivered your mail, that would be a meaningful person-to-person interaction. You like the Yankees, he likes the Yankees -- you get a nice human bonding moment there, talking about your shared love of the Yankees.

If the mailman ended the conversation, out of the blue, by calling you a "piece of shit" and walking off -- you would feel angry, you would feel harassed. You had been having an on-the-level, person-to-person conversation -- and then he just demeaned you by saying you were not a person, but instead a pile of human waste. You feel harassed because you were demeaned, and you had your very value as a person questioned by that demeaning action. You'd wonder why he would see you that way, and you would question if he valued even the basic person-to-person conversation you had shared mere moments ago.

The 'SEND NUDES' image is the same thing. Nick and the woman were having a rather bland personal discussion about a tee shirt, and he just drops that image in. Does that image imply the woman was a piece of shit, like in the example with the mailman? No -- it implies she is just an object for relieving his sexual desires. He took an innocuous conversation between two people, and tuned it into a harassing, demeaning moment. He made it clear he did not actually care about the woman as a person, he just wanted to get his rocks off.

In that context, that is harassment. The reason you can send the 'SEND NUDES' image to your long-term girlfriend, but cannot send it to your congresswoman is context. With your GF, you've slowly established the bounds of your relationship -- together you both took the time to understand each other's boundaries, and moved those boundaries together and with permission. To shove someone's boundaries aside without permission is harassment. Be it physical harassment (copping a feel of a stranger on a subway) or Internet harassment ('SEND NUDES') it is still harassment.

I'm glad you've taken the time to write this post. The people not seeing it have really been frustrating and I know I wouldn't have given the time to formulate into words why Nick's actions are so wrong.

 

[SJurgenson]

So it's ok because of her line of work?

No. It's never OK.

Point is, this shit happens everywhere. It's shit every time it happens, let me be clear, but it happens with athletes, musicians and actors all the time.

People die of cancer all the time. Something happening often does not make it less bad than if it happened rarely. It's still objectively bad, no matter the frequency. I don't get a moral pass on murdering nuns 'cause everyone is doing it.

Why is it that the fringe "celeb" writing for a videogame website inspires all the outrage?

Because we're on a videogaming forum, and the videogame industry has had a clear problem with sexism and harassment.

Sexual harassment is objectively bad, and should be called out and fought against.

Perhaps that's the right reaction but why does Nick Robinson get shit on from such great heights for something a fuckton of people do all the time?

I did a quick Googling, and there are 7 million reported burglaries/larcenies/thefts a year. That's about 13 times a minute.

"Why did that guy get shit on from such great heights for stealing, something a fuckton of people do all the time?"

 

[Ascenion]

So it's ok because of her line of work?

Point is, this shit happens everywhere. It's shit every time it happens, let me be clear, but it happens with athletes, musicians and actors all the time.

Why is it that the fringe "celeb" writing for a videogame website inspires all the outrage?

Perhaps that's the right reaction but why does Nick Robinson get shit on from such great heights for something a fuckton of people do all the time?

I'd say because the limits of his fame have been reached/the gaming community wants to actually rid itself of these type of issues and people thus making gaming inclusive to all.

So basically different community different rules. If he killed dogs or knocked his wife out in an elevator the reaction here would be the same. Athletes and mega celebs get away with shit because the culture around them allows it and the vocal objectors sadly aren't louder than money. Vick and Rice shouldn't have ever dressed for play again, and Mel Gibson and Chris Brown shouldn't have careers anymore but here we are. We as a gaming community have decided we don't wanna put up with that shit and I'm damn proud.

 

[kairu]

So, here's the thing: context. Is that image, absent any context, rather innocuous? Yes. It's something that would be totally fine to send to a friend as a joke. It could be posted in a forum, where it would be rather obviously be a rather harmless gaff.

Can that image also be harassment? Sure, we can imagine ridiculous scenarios where it is used for unambiguous harassment: E-mailing to someone 3600 times a day. Carving it in forehead of a decapitated horse and leaving it in the bed of your crush. Setting it as someone's screensaver with background audio of you screaming "I HOPE YOU DIE". We can all pretty much agree those uses of that image are not innocuous, they are harassment.

We all agree that the image can be innocuous in certain contexts, and harassment in other contexts.

Here's the scenario as I understand it, and why I think it's harassment:
1. He is chatting with a female about a shirt. Nothing sexual is discussed, nothing romantic, nothing non-platonic at all.
2. Apropos of nothing at all, he just drops that image in there.

There's no flirting going on. There's no hint that they are close friends. Nothing. Just talking about a goddamn shirt, and he immediately goes to 'SEND NUDES'.

Here's the reason it's harassment: Everyone wants to be treated as a person, with feelings and substance and a purpose in life. We've all heard of the 'Golden Rule': Treat others are you would like to be treated.

If you were chatting with the mailman about the New York Yankees because you saw his Yankees socks as he delivered your mail, that would be a meaningful person-to-person interaction. You like the Yankees, he likes the Yankees -- you get a nice human bonding moment there, talking about your shared love of the Yankees.

If the mailman ended the conversation, out of the blue, by calling you a "piece of shit" and walking off -- you would feel angry, you would feel harassed. You had been having an on-the-level, person-to-person conversation -- and then he just demeaned you by saying you were not a person, but instead a pile of human waste. You feel harassed because you were demeaned, and you had your very value as a person questioned by that demeaning action. You'd wonder why he would see you that way, and you would question if he valued even the basic person-to-person conversation you had shared mere moments ago.

The 'SEND NUDES' image is the same thing. Nick and the woman were having a rather bland personal discussion about a tee shirt, and he just drops that image in. Does that image imply the woman was a piece of shit, like in the example with the mailman? No -- it implies she is just an object for relieving his sexual desires. He took an innocuous conversation between two people, and tuned it into a harassing, demeaning moment. He made it clear he did not actually care about the woman as a person, he just wanted to get his rocks off.

In that context, that is harassment. The reason you can send the 'SEND NUDES' image to your long-term girlfriend, but cannot send it to your congresswoman is context. With your GF, you've slowly established the bounds of your relationship -- together you both took the time to understand each other's boundaries, and moved those boundaries together and with permission. To shove someone's boundaries aside without permission is harassment. Be it physical harassment (copping a feel of a stranger on a subway) or Internet harassment ('SEND NUDES') it is still harassment.



It's rather clear he was harassing people in the same industry as him, and fans of his professional work -- making it clearly a workplace issue.

Well said!

 

[Chris_Rivera]

Kotaku hasn't picked it up yet, have they?

 

[BTA]

Kotaku hasn't picked it up yet, have they?

I personally would be surprised if other sites report on this before he's fired, if at all.

 

[KneehighPark]

I'd say because the limits of his fame have been reached/the gaming community wants to actually rid itself of these type of issues and people thus making gaming inclusive to all.

So basically different community different rules. If he killed dogs or knocked his wife out in an elevator the reaction here would be the same. Athletes and mega celebs get away with shit because the culture around them allows it and the vocal objectors sadly aren't louder than money. Vick and Rice shouldn't have ever dressed for play again, and Mel Gibson and Chris Brown shouldn't have careers anymore but here we are. We as a gaming community have decided we don't wanna put up with that shit and I'm damn proud.

You make an excellent point. It's sad, but none of the accusations floating around really rile me up or surprise me; it's not because I'm an evil person, it's just that I've seen and heard crass things all the time. Just one of the benefits of working for a company in a rural part of a southern state. Misogyny is more tolerated and accepted and it's really disheartening sometimes.

That being said, for all those people saying that what Nick is accused of is not that bad overall, I think we need to remember that he is a PUBLIC PERSONALITY for a large media corporation. For anybody who missed it, a few years back, it came to light that a radio host for the CBC (Jian Ghomeshi) was found to have engaged in rough sex and relations that were considered abusive. If he was a lowly entry level employee or something, we wouldn't really care. But as the host of a national radio show, he was held to higher standards, and he was fired and tried in the court system.

The same thing is happening here. Nick is one of many faces for a progressive gaming website. His actions in the public do matter, as Vox Media doesn't want to look like they condone this sort of thing.

 

[VeeP]

Kotaku hasn't picked it up yet, have they?

Usually they don't post much on the weekends. They'll probably have something up on Monday.

 

[jackal27]

So, here's the thing: context. Is that image, absent any context, rather innocuous? Yes. It's something that would be totally fine to send to a friend as a joke. It could be posted in a forum, where it would be rather obviously be a rather harmless gaff.

Can that image also be harassment? Sure, we can imagine ridiculous scenarios where it is used for unambiguous harassment: E-mailing to someone 3600 times a day. Carving it in forehead of a decapitated horse and leaving it in the bed of your crush. Setting it as someone's screensaver with background audio of you screaming "I HOPE YOU DIE". We can all pretty much agree those uses of that image are not innocuous, they are harassment.

We all agree that the image can be innocuous in certain contexts, and harassment in other contexts.

Here's the scenario as I understand it, and why I think it's harassment:
1. He is chatting with a female about a shirt. Nothing sexual is discussed, nothing romantic, nothing non-platonic at all.
2. Apropos of nothing at all, he just drops that image in there.

There's no flirting going on. There's no hint that they are close friends. Nothing. Just talking about a goddamn shirt, and he immediately goes to 'SEND NUDES'.

Here's the reason it's harassment: Everyone wants to be treated as a person, with feelings and substance and a purpose in life. We've all heard of the 'Golden Rule': Treat others are you would like to be treated.

If you were chatting with the mailman about the New York Yankees because you saw his Yankees socks as he delivered your mail, that would be a meaningful person-to-person interaction. You like the Yankees, he likes the Yankees -- you get a nice human bonding moment there, talking about your shared love of the Yankees.

If the mailman ended the conversation, out of the blue, by calling you a "piece of shit" and walking off -- you would feel angry, you would feel harassed. You had been having an on-the-level, person-to-person conversation -- and then he just demeaned you by saying you were not a person, but instead a pile of human waste. You feel harassed because you were demeaned, and you had your very value as a person questioned by that demeaning action. You'd wonder why he would see you that way, and you would question if he valued even the basic person-to-person conversation you had shared mere moments ago.

The 'SEND NUDES' image is the same thing. Nick and the woman were having a rather bland personal discussion about a tee shirt, and he just drops that image in. Does that image imply the woman was a piece of shit, like in the example with the mailman? No -- it implies she is just an object for relieving his sexual desires. He took an innocuous conversation between two people, and tuned it into a harassing, demeaning moment. He made it clear he did not actually care about the woman as a person, he just wanted to get his rocks off.

In that context, that is harassment. The reason you can send the 'SEND NUDES' image to your long-term girlfriend, but cannot send it to your congresswoman is context. With your GF, you've slowly established the bounds of your relationship -- together you both took the time to understand each other's boundaries, and moved those boundaries together and with permission. To shove someone's boundaries aside without permission is harassment. Be it physical harassment (copping a feel of a stranger on a subway) or Internet harassment ('SEND NUDES') it is still harassment.



It's rather clear he was harassing people in the same industry as him, and fans of his professional work -- making it clearly a workplace issue.

Boom. Nailed it. The last paragraph in particular puts to words something I've been having trouble expressing. If I texted that image my wife or my best friend? Laughs. If I texted that image to a client or my wife's friend? Not so many laughs.

Using the culture surrounding football and pornography as a template for how we should treat women is like the single dumbest argument in this entire thread.

Yep. That absolutely takes the cake.

 

[mr teaspoon]

@Bowlie

So have this and this been covered?

https://twitter.com/nicsother1/status/894030844683104256
https://twitter.com/AlolanMeowth/status/893921380927799296

Oh my god. If ever the word "cringe" applied, it's here and now. Equal parts creepy, inappropriate, and just plain fuckin' lame.

 

[Cyanity]

So, here's the thing: context. Is that image, absent any context, rather innocuous? Yes. It's something that would be totally fine to send to a friend as a joke. It could be posted in a forum, where it would be rather obviously be a rather harmless gaff.

Can that image also be harassment? Sure, we can imagine ridiculous scenarios where it is used for unambiguous harassment: E-mailing to someone 3600 times a day. Carving it in forehead of a decapitated horse and leaving it in the bed of your crush. Setting it as someone's screensaver with background audio of you screaming "I HOPE YOU DIE". We can all pretty much agree those uses of that image are not innocuous, they are harassment.

We all agree that the image can be innocuous in certain contexts, and harassment in other contexts.

Here's the scenario as I understand it, and why I think it's harassment:
1. He is chatting with a female about a shirt. Nothing sexual is discussed, nothing romantic, nothing non-platonic at all.
2. Apropos of nothing at all, he just drops that image in there.

There's no flirting going on. There's no hint that they are close friends. Nothing. Just talking about a goddamn shirt, and he immediately goes to 'SEND NUDES'.

Here's the reason it's harassment: Everyone wants to be treated as a person, with feelings and substance and a purpose in life. We've all heard of the 'Golden Rule': Treat others are you would like to be treated.

If you were chatting with the mailman about the New York Yankees because you saw his Yankees socks as he delivered your mail, that would be a meaningful person-to-person interaction. You like the Yankees, he likes the Yankees -- you get a nice human bonding moment there, talking about your shared love of the Yankees.

If the mailman ended the conversation, out of the blue, by calling you a "piece of shit" and walking off -- you would feel angry, you would feel harassed. You had been having an on-the-level, person-to-person conversation -- and then he just demeaned you by saying you were not a person, but instead a pile of human waste. You feel harassed because you were demeaned, and you had your very value as a person questioned by that demeaning action. You'd wonder why he would see you that way, and you would question if he valued even the basic person-to-person conversation you had shared mere moments ago.

The 'SEND NUDES' image is the same thing. Nick and the woman were having a rather bland personal discussion about a tee shirt, and he just drops that image in. Does that image imply the woman was a piece of shit, like in the example with the mailman? No -- it implies she is just an object for relieving his sexual desires. He took an innocuous conversation between two people, and tuned it into a harassing, demeaning moment. He made it clear he did not actually care about the woman as a person, he just wanted to get his rocks off.

In that context, that is harassment. The reason you can send the 'SEND NUDES' image to your long-term girlfriend, but cannot send it to your congresswoman is context. With your GF, you've slowly established the bounds of your relationship -- together you both took the time to understand each other's boundaries, and moved those boundaries together and with permission. To shove someone's boundaries aside without permission is harassment. Be it physical harassment (copping a feel of a stranger on a subway) or Internet harassment ('SEND NUDES') it is still harassment.



It's rather clear he was harassing people in the same industry as him, and fans of his professional work -- making it clearly a workplace issue.

Thank you for the eloquent writeup.

 

[petran79]

I'd say because the limits of his fame have been reached/the gaming community wants to actually rid itself of these type of issues and people thus making gaming inclusive to all.

So basically different community different rules. If he killed dogs or knocked his wife out in an elevator the reaction here would be the same. Athletes and mega celebs get away with shit because the culture around them allows it and the vocal objectors sadly aren't louder than money. Vick and Rice shouldn't have ever dressed for play again, and Mel Gibson and Chris Brown shouldn't have careers anymore but here we are. We as a gaming community have decided we don't wanna put up with that shit and I'm damn proud.

ChrisG shouldnt be active either but he almost won EVO 2017

 

[KneehighPark]

ChrisG shouldnt be active either but he almost won EVO 2017

While i see where you are coming from, ChrisG isn't working/employed for a major publication like Nick is.

The only reason ChrisG can compete at EVO is because he's essentially standalone talent. Unless EVO had some pre-existing rules about banning people for specific reasons, it's kind of hard to arbitrarily enforce those rules. Another example: Roman Polanski is hiding in Paris because he raped a 13 year old in the USA and fled before sentencing. That being said, his movies still get nominated for awards.

That being said, there are appropriate responses. If ChrisG has endorsements, the companies that endorse him could drop him as they don't want to be associated with him. Same for Polanski and film companies who finance his films.

The same thing could easily happen to Nick. Polygon will choose to let him go, as keeping him can be seen as a public association and endorsement of his (alleged) actions (I say alleged simply because a proper investigation has not concluded).

 

[Azure Dream]

Okay, I think that's enough "full quotes with a sentence or less follow-up" for this page. At least wait until the 50 ppp rollover.

 

[Don Draper's Hat]

Okay, I think that's enough "full quotes with a sentence or less follow-up" for this page. At least wait until the 50 ppp rollover.

.

 

[devilhawk]

It's rare that I read an OP and have less of an idea at what the fuck is going on than after reading the unintelligible one here. So many pics with in-references without summation.

I am going to assume the title is accurate and this dude will get quickly fired. Probably has an ethics-type clause in his contract too.

 

[Jangowuzhere]

you must be incredibly sheltered to not know about the 'send nudes' meme and find it that offensive. it's crap but lets not make it something it isn't.

Are we sheltered, or are you just living in your own bubble of internet obscurity?

 

[ZenVolta]

It's rare that I read an OP and have less of an idea at what the fuck is going on than after reading the unintelligible one here. So many pics with in-references without summation.

I am going to assume the title is accurate and this dude will get quickly fired. Probably has an ethics-type clause in his contract too.

Pretty much the boat I was in. So far you just need to know that he sent some girl a "send nudes" illusion

 

[StrongBlackVine]

I'd say because the limits of his fame have been reached/the gaming community wants to actually rid itself of these type of issues and people thus making gaming inclusive to all.

So basically different community different rules. If he killed dogs or knocked his wife out in an elevator the reaction here would be the same. Athletes and mega celebs get away with shit because the culture around them allows it and the vocal objectors sadly aren't louder than money. Vick and Rice shouldn't have ever dressed for play again, and Mel Gibson and Chris Brown shouldn't have careers anymore but here we are. We as a gaming community have decided we don't wanna put up with that shit and I'm damn proud.

Not sure I agree with this. Comparing Nick Robinson's (a nobody really) status and more importantly revenue generation doesn't equate to a star athlete/actor/musician. If someone famous that actually played key roles in making games(just think of some of the directors/artists that are idolized) did this exact same thing would enough people stop buying their work and would publishers refuse to work with them? That would be a real test. This is good, but it's low hanging fruit. Just like a scrub athlete would get booted faster than the star of the team.

 

[Squire]

you must be incredibly sheltered to not know about the 'send nudes' meme and find it that offensive. it's crap but lets not make it something it isn't.

No one is "sheltered" by any stretch of the definition because they don't waste enough time on twitter to know what some garbage meme is.

Good god.

 

[Tuffwizard]

Its probably worth remembering that 'having power' or 'power dynamics' are not some objectively defined thing - i.e. 'hes not as famous as x, hes just a z at y, but a relative thing between the people involved.

The key thing to understand is - did someone identify that they have some kind of power/advantage over a person and use that to exploit them. You, as an outside observer, are not necessarily going to be able to recognize that relationship between others, so don't rush to downplay/discredit peoples behavior because you likely dont understand or recognize the significance of these interactions (prior to being exploited) to the victims.

 

[hiten]

For every tweet linked in this post, there's more information in the user's thread and the responses

---

EDIT 4: Another report from a different person, someone who was his fan and 18 at the time.
Her account is locked now but she has given me permission to post this.



--------------------------------------------------

Is that a real twitter account? I try to find the username on twitter, but it links to different person.

 

[Nitpicker_Red]

For a while I had him confused with a Robertson. There's not a huge career to save here. He's literally just popular because of his Polygon work. If he has any talent, he's young, he can rebuild elsewhere.

 

[Kinsei]

Is that a real twitter account? I try to find the username on twitter, but it links to different person.

It's a real account. The l in the Soul part of her twitter handle is actually an upper case i not a lower case L.

 

[Opa-Pa]

So it's ok because of her line of work?

Point is, this shit happens everywhere. It's shit every time it happens, let me be clear, but it happens with athletes, musicians and actors all the time.

Why is it that the fringe "celeb" writing for a videogame website inspires all the outrage?

Perhaps that's the right reaction but why does Nick Robinson get shit on from such great heights for something a fuckton of people do all the time?

If you agree that it's fucked up what he did then why do you mind so much the heights people are going to condemn him? It's indeed shit no matter the person, and if anything those athletes, musicians and actors should get the same treatment.

Sexual predators like Nick are condemned and shamed because they're effectively a danger to others, and it's necessary to treat them as such in order to prevent further damage being done to victims and other potential ones. I mean, an effective way to prevent this from happening "all the time" is by treating it with the importance it deserves after all.

Video game culture is consistently an embarrassment, so it's good to see it act in a healthy way for once, reacting the way it has in a situation like this.

 

[BarringGaffner]

For a while I had him confused with a Robertson. There's not a huge career to save here. He's literally just popular because of his Polygon work. If he has any talent, he's young, he can rebuild elsewhere.

hmmm nope, he was with Rev3 before Polygon. Just because you don't know lf him doesn't mean he doesn't have a decent following/fanbase. I don't see him coming back from this tbh. He could get an alt right fanbase but I doubt he would want to.

 

[PumpkinPie]

Is it only sexual harassment if the girl declines to send nudes? Because I mean he doesn't know if they'll say yes or no.

 

[Fliesen]

For a while I had him confused with a Robertson. There's not a huge career to save here. He's literally just popular because of his Polygon work. If he has any talent, he's young, he can rebuild elsewhere.

Uhm, excuse me? The Cheeto Champ of 2005

 

[J-Skee]

Uhm, excuse me? The Cheeto Champ of 2005

Yoooooooooooo

That's not him. I refuse to believe that's him.

 

[Bastables]

Is it only sexual harassment if the girl declines to send nudes? Because I mean he doesn't know if they'll say yes or no.

Did you actually think this question through?

 

[Aselith]

Yoooooooooooo

That's not him. I refuse to believe that's him.

When they pan up to his dad that is a "Son I am disappoint" look if I ever saw one.

 

[ZeoVGM]

Uhm, excuse me? The Cheeto Champ of 2005

... Wait, really?

 

[ZenVolta]

Uhm, excuse me? The Cheeto Champ of 2005

WTF. How far down does this rabbit hole go?

 

[Azure Dream]

... Wait, really?

I'm equally shocked that some TV station decided "teen bought a big Cheeto online for $6" was worth a minute and a half of screen time. I know online auctions weren't as well-known back then, but...

 

[Monkeyball]

Uhm, excuse me? The Cheeto Champ of 2005

Yeahhhh this guy had a destiny.

 

[J-Skee]

When they pan up to his dad that is a "Son I am disappoint" look if I ever saw one.

I peeped that. I also wonder if that on-field reporter contemplated quitting his job that day.

 

[Skrams]

hmmm nope, he was with Rev3 before Polygon. Just because you don't know lf him doesn't mean he doesn't have a decent following/fanbase. I don't see him coming back from this tbh. He could get an alt right fanbase but I doubt he would want to.

And before that, Giantbomb intern. That's where I first learned about him and saw him in content at least.

Separate thing I guess, but I never really liked Nick much since he always felt disingenuous to me. Kind of felt like he weaseled his way in by being an intern for GB, getting some connections, and then slowly hopping up to what his current position is. Also going from bowlcut+glasses typical nerd look to the swooped over hair didn't make him any better in my eyes.

If I had watched more of his content then maybe I could of seen the more human element of him, but I only really heard his personal stuff through some Comedy Button episodes here and there.

 

[Truant]

I have no idea who this dude is, but it sucks that someone in the Giant Bomb family has behaved like this. He can't undo what he did, but I hope he manages sincerely to apologize to all involved, and get whatever help he needs to become a better person.

 

[SilentRob]

What she wanted to post on GAF "with her permission "

Hi, everyone. This is @souIspear from twitter. First off, let me say that I am so, so sorry for locking my account. The tweets got way more attention than I was expecting (silly on my part), and I panicked and locked and will most likely be switching accounts. I will be unlocking then, and I don't mind archives of my tweets being spread for discussion.

Anyways, I feel as though it'd be helpful to fully explain my story. I won't be including pictures and shit because to be quite honest I just made this account and I don't really know how. Regardless, there are a few things that I believe need some clearing up.

When I posted these screenshots, I did not intend for them to paint me as a witless girl who had no idea what happened to her. I was complicit in this, and I was stupid. Like many of you have said earlier, I blame this on the fact that I was starstruck (one of my favorite youtubers DMs me out of the blue, I couldn't believe it). Yes, I did send him "lewds". The definition of which (for me) are pictures of me in bras, panties, leotards, "sexy" clothing. I was never nude, although I honestly doubt that matters.

I don't consider myself a victim. I understand that I could have said no, and I'm not trying to say that I'm no way in the wrong. I am. However, there are things to learn from this.

A lot of you are saying that the age difference between us wasn't an issue. Let me provide some context. When we first started talking, I was only a month into my first year of college. I had been 18 for half a year, and I moved to San Francisco from the Midwest. He was 26. Yes, I was a legal adult, and I consented. The things that we exchanged are not the issue. The issue is that Nick used his influence on a random, barely legal fan who had sent him innocuous replies on his twitter feed. Eight years is a long time for a person to mature, and the difference between a green freshman in college and a grown man with taxes is staggering. Again, I do take responsibility for the things I have done. But I really just wanted to post this in order to give courage to the other women who I know are too afraid to speak. Looking through all your replies to try and find young women who sound "vaguely thirsty" to hit up... is a little pathetic. A lot pathetic. That's all I was trying to get across.

All in all, I'm lucky. I refused to meet him in person, and we stopped all communication in January. Other women have come to me in my DMs about personal experiences that they have gone through, and if I can give them hope then that's all the really matters.
Sorry for getting all preachy at the end, hahah. Thank you for being civil. Again, I'm sorry for locking my twitter account. You can post any screenshots of things I have tweeted in the past.

I don't really know how to end this. Please, ask me anything you'd like to know. My DMs are open on twitter as of now, but I'm genuinely asking... please be nice. I just got back from the airport and I'm tired as fuck hahahah

I just want to say thank you for speaking up, you did absolutely nothing wrong.