Gamergate and video game journalism - Page 9

On October 16 2014 22:53 Rassy wrote:
zoes side of the story, its worth mentioning at least.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-i-learned-as-internets-most-hated-person/

On October 16 2014 23:15 Meavis wrote:


so loud mouthed 12-14 year old's on 4chan acting like they're loud mouthed 12-14 year old's on 4chan becomes and excuse to call the gaming community misogynistic, great...

the problem is people taking the internet serious.
"death threats" are more like "death threads" it's only WORDS.
the internet is full of trolls and there are no women on the internet.
people victimizing themselves publicly over the internet are just pathetic. it's only attention whoring and/or money begging most of the time anyway.

On October 16 2014 23:53 Stijn wrote:
At this point I'm more and more convinced that talking about this in terms of GamerGate and anti-GamerGate is useless. GamerGate right now covers so many opinions that if you single out two individuals tweeting under the hashtag they'd probably not agree with each other on what the label stands for. Anti-GamerGate isn't even a thing, there's no hashtag, board, whatever, it's just people who disagree with those flying the GamerGate banner.

The only opinion I honestly have on GamerGate at this point is that it's really not smart to declare yourself to be part of it because, want it or not, you're gonna be associated with the idiots involved with it that hound Zoe Quinn over nonsensical accusations or send death threats and other forms of harassment. If you're really not about that, stop using a label that doesn't really stand for anything definite at this point and has been linked to harassment and bigotry since day one. Come up with a new hashtag, introduce it by writing a clear manifesto outlining your goals and distancing yourself from the GamerGate nonsense and try to make a change that way.


They're only words until they're not only words anymore. It takes only one dismissal of a serious threat to make ignoring threats wholesale an incredibly stupid idea.

On October 16 2014 23:53 Stijn wrote:
At this point I'm more and more convinced that talking about this in terms of GamerGate and anti-GamerGate is useless. GamerGate right now covers so many opinions that if you single out two individuals tweeting under the hashtag they'd probably not agree with each other on what the label stands for. Anti-GamerGate isn't even a thing, there's no hashtag, board, whatever, it's just people who disagree with those flying the GamerGate banner.

The only opinion I honestly have on GamerGate at this point is that it's really not smart to declare yourself to be part of it because, want it or not, you're gonna be associated with the idiots involved with it that hound Zoe Quinn over nonsensical accusations or send death threats and other forms of harassment. If you're really not about that, stop using a label that doesn't really stand for anything definite at this point and has been linked to harassment and bigotry since day one. Come up with a new hashtag, introduce it by writing a clear manifesto outlining your goals and distancing yourself from the GamerGate nonsense and try to make a change that way.

On October 17 2014 00:00 fleeze wrote:

she did her best to keep the fire burning. yet, i doubt ANY threats against her were serious. the one she linked herself in public to look like a viction looked like a joke.

On October 16 2014 23:53 Stijn wrote:

They're only words until they're not only words anymore. It takes only one dismissal of a serious threat to make ignoring threats wholesale an incredibly stupid idea.

On October 17 2014 00:01 RockIronrod wrote:

See, this is the funniest thing.
#StopGamerGate2014 is a hash tag now. One that HAS doxxed and death threatened people.
Someone said that all supporters should be castrated.The irony that followed is palpable.

On October 17 2014 00:22 Stijn wrote:
There's a fundamental difference though. #GamerGate, from the very beginning, was about Zoe Quinn's alleged attempts to get her game covered by the gaming press through sexual relations with journalists. Zoe Quinn got an enormous amount of abuse over this. That, and nothing else was what the hashtag was about from the very beginning.

When this was disproven many people, as far as I could follow, asserted that while this whole affair had little meaning, there was in fact a problem in gaming journalism that was worth talking about. Which is a fair opinion to have, as far as I'm concerned.

Them continuing to use that hashtag though gives me the impression that they were part of the same movement - whatever that word is worth in this context - as those involved with harrassing Zoe Quinn. Attempts to drop that baggage with arguments like "but that's not what we're about anymore" seem weak to me, especially when there's still people aligned with the label that are about that. The logical thing to do seems to break away, start anew, adopt a new name and clarify what you are about. That didn't really happen. Which to me implies that those people don't think that baggage is that bad.

I think StopGamerGate has much of the same problems as its adversary - unclear goals, open for cooption - but what it doesn't have is a history of harrassment. To me that makes the situation significantly different.

To say however that Gamer Gate is is caused by Zoe Quinn is like saying World War One was caused by Arch Duke Ferdinand.
It was not that a female game developer had a series of affairs. This became something more than the escapades of an unfaithful lover. It was the revelation of who some of these men were that she was having affairs with.

On October 17 2014 00:29 gruff wrote:

The threats overwhelmingly comes from people using gamergate tag and they also HAVE doxxed people (not sure why you capitalized HAS as if that haven't happened). Yes there's idiots from all sides and directions, which is all the stronger incentive not to use the hashtag when you try to make your point. Argue the issues.

On October 17 2014 00:26 gruff wrote:

Please do tell me how you can distinguish real threats from the "jokes." Should we just not take any threat serious just because they might not be real? There's been plenty threats that "looks" real.

On October 17 2014 01:20 Stijn wrote:

The page you linked titled "A people's history of GamerGate" is written from a biased, GamerGate-centric perspective and I therefore think it's not a good source of information.

The tweet I linked is, literally, the first use of the hashtag. It links to a video that (amongst other things) accuses Zoe Quinn of sleeping with gaming journalists for favourable coverage of her games and doxxing TFYC. As a result of these and similar accusations (which were not true) and other things said about her personal life that were irrelevant to gaming journalism, Zoe Quinn got a lot of abuse. The video itself is thinly veiled slander.

GamerGate may not have been "about harrassing Zoe Quinn" but it started with a lot of people harrassing Zoe Quinn (and others). It still involves, for some people, harrassing Zoe Quinn (and, it's worth repeating, others). Why don't people get away from that? Why are they okay with campaigning under a flag that was originally used for such vile things?

On October 17 2014 00:00 fleeze wrote:

she did her best to keep the fire burning. yet, i doubt ANY threats against her were serious. the one she linked herself in public to look like a viction looked like a joke.

On October 17 2014 01:20 Stijn wrote:

The page you linked titled "A people's history of GamerGate" is written from a biased, GamerGate-centric perspective and I therefore think it's not a good source of information.

The tweet I linked is, literally, the first use of the hashtag. It links to a video that (amongst other things) accuses Zoe Quinn of sleeping with gaming journalists for favourable coverage of her games and doxxing TFYC. As a result of these and similar accusations (which were not true) and other things said about her personal life that were irrelevant to gaming journalism, Zoe Quinn got a lot of abuse. The video itself is thinly veiled slander.

GamerGate may not have been "about harrassing Zoe Quinn" but it started with a lot of people harrassing Zoe Quinn (and others). It still involves, for some people, harrassing Zoe Quinn (and, it's worth repeating, others). Why don't people get away from that? Why are they okay with campaigning under a flag that was originally used for such vile things?

On October 17 2014 02:09 valium wrote:
By the time Adam Baldwin started the #gamergate tag, the discussion left Zoe Quinn behind. Adam Baldwin tweeted about a week or so old video from Internet Aristocrat. Nobody in gamergate is harassing Zoe Quinn or Anita Hatesgamers, the ones doing the harassing ARE ANONYMOUS INDIVIDUALS. Gamers, and now specifically gamergate, are used as scapegoats, becuase it is the low hanging fruit. When has the media ever NOT demonized gamers? And now there is a consumer revolt consisting of gamers, who are now gathering under a hashtag, that hashtag is an easy target.

Lets all be real, the underlying fact is that gamergate is not, at the base level, about ethics in journalism, nor a hate movement, it is gamers pissed off at the disrespect and outright scorn being directed at them from game "news" sites and publishers. Ethics in journalism and a push back against cultural marxists trying to crap all over video games got rolled up in the giant Katamari ball of gamers fighting back as consumers.

But this is convenient, aren't we gamers constantly being tasked with rooting out the toxic elements in gaming? Well... lets start with the corrupt "journalists" and cultural marxists calling themselves social justice warriors. Later we can worry about fighting against anonymous trolls.