| Forum Index > Closed |
Please don't go calling people racist, misogynists, or any combination therein. Don't start throwing around words like "white Knight" or SJW, these words are at this point used in a derogatory manner regarding this debate. You can discuss that these terms exist, but do not attribute them to any individual user or group of users on this website. Try to have a serious discussion about the topic at hand without resorting to personal attacks and we will all be the better for it. Breaking this rule will result in an automatic temp ban the length of which will depend on the comment you make. This thread started not so bad. It is getting worse. If you want to have this discussion on TL be respectful of your fellow users, we all live in the same house. Effective now: Page 21 October 18th 08:31 KST | ||
|
Meavis
Netherlands1300 Posts
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/ 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... | ||
|
RockIronrod
Australia1369 Posts
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... That was always going to be the problem with GamerGate. One side is full of professional victims; they profit from every attack on them. Every time someone attacks them, they get more media coverage, more patreon backers and more hits to their site. Anita Sarkeesian owes her entire livelihood to 4chan sending death threats. The other side is intrinsically tied to a group who legitimately doesn't give a shit about any sort of movement and enjoys attacking people, because they both shared an "Anonymous" banner at some point. GamerGate outgrew the *chans pretty much instantly, the name itself being coined by Adam Baldwin who I'm pretty sure isn't a neckbeard, but they're an easy face to attack so no one cares. Even then, 8chan legitimately spammed doxx off their front page for hours because the admin was asleep, purely to separate themselves from people making personal attacks. Fucking /v/ funded a feminist game to try and be "the good guys" for some reason. There's a choice screenshot making rounds of someone making an aggressive post about Quinn on /pol/, that conveniently cuts off the 20 responses all telling them to fuck off and calling them a shill. But none of that matters, because 4chan is 4chan, and it only takes one person to do it all for the lulz to paint an entire side as wannabe murderers, rapists and sociopaths. Hell, they're fucking anonymous, it's not even that far of a stretch to say some of them were "false flags" deliberately attacking their side for the PR, because it's been done before and it sure will happen again (probably by Something Awful, again). The original Wizard-chan thing is basically accepted to be that at this point from what I can see. It's like people have forgotten the concept of "lulz", because the term isn't used any more and the shitty Fox segment was half a decade ago. There are people who will attack easy targets, who will deliberately make it harder for GamerGate and take a shot at public figures, who are part of neither party, all because they feel like it. In saying that, I'm not claiming that everyone who posts anything aggressive is No True Gamer, there probably are people who support GamerGate who are harassing people. This minority of people are rightly being publicly crucified by both sides. But that won't change the fact that they're being shoe-horned as the face of one side, while the extremists on the other side are being ignored. | ||
|
Yorbon
Netherlands4272 Posts
| ||
|
fleeze
Germany895 Posts
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. | ||
|
Stijn
Netherlands363 Posts
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. 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. 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. | ||
|
fleeze
Germany895 Posts
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. 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. | ||
|
RockIronrod
Australia1369 Posts
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. 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. | ||
|
Stijn
Netherlands363 Posts
| ||
|
Stijn
Netherlands363 Posts
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. | ||
|
gruff
Sweden2276 Posts
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. 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. | ||
|
Zocat
Germany2229 Posts
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. I'm don't really know anything about this GamerGate thing, but when I would receive death threats I would do anything but retweet them. Report them to the police, block the account on the media (report them to twitter?) and according to the police's advice leave my home. I would _not_ say that I would leave my home, out of the fear alone that other people would copycat (sic?) that shit. | ||
|
gruff
Sweden2276 Posts
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. 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. | ||
|
RockIronrod
Australia1369 Posts
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. It's a lot easier to just link this. 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. GamerGate was never about harassing Zoe Quinn. Even the two youtube links in the tweet you link are about the censorship surrounding the issue of impropriety. Hell, the second is literally about how the entire thing is because of the Streisand effect. Did you even watch the videos? Your "evidence" that it's all about Zoe Quinn's affairs is saying that it's all about censorship and lack of journalistic integrity. The only point in your favour is that these issues began with Zoe Quinn, but there's a large leap from that to harassment being a focal issue. 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. Except the people who used the hashtag for threats are an obvious minority, why would the majority cave to that? It's like saying feminism should change its name to distance themselves form Tumblr social justice warriors and SRS. You don't judge a group by their most vocal and hateful minority. That's fucking retarded. | ||
|
Gowerly
United Kingdom916 Posts
This seems to be more #NotYourShield than GamerGate, but here you go: | ||
|
fleeze
Germany895 Posts
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. i have to be a retard, faggot, some hundred people raped my mother and i should be dead 1000x if i believe things people say to me on the internet. and i can tell that posting those screenshots like she did to look like a victim is for sure NOT the way to go. if there are serious threats i go to the police and not the public. especially as an internet personality knowing and even condemning witch hunts (because she experienced it herself) she is just another hypocryte sending people on another target for their witch hunt. | ||
|
Stijn
Netherlands363 Posts
On October 17 2014 00:55 RockIronrod 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? | ||
|
fleeze
Germany895 Posts
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? because it's the internet and there will always be trolls, so most people don't care about it. also it's the popular hashtag NOW so it get's attention in any case for people who think their opinion is worth noticing. though most are wrong about that. also, if you use another hash tag the trolls will follow when it becomes popular. btw: it's only a hashtag | ||
|
PassiveAce
United States18076 Posts
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. yeah shes definitely just looking for attention. I mean what kind of responsible adult would really take a death threat seriously? Shame on her for trying to bring attention towards people who try to silence her. surely that makes her just as bad as them. Do you live on another planet? | ||
|
valium
United States251 Posts
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? 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. Also, Total Biscuit has given his open support for gamergate. | ||
|
Stijn
Netherlands363 Posts
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. I've been talking to some people tweeting GamerGate-related stuff. Some are adamant about the fact that it's about the ties between journalists and the games industry. Others mention having problems with feminist critique. Still others are angry at articles about the "death of gamers". The point is, you cannot make a sweeping statement like "at a base level, gamergate is about gamers pissed off at disrespect". GamerGate is about too many things to be about anything specific at this point. Everyone has their own interpretation. Which makes it very hard to debate the merits of the thing as a whole, because if I point out that a lot of the things they're saying about feminism are wrong or don't hold up, someone else will point out that it's not actually about that. And if I argue about journalist ethics, someone will point out that the real problem is feminist critique. So the label is no longer useful as a basis of discussion, if it ever was. Arguing for or against GamerGate comes down to arguing for or against a weakly linked array of opinions that is probably unique for the one arguing (or the conception of that person of what GamerGate is). I'm fine with debating issues on their own. But when people tag their argument with GamerGate, they tag it with a hashtag that started out as a label for a really toxic discussion about an indie developer's sex life, in which many people got abusive messages and a lot of people published arguments and videos that were very poorly articulated and inflammatory (don't say that didn't happen). If two months later they're still gonna put that tag on your post, I'm gonna assume they're okay with that kind of discourse and I'll have a hard time taking them seriously. Plus, if people want their arguments to gain any traction, it's just bad PR to do it under a moniker that gets such media flak. It really doesn't speak for you. | ||
| ||
|
|
CrankTV Team League
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Big Brain Bouts
Soulspirit vs goblin
TriGGeR vs Bunny
OSC
Korean StarCraft League
Afreeca Starleague
RSL Revival
Serral vs SHIN
herO vs Solar
Online Event
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Clem vs ByuN
Rogue vs Lambo
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
