Gamergate, No "Right Side." - We Should Avoid Picking Sides

Akjosch

New member
Sep 12, 2014
155
0
0
know whan purr tick said:
IceForce said:
Otakun said:
ok, let me get this straight.

Gamergate isn't instantly changing things for the better so, we just give up? A movement started to stop the previous ones isn't doing anything instantly so GamerGate supporters should do what they want? Being neutral only supports the stopgamergate side, how does not doing anything help the movement that started to begin with? Just because people disagree with your ideals, and they are more then willing to stand out and make themselves look worse in the process, isn't a reason to just give up and sit on the fence.
The problem is, the focus is all wrong. Rather than tackling genuine journalistic problems (such as Shadow of Mordor -gate), GamerGate is too busy shaking their collective fists at 'those evil feminists and SJWs' instead.
The company publishing it (or promoting it, not 100%) is a shady company. Totalbiscuit won't review their games. jimquisition covered this and the contract required to cover it. Do the movement a favor and track down that publisher/promoter and join the cause!
He doesn't need to bother. We already did 1.5 weeks ago.

Contact information for WB Games is here:

http://support.wbgames.com/ics/support/contactUs.asp

Press contacts for the whole of WB (not sure how useful those would be):

http://www.warnerbros.com/studio/news/press-contacts.html

WB's customer service form, if nothing else works or can't be found:

http://www.warnerbros.com/help/customer-service.html

Who's actions to complain about: Plaid Social Labs (also known as Plaid Video Marketing), 3459 N University Ave, Provo, UT - web site: http://www.plaidsocial.com/ - Twitter @PlaidSocialLabs - President: Ricky Ray Butler (@RickyRayButler on Twitter)
 

Akjosch

New member
Sep 12, 2014
155
0
0
Pluvia said:
Akjosch said:
Pluvia said:
What is it about being a "Social Justice Warrior" that stops you from being a member, heck not only that but the straight up opponents, to Gamergate? What is it about ethics and corruption in journalism that excludes people who want social justice from being able to join the cause against it?
Nothing?

I'm in favour of social justice - everyone should have the same chances and opportunities in live, no matter who they are and all that (but it's still on them to do something with those). I'm also a staunch supporter of the GamerGate movement. I don't see why those would in any way be contrary to each other.
I would still like to hear the answer from the guy I asked though.

You could try and shed some light on why Gamergate calls opponents of Gamergate SJW's though if you wanted. You say it's nothing, which should be the answer of course, yet it's the most used "derogative" by Gamergate against opponents.
Because we need a label. Any label will do.

Personally, I don't. I use "OpFor" or "绿茶党".
 

grassgremlin

New member
Aug 30, 2014
456
0
0
sataricon said:
there can be no middle ground if one side stands for truth and the other for pure bullshit. Go, find a middle ground with cancer and ebola, tell us how it ends.
Whichever side is bullshit usually depends on the person I talk to.
So let's just assume both sides are bullshit.

Some people actually have good reasons for hating gamergate.
Some people actually have good reasons for hating SJWs/Anti-GG/The People Actively Fighting/Trolling Gamergate/

Both movements are blobs with no consciousness. Just smacking around until one passes out.
 

know whan purr tick

New member
Aug 24, 2014
40
0
0
Akjosch said:
know whan purr tick said:
IceForce said:
Otakun said:
ok, let me get this straight.

Gamergate isn't instantly changing things for the better so, we just give up? A movement started to stop the previous ones isn't doing anything instantly so GamerGate supporters should do what they want? Being neutral only supports the stopgamergate side, how does not doing anything help the movement that started to begin with? Just because people disagree with your ideals, and they are more then willing to stand out and make themselves look worse in the process, isn't a reason to just give up and sit on the fence.
The problem is, the focus is all wrong. Rather than tackling genuine journalistic problems (such as Shadow of Mordor -gate), GamerGate is too busy shaking their collective fists at 'those evil feminists and SJWs' instead.
The company publishing it (or promoting it, not 100%) is a shady company. Totalbiscuit won't review their games. jimquisition covered this and the contract required to cover it. Do the movement a favor and track down that publisher/promoter and join the cause!

He doesn't need to bother. We already did 1.5 weeks ago.

Contact information for WB Games is here:

http://support.wbgames.com/ics/support/contactUs.asp

Press contacts for the whole of WB (not sure how useful those would be):

http://www.warnerbros.com/studio/news/press-contacts.html

WB's customer service form, if nothing else works or can't be found:

http://www.warnerbros.com/help/customer-service.html

Who's actions to complain about: Plaid Social Labs (also known as Plaid Video Marketing), 3459 N University Ave, Provo, UT - web site: http://www.plaidsocial.com/ - Twitter @PlaidSocialLabs - President: Ricky Ray Butler (@RickyRayButler on Twitter)
WTF, you ninja'd his quest!
 

Akjosch

New member
Sep 12, 2014
155
0
0
Pluvia said:
Akjosch said:
Pluvia said:
I would still like to hear the answer from the guy I asked though.

You could try and shed some light on why Gamergate calls opponents of Gamergate SJW's though if you wanted. You say it's nothing, which should be the answer of course, yet it's the most used "derogative" by Gamergate against opponents.
Because we need a label. Any label will do.

Personally, I don't. I use "OpFor" or "绿茶党".
So you don't see how Gamergate using "SJW" is directly detrimental to their cause?
No, I don't. It's just a label, though not a good one: It fails to describe a good chunk of the opposition. Thus its use is discouraged at least here on the forums.
 

softclocks

New member
Mar 7, 2014
221
0
0
Pluvia said:
People who are labeled as "SJWs" do not call themselves that. It is a pejorative term used by GGers to refer to those who are offended by the harassment of women in the industry.
That's not true.

Most of the people who were outspoken against GG had names that were literally puns on SJW...
 

grassgremlin

New member
Aug 30, 2014
456
0
0
IceForce said:
Otakun said:
ok, let me get this straight.

Gamergate isn't instantly changing things for the better so, we just give up? A movement started to stop the previous ones isn't doing anything instantly so GamerGate supporters should do what they want? Being neutral only supports the stopgamergate side, how does not doing anything help the movement that started to begin with? Just because people disagree with your ideals, and they are more then willing to stand out and make themselves look worse in the process, isn't a reason to just give up and sit on the fence.
The problem is, the focus is all wrong. Rather than tackling genuine journalistic problems (such as Shadow of Mordor -gate), GamerGate is too busy shaking their collective fists at 'those evil feminists and SJWs' instead.
People are allergic to real problems.
Laziness is another epidemic that has stricken us.
Some feminists to lazy to do anything but complain.
Some gamers to lazy to do anything but complain.

Let's be real.
Nothing significant has been solved with Gamergate.
What are there goes, because from what I been seeing, no one will be changing there mind.
You can't stop Zoe Quinn from being Zoe Quinn.
You can't stop Anita Sarkeesian from being Anita Sarkeesian.

You disagree with these people, you move on. Because even though I've heard claims of game devs listening to them (Which I will keep saying, is not a fucking problem at all.) when it comes to games as large, they will stay the same.

Rest easy lovers of Zelda games, Link will always be the hero . . . for the most part. At least I can play Zelda in Smash Bros and Hyrule Warriors.

Seriously. What actual harm has Anita done? It's on a game dev to choose to listen to her or not. I'm a creator and I hope to make some games in the future and I really don't give too shits about her opinion. Anita is not making campaigns to end Dead or Alive, Bayonetta or Grand Theft Auto.

If those you call SJWs get the games they want. I'm happy for them. Maybe I'll try one, I may like it or not. I got people who were all to shocked when I told them I don't like Skyrim at all. I have unpopular as opinions and so what?

It's crazy because half the people involved in gamergate, for or against. I never heard them before. I don't know to care about these people.

I'll admit when this started I held some fear of things about this whole issue, but that came down to the same fears I always have. The concept of no matter what you are for, you will be judged on whether or not you belong in that group.
These fears are irrational at best. I don't not fear these people.

Isn't the Japanese industry involved in gaming too? What do they think? They built most of gaming was we know it after all.
 

grassgremlin

New member
Aug 30, 2014
456
0
0
Jim_Callahan said:
No.

Pick whatever side you want, no one cares.

What you should AVOID doing is making this useless troll-thread for the 3141592765th time.
Troll - A person I disagree with.
 

Calbeck

Bearer of Pointed Commentary
Jul 13, 2008
758
0
0
erykweb said:
The main one being Leigh Alexander's. I just reread it, and frankly, she is right. The old demographic labeling of what people stereotypically think of as a "Gamer" was already fading.
Um... I hate to point this out, but it's a stereotype that she herself piled into, deliberately creating the biggest strawman I have seen outside of political blogsites.

She reinforced the stereotype not to dismiss it as false, but to say that the gaming community needed to target and run the stereotypes out. Classic lynch-mob rhetoric.

This movement, all of this harassment, is the nail in the coffin- proof that that label no longer fits the stereotype
You just completely reversed the standing rhetoric about Gamergate: supposedly, "all of this harassment" (which is constantly laid in whole at the movement's feet) is proof that the label DOES fit the stereotype. Maintaining the stereotype is most of what I have seen to date from that side of the fence.

Then those very same people over react
Ah, there you go, bringing it 'round full circle. Which, again, brings us back to the point that the stereotype is just that: a falsehood like every other stereotype. They always serve one goal: to point to an extreme minority of persons with negative features, and expand that image to smear a far larger community.

Yeah, they threaten and harass her en masse. They did a great job proving her point.
To date, I've seen no "threatening and harassing" of Leigh Alexander that would exceed, say, what the average CNN sportsdesk jock gets in his email folder on a daily basis. Again, using the stereotype to argue that the stereotype fits.

This is what GG has become; an excuse for people to throw hate at others.
I have no idea what GG you're witnessing, because that's not what I've been observing from within it for the last month.

Do you want to know who the last (and only) person I saw making a death threat while using the #Gamergate hashtag was? "Kill Anita". I went directly to that person's account to give them what-for, even as other GGers called him out for condemnation in more public circles...

...and I found anti-GG posts, to anti-GG threads, using the #StopGamergate2014 hashtag.

So yes. To date, the only actual threats I have seen from someone where evidence actually showed they might have had any affiliation to GamerGate, were from its opposition.

Oh, by the by, the USU Police and FBI investigated Ms. Sarkeesian's death threats and dismissed them as no threat.

http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54179

But feel free to keep treating debunked assertions with no basis in reality as deadly personal threats that not even the Secret Service would take seriously if they ended up in the President's inbox.
 

Calbeck

Bearer of Pointed Commentary
Jul 13, 2008
758
0
0
grassgremlin said:
Jim_Callahan said:
No.

Pick whatever side you want, no one cares.

What you should AVOID doing is making this useless troll-thread for the 3141592765th time.
Troll - A person I disagree with.
No, just someone who repeatedly claims the same debunked things for the sole purpose of derailing discourse, often for yuks.
Merely correcting the definition.
 

Saltyk

Sane among the insane.
Sep 12, 2010
16,755
0
0
PoolCleaningRobot said:
grassgremlin said:
Anti-GG do not want to see the points of Gamergate, while Gamergate only acknowledges those who completely exercise there ideals from Feminism or SJW. In a sense. You can't be a SJW and support Gamergate, that's the rhetoric I hate.
That depends on how you define a SJW and what you stand for. I agree with the gamergate stuff and I'd consider myself a "feminist". I may not have a social sciences degree, but in college I took a few courses on race and gender relations (because contrary to popular belief, there's more to such a topic than women). I know what my privileges are and I know what they aren't. Going by what I've seen, SJW's just want to argue about political correctness and do a bunch of finger pointing. Hell, I hate the phrase itself. Social Just "Warrior". We don't need warriors, there is no war. What people need are education and understanding.
I often find that when people say they want justice, they are lying. They don't want justice, they want revenge. They want someone to suffer and pay for their perceived crimes. What they should want is truth. But the truth can make you look bad, so it's better to demand justice. I suppose that's what makes them warriors in a sense.
 

Calbeck

Bearer of Pointed Commentary
Jul 13, 2008
758
0
0
grassgremlin said:
sataricon said:
there can be no middle ground if one side stands for truth and the other for pure bullshit. Go, find a middle ground with cancer and ebola, tell us how it ends.
Whichever side is bullshit usually depends on the person I talk to.
So let's just assume both sides are bullshit.

Some people actually have good reasons for hating gamergate.
Some people actually have good reasons for hating SJWs/Anti-GG/The People Actively Fighting/Trolling Gamergate/

Both movements are blobs with no consciousness. Just smacking around until one passes out.
Well, that and getting major corporations to pull advertising from toxic websites which promote abuse of their core customer base.
 

grassgremlin

New member
Aug 30, 2014
456
0
0
Calbeck said:
grassgremlin said:
Jim_Callahan said:
No.

Pick whatever side you want, no one cares.

What you should AVOID doing is making this useless troll-thread for the 3141592765th time.
Troll - A person I disagree with.
No, just someone who repeatedly claims the same debunked things for the sole purpose of derailing discourse, often for yuks.

Not saying YOU'RE a troll, of course. Merely correcting the definition.
I was making a joke about the fact that people fling the label so much, I'm not sure they know what it means.
Troll is very often use to address people they disagree with . . . .
 

Calbeck

Bearer of Pointed Commentary
Jul 13, 2008
758
0
0
Since, after all, every major boycott in the last thirty years has targeted the advertisers of those companies and organizations which offend. No one merely stopped listening to Laura Ingraham, the LGBT community got a number of her advertisers to pull out in response to some nasty things she said about them.

Less nasty, in fact, than what Leigh Alexander said about Gamers.

And I seriously doubt any of GG's opposition is going to come out and say the LGBT community was overreacting.
 

Calbeck

Bearer of Pointed Commentary
Jul 13, 2008
758
0
0
grassgremlin said:
I was making a joke about the fact that people fling the label so much, I'm not sure they know what it means.
Troll is very often use to address people they disagree with . . . .
Well, that's actually a very good point. It's one reason I don't actually call people trolls. If they are, they revel in the recognition, and if they aren't they are justifiably angered by the smear.

It's also why I only apply the term "SWJ" to persons who specifically identify themselves as such. I usually say "GG's opposition" or, on occasion, the Gaming Morality Police... since, after all, most of the anti-GG rage is over harassment issues which are applied without consideration to those people who've never engaged in it.

I've never appreciated guilt-by-association, so I try not to delve into it myself.
 

Akjosch

New member
Sep 12, 2014
155
0
0
Pluvia said:
Calbeck said:
Well, that and getting major corporations to pull advertising from toxic websites which promote abuse of their core customer base.
Rather than, you know, not going on those websites.
A proper, honest boycott involves way more than just doing nothing. You also need to take the time and energy and inform others who do business with the offending party (customers, suppliers, advertisers, everyone) why you're boycotting.
 

Calbeck

Bearer of Pointed Commentary
Jul 13, 2008
758
0
0
Akjosch said:
Pluvia said:
Calbeck said:
Well, that and getting major corporations to pull advertising from toxic websites which promote abuse of their core customer base.
Rather than, you know, not going on those websites.
A proper, honest boycott involves way more than just doing nothing. You also need to take the time and energy and inform others who do business with the offending party (customers, suppliers, advertisers, everyone) why you're boycotting.
Right. "Just leaving" isn't a boycott and never has been.
 

grassgremlin

New member
Aug 30, 2014
456
0
0
Pluvia said:
Calbeck said:
Well, that and getting major corporations to pull advertising from toxic websites which promote abuse of their core customer base.
Rather than, you know, not going on those websites.
It's funny because as of recent gaming sites have been pretty clear on which to avoid and which to support now.