Leaving aside the lack of a real conflict of interest, a more important point is that this particular incident was initially dubbed the Quinnspiracy, rather than GraysonGate. The curious focus was and continues to be on the female game dev who had an ethical obligation only to her boyfriend rather than on the male journalist who had an ethical obligation to the public. Gamergate supporters should really stop and take some time to think about why the focus was on someone other than the journalist.AntiChri5 said:
GamerGate's Image Problem
- Thread starter entelechy
- Start date
I'm sorry, did I not answer as you expected? Did my call for you to actually use the word the way it is defined not fit right? Or did my mention of the reasons why people hate an individual who happens to be a woman and thus not actual misogyny happen to circumvent the attempt to, once again, dishonestly present the movement as something it never was?BobDobolina said:
Because, no, threatening a woman, harassing a woman, doing anything to A woman is not instantly misogyny because A woman does not represent ALL women. This is why I said that is a sexist ideal, because it deprives women of individuality. You are saying that a woman is not an individual, she is a part of the whole, she represents all women and thus an attack on her as an individual is an attack on all women.
This is your disconnect and this is your fallacy. Actions to an individual does not represent actions to all groups that individual adheres to unless you dishonestly present it.
What you are trying to argue here is that a man is an individual, but a woman is a collective. You are treating a person differently based on their gender alone, the very definition of sexism itself.
Tell me, is every insult towards a woman misogyny?
I asked you to show me misogyny and instead you scoffed again. It seems that is all you will ever do when asked to present an actual argument.
Hey Runic, although your efforts to engage with the opposition are admirable it appears evident that both sides are entrenched. I learned alot from this topic. Hopefully we can take some valid criticisms here and help fix the negative views some people who are unfamiliar with the situation may have. The key is to leave all emotion out of debate. Rational thought will trump emotion always.
I am glad you learned some at least. But I think I will keep posting just the same. There is a lot of value in the thread to be had even with those entrenched. May not be able to argue rationally with all people but I can certainly try to get a better understanding of how gamergate itself is viewed, which does help to understand how to improve things.KokujinTensai said:
As an aside, and in a doomed attempt to try and bring this back to the original topic, I'm becoming of the opinion that Leigh Alexander is about to be dubbed Literally Who #3, in that it lately feels like they can't shut up about her, but might yet realize that, much like Zoe and Anita, it's problematic to their public image to be seen fixating on her, but since they can't stop themselves, they'll start using the nickname in the hopes of fooling anyone at all. Maybe I'm talking out my ass, maybe my psychic radar is acting up again, just a hunch is all.
Not in the court of public opinion, which is the only place where this whole mess will have lasting impact. Will the SJWs, Special Snowflakes, and far-left academics be exposed for what they are? Or will they further entrench themselves in the public consciousness as "the side you have to be seen to support in order to be a good person"?KokujinTensai said:
runic
Okay, I will agree that hyper-sensitivity is an issue all round. But I don't agree that none of the criticism toward Anita Sarkeesian came from a misogynistic point of view. In fact I would say she got quite a bit of hate coming from people like that. Genuine criticism likely did get misinterpreted as misogynist in nature, I agree, but I just don't agree it was "any and all criticism of her is misogyny". More to the point I think its fair to say she weathered quite a bit of hate and that it might have altered her own lens to a degree.
I think Bob did touch on an important point though. It may not have been you or anyone you personally know, but the fact remains there was quite a bit of misogyny going on. It got bad. Now I know people have tried to move away from that, and that's good. But I wonder if it hadn't effected GG more than people realize.
There seems to be a lot of distancing going on, as expected. But I get the sense that it may be going too far. Like people are so angry and ashamed that they are seen this way but have genuine concerns. They can't attack those responsible for the bad stuff and so are lashing out, trying to create enemies everywhere. They're frustrated that they are being ignored and are perceived in a very negative light that they themselves are aware of on some level and the anger just keeps building and building. I've noticed some very sharp rhetoric coming out mega thread and its been getting harsher and harsher as they keep trying to define who is and is not the enemy.
Mega thread is honestly the strangest thread I've seen, ever. Don't take that as an insult, but its hard to find the right words to describe it.
I really think a good course of action would be getting some level headed folks together and start talking to the Journalists to start addressing the transparency and corruption side of things. There are people out side of the debate that will back that. The social stuff will have to come later, tempers are too hot right now. The industry and media people I've heard speak about this are having a hard time with the bad side of GG. In fact their social view have only strengthened because of it. There is no other option I can see at this point if you genuinely want change.
This has to be done fast while the interest is high.
Okay, I will agree that hyper-sensitivity is an issue all round. But I don't agree that none of the criticism toward Anita Sarkeesian came from a misogynistic point of view. In fact I would say she got quite a bit of hate coming from people like that. Genuine criticism likely did get misinterpreted as misogynist in nature, I agree, but I just don't agree it was "any and all criticism of her is misogyny". More to the point I think its fair to say she weathered quite a bit of hate and that it might have altered her own lens to a degree.
I think Bob did touch on an important point though. It may not have been you or anyone you personally know, but the fact remains there was quite a bit of misogyny going on. It got bad. Now I know people have tried to move away from that, and that's good. But I wonder if it hadn't effected GG more than people realize.
There seems to be a lot of distancing going on, as expected. But I get the sense that it may be going too far. Like people are so angry and ashamed that they are seen this way but have genuine concerns. They can't attack those responsible for the bad stuff and so are lashing out, trying to create enemies everywhere. They're frustrated that they are being ignored and are perceived in a very negative light that they themselves are aware of on some level and the anger just keeps building and building. I've noticed some very sharp rhetoric coming out mega thread and its been getting harsher and harsher as they keep trying to define who is and is not the enemy.
Mega thread is honestly the strangest thread I've seen, ever. Don't take that as an insult, but its hard to find the right words to describe it.
I really think a good course of action would be getting some level headed folks together and start talking to the Journalists to start addressing the transparency and corruption side of things. There are people out side of the debate that will back that. The social stuff will have to come later, tempers are too hot right now. The industry and media people I've heard speak about this are having a hard time with the bad side of GG. In fact their social view have only strengthened because of it. There is no other option I can see at this point if you genuinely want change.
This has to be done fast while the interest is high.
That's not whats going on, even a little. Mega thread is ALL emotions. Its fast becoming a problem because few, if any, see it.KokujinTensai said:
For all that I disagree with runic, he/she is one of the few willing to brave the area outside the echo chamber of mega thread.
My problem with claims like "there was a lot of misogyny going on" is that they are based on nothing but a blind assertion that it simply is the case, and that I do have to call into question. Even sidelining how the entire thing was written off as misogyny and the behavior of the media to paint all criticism as such, there is still this sort of assertion that there is misogyny involved and I don't get where it comes from on this other then the fact the woman involved was, well, a woman. Do we think about it being misandristic when thunderf00t was harassed on youtube, even though he was expressing a dislike of feminism? Most likely not, even though it is the mirror of what happened with Anita.aliengmr said:
Using the definition of misogyny as an actual hatred to women on the basis of them being women, it becomes sort of absurd to me to think that for all the very valid reasons why people would hate, insult or even harass the likes of Anita on an individual level (Anita is a controversial personality with many unhappy with how she presents her videos and uses tactics like the journalists currently called out), that instead it is just a general knee-jerk hate reaction based on gender on a large scale? Something just seems very off about that sort of logic. An unspoken accusation to all people who interact with women where one women is always representative of the whole.
Do keep in mind, my complaint is not that the treatment she got was acceptable or that it was justified, but rather that it was not motivated by what everyone keeps trying to claim it was motivated by. And regardless if that is your intent, when you say "this is misogyny" you are claiming that the motivation of intent was a hatred of women. Misogyny is a claim of motivation in the end, not of action.
If I argue against a woman, the act of doing so is not because she is a woman, but because I am arguing against her as in individual. If I insult a woman, the same remains true. And this is why I see so many painting this as misogyny as largely doing the word injustice. A bunch of gamers harassed Anita on twitter and youtube not because she was a woman, but because they disliked what she said. Why is that less likely then as a group they were motivated by a hatred of women in general? Not saying there isn't some misogyny involved, same as I would not argue that some misandry wasn't invovled in the response thunderf00t got on youtube, but the amount of that paint being used with such broad strokes just seems to belittle the word into nothing but an insulting buzzword of late.
I... you know what. You might be on to something about that. Many people I have talked to on this got tired of people dismissing, laughing at them or attempting to shame or derail them in other threads when they tried to talk for too long about the topic and have sense just sort of stuck to the major thread since so many have just felt that it wasn't worth it to keep dealing with that crap and at least the megathread they had enough of a presence to let the newsroom aspect of it remain and be able to deal with the dozens of people posting about how much they don't care about this or how it is a shock that people still care.aliengmr said:
But you are right, they seem to have sort of gotten used to that and they should probably break out and argue against the negative view associated with that thread some. I guess even I assumed it was just a lot less stress for everyone, mods included, to try to keep it isolated to that thread and let everyone have their space, even if they wanted to laugh at us behind our backs. But perhaps I should try encouraging them to speak out in the other threads some and try to show we aren't the crackpot misogynists we are painted as.
It looks a lot different because you're engaging in hyperbole of your own.entelechy said:
First of all, there's an awful lot of strawmanning and appeals to ridicule going on here...
Straw man: An argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
Appeal to ridicule: An argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.
...so you pretty much lose a lot of your credibility in this debate right off the bat, but let's just see how many other fallacies you've invoked and logical errors you've made in all this, shall we?
{showed conclusive proof that some of}entelechy said:
So you're implying that because some of the women and minorities did not exist, that somehow magically negates the existence of all the others that did? Wow. There's a term to describe that, and it is...
Fallacy of composition: Assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.
And on we go...
{and many of the others exhibited signs of} internalized self-loathing
Do you have any evidence for this horrendously offensive accusation? Just so we're clear here, people, Entelechy just claimed that many of the women and minorities who came out as pro-GamerGate secretly hate themselves and don't know what they're saying. And I really hope he does have evidence handy, because if he doesn't, he's just committed the fallacy of...
False attribution: Appealing to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.
{most prominent video bloggers} attacking Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesianentelechy said:
So the act of prominent video bloggers criticizing women counts as misogyny just because the people they're criticizing happen to be female? By that dubious logic, the anti-GamerGate people are all misandrists because they hate straight white men.
{for making a really lame parody of Anita Sarkeesian's videos}
Nice to know that making parodies justifies being attacked now.
Also, this entire argument is ignoratio elenchi...
Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion): An argument that may or may not be valid, but does not address the issue in question.
...because it utterly fails to address the hypocrisy of why the anti-GamerGate side only grabs the pitchforks and torches when the women they favor are being attacked but don't seem to care when the women they don't favor are.
{informed the public about the conservative employer of, and lack of evidence presented by}
Are you implying that being a conservative is somehow evil? Also, she presented plenty of evidence, though I understand your confusion, because Sommers managed to cram more raw data and facts into 7 minutes than Sarkeesian did into around 70 minutes of video. You also seem to not be aware of the following checklist...
https://medium.com/@cainejw/the-factual-feminist-a-factcheck-f5ae584f56da
...where each and every statement Sommers makes is factchecked and verified. Which, I'm afraid, is more than can be said for you at this point. But even though we've hit rock bottom, fear not! We'll just break out the pickaxes and keep on digging...
{due to their questionable trans policy motivated by the fear that dudes might pretend to be trans to get that sweet, sweet 8% of profits}entelechy said:
Ah yes, self-identification as the sole criteria is controversial even though it adheres to Canadian law and is actually pretty liberal when you look at it. Given how utterly awful your arguments are, I'm pretty sure you're no lawyer, so I'm really not sure you're the most qualified person to question an entire country's legal system.
Oh, and 8% of the profits is the standard fee for a producer in television shows.
{said that} one black man on Twitter {might have a hard time getting into the industry after being a giant douche to so many of the people working in it}
No, no, she quite clearly threatened the black guy here, actually:
The entire context is here:
https://twitter.com/IncrediRoe/status/464526542853640192
Nice to know that "a dozen women" disagreeing with someone constitutes "the vast majority of women". Also nice to know that what counts as truth can be determined by an impromptu Twitter vote.
I will admit that we do seem to be getting two issues confused here, as this seems to refer to a separate incident:
{be pleased that the industry she works in will not hire people who are openly an asshole to their potential colleagues}.
There seems to be a misconception about the exact details of that conversation. Here, let's clear that up by allowing a Reddit user who actually went through that entire thing before it was conveniently deleted to summarize it:
I went through that developer's Twitter feed. What started it was Vlambeer posting a tweet about rampant gender inequality women face in the games industry, which the developer disagreed with. Other indie devs and journalists joined in with Vlambeer, pointing out that the developer should be ashamed for not acknowledging his white male privilege, which he counters by saying that his family was poor and he wasn't asked to be born white. Vlambeer responds with:
You misunderstand. Being a 'white male' was handed to you.
They unanimously conclude that he's racist, sexist, anti-Muslim, and possibly a misogynist, and that it will be difficult for him to pursue a career in the games industry.
Hmm...that seems quite different from your summary of events. Also, please note, everyone reading this, how you can earn the label of racist, sexist, anti-Muslim, and misogynist just for disagreeing with the anti-GamerGate Social Justice Hivemind.
To everyone still reading this who isn't Entelechy but is still in the anti-GamerGate camp, I respectfully request that you mentally review everything you think you know about this entire situation and ask yourself whether this was a conclusion you came to yourself or it's an opinion you adopted because someone pushed an anti-gamer narrative at you. Take a step back, check out the actual evidence out there as opposed to what people merely claim is true, and then decide for yourself.
In fact, I'll lapse into immaturity for a moment and double dog dare all of you to factcheck everything I've said here and call me out on any gross misrepresentations of the situations I've made. I may not have gotten everything 100% right, but I did my best to tell the truth.
Which is more than some people can claim.
You're totally right and there are voices attempting to quell the emotion, but as you can see this topic has gotten people very riled up and it's not necessarily an easy task. I know its easy to just label us all petulant manchildren but I urge both sides to avoid making such broad generalizations. I also dislike echo chambers which is why I'm here trying to see how those who oppose us view us.aliengmr said:
runic
I'll try to keep this short, life stuff.
I don't think there is any question at all that the hostility toward the women involved were because they were women. Not 100% of it, but I should point out that the men involved received FAR less attention, Greyson being the chief example of that. Seriously, some of the stuff was down right horrible. Not placing it at your feet, just telling you what I witnessed. Hence my extreme reluctance to sign up.
I've seen it before this as well, the hostility towards women making criticisms is just much higher. We haven't wanted to admit it because, I believe, we just don't know what to do about it and think we are complicate in it when we aren't. I agree its a frustrating place to be in as a man. I also think language used has an effect. Anita's videos have that problem, I think.
I do also wonder what role culture plays in this debate.
The latter part is really just my opinions so take them with a grain of salt.
Gotta go.
I'll try to keep this short, life stuff.
I don't think there is any question at all that the hostility toward the women involved were because they were women. Not 100% of it, but I should point out that the men involved received FAR less attention, Greyson being the chief example of that. Seriously, some of the stuff was down right horrible. Not placing it at your feet, just telling you what I witnessed. Hence my extreme reluctance to sign up.
I've seen it before this as well, the hostility towards women making criticisms is just much higher. We haven't wanted to admit it because, I believe, we just don't know what to do about it and think we are complicate in it when we aren't. I agree its a frustrating place to be in as a man. I also think language used has an effect. Anita's videos have that problem, I think.
I do also wonder what role culture plays in this debate.
The latter part is really just my opinions so take them with a grain of salt.
Gotta go.
I will agree, what some people have said or done on both sides is utterly despicable. Hell, right now the megathread is posting a lot of cases of pro-GG people being hacked and being called on home phones and I am sure people on the other side of the divide have been dealing with similar attacks. That shit isn't right on either side.aliengmr said:
I have to disagree still that it was misogynistic though. The sort of hate and harassment youtubers like thunderf00t or The Amazing Atheist get is easily equivalent to what anita or Zoe got if not more so before this blew up. Afterwards, considering how Zoe was the center of a lot of different controversies such as sabotaging TFYC, the wizardchan debacle and so forth, as well as the constant attempts to paint questions about her as misogynistic has lead to an easily predictable backlash against her. There is are reasons why zoe was the spark of this, as she had connections to many different issues, while the individual people she was connected with at the start were just that, the connections to those elements. Furthermore, Zoe has done a lot more to maintain in the spot light compared to the others who have generally kept their heads down in comparison. Honestly, look at how people are now going after Kuchera now that is was revealed what an asshole he is. I don't think that is how misogyny as motivation would work.
you claim that women get more hostility but I have to ask where that is coming from. Is that based on the hostility seen, or the reporting of the hostility?
In a cultural discussion, I could see how societal pressures would shape how such things are reported and thus presenting the case that it happens more to one gender then the other, but something here just doesn't make sense, not from a cultural nor from a logical standpoint, that women would get more harassment solely for being women. Just, why would that be the case?
The reason that the women appear to be bearing the brunt of the attack is that ZQ and AS keep getting shoved back into the spotlight for one reason for another. Leigh Alexander keeps coming up because not only was her Gamasutra article particularly vile, but because she seemed to almost revel in being as mean as possible on Twitter. Grayson's not getting much flak because he wisely decided to lay low, but Ben Kuchera's definitely been getting a lot of crap.aliengmr said:
You're also neglecting the fact that a lot of the men on the pro-GamerGate side, such as Adam Baldwin, Milo, Internet Aristocrat and Boogie have also been relentlessly attacked.
If - and that's a big if - there's any increased hostility towards women, then it's due largely to the anti-GamerGate crowds overplaying of the sexism/misogyny card. They can't seem to differentiate between people criticizing a women just for being a woman (real misogyny) and criticizing a person who just happens to be a woman (not misogyny). It's extremely difficult and frustrating to argue with someone can not only magically turn an entire crowd against you just by yelling "Sexist!" or "Misogynist!" but is also never called out on their crap for doing so.aliengmr said:
Replace "GGers" and put in "Anti-GGers" in that sentance and you have the reason why #NotYourShield became a thing. I don't want to get into a long drawn out discussion with you (based on your previous posts nothing will come out if for either of us), but your comment reacks of hypocracy and a lacking of self-awareness bordering on the absurd.BobDobolina said:
I can also think of a word for all this, which also starts with an "m". Misandric. It would still be wrong as next to nothing has been bread from the genuine hatred of men by women, but hey, who needs things like 'definitions' for words? It's not like words have meaning after all.
Yes, I believe it was "misrepresentation"? Oh, I think you may have meant something else there, was it "misconstrue"? Hmm, might have to keep guessing at that, time to break out the dictionary I guess.BobDobolina said:
You know, you are saying here that whenever a female representative doesn't agree is when people start to call them out, readily admitting that it is "when they disagree" and not because of the gender of the person involved, and yet still want to try to hint at what you were hinting at? Seems to actually be arguing that it isn't a hatred of women that motivates people but rather the personal opinions and stances they disagree with, as though they would get the same reaction if they weren't women. Kinda like one Kuchera perhaps?
So, would you readily admit then that why people disagree and criticize these women is not because they are women and is instead because what they say itself is found disagreeable?
And in relation to the larger thread topic itself, would helping spread this information around, that the disagreement has nothing to do with the gender of the people involved and everything to do with their actual stances and opinions as individuals and thus misogyny is not the motivation behind gamergate itself? You know, I think you are on to something there, thank you for that one, it should help a lot in trying to help people learn about this whole movement.