GamerGate's Image Problem

[Caostotale]

Gamergate has an image problem like Batman has an image problem.

Makes sense to me, as I've come to see Batman as representing insufferable levels of far-right anarcho-capitalist fantasy, a bullshit ideal for anti-democratic sociopaths and technocrats everywhere.

How if I may ask? I'm legitimately curious since everything I know about Batman pretty much stems from the animated series and I pay little to no attention to any social commentary it may try and make.

It doesn't have much in terms of overt social commentary, but for me, a lot of that vibe comes through the series' basic premise, i.e. that the population of Gotham can only be saved from themselves (i.e. their weakness as a society seems to engender an endless supply of criminals and villains) by a mega-wealthy arch-capitalist superhuman (rendered even more Horatio Alger-like by the idea that he doesn't actually have any magical superpowers, rather that he 'earned' all of his abilities through grit and hard work) who operates above and beyond the law using expensive gadgetry that police or government agencies could obviously never be trusted with.

 

[doomrider7]

Gamergate has an image problem like Batman has an image problem.

Makes sense to me, as I've come to see Batman as representing insufferable levels of far-right anarcho-capitalist fantasy, a bullshit ideal for anti-democratic sociopaths and technocrats everywhere.

How if I may ask? I'm legitimately curious since everything I know about Batman pretty much stems from the animated series and I pay little to no attention to any social commentary it may try and make.

It doesn't have much in terms of overt social commentary, but for me, a lot of that vibe comes through the series' basic premise, i.e. that the population of Gotham can only be saved from themselves (i.e. their weakness as a society seems to engender an endless supply of criminals and villains) by a mega-wealthy arch-capitalist superhuman (rendered even more Horatio Alger-like by the idea that he doesn't actually have any magical superpowers, rather that he 'earned' all of his abilities through grit and hard work) who operates above and beyond the law using expensive gadgetry that police or government agencies could obviously never be trusted with.

It's complicated. Batman has shown little interest in running his business empire and it only exists t facilitate information gathering since if he has stock in electronics it would makes sense for him and his company to have information on that, same for pharmaceuticals or food(at least as shown in some issues thus it's subjective to change). As for the far-right anarcho-capitalist fantasy it depends n whether it's done intentionally or if it's just coincidence. The fact that he's written by numerous different authors would make the latter hard to gauge, but it is an interesting point.

 

[Joska]

Absolutely Gamergate needs to change it's name and make sure it keeps the misogynists out. otherwise it will never be taken seriously. Which is a shame because there are legitimate issues to address.

 

[Joska]

Gamergate has an image problem like Batman has an image problem.

Makes sense to me, as I've come to see Batman as representing insufferable levels of far-right anarcho-capitalist fantasy, a bullshit ideal for anti-democratic sociopaths and technocrats everywhere.

And people who really hate due process. I mean not really, Batman is an awesome piece of fiction. Batman in the real wold would be a complete disaster and a definite indication of mental illness for the supposed batman.

 

[xDarc]

How can Gamergate have an image problem when no one is leading it? To me, that seems ridiculous and suggests buying in to the stereotypes the establishment games media likes to throw around. Just ignore them and yell louder, as someone else has pointed out- what they have done as an organization is a so much worse than any one person they can point to and say look what that person did; and he associates with those people!

Who cares. I don't.

This doesn't need to turn into some introspective, this doesn't need to be anything other than righteous indignation at a bunch of corruption and disdain from people who make money off of us. I hope some of them get fired, I hope they lose sponsors, once the money gets hurt reform will follow.

 

[RexMundane]

How can Gamergate have an image problem when no one is leading it? To me, that seems ridiculous and suggests buying in to the stereotypes the establishment games media likes to throw around. Just ignore them and yell louder, as someone else has pointed out- what they have done as an organization is a so much worse than any one person they can point to and say look what that person did; and he associates with those people!

Who cares. I don't.

This doesn't need to turn into some introspective, this doesn't need to be anything other than righteous indignation at a bunch of corruption and disdain from people who make money off of us. I hope some of them get fired, I hope they lose sponsors, once the money gets hurt reform will follow.

The image problem is precisely because there's nobody in charge. Look, doing y'all the unearned favor of ignoring the misogyny, the abuse, all the bad stuff you don't want associated with the movement but aren't really doing much to stop, and all anyone looking in can see is a bunch of angry people without a plan, just hoping their rage is enough to make other people hurt, and when they're in enough pain they'll do what you want, which you don't even want to say yet.

The world has words for people like that, and none of them are "Hero."

Also, on the "hurt" front, when exactly were y'all planning to start hurting Kotaku? I mean to hear Gamergate tell it they're public enemy #1, yet it's a month in and they look to be stronger than when all this started [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/kotaku.com]. You sure you're "hurting" them correctly?

 

[xDarc]

The image problem is precisely because there's nobody in charge.

Nobody can take charge either. We just have to ride it out- anyone suggesting we organize something or break off the groups is mistaken. We're doing damage right now, just by discussing this and not being docile video game consuming neckbeards. You gotta give it time, but once the money gets hurt things will change fast without us having to demand anything.

 

[Calbeck]

Gamergate has an image problem like Batman has an image problem.

That depends. Are we talking Early Frank Miller or Current-Day Frank Miller? -:3

Okay, seriously, yeah, I'm pro-GG, but think about that for a second. Can anyone think of a more misogynistic person currently working in comics... and if this discussion were about "comics culture" instead of games, can anyone think what Anita Sarkeesian's videos would look like?

EDIT: Also, Rex, after watching you dismiss out of hand anything anyone says which doesn't match what you already believe, it's clear you don't want a debate. You've even said so. You're merely parroting talking-points about how the movement is evil and must be destroyed and can't be reasoned with and so on and so forth.

Not that I expect a rational response from you, just tossing off the comment before blocking because you're doing nothing to help the signal-to-noise ratio here.

 

[The_Darkness]

How can Gamergate have an image problem when no one is leading it?

Here's an example. In the UK, we had a bunch of riots up and down the country a couple of years back. No organisation, no leadership, just riots in pretty much every major city. Looting, arson, the works. Angry people letting out rage. They had a right to be enraged - there was a controversial police shooting which started the whole thing off - but the response was wrong.

I think it would be fairly accurate to say that public opinion of those riots is LOW.

So yes, you can have a public image problem without leadership. In fact it makes it more likely - groupthink is dangerous like that.

 

[RexMundane]

"You don't want to talk, therefore I'm blocking you." Again, I can tell this is just meant to make me feel bad in place of making an argument, but it's just adorable.

And for what my opinion's worth? Frank Miller isn't really what you'd conventionally consider "misogynist." Oh, he's general bananas, don't get me wrong, but his women, while frequently hyper-sexualized, aren't just relegated to the background, rarely defined as characters by being helpless or objectified, violence against them seldom normalized/tacitly endorsed, etc. I mean he's clearly got issues in how he views gender dynamics, evidenced in how he generally portrays men as well, and I won't hold him up as a modern feminist hero, but he could be a lot worse.

The image problem is precisely because there's nobody in charge.

Nobody can take charge either. We just have to ride it out- anyone suggesting we organize something or break off the groups is mistaken. We're doing damage right now, just by discussing this and not being docile video game consuming neckbeards. You gotta give it time, but once the money gets hurt things will change fast without us having to demand anything.

What on earth do you base that on? What historical precedent for an event like this do you assume that will be the outcome? History full of movements with leadership and clearly stated goals that succeed in the end, but you're going the other way because that's the smart thing? Why do you believe that?

And again, how are you convinced you're achieving anything? Look at the alexa for Polygon too [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/polygon.com], Public Enemy #2, yet ever since this started in mid-late August they've been on the rise a bit as well. If you're even having an effect at all, it's hardly obvious, to say nothing of positive for you.

 

[RexMundane]

Absolutely Gamergate needs to change it's name and make sure it keeps the misogynists out. otherwise it will never be taken seriously. Which is a shame because there are legitimate issues to address.

And christ, how many time do people have to tell other people about the facts that this isn't about "muh soggy knee"? If this is about muh soggy knee plenty of females in #gamergate wouldn't bother to leave their house. 1 millions tweets, week 5 and a discovery of a gaming journalist cabal. Seriously? Misogyny at this point is uses only as a shield to deflect or refute legitimate criticisms. Which all gaming media did with their smear articles, hence why a lot of people took it.

And also, the "change its name" argument popped up many time. But here's the thing about it: It create a self-destroying vicious circle.

1.People start out as #gamergate
2.Then critics want to change tag because the original tag is "misogynistic"
3.#gamergate change to say...#gameethnic
4.Critics then criticized it for having roots in #gamergate, because it is "misogynistic"
5.Repeat step 2 to 4 until the movement destroyed itself

I have talked to people who thought that would be a good move and they wouldn't hold the misogynistic roots of #gamergate with the new tag, but seeing this is the internet we are talking about, it won't be that way.

Okay then, lets play along. In spite of all of this stemming from Zoe Quinn having the vagina that broke the camel's back in all this, and the harassment she's received as a result, and that the hashtag was created when Baldwin was sharing the video about her, let us assume there was never any similar sentiment involved in this at all, and this was only only only ever about journalism and ethics.

So how's Anita Sarkeesian fit into all this? She's not a journalist guilty of emailing other journalists, not an indiedev accused of sleeping her way to the top, nothing more than a commentator. So why's she so important GG has to damage control and pretend they're not talking about her by using a nickname? Why's Milo climbing up her ass and claimind she's lying about police reports using the hashtag? If this is so about her that you need to keep saying how much it isn't, how does she even get brought up?

PS - I assume you didn't mean to say #gameethnic while defending against charges of prejudice, but come on, it's a little funny you did.

 

[Calbeck]

And also, the "change its name" argument popped up many time. But here's the thing about it: It create a self-destroying vicious circle.

1.People start out as #gamergate
2.Then critics want to change tag because the original tag is "misogynistic"
3.#gamergate change to say...#gameethnic
4.Critics then criticized it for having roots in #gamergate, because it is "misogynistic"
5.Repeat step 2 to 4 until the movement destroyed itself

I have talked to people who thought that would be a good move and they wouldn't hold the misogynistic roots of #gamergate with the new tag, but seeing this is the internet we are talking about, it won't be that way.

Heck, it's already happened.

It's been pointed out on innumerable occasions that GamerGate did not exist until the "Gamers are Dead" articles came out, that it coalesced as a direct reaction to an attack on the gaming community as a whole.

The universal response, to date? "GamerGate has its roots in misogyny because this all started with harassment against ZQ/AS".

It does not matter what we call ourselves, it does not matter how few harassers there were compared to non-harassers now, it does not matter how large and diverse GamerGate becomes, because none of that suits the desired narrative... that gaming culture itself is deeply diseased, the disease must be expunged, and gaming culture must be completely remade in a utopian image of nebulously-defined "inclusiveness".

That isn't conspiracy theory, either. It's what's been said in numerous speeches and statements by various of the same people currently arrayed against GamerGate.

To us, it is about being slandered.

To them, it is about a just and necessary culture war.

I remember hearing someone talk about having a just and necessary culture war, once.

His name was Pat Buchanan, and he's a jerk.

 

[RexMundane]

Okay then, lets play along. In spite of all of this stemming from Zoe Quinn having the vagina that broke the camel's back in all this, and the harassment she's received as a result, and that the hashtag was created when Baldwin was sharing the video about her, let us assume there was never any similar sentiment involved in this at all, and this was only only only ever about journalism and ethics.

So how's Anita Sarkeesian fit into all this? She's not a journalist guilty of emailing other journalists, not an indiedev accused of sleeping her way to the top, nothing more than a commentator. So why's she so important GG has to damage control and pretend they're not talking about her by using a nickname? Why's Milo climbing up her ass and claimind she's lying about police reports using the hashtag? If this is so about her that you need to keep saying how much it isn't, how does she even get brought up?

PS - I assume you didn't mean to say #gameethnic while defending against charges of prejudice, but come on, it's a little funny you did.

#gameethnic was a tag that devised as a diversionary tactic. It didn't work. I'm just making a joke on it.

...no, see because you meant to say Ethic, but you said Ethnic which means... ah, forget it.

 

[RexMundane]

...no, see because you meant to say Ethic, but you said Ethnic which means... ah, forget it.

My mother tongue is not English. So you will have to pardon me.
But was my answer satisfied you?

Sorry, assumed it was merely a typo and not a language difficulty, didn't mean any offense, just thought it was amusing.

That said, it's all well and good to try and distance yourselves from attacking Anita now, but I've been following this a while, and that's what the attitude was two weeks ago when the whole "she never contacted the authorities" mess happened, so I don't see a change. It's well and good to say you learned from the experience, but the next week when the GDC Bomb Threat story broke the immediate assumption was that she made it up to divert from Milo's emails, instead of it being exactly six months to the date since it happened and the GDC could talk about it now. Gate lost it's mind and got back to attacking her again, and then the facts come out and "oh, well we've learned a lesson" again. Are you telling me you believe that if another story about her comes up, and another flimsy excuse to attack her again appears, that the whole thread is going to politely avoid mentioning her?

And as far as #GameEthics being a diversionary tactic, this is frankly why I have a hard time taking Gate seriously at all. Nobody is saying you can't use both (afaik), just if you have reasonable arguments, why not make them there as well? Look, whatever you think of Gate and it's motives, you have to acknowledge that it has a toxic public perception. If you have points you want to make, by all means make them elsewhere. This insane insularity, never leave the hashtag, never list our goals, never have someone in control (and incidentally, if you don't think Milo has you eating out of the palm of his hand, you are sorely mistaken), this is cult behavior. If you're unwilling to reach out and meet halfway, why should they come to you?

 

[WindKnight]

One thing I have to ask (and sorry if this has been covered already), but given GG tends to misrepresent and take anything negative said about hem as an attack, why are they hailing Milo Yiannopolous a hero when he wrote this [http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/08/14/Players-as-young-as-12-and-13-are-being-raped-by-dorky-weirdos-on-Grand-Theft-Auto] article on an unpleasent GTA Online mod?

I mean, in several places he's outright saying things a certain feminist hasn't said but is actively accused of saying.

 

[Mouser_House]

The only thing I never understand is that if the /b/ board on 4chan is bringing the entire board to such a low level that even the admins of the site wouldn't be surprised if they all got arrested for it's very existence...why don't they finally put that thread to rest.

The site admin needs to pretty much permanently close down /b/, /r9k/ and /pol/ but as soon as he does this they're all going to retaliate and raid and DDoS the rest of the site for weeks, maybe longer.

The site has been around for over a decade so it's had time to gather up shitty people in its "containment boards." Now with the hacker celeb leaks, the publicity makes the site look uglier than ever, no matter what kind of steps the admin takes to archive threads and up security. The smart 4chan users are counting down until the site gets purged/sold/raided by Sweden. They're ready to jump ship.

On the one hand it's probably for the best that the mods got tired of GG threads spamming the report function and finally gave them the boot. On the other hand, it's pretty bizarre that they'd get punished before /b/, /r9k/ or /pol/ did. Or is it? It's because late GG was still just a small fraction of /v/ users with some refugees from reddit and neogaf mixed in. Kicking them off the site was easy enough. And they are definitely not an army of hackers.

 

[Jaegerbombastic]

And as far as #GameEthics being a diversionary tactic, this is frankly why I have a hard time taking Gate seriously at all. Nobody is saying you can't use both (afaik), just if you have reasonable arguments, why not make them there as well? Look, whatever you think of Gate and it's motives, you have to acknowledge that it has a toxic public perception. If you have points you want to make, by all means make them elsewhere. This insane insularity, never leave the hashtag, never list our goals, never have someone in control (and incidentally, if you don't think Milo has you eating out of the palm of his hand, you are sorely mistaken), this is cult behavior. If you're unwilling to reach out and meet halfway, why should they come to you?

The #GameEthics tag was never meant to discuss the issues Gamergate brought up while being free of the previous hashtag's supposed taint. It was meant to derail the conversation. We have screenshots of the original creator of the tag where he outright says it. And, if you actually look at the posts in the tag, there was very little talk about the issues of the relationship between certain indie devs and games journalists. In fact most of the tweets are no more than pats on the back on how #GameEthics was oh so cooler than #Gamergate with no actual discussion. It was blatant astroturf, hence why it died after a couple days.

Again, why are you so adamant that Twitter is a good place to hold these discussion while a livestream is somehow tainted?

 

[RexMundane]

Here's the thing about the 6 month bomb thing, everyone i know were never under the assumption that Anita made it up. We were however mad at KOTAKU for publishing such a huge story 6 months late, 5 minutes right after Nero's mailing list came up. You'd thought a story about bombing would be publish a bit earlier than that. And we also mad at KOTAKU for using Anita as a shield AGAIN, for how many time now. Of course, some people gonna say that it is Anita and all that, but we tried our best to police ourselves here. The link to SilverString Media is still one of our sore spots that needed to address. Hence why all those factored in to why we can be a bit jumpy when talking about her.

It wasn't "late" though, it was the earliest that the relevant parties could have made any comment. It's not just "6 months" as an approximate, it was exactly 26 weeks later and any gag order or otherwise police sanctioned silence on the issue would have lifted. As it was just a threat and not an actual bomb where lives were at stake, and since the "bomber" clearly just wanted attention, the best thing would be to deny it to him, hence the silence for this much time. There was no reason to bring it up before the gag ran out.

As far as the timing, I'm not going to pretend I can prove Kotaku didn't release it at the moment they did in order to try and divert from Milo, pushing it earlier than need be for whatever reason. But similarly, to get just as conspiratorial, can you prove Milo didn't know that was the day the GDC story was going to hit? I mean think about it, that FOIA request would have gone through, the emails from the SFPD mention the incident in March, so he could easily have known about it, so is it possible that it's the other way around? That Milo was trying to pre-empt the GDC story, only to claim after the fact that it was a false-flag? I mean neither of us has proof either way on this, it's all speculation, my point is why assume the worst out of hand either way?

Again, why are you so adamant that Twitter is a good place to hold these discussion while a livestream is somehow tainted?

Jesus hell when on earth did I Defend Twitter as a forum for reasonable dialogue?

And to clarify my point from yesterday, which I had thought would have been obvious, "livestream" isn't a problem, "hostile livestream" is. Some kind of 3rd party moderator (whoever that'd be in this situation) trying to keep conversation on point and all sides having equal time to make their case to a receptive audience? Fantastic.

 

[Caostotale]

Gamergate has an image problem like Batman has an image problem.

Makes sense to me, as I've come to see Batman as representing insufferable levels of far-right anarcho-capitalist fantasy, a bullshit ideal for anti-democratic sociopaths and technocrats everywhere.

And people who really hate due process. I mean not really, Batman is an awesome piece of fiction. Batman in the real world would be a complete disaster and a definite indication of mental illness for the supposed batman.

Exactly, and this is what seems to be the most silly thing about Gamergate. Whatever their platform was initially built on and whatever it represents now, all of its momentum is based on some vague conspiratorial sense that the gaming market is somehow failing due to the presence of specific 'outsider influences' and 'supervillains' and that they have to purge the gaming media to set things right again. They have to save gaming from itself because the consumer base simply doesn't know better and has been completely led astray or scattered chaotically by that handful of blacklisted writers. At no point do they stop and consider the blunt fucking truth that consumer bases grow and change over time and that the gaming industry would be suicidal if it ignored those forces and clung to some 'gaming fundamentalism', nor do they stop and consider the fact that 99% of the purchasing gaming audience gives a fuck about gaming media to begin with. But nope...these clowns have just declared themselves Bruce Wayne or John Galt and all those journalists need to be thrown into Arkham or kept out of Galt's Gulch. I feel like a lot of the people who are finding the movement completely exacerbating feel that way because we're confident in an idea that the world doesn't operate based on cartoon or comic book rules (a ruleset that always ends up needing some degree of far-right authoritarian behavior on the heroes' parts, as things like the actual market, due process, etc... are just too untrustworthy).

 

[Calbeck]

...no, see because you meant to say Ethic, but you said Ethnic which means... ah, forget it.

My mother tongue is not English. So you will have to pardon me.
But was my answer satisfied you?

Could have fooled me, your English is better than many Americans I've met. -