GamerGate's Image Problem

[RexMundane]

I feel like i'm getting baited here, but let's keep going.

What good have I done? Start up a discussion in another place, free of shills and cowards who cannot stand that other people was able to point out their flaws of logic. You called it "bullying", I called it "criticism".

...and you feel like you're being baited? You come in and declare yourself heroic paragon of truth amidst a cavalcade of phonies, and you feel like you're being baited? You're desperately fixating on this non-issue you created specifically to derail any conversation being had, and you feel like you're being baited?

I... jesus again I can't even really be angry because this is just so silly. It's genuinely as though you believe anyone listening, on a Video Game forum of all places, has never actually encountered a bully in their lives or knows how they talk. You came here, called him a coward, what, in the name of truth and justice? To start a discussion about cowardice? "Oh, no, I'm not slinging shit, I'm just stating facts, just opening up a debate, so we can have a healthy dialogue about his cowardice."

And again, you're doing this in a thread about why people don't like the image of Gamergate!

The thing about Occupy is that the organization stopped at calling people on twitter. That's about it. Then it is all mob rule from there. But with #gamergate it is an online boycott that taking place on the internet plain, where a lot of people have access to skills and other means to spread the message/capture evidence of wrong doing/so on and so forth. That's the main difference as far as i could see.

Were you just asleep during it then? They did boycott the businesses they felt most wronged. They did disseminate evidence and other information online. They did all the... good lord what are you even... Gah!

?Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.?

¯ George Carlin

Goddamit I didn't listen! I DIDN'T LISTEN!!

 

[doomrider7]

Looking at this whole GamerGate issue from the sidelines, it's starting to remind me a bit of the Occupy Wall Street protests a couple years ago.

One group is trying to expose corruption through somewhat questionable means (and a few bad apples on their side), while the second group (and most of the surrounding media) are completely dismissing the first group's claims as not true or not important, and are using those few bad apples to paint the entire group as immature children.

But that's just my opinion, as I haven't been really paying attention, or at least haven't been trying to.

...

I will now put on my flame shield from both groups, and run away screaming.

I wouldn't say they're dismissing the claims as untrue, it's just that the claims of corruption that GG is using as so minor, petty, and shallow compared to actual problems in the industry like review launch parties and gifting, both of which Jim Sterling discussed in one of his recent videos. The fact that editors of sites and publications talk to one another and frequently shoot off ideas of one another and ask for advice on how to deal with certain situations or opinions on things including sharing stories and information seemed to somehow come as shock to them in spite of the fact that such things are common practice in journalism ESPECIALLY entertainment based.

I feel like i'm getting baited here, but let's keep going.

What good have I done? Start up a discussion in another place, free of shills and cowards who cannot stand that other people was able to point out their flaws of logic. You called it "bullying", I called it "criticism".

...and you feel like you're being baited? You come in and declare yourself heroic paragon of truth amidst a cavalcade of phonies, and you feel like you're being baited? You're desperately fixating on this non-issue you created specifically to derail any conversation being had, and you feel like you're being baited?

I... jesus again I can't even really be angry because this is just so silly. It's genuinely as though you believe anyone listening, on a Video Game forum of all places, has never actually encountered a bully in their lives or knows how they talk. You came here, called him a coward, what, in the name of truth and justice? To start a discussion about cowardice? "Oh, no, I'm not slinging shit, I'm just stating facts, just opening up a debate, so we can have a healthy dialogue about his cowardice."

And again, you're doing this in a thread about why people don't like the image of Gamergate!

The thing about Occupy is that the organization stopped at calling people on twitter. That's about it. Then it is all mob rule from there. But with #gamergate it is an online boycott that taking place on the internet plain, where a lot of people have access to skills and other means to spread the message/capture evidence of wrong doing/so on and so forth. That's the main difference as far as i could see.

Were you just asleep during it then? They did boycott the businesses they felt most wronged. They did disseminate evidence and other information online. They did all the... good lord what are you even... Gah!

?Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.?

¯ George Carlin

Goddamit I didn't listen! I DIDN'T LISTEN!!

Saddest part is that he doesn't know or realize that Sherdog is for the most part the /b/ of MMA websites. Alternatively I'd like to hear about how he believes I got squashed since Breibart has caught lying and faking information on numerous occasions and I see no reason for this ti be different especially since they never cared about covering videogames until NOW where it could be used as a nice little right wing push machine instead of actual gaming discussion on top of how pitiful the actual email leak was. The entire thing was being built as having the damnability of the Biogenesis Scandal, but instead we a tame little chat between a bunch of guys who run gaming sites.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.