GamerGate's Image Problem

[RexMundane]

Errant thought that I dare not post in the megathread: There's not going to be much more left in the emails.

Judging from what I'm reading in the megathread the latest release was disappointing in that it didn't contain any daming evidence or information, just a few more "someone said a thing in private conversation we can remove from context to make them look bad." In other words just a "god I hope I can keep this non-story alive long enough for my podcast to give me the fame I so richly deserve" move from Milo. The first release was already pretty underwhelming from an evidence standpoint I take it, the second even more so. If the pattern holds, there almost definately won't be anything worth talking about in the coming releases.

If there were, the people involved would know what was said and how bad it would make them look, and would be working to pre-empt coming infodumps. "Rather than let Milo control the story, just let me say for myself that I did say XXXXX at the time and regret it." But none of that's happening, and it's been days.

If there were, Milo wouldn't be taking his sweet damn time between releases. He's hunting desperately for something, anything, and not finding very much. Even over a massive text dump like this must be basic searches wouldn't be hard to do. The controlled release has more to do with keeping the story alive past sell-by than conveying information.

If there were, and if the point wasn't to trickle information but to let it run free, then the whole thing would have been released online already, in it's entirety. The recent celeb photo dump shows us decency and privacy concerns aren't exactly big for some of the people most invested in this.

 

[The_Darkness]

I can attest to Gamergate needing some form of better image. I got into a Twitter argument today with someone who seems to have good intentions in mind but refuses to support the movement due to the fact that the catalyst was Zoe Quinn's ex posting about the Five Guys incident.
I feel as though helping the image would help us convert more people, people who may WANT what we're fighting for but don't want to take the chance of taking up a stigma due to it.

The only way to fix that is to point out to such people that GamerGate WASN'T catalyzed by the ZQ issue. It was catalyzed by a broad-based accusation, levied by most of the gaming journalism world, stereotyping gamers as a whole as terrible people.

And that broad accusation was triggered by the Zoe Quinn harassment. The whole thing is a mixed up mess; you can't cleanly separate the origins of GamerGate away from the harassment. Especially since some of the harassment was already sourced with anger at implied unethical journalism.

Do I support ethical journalism? Yes, of course I do. If I was on Twitter, I'd probably be using #EthicalJournalism. Do I support GamerGate? Given the events that led up to it... No. Because I consider the initial harassment to be a symptom of a bigger problem than what the movement has ended up targeting.

 

[Calbeck]

And that broad accusation was triggered by the Zoe Quinn harassment. The whole thing is a mixed up mess; you can't cleanly separate the origins of GamerGate away from the harassment.

Given that GamerGate did not exist during, nor was it triggered by, the harassment, and given that it came into existence as a direct result of the GamerShaming Scandal, which itself was a massive harassment justifying itself as a response to the ZQ harassment, yes I absolutely can make a clean separation.

There would not BE a GamerGate without the unprofessional, lock-stepped, foul-mouthed, kneejerk wave of articles which sought to "defend" Zoe Quinn by expanding the nastiness of a vocal minority to encompass "gamer culture" as a sweeping whole.

The fact that the ZQ Affair was itself prompted by unprofessional journalistic conduct doesn't provide a "link" between GG and the original harassers --- it provides a link between small-scale unprofessional conduct then, and massive-scale unprofessional conduct now.

 

[Camel]

...so has this just become a secondary thread for the Megathread? I'm noticing the Pro-GG:Anti-GG population ratio has lately skewed pretty heavily to Pro, and most comments trying to deal with the thread subject, namely "How people perceive GamerGate" is getting pretty aggressively beaten down for mentioning it. It seems a bit like an angry mob trying to shout out any questioning voices without acknowledging their points in order to... oh fuck me that's ironic.

Side note, shall we start a betting pool on when MovieBob officially becomes Literally Who #4?

You want to censor folk in this thread and to discuss only your agenda? Can you provide examples of "anti-GG population aggressively beaten down"?

Maybe you mean when I used an expression "you lot" in a dialogue with you after your usage of it in our discussion and you started to bitterly complain about "demonization" and that I'm "incapable of discussion"?

You still didn't answer my questions about Leigh Alexander's contribution to a anti-GG public image. Her threats and inflammatory articles only serve to provide ammunition to Gamergate but anti-GG lot is loathe to discuss her actions.

 

[RexMundane]

...so has this just become a secondary thread for the Megathread? I'm noticing the Pro-GG:Anti-GG population ratio has lately skewed pretty heavily to Pro, and most comments trying to deal with the thread subject, namely "How people perceive GamerGate" is getting pretty aggressively beaten down for mentioning it. It seems a bit like an angry mob trying to shout out any questioning voices without acknowledging their points in order to... oh fuck me that's ironic.

Side note, shall we start a betting pool on when MovieBob officially becomes Literally Who #4?

You want to censor folk in this thread and to discuss only your agenda? Can you provide examples of "anti-GG population aggressively beaten down"?

Maybe you mean when I used an expression "you lot" in a dialogue with you after your usage of it in our discussion and you started to bitterly complain about "demonization" and that I'm "incapable of discussion"?

You still didn't answer my questions about Leigh Alexander's contribution to a anti-GG public image. Her threats and inflammatory articles only serve to provide ammunition to Gamergate but anti-GG lot is loathe to discuss her actions.

Buddy, you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with me personally, and trying to make me answer for how you're reading things I wrote a day previous as though that's where my mind is right now. It's as though you're just hunting for stuff to have a hostile attitude about.

By "Beaten Down" I was referring to people trying to discuss public perception of GamerGate as being negative, and the response at the time was largely personal/tangential attacks. Seriously go back and read the Pro-GG comments leading up to it. You're not discussing optics, you're being defensive and lashing out. "You're only mentioning misogyny because it fits your narrative," "questioning our fixation on Literally Who #1 is victim blaming," "well aren't you just a smarty pants," "I demand you respond to Literally Who #3's comments!"

This isn't discussing optics and how better to reach out, this is getting defensive and shouting down people's observations. Or rather, wasn't. Since then the discussion came back around a bit to perceptions and such, but the more you fixate on demanding me to answer for petty nonsense like the perceived sins of Literally Who #3, the worse you're making everything look.

 

[Camel]

...so has this just become a secondary thread for the Megathread? I'm noticing the Pro-GG:Anti-GG population ratio has lately skewed pretty heavily to Pro, and most comments trying to deal with the thread subject, namely "How people perceive GamerGate" is getting pretty aggressively beaten down for mentioning it. It seems a bit like an angry mob trying to shout out any questioning voices without acknowledging their points in order to... oh fuck me that's ironic.

Side note, shall we start a betting pool on when MovieBob officially becomes Literally Who #4?

You want to censor folk in this thread and to discuss only your agenda? Can you provide examples of "anti-GG population aggressively beaten down"?

Maybe you mean when I used an expression "you lot" in a dialogue with you after your usage of it in our discussion and you started to bitterly complain about "demonization" and that I'm "incapable of discussion"?

You still didn't answer my questions about Leigh Alexander's contribution to a anti-GG public image. Her threats and inflammatory articles only serve to provide ammunition to Gamergate but anti-GG lot is loathe to discuss her actions.

Buddy, you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with me personally, and trying to make me answer for how you're reading things I wrote a day previous as though that's where my mind is right now. It's as though you're just hunting for stuff to have a hostile attitude about.

By "Beaten Down" I was referring to people trying to discuss public perception of GamerGate as being negative, and the response at the time was largely personal/tangential attacks. Seriously go back and read the Pro-GG comments leading up to it. You're not discussing optics, you're being defensive and lashing out. "You're only mentioning misogyny because it fits your narrative," "questioning our fixation on Literally Who #1 is victim blaming," "well aren't you just a smarty pants," "I demand you respond to Literally Who #3's comments!"

This isn't discussing optics and how better to reach out, this is getting defensive and shouting down people's observations. Or rather, wasn't. Since then the discussion came back around a bit to perceptions and such, but the more you fixate on demanding me to answer for petty nonsense like the perceived sins of Literally Who #3, the worse you're making everything look.

Why do you always evade answering questions? It's a problem of almost all anti-GG posters, they always try to ignore discussing difficult topics.

 

[RexMundane]

...so has this just become a secondary thread for the Megathread? I'm noticing the Pro-GG:Anti-GG population ratio has lately skewed pretty heavily to Pro, and most comments trying to deal with the thread subject, namely "How people perceive GamerGate" is getting pretty aggressively beaten down for mentioning it. It seems a bit like an angry mob trying to shout out any questioning voices without acknowledging their points in order to... oh fuck me that's ironic.

Side note, shall we start a betting pool on when MovieBob officially becomes Literally Who #4?

You want to censor folk in this thread and to discuss only your agenda? Can you provide examples of "anti-GG population aggressively beaten down"?

Maybe you mean when I used an expression "you lot" in a dialogue with you after your usage of it in our discussion and you started to bitterly complain about "demonization" and that I'm "incapable of discussion"?

You still didn't answer my questions about Leigh Alexander's contribution to a anti-GG public image. Her threats and inflammatory articles only serve to provide ammunition to Gamergate but anti-GG lot is loathe to discuss her actions.

Buddy, you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with me personally, and trying to make me answer for how you're reading things I wrote a day previous as though that's where my mind is right now. It's as though you're just hunting for stuff to have a hostile attitude about.

By "Beaten Down" I was referring to people trying to discuss public perception of GamerGate as being negative, and the response at the time was largely personal/tangential attacks. Seriously go back and read the Pro-GG comments leading up to it. You're not discussing optics, you're being defensive and lashing out. "You're only mentioning misogyny because it fits your narrative," "questioning our fixation on Literally Who #1 is victim blaming," "well aren't you just a smarty pants," "I demand you respond to Literally Who #3's comments!"

This isn't discussing optics and how better to reach out, this is getting defensive and shouting down people's observations. Or rather, wasn't. Since then the discussion came back around a bit to perceptions and such, but the more you fixate on demanding me to answer for petty nonsense like the perceived sins of Literally Who #3, the worse you're making everything look.

Why do you always evade answering questions? It's a problem of almost all anti-GG posters, they always try to ignore discussing difficult topics.

What am I evading? I have nothing to say about something Literally Who #3 said weeks ago, and even if I did what possible use could it be to you? This thread is about Gamergate's Image Problem and you're almost pathologically trying to derail it into your pet issue. What answer should I possibly give you that would make any difference one way or another? If you don't want Gamergate to be seen as just obsessing over mean words and hurt feelings, you really need to stop doing that sort of thing.

 

[Mouser_House]

Has anyone tried to talk about 4chan board culture in a neutral manner? They're mostly super contrarian skeptics who will reflexively start kicking against any mainstream ideas they don't like. They're completely desensitized to "normal" insults, as well as to shock and gore images occasionally spammed by trolls, but if there is one thing they cannot stand it's when people tell them what they can and cannot do (which is why they hate tumblr-based SJW/reddit-based SRS/politically correct internet police in general). There is also something special about /v/ in that they have been complaining about the industry for years, probably more so than anyone else, and about "slowtaku" and other gaming press sites notorious for hollow, probably bought-out reviews. So if there is one thing you should probably avoid it is to give /v/ the impression that they are being censored all over the internet by corrupt gaming journalists who are abusing political correctness to keep the high ground.

"Misogynist" is the gift that keeps on giving. It insults people and lectures /v/ users on what they can and cannot talk about, so /v/ will just make sure to talk about it at all hours of the day, which prompts the opposition to call them misogynists again. /v/ will just kick back against mainstream opinion instead of backing off, even if it's just a small group of them while the rest of /v/ remains disinterested in "e-celeb drama bullshit."

Meanwhile, I think it's clear from the mailing list that the gaming journos have a terrible image of their own audience (as if it wasn't doubly clear from the articles published on the 28th of August) as if every gamer is a closet MRA lunatic. It's also clear that the journos are prepared to stick together in a clique to write whatever narrative they want (14 articles saying the same thing on the same day) and spread it outwards to the mainstream media. This displays a shocking amount of power. I think it says a lot about the little group on /v/ that the 28th of August just made them even angrier. They don't know how to behave, they don't know how to organize anything and they sure as hell don't know how to back down.

What is useful about this stubbornness is that it gave some people the courage to step forward and say "you know, I'm also kind of sick of this political correctness bull coming from some of these sites. I think the gaming press have abused it at times to write smear articles, and others have used it to bully people."

Personally I think it was also useful to watch moderators on NeoGAF and Reddit expose their clumsy heavy-handed censorship and give everyone something think about.

Moving on, what would be useful for GamerGate to improve its image would likely involve some of the following:

-For GamerGate to focus, first and foremost, on helping those developers who feel suffocated by a toxic industry environment for one reason or another.

-Donate to another charity. Everybody wins.

-For GG to somehow stop believing they're fighting a rebellion against SJW/abusive political correctness in general. I believe political correctness is merely the stick the opposition is using to beat gamers with all this time. To change this view will be difficult, however. Honestly I don't know how to pull it off. It's difficult because of the idea of GG being driven into a corner by SJW and because of the cruelty inflicted upon some youtubers and some members of GG either by angry mobs or by unknown parties, from harassment to doxxing to hacking to death threats to the guy who started Notyourshield getting fired thanks to doxxers, even right down to some asshole actually performing a confirmed DDoS attack on the GamerGate thread on the Escapist.

-For Zoe to go on a holiday where she can stop thinking about revenge for a while without all these yes-men telling her she's the feminist indie messiah and shining a spotlight on her so they can write more clickbait articles. I don't think it's healthy.

-A new megathread on 4chan would probably just breed more paranoia and conspiracy theories that never go anywhere, so it's important that people stick it out on the Escapist where they can at least police themselves and more easily shout down bad apples.

 

[RexMundane]

The latest to be happening at the current moment is everyone ganging up on some poor shmuck in a video stream who apparently claims to speak on behalf of the opposing side, and can't string an argument together. And rather than doing the civilized thing and taking him off the air, they have him stay on just to be a punching bag so they can heriocally vanquish his poorly phrased arguments. These are the people who just wanted a discussion all along, to debate improving ethical standards. These are the guys who hate to be seen as bullies.

I mean... at this point, what argument could anyone make that presents them as worse than how they choose to present themselves?

 

[Thorn14]

If much more well spoken members against #GG want to debate I'm sure no one will say no.

 

[RexMundane]

If much more well spoken members against #GG want to debate I'm sure no one will say no.

Ignoring Admiral Ackbar screaming in my head, and even ignoring how just last night so much of the movement was violently against trying to codify their goals over, and I'm quoting here, "burning it all down," what on earth would be the point? What, theoretically, could someone from the other side say to convince anyone on your side of anything?

 

[Thorn14]

Not everyone has a "FUCK EM ALL BURN IT TO THE GROUND" attitude you know.

 

[RexMundane]

Not everyone has a "FUCK EM ALL BURN IT TO THE GROUND" attitude you know.

I would argue that enough do to overwhelm any potentially emergent narrative, but forget them. What do you, you there, you personally, want to hear me say? What could I possibly tell you to convince you there is no war to fight here? What do you think you could possibly tell me that a month of regretfully trying to get involved hasn't already told me? What, in other words, could either of us pretend to gain from any attempt to hold a discussion on these terms?

 

[Thorn14]

Not everyone has a "FUCK EM ALL BURN IT TO THE GROUND" attitude you know.

I would argue that enough do to overwhelm any potentially emergent narrative, but forget them. What do you, you there, you personally, want to hear me say? What could I possibly tell you to convince you there is no war to fight here? What do you think you could possibly tell me that a month of regretfully trying to get involved hasn't already told me? What, in other words, could either of us pretend to gain from any attempt to hold a discussion on these terms?

How about prove not all of us are frothing at the mouth internet warriors and simply want transparency and ethics?

 

[RexMundane]

Not everyone has a "FUCK EM ALL BURN IT TO THE GROUND" attitude you know.

I would argue that enough do to overwhelm any potentially emergent narrative, but forget them. What do you, you there, you personally, want to hear me say? What could I possibly tell you to convince you there is no war to fight here? What do you think you could possibly tell me that a month of regretfully trying to get involved hasn't already told me? What, in other words, could either of us pretend to gain from any attempt to hold a discussion on these terms?

How about prove not all of us are frothing at the mouth internet warriors and simply want transparency and ethics?

How about proving that literally everyone who isn't part of the movement sees you in that negative way?

You think I'm not a gamer? Or actually scratch that, I've been told as much by more GGers than I care to list at the moment. But you think I have some kind of personal investment in people perceiving me negatively because of the media I prefer to consume and discuss?

Hell, do you think I'm somehow against ethics? And again, I have to scratch that because I've talked to enough GGers who, yes, think this is about being anti-ethics, as maddening a prospect as that is. But you think I can't see problems in modern games journalism and want to see it improve?

But more to the point, if this is a war over public perception of yourselves, why would you do anything to court the energies of the most retrograde members of your number? Yes, I know, you're ready to tell me you shut down the harassers, but watching people last night call Boogie, of all goddam people Boogie a shill because he's trying to keep people calm and goal-oriented? What the hell is anyone supposed to think?

 

[Thorn14]

You think I'm happy #GG has an angry mob element? Its a double edged sword, and I don't know what you expect me to say.

"Welp, we got angry people on our side, SHUT IT DOWN!"?

 

[RexMundane]

You think I'm happy #GG has an angry mob element? Its a double edged sword, and I don't know what you expect me to say.

"Welp, we got angry people on our side, SHUT IT DOWN!"?

And why not?

What good are they doing you?

I'm assuming you're decent and sincere of purpose here, we haven't even spoken to it but I presume you have an ideal form of what modern gaming journalism should be. You think associating with what you yourself see as the "angry mob element" will get that done? What can it possibly accomplish?

Hell in the early weeks when Kotaku and Polygon etc tried to appease the crowd by announcing policy changes it just got everyone angrier. Even when the Escapist went further than it needed and apologized for reporting on Wizardchan (and really, their only crime was treating forum drama as newsworthy) everyone was still furious that Moviebob wasn't fired out of a cannon into the sun.

You think anyone is going to look at that and say "well, maybe if we try to appease them yet further they'll stop being so hostile?" They've seen what trying to reason with the angry mob accomplishes. All they're doing is ensuring that no real discussions or reform will continue until it dies off completely.

That's what I'm saying. The path to the improvements I presume you want only exist when there isn't an angry mob, so why, if you want those improvements, would you be on the mob's side?

 

[Thorn14]

The mob has passion and is the only reason #GG has not faded into obscurity. I don't constantly post on twitter, hell I've taken breaks, but I wont lie that the goals also match with mine.

I want Leigh to lose her job, for example. I want to show that fucking with the consumer should not be protected.

This is the closest we have had to exposing this corruption, and I don't want to drop it because some people are unreasonable.

Should Feminism end because there are militant feminists who go around spreading #KILLALLMEN ?

 

[Jaegerbombastic]

If much more well spoken members against #GG want to debate I'm sure no one will say no.

Ignoring Admiral Ackbar screaming in my head, and even ignoring how just last night so much of the movement was violently against trying to codify their goals over, and I'm quoting here, "burning it all down," what on earth would be the point? What, theoretically, could someone from the other side say to convince anyone on your side of anything?

Simple: to get your point across and then defend it against your detractors. If you're so convinced that your perspective is the correct one, then you shouldn't be afraid to make a case for it. The fact is that Twitter is NOT an appropriate forum to debate the subject for a variety of reasons. The Kingofpol and KIA streams provide a better opportunity to discuss the issue: Its only between you and anybody else that is on the counter argument. It offers you time to explain your position clearly without worrying about a character limit. Finally, the fact that you're talking directly to a human being as opposed to sending off tweets or comments, it significantly hampers the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.

Yes, that Koz/Kaz fellow sucked at debating and getting his point across, and as a result he got dogpiled. But, like I said in the other thread, he was at least brave enough to put himself out there, make his case, and attempt to counter any criticism. He has my respect for doing that even though I think all of the points he made were wrong and hilariously stupid. I respect a guy who gets his ass kicked in a fight more than someone who talks a big game at how awesome he is but blows off any challenges.

 

[RexMundane]

The mob has passion and is the only reason #GG has not faded into obscurity. I don't constantly post on twitter, hell I've taken breaks, but I wont lie that the goals also match with mine.

I wouldn't mind if Polygon went under for its actions, but if everyone took the escapist route, I'd take that too.

This is the closest we have had to exposing this corruption, and I don't want to drop it because some people are unreasonable.

Should Feminism end because there are militant feminists who go around spreading #KILLALLMEN ?

False equivalency, reflexively justifying mob tactics, another 3-line response to me trying to write a few paragraphs and speak as clearly as I can, jesus christ do you See what I Mean about Why Bother Trying to Talk? I'm literally kicking myself for letting myself get sucked into the false promise that there's any debate to be had.

Simple: to get your point across and then defend it against your detractors. If you're so convinced that your perspective is the correct one, then you shouldn't be afraid to make a case for it. The fact is that Twitter is NOT an appropriate forum to debate the subject for a variety of reasons. The Kingofpol and KIA streams provide a better opportunity to discuss the issue: Its only between you and anybody else that is on the counter argument. It offers you time to explain your position clearly without worrying about a character limit. Finally, the fact that you're talking directly to a human being as opposed to sending off tweets or comments, it significantly hampers the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.

Yes, that Koz/Kaz fellow sucked at debating and getting his point across, and as a result he got dogpiled. But, like I said in the other thread, he was at least brave enough to put himself out there, make his case, and attempt to counter any criticism. He has my respect for doing that even though I think all of the points he made were wrong and hilariously stupid. I respect a guy who gets his ass kicked in a fight more than someone who talks a big game at how awesome he is but blows off any challenges.

My contention is that he could very well have comported himself eloquently and argued as effectively as possible, and there wouldn't be as much as one fewer GGer screaming for heads on pikes. Also, that the streams only really exacerbate the GIFT by giving them a target to fixate their fuckwaddery upon, particularly when that target is "the one guy who represents our hated enemy." Anyone willing to enter that kind of ambush is insane if they think there's anything to be accomplished.