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.Calbeck said: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.Alphakirby said: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.
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.The_Darkness said: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.
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"?RexMundane said:...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?
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.Camel said: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"?RexMundane said:...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?
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.
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 said: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.Camel said: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"?RexMundane said:...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?
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.
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.
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.Camel said: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 said: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.Camel said: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"?RexMundane said:...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?
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.
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.
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 said:If much more well spoken members against #GG want to debate I'm sure no one will say no.
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 said:Not everyone has a "FUCK EM ALL BURN IT TO THE GROUND" attitude you know.
How about prove not all of us are frothing at the mouth internet warriors and simply want transparency and ethics?RexMundane said: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 said:Not everyone has a "FUCK EM ALL BURN IT TO THE GROUND" attitude you know.
How about proving that literally everyone who isn't part of the movement sees you in that negative way?Thorn14 said:How about prove not all of us are frothing at the mouth internet warriors and simply want transparency and ethics?RexMundane said: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 said:Not everyone has a "FUCK EM ALL BURN IT TO THE GROUND" attitude you know.
And why not?Thorn14 said: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!"?
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.RexMundane said: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 said:If much more well spoken members against #GG want to debate I'm sure no one will say no.