Jimquisition: The Wacky Harassment Blame Parade

t850terminator

New member
Nov 21, 2013
43
0
0
What the bloody fucking hell? 63%???? And this is why I stay offline...
I never really understood harassment of people based on gender... everyone is equally human (and everyone in a game is just XP walking around to me XD)
Depression Quest, idk about it, I have been depressed many times in my life...and the concept seems interesting, but just not into the interactive fiction novel thing... I prefer things rendered with 3d engines..
And seriously, the greatest fictional character (IMO) is female...
GlaDos.

Wish I could help out with the situation...
 

Valkyrie1981

New member
Apr 12, 2010
27
0
0
So what do you do? The social construct of the Internet social culture is as vast far larger then the real world where you have far more social constrictions. Unlike the real world where nearly every act made by a person is owned by a person, the internet allows one to strip such ownership. When one does take ownership it can be very detrimental as seen to what happened to Zoë Quinn. People have the right no matter how much of an asshat/tool it makes them to anonymously make any comment they want without taking ownership. As long as you are aloud such anonymity (Which in the end despite the assholes is a good thing) in the Internet you will have people attack Zoë Quinn, defend her, ignore her, blame her, and have people take no responsibility. There is no fix to the problem of the backlash Zoë Quinn got, you can only ask people to be nice you can't force it...

I am sure Zoë Quinn feels somewhat betrayed by the community she I am sure loves and is apart of to see so many turn on her or turn her back on her. The internet is fickle and its best she address this issue physically in public locations like a convention. She deserves to be heard her cause is just. You should take it to the people directly where I doubt there would be a fraction of what she is dealing with in the virtual world
 

JarinArenos

New member
Jan 31, 2012
556
0
0
FieryTrainwreck said:
As for the 4Chan stuff and victim blaming... there's a difference between taking a stray bullet when you're walking down a public street and getting shot when you're streaking across a shooting range. Some corners of the internet are literally dedicated trolling grounds. Reasonably intelligent people don't wander into those places unless they're hankering for some abuse, which is probably why some suspect that such "unfortunate" people do so on purpose in order to generate press. I'm not accusing anyone of such a scheme, but it's definitely not an unreasonable theory in some cases.
The analogy breaks down unless shooting ranges get up and chase various people down that weren't anywhere near them. She didn't go looking on the Chan board for comments, THEY started attacking her greenlight, and then her personal contact info.
 

FieryTrainwreck

New member
Apr 16, 2010
1,968
0
0
JarinArenos said:
FieryTrainwreck said:
As for the 4Chan stuff and victim blaming... there's a difference between taking a stray bullet when you're walking down a public street and getting shot when you're streaking across a shooting range. Some corners of the internet are literally dedicated trolling grounds. Reasonably intelligent people don't wander into those places unless they're hankering for some abuse, which is probably why some suspect that such "unfortunate" people do so on purpose in order to generate press. I'm not accusing anyone of such a scheme, but it's definitely not an unreasonable theory in some cases.
The analogy breaks down unless shooting ranges get up and chase various people down that weren't anywhere near them. She didn't go looking on the Chan board for comments, THEY started attacking her greenlight, and then her personal contact info.
I tried to indicate that I was not accusing this woman of doing anything like this, and there's always the police or the feds whenever someone crosses the line. Short of that, there's nothing anyone can do to stop this harassment without resorting to draconian censorship measures - the sort of measures that governments and corporations would immediately turn around and use against all of us to the detriment of the entire internet.

The people committing these acts might be gamers, but that doesn't mean there is any link between gaming and their behavior. It means that some really shitty people also happen to be gamers. Continually pretending this issue is specific to our shared hobby is illogical and (for the well-behaved among us) frustrating/infuriating. I, and apparently several others, are tired of these stories because they don't accomplish anything. You can't shame a person with no shame. You can't silence someone with free speech. We're dealing with the "Westboro Baptist Church" subset of the internet here, and the best way to do that is to IGNORE THEM unless they cross legitimate legal lines (at which point you hurl as many books as hard as you can).

Semi-on topic: there seems to be this enormous backlash whenever someone tries to lay out precautions for avoiding harassment, as if preparing for the world as it exists and wishing/working for a better one are somehow mutually exclusive concepts. I can tell my extremely petite younger sister that she shouldn't walk around by herself downtown late at night AND despise the sort of people who would do her harm in that situation - both at the same time. I'm not going to pretend that people don't blame victims, but not everyone offering advice for avoiding harassment is doing so. Some people actually just care about other human beings and want them to be happy, and sometimes that means recognizing the world/environment for what it is WHILE helping to change it for the better.
 

JarinArenos

New member
Jan 31, 2012
556
0
0
FieryTrainwreck said:
The people committing these acts might be gamers, but that doesn't mean there is any link between gaming and their behavior. It means that some really shitty people also happen to be gamers. Continually pretending this issue is specific to our shared hobby is illogical and (for the well-behaved among us) frustrating/infuriating. I, and apparently several others, are tired of these stories because they don't accomplish anything. You can't shame a person with no shame. You can't silence someone with free speech. We're dealing with the "Westboro Baptist Church" subset of the internet here, and the best way to do that is to IGNORE THEM unless they cross legitimate legal lines (at which point you hurl as many books as hard as you can).
Westboro Baptist, for all the publicity they get, is a far smaller percentage of the religious population than the slimy underbelly of the gaming populace seems to be (compare 100 or so WB members and well more than half the US being "religious" identifying). And moreover, you don't see the majority of people acting like that because they DO get shamed constantly. You don't see people defending racist assholes for being racist assholes (mostly), or at the very least, they have to be circumspect about it. Yes, anonymity changes things, but if someone starts tossing around racially-charged insults on 90% of web forums, they'll get banned. That isn't unreasonable censorship, that's just cleaning up the trash. Why should gender-based insults be any different? (I mean, the escapist locks down ANY personal insults, after all)
FieryTrainwreck said:
Semi-on topic: there seems to be this enormous backlash whenever someone tries to lay out precautions for avoiding harassment, as if preparing for the world as it exists and wishing/working for a better one are somehow mutually exclusive concepts. I can tell my extremely petite younger sister that she shouldn't walk around by herself downtown late at night AND despise the sort of people who would do her harm in that situation - both at the same time. I'm not going to pretend that people don't blame victims, but not everyone offering advice for avoiding harassment is doing so. Some people actually just care about other human beings and want them to be happy, and sometimes that means recognizing the world/environment for what it is WHILE helping to change it for the better.
I can completely understand where you're coming from here. I live in a big-city downtown area, and there's absolutely areas that I wouldn't go wandering around, and would advise others to avoid as well. Sure, if you go there and get mugged it's the attacker's fault, but caution is smart as well. The problem is that avoidance isn't our ONLY option. We have law enforcement. The neighborhood I live in was a rather dangerous place to live just 5 or so years ago, but regular police patrols and other local efforts have greatly improved the area. None of this was accomplished by focusing on avoidance of problems. THAT is why people lash out at "victim blaming", even when it's done with the best of intentions, because it removes the focus from actually fixing anything. Especially in cases like the ones Jim keeps bringing up, where the avoidance method seems to be "don't be a public female figure in the games industry". Drive the scum back to their holes by denying them a voice anywhere else.
 

Cid Silverwing

Paladin of The Light
Jul 27, 2008
3,134
0
0
Luminous Chroma said:
I'm calling BS on this one.

I'll state it straightaway: I didn't rush to the defense of Zoe Quinn. I heard what was happening, rolled my eyes in disgust, then went about my own business. And you know what? I'm not sorry for it. Furthermore, contrary to our dear Mr. Sterling's oh-so-measured opinion, I am NOT an asshole because of it.

I have never harassed another person. Have I had arguments? You bet. Have I been rude and confrontational? To people I felt deserved it, yes. But have ever I intentionally set out to wound another person through malicious actions? Absolutely not, and therein lies the failure in Jim's assertions.

It's true that I didn't go speeding across the internet, sounding my trumpet in the defense of Zoe Quinn. As I said, I rolled my eyes and went on with my life. But the thing is, one of the normal, daily practices of my life is to treat the people I encounter with respect and good manners, regardless of their gender, race, social standing, etc. The fact that I don't choose to entangle myself in every miserable situation on the internet does NOT mean I'm the equal of some vile little troll. I am their moral better, as is nearly everyone who will read this.

Jim has made a false, irrational, unsupportable claim, and this is a statement of my direct and vehement opposition. I am a good and moral person. As far as I can tell, Jim is a good person. If you're reading this, chances are that you're a pretty good person too. Am I an asshole because I didn't get involved in a forum battle over the actions of some putrid turds from a dank corner of the net?

Nope.

And you know what?

Neither are you.
You phrased my feelings on this better than I did. I'm increasingly convinced that Jim doesn't have a clue what he's talking about when it comes to anything regarding gender issues. Or as the detractors on YouTube like to say - he's the Thunderf00t of gender issues.
 

Deadcyde

New member
Jan 11, 2011
187
0
0
*sighs* I've said it once i'll say it a thousand times.. Check the greenlight. There is no proof they attacked her there. Her only proof she was attacked is the screenshots. The twitter ones seemingly like sarcastic references to the wizardchan ones which she had to go and find herself.

DO some research. THINK for yourselves.

Really. For supposedly enlightened people you have a severe distatse for actually researching this.
 

Batou667

New member
Oct 5, 2011
2,238
0
0
I don't usually watch Jimquisition - for good reason - but I watched this one. In my opinion, Jim is a good polemicist but has faulty logic.

Basically, I totally reject the idea that as a male gamer, my silence on issues like the so-called epidemic of female harassment in gaming culture makes me in any way culpable through inaction. That's just bullshit.

Let me provide some equivalent statements that would be quickly shot down as the bullshit they patently are:

"Gun violence and drugs are endemic to black culture. It's the responsibility of every black person to constantly and conspicuously decry guns and drugs. A black person not seen opposing this will be deemed to be part of the problem"

"Let's not pretend Valerie Solanas and Andrea Dworkin are the so-called 'outliers' of Feminism. Feminists have to own their mistakes. It's cowardly and disingenuous for Feminists to claim Solanas and Dworkin don't represent them. I suppose they're magical space pixies, who are totally not real Feminists, eh? Ho ho"

And just to co-opt and invert a bit more social justice rhetoric;

Oh, "male gamers" are the problem? I'll be sure to raise that issue at the next Male Gamers Annual General Meeting. Because we're totally a monolith, devoid of any individuality or plurality of thought. The Male Gamer Hivemind will be notified at once!
 

FieryTrainwreck

New member
Apr 16, 2010
1,968
0
0
JarinArenos said:
Westboro Baptist, for all the publicity they get, is a far smaller percentage of the religious population than the slimy underbelly of the gaming populace seems to be (compare 100 or so WB members and well more than half the US being "religious" identifying).
Do you think the Westboro Baptists are the only people who feel the way they feel? Do you think every moron fighting for creationism in public schools is a member of the WBC? Are all of the horrible "Christian" comments in comments sections and on message boards across the internet coming from 100 or so WB members?

Isn't it just as likely that the online gaming population features intolerant and abusive assholes at roughly the same rate of any other subset of the population? And that our perception of this rate is warped/magnified by the echo chamber of "enlightened video game journalism" continually recycling the same tired story over and over?

I happen to believe that there exists a higher-than-average number of shitheads in gaming culture. I also believe the number is greatly exaggerated by the "minority microphone" of the internet and the click-baiting of a dozen or so increasingly sensationalistic websites. Again, multiple concepts/forces are allowed to exist simultaneously.

And moreover, you don't see the majority of people acting like that because they DO get shamed constantly. You don't see people defending racist assholes for being racist assholes (mostly), or at the very least, they have to be circumspect about it. Yes, anonymity changes things, but if someone starts tossing around racially-charged insults on 90% of web forums, they'll get banned. That isn't unreasonable censorship, that's just cleaning up the trash. Why should gender-based insults be any different? (I mean, the escapist locks down ANY personal insults, after all)
I definitely see people defending racist assholes all the time... online. Usually in those 10% of forums that don't give a fuck about intolerance. These are also the only places I see people defending misogynistic assholes, homophobic assholes, etc., because I don't associate with horrible people in real life and my business doesn't require me to be constantly reaching out to others for evaluation/support. In any business where you are "singing for your supper", so to speak, you will obviously run into horrible people with horrible beliefs saying horrible things - and that goes double (or 1000x, more likely) for internet exchanges. Gaming isn't special in this regard.

It's almost starting to feel incredibly self-absorbed/self-centered, as if gaming journalists realized too late that they settled on a relatively meaningless hobby for a career and are now injecting it with as much gravity as possible through a cycle of manufactured controversy. And before yet another person runs screaming into this exchange to tell me I'm sweeping some massive problem under the rug, I want to stress for the millionth time that is possible for both a problem to exist AND for what I'm saying to be true. The existence of an issue isn't license to misrepresent left and right; I can be hungry AND an idiot for saying "I'm dying of starvation".

FieryTrainwreck said:
Semi-on topic: there seems to be this enormous backlash whenever someone tries to lay out precautions for avoiding harassment, as if preparing for the world as it exists and wishing/working for a better one are somehow mutually exclusive concepts. I can tell my extremely petite younger sister that she shouldn't walk around by herself downtown late at night AND despise the sort of people who would do her harm in that situation - both at the same time. I'm not going to pretend that people don't blame victims, but not everyone offering advice for avoiding harassment is doing so. Some people actually just care about other human beings and want them to be happy, and sometimes that means recognizing the world/environment for what it is WHILE helping to change it for the better.
I can completely understand where you're coming from here. I live in a big-city downtown area, and there's absolutely areas that I wouldn't go wandering around, and would advise others to avoid as well. Sure, if you go there and get mugged it's the attacker's fault, but caution is smart as well. The problem is that avoidance isn't our ONLY option. We have law enforcement. The neighborhood I live in was a rather dangerous place to live just 5 or so years ago, but regular police patrols and other local efforts have greatly improved the area. None of this was accomplished by focusing on avoidance of problems. THAT is why people lash out at "victim blaming", even when it's done with the best of intentions, because it removes the focus from actually fixing anything. Especially in cases like the ones Jim keeps bringing up, where the avoidance method seems to be "don't be a public female figure in the games industry". Drive the scum back to their holes by denying them a voice anywhere else.
My point was that you can, in fact, do both things simultaneously - prepare for/accept what will happen AND work to change the culture that allows such behavior to flourish. You're not automatically an asshole for trying to help people avoid pain because the short-term fix. For example, as a teacher dealing with bullying, I would simultaneously advise a bullied student to steer clear of situations that might generate harassment, short-term, WHILE targeting the harassers for punishment or adjustment in the short-through-long term. This notion that it's got to be all-or-nothing, black-or-white 100% of the time is reductive as hell.

Anyways, none of that really applies to what we're talking about here. The nature of the internet makes for completely new and more complicated issues, and pretending we can apply the same old tactics for combating ignorance and harassment is beyond naive. There is fuck all we can do to stop these people from being assholes anonymously online. You can't police it the same way you'd police a dangerous neighborhood for crime prevention. There is literally no amount of activism or determination that will ever change the behavior of internet trolls. Until people recognize this quite fundamental difference between this particular brand of asshole and the assholes in the past (who could be bullied into conformity through physical/social means), these sorts of journalistic tirades will continue to do nothing but waste our collective time. Continually shining a light on an immutable, if terrible, truth accomplishes nothing - unless, of course, your goal is to generate page hits.
 

xorinite

New member
Nov 19, 2010
113
0
0
The idea of collective responsibility for individual actions isn't a particularly moral one, for one it absolves the actual perpetrator of their individual responsibility and it serves to fuel a guilt by association fallacy.

The fact that two individuals share a single characteristic, in this case a hobby, in no way makes any one individual responsible for the actions of any other individual.

It's not even necessarily the case when two individuals have a stronger association, like a shared religion, political ideology, or group membership, unless the religion, ideology, or group has some rule or dogma on the action in question. There is certainly nothing about the act of playing games which makes anyone part of some writ large community with communal responsibilities.

Furthermore demanding that people be part of some backlash against something they have never associated themselves with, possibly never even heard about and thus far only have hearsay as to what happened is simply asking them to be credulous and to surrender the concept of individual responsibility and investigation to the comfort of the lynch mob.

I didn't accept this concept when it was suggested that every Muslim in the world is somehow collectively responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the US and I don't accept it here.