The Big Picture: Remembering the Real Jack Thompson

[CaitSeith]

From her video Damsel on distress Part 1:

The belief that women are somehow a ?naturally weaker gender? is a deeply ingrained socially constructed myth, which of course is completely false- but the notion is reinforced and perpetuated when women are continuously portrayed as frail, fragile, and vulnerable creatures.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that all games using the damsel in distress as a plot device are automatically sexist or have no value. But it?s undeniable that popular culture is a powerful influence in or lives and the Damsel in Distress trope as a recurring trend does help to normalize extremely toxic, patronizing and paternalistic attitudes about women.

She doesn't deliver proof of this statement either, but that's not the point we're arguing right now.

EDIT: Finally got the quotes right. Sorry.

Actually it's on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism

Aggregated data of absolute strength indicates that females have, on average, 40-60% the upper body strength of males, and 70-75% the lower body strength.[64] [footnote] "Strength training for female athletes: A position paper: Part 1". NSCA 11 (4). 1989.[/footnote]

It even says at absolute peak training there will be a 30% consistent difference.

What Anita is arguing against according the multiple sources may be science itself in that statement. That is if you consider physical power to be the only form of strength that is.

According to studies women have better memories and a stronger immune systems.

Again large generalisations but still observed differences which are observable. The article in question has been edited a lot. It's a war ground on there at one point with claims that muscle mass differences were still observable on trained female vs untrained male and at one point a claim from a non scientific source that the only reason for the difference was social pressure for men to lift weights.


Testosterone, it's a hell of a drug.

I think she refered to things like thinking that the Olympic weightlifting champion in the women division can't beat an average male athlete, because she is a woman. To tell the truth, I haven't researched if she can do it or not.

EDIT: Or emotionally weaker than men in danger situations.

 

[The Deadpool]

You both spoke about confirmation bias when the biggest problem that people seem to forget is responder bias.

That should not really matter here. Sure, it isn't indicative of the EXACT population that agrees or disagrees, but we aren't looking for exact, just percentages.

If the same percentage of the pro Anita camp is prone to respond as the anti Anita camp, then they are each indicative of the larger population.

Now, it IS possible that one side has more pressure to comment than the other, but I can't think of anything that would cause that. If you can, I would like to consider it.

Additionally, people may be critical of Anita's claim that games are sexist or make you sexist without necessarily being misogynistic.

That's not actually relevant to the hypothesis.

The argument isn't that everyone who disagrees with Anita is misogynistic. It is that people who are misogynistic are far, far, FAR more likely to disagree with her.

 

[The Choke]

I actually sat down and added them up, splitting them into categories and added the results. MY personal bias has no bearing on the actual numbers.

Now you can argue that 300 isn't a large enough sample size for her entire youtube comment page, but it's the largest unmoderated sample I can find. But to argue that my bias somehow created positive comments is absurd.

Your personal bias is enough for you to treat your pathetically sized sample as evidence.

I treat it as superior evidence to... NOTHING.

I'm still wondering why you think you can claim the comments were largely negative with nothing but your gut, but complain about sample size...

Oh, I'm sorry. I can see that misogyny is a very confusing subject for you. Sometimes people do believe that some of their sexist behavior is actually polite, or even scientifically motivated. It's really not as simple as: "misogyny means that you don't support Anita." Anita herself has used what I would consider misogynistic language when talking about sex workers, so, once again, slightly too complicated to be boiled down it "if you support Anita, you are automatically not sexist." Too bad, too. That'd be a nice, easy litmus test.

It isn't about EVERY SINGLE MEMBER, but simply about a population trend.

I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that the number of misogynistic gamers who agree that their games make them hate women is small enough to be insignificant.

Also, calling sex workers "prostituted women" is insensitive to sex workers. It isn't misogynistic. The word kinda gets thrown around a little too easily...

So I told you I read the comments, and it's my gut. You tell me you read the comments, and it's proof.

Also, I don't think I said that calling sex workers "prostituted women" was what bothered me about that segment, but rather that it was Anita's language, but sure, you can assume and put words in my mouth. That makes me trust your tactics in a debate.

Choke, your panties are twisting. Go date pigeons. This is why we rarely comment on things. Go date pigeons, Choke.

Once again, Bob, I greatly enjoyed your video. Hats off.

 

[Lightknight]

You can't claim disorganization as an excuse to just ignore the sexist lunatics dragging GamerGate's name through the mud; if the GamerGate community is going to be anything beyond a social punchline, its members NEED to openly say that sexists and misogynists are not welcome, and that their criticisms of the gaming business has nothing to do with anti-feminism, end of discussion.

That looters show up to a peaceful protest doesn't make the protest illegitimate. A pickpocket-er taking advantage of one of Ghandi's sit-ins didn't make Ghandi guilty by proxy or his cause less deserving.

I'll remind you that both sides have seen their proponents do some pretty despicable stuff. Anti-GG has stuff like hacking and bringing down a charity drive to give resources to female developers and proceeds to charity while people on both sides have seen some doxxing, harassments and threats.

The only thing you're showing is that people will exploit scenarios in which there is enough noise or activity to mask their actions. Yay humanity.

Please understand, we are not dismissing these acts as nothing. We are dismissing these acts as not indicative of our group as a whole. We have task forces actively trying to seek out, expose, and stop these kinds of actions to the best of our ability. But at the end of the day, I can't stop people from harassing other people anymore than you could stop me from having posted this before I did.

 

[The Deadpool]

From her video Damsel on distress Part 1:

The belief that women are somehow a ?naturally weaker gender? is a deeply ingrained socially constructed myth, which of course is completely false- but the notion is reinforced and perpetuated when women are continuously portrayed as frail, fragile, and vulnerable creatures.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that all games using the damsel in distress as a plot device are automatically sexist or have no value. But it?s undeniable that popular culture is a powerful influence in or lives and the Damsel in Distress trope as a recurring trend does help to normalize extremely toxic, patronizing and paternalistic attitudes about women.

She doesn't deliver proof of this statement either, but that's not the point we're arguing right now.

EDIT: Finally got the quotes right. Sorry.

Actually it's on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism

Aggregated data of absolute strength indicates that females have, on average, 40-60% the upper body strength of males, and 70-75% the lower body strength.[64] [footnote] "Strength training for female athletes: A position paper: Part 1". NSCA 11 (4). 1989.[/footnote]

It even says at absolute peak training there will be a 30% consistent difference.

What Anita is arguing against according the multiple sources may be science itself in that statement. That is if you consider physical power to be the only form of strength that is.

According to studies women have better memories and a stronger immune systems.

Again large generalisations but still observed differences which are observable. The article in question has been edited a lot. It's a war ground on there at one point with claims that muscle mass differences were still observable on trained female vs untrained male and at one point a claim from a non scientific source that the only reason for the difference was social pressure for men to lift weights.


Testosterone, it's a hell of a drug.

I think she refered to things like thinking that the Olympic weightlifting champion in the women division can't beat an average male athlete, because she is a woman. To tell the truth, I haven't researched if she can do it or not.

At the highest level and at the average level, there are physical differences between men and women, and sheer strength is a noticeable one.

BUT even that ignores the obvious problem: We live in a society where physical strength has NOTHING to do with worth. I'm just random jackass down the street could bench press twice as much as any President we've had. It means nothing.

Depicting someone as physically weaker does not depict them as less worthy. REGARDLESS of gender.

 

[Lightknight]

The argument isn't that everyone who disagrees with Anita is misogynistic. It is that people who are misogynistic are far, far, FAR more likely to disagree with her.

I would imagine that to be true. It would constitute an additional bias against her argument.

What is the argument then? Your condition then is basically axiomatic. Like saying that people who are against even numbers are more likely to disagree with a proponent of even numbers. Ugh... yep.

 

[ryukage_sama]

While I have heard no calls from critics of video games to censor their production or sale,

I see this argument often, and it makes no sense to me. Yes, Jack Thompson called for censorship, but was the call for censorship the ONLY thing you disagreed with him here?

I'm honestly curious. Is it your contention that believing video games cause children to murder each other because of its high violent content is okay, but expecting the government to monitor and limit something that causes kids to kill other kids is an absurd idea?

I should have been more specific in which critics I was referring to. I was referring to feminist critics (at least those with some semblance of professionalism) of games having not advocated a form of censorship.

Regarding how I feel about how others feel about games versus what other try to have done about video games? Well, I limit how much thinking I do about the thoughts/feelings of others regarding things I care about of which they know little. For instance, I like pinball games, both physical and digital, and find them more compelling than most FPS games. I don't really care if some people don't like them since it does nothing to diminish my fun. Similarly with Bayonetta games, even if the criticism is whether people find them to be too provocative. The opinions of most people are inconsequential to most other people, including myself. It is rare for a particular opinion, perspective or viewpoint to actually become a movement or agenda. I would like for people to be more enlightened, to see things from a rational perspective that is concerned with practical outcomes not archaic prejudice. Unfortunately, I have neither the time nor the personality and drive to pursue, never mind accomplish such pervasive cultural transformation to achieve universal acceptance of video games as a viable entertainment and artistic medium. I will however act to prevent the opposite event from taking place. Video games have come a long way in terms of market reach and mainstream success, accompanied by acknowledgement from the SCOTUS, that I don't feel the medium is in any danger from groups seeking to censor them or restrict their sale.

So, while I'm not "okay with" people believing nonsense about a causative relationship between video games and violent behavior, I have zero interaction with such people so I don't waste my emotional energy on them. I will take more of an activist role whenever bans or censorship of fictional media is legitimately threatened, but after California failed to legally restrict game sales, that threat is in no way immediate.

 

[Silverspetz]

Well, for starters one actualy happened while the other one is a complete misrepresentation/outright lie.

Have you already forgotten about that nugget of intelligence that went something to the tune of, "the more you think you aren't affected, the more you are" and "mistreatment of women in videogames causes people to mistreat women in real life". Statements made based on research that doesn't exist.

She is a liar and a fraud. Saying that her opinions are shit, because she has no idea of what research is doesn't make anyone a misogynist.

First of all, none of the feminist critics that are being talked about have ever said anything like that second statement. It is the fact that you keep insisting that they do that makes it a complete misrepresentation/lie.

Second of all, that first part is also more or less misrepresented. Saarkesian has said that negative tropes in video-games and other media perpetuates the same stereotypes in real life, because said tropes are originally spawned by negative trends and deep-rooted preconceptions about women in the first place. WHICH IS COMPLETELY TRUE! The whole point of her videos is that these tropes DOESN'T exist because some mustache-twirling bad guy in a game company got off on it, nor is it about tropes TURNING unsuspecting people into said raging misogynists. What it is ACTUALLY about is how the negative trends that have affected women for centuries show themselves through the disproportionate prelevance of these tropes in our media.

So in conclusion: no, criticizing Saarkesian or her academic methods (although complaining about that in a series that is by definition opinion and observation based seems like the height of pointlessness to me), doesn't necessarily make anyone a misogynist. However, comparing her to someone like Thombsson is not only completely idiotic since the two are completely different in their goals and approaches, but comparing them with the purpose of somehow JUSTIFYING the disgusting threats thrown her way DEFINITELY makes someone a misogynist.

 

[The Deadpool]

So I told you I read the comments, and it's my gut. You tell me you read the comments, and it's proof.

Actual numerical break down is more reliable than gut.

Yes, I could be lying. You'd have to confirm that yourself. But to say that "I have a good feeling" and "I counted" are the same type of evidence is just silly.

Notice the complete lack of personal attacks from ONE side of this argument.

 

[Belaam]

The truth is, there are many areas of corruption in the industry and they don't have to be addressed exclusively. It starts with full disclosure of relationships and friendships and ends when both sides of the issue are discussed openly. It happens when charities aren't blacklisted just because someone's friend says they're bad. Heck, in those cases journalists should be even quicker to interview them to expose them as bad rather than just not interview them.

I agree. The problem seems to be that virtually everyone agrees that the corruption in games journalism is bad. I can't recall a single person defending Shadow of Mordor's marketing. The problem is that some see a critical analysis of a game being corrupt or unethical, while a review that avoids doing that is somehow more "valid". This is often paired with the somewhat odd view that no "real" gamers want critical analysis of games and that any attempt at such analysis is being forced on the medium by some nebulous outside force, with the additional fear that this force will somehow stop profitable games aimed at teen/twenties male audiences from being made.

 

[The Deadpool]

The argument isn't that everyone who disagrees with Anita is misogynistic. It is that people who are misogynistic are far, far, FAR more likely to disagree with her.

I would imagine that to be true. It would constitute an additional bias against her argument.

What is the argument then? Your condition then is basically axiomatic. Like saying that people who are against even numbers are more likely to disagree with a proponent of even numbers. Ugh... yep.

Well, if games make people misogynistic (as she claims) why are so many gamers on her side then?

If games cause misogyny, then most gamers would be misogynistic, then most gamers would disagree with her vehemently.

That's not what we see. We see a large portion of the gamer population AGREEING with her hypothesis, and thus, disproving it.

 

[The Deadpool]

Second of all, that first part is also more or less misrepresented. Saarkesian has said that negative tropes in video-games and other media perpetuates the same stereotypes in real life, because said tropes are originally spawned by negative trends and deep-rooted preconceptions about women in the first place. WHICH IS COMPLETELY TRUE! The whole point of her videos is that these tropes DOESN'T exist because some mustache-twirling bad guy in a game company got off on it, nor is it about tropes TURNING unsuspecting people into said raging misogynists. What it is ACTUALLY about is how the negative trends that have affected women for centuries show themselves through the disproportionate prelevance of these tropes in our media.

And replace "preconceptions about women" with "violence" and you have THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENT. Including examples of past events, and current perpetuation...

The effect line does not go from media -> mass unconscious. It goes from mass unconscious -> media. Always has, always will.

 

[CaitSeith]

From her video Damsel on distress Part 1:

The belief that women are somehow a ?naturally weaker gender? is a deeply ingrained socially constructed myth, which of course is completely false- but the notion is reinforced and perpetuated when women are continuously portrayed as frail, fragile, and vulnerable creatures.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that all games using the damsel in distress as a plot device are automatically sexist or have no value. But it?s undeniable that popular culture is a powerful influence in or lives and the Damsel in Distress trope as a recurring trend does help to normalize extremely toxic, patronizing and paternalistic attitudes about women.

She doesn't deliver proof of this statement either, but that's not the point we're arguing right now.

EDIT: Finally got the quotes right. Sorry.

Actually it's on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism

Aggregated data of absolute strength indicates that females have, on average, 40-60% the upper body strength of males, and 70-75% the lower body strength.[64] [footnote] "Strength training for female athletes: A position paper: Part 1". NSCA 11 (4). 1989.[/footnote]

It even says at absolute peak training there will be a 30% consistent difference.

What Anita is arguing against according the multiple sources may be science itself in that statement. That is if you consider physical power to be the only form of strength that is.

According to studies women have better memories and a stronger immune systems.

Again large generalisations but still observed differences which are observable. The article in question has been edited a lot. It's a war ground on there at one point with claims that muscle mass differences were still observable on trained female vs untrained male and at one point a claim from a non scientific source that the only reason for the difference was social pressure for men to lift weights.


Testosterone, it's a hell of a drug.

I think she refered to things like thinking that the Olympic weightlifting champion in the women division can't beat an average male athlete, because she is a woman. To tell the truth, I haven't researched if she can do it or not.

At the highest level and at the average level, there are physical differences between men and women, and sheer strength is a noticeable one.

BUT even that ignores the obvious problem: We live in a society where physical strength has NOTHING to do with worth. I'm just random jackass down the street could bench press twice as much as any President we've had. It means nothing.

Depicting someone as physically weaker does not depict them as less worthy. REGARDLESS of gender.

I know that, you know that. But a lot of people think otherwise (no matter if it's true or false). That's what a "myth" is.

PS captcha: so far away You're right, captcha. We got really far away from the starting topic...

 

[UberPubert]

Ok, so long story short, I understand that you clearly don't support the sexists that try to abuse the Gamergate hashtag to harass people, and I appreciate how your policy is to get the proper authorities to get on the case whenever one of these threats show up. But just because the police are going after the guys who make death threats under the Gamergate name doesn't really mean Gamergate itself can ignore the fact the guys making death threats are there.

Well let's clarify under what context the harassers are being ignored, or should be: I think that threats and harassment are irrelevant when discussing ethics in gaming journalism and when criticizing people such as Anita Sarkessian. No matter how poorly treated someone is, placing their work and statements under intense scrutiny and criticizing the person is still fair.

Discussion of the involvement of harassers in gamergate is another matter entirely, one that I would argue is not really Gamergate's problem. Hunting down anonymous comments from no one in particular and then taking the opportunity to disassociate from them sounds like a full time and thankless job that nonetheless the "gamergate harassment patrol" (as in, they patrol for harassment and report it, not that they post it) does precisely, but they're a small group of volunteers - not music giants with the pull of record labels and PR agents.

And you can't just blame the media for exclusively trying to smear Gamergate's name. There wouldn't be much for the media to smear Gamergate with if it wasn't for the misogynists giving them plenty of material to cover.

I most certainly can blame the media. They have outright lied and distorted facts about gamergate and the people involved. They could smear anything simply by omitting reactions from others of the gaming and gamergate community towards harassment and threats, and it's never going to stop because they're the exact same kind of people gamergate is criticizing.

 

[Something Amyss]

Well, if games make people misogynistic (as she claims) why are so many gamers on her side then?

Where does she claim that?

If games cause misogyny, then most gamers would be misogynistic, then most gamers would disagree with her vehemently.

Well, evidently, feminsts and "social justice warriors" are simply a vocal minority, so isn't that the case?

 

[Silverspetz]

Second of all, that first part is also more or less misrepresented. Saarkesian has said that negative tropes in video-games and other media perpetuates the same stereotypes in real life, because said tropes are originally spawned by negative trends and deep-rooted preconceptions about women in the first place. WHICH IS COMPLETELY TRUE! The whole point of her videos is that these tropes DOESN'T exist because some mustache-twirling bad guy in a game company got off on it, nor is it about tropes TURNING unsuspecting people into said raging misogynists. What it is ACTUALLY about is how the negative trends that have affected women for centuries show themselves through the disproportionate prelevance of these tropes in our media.

And replace "preconceptions about women" with "violence" and you have THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENT. Including examples of past events, and current perpetuation...

The effect line does not go from media -> mass unconscious. It goes from mass unconscious -> media. Always has, always will.

1) Um, no, just no. Thombsson argued that playing violent video-games would actually CAUSE people to become violent. There is nothing even remotely similar about that and the argument that sexist tropes reflects and continues sexist mindsets in real life.

2) THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SAYING FOR GOD'S SAKE!!! The Mass unconsciousness creates negative stereotypes in media, and media feeds those stereotypes straight back into the collective unconsciousness. That is not the same as media CREATING a mass unconsciousness or affecting people on a conscious level by turning them into wife-beaters or rapists. Learn the difference already.

Or are you saying that the effect is only one-way and that media has no effect whatsoever on how we think? In that case you are a prime example of the kind of people Bob's talking about when he says that the gaming community only wanted fake respect as a medium. The ability to make someone think about something, like an idea or a social issue is the very basis for something to be considered "high art".

 

[Lightknight]

From her video Damsel on distress Part 1:

The belief that women are somehow a ?naturally weaker gender? is a deeply ingrained socially constructed myth, which of course is completely false- but the notion is reinforced and perpetuated when women are continuously portrayed as frail, fragile, and vulnerable creatures.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that all games using the damsel in distress as a plot device are automatically sexist or have no value. But it?s undeniable that popular culture is a powerful influence in or lives and the Damsel in Distress trope as a recurring trend does help to normalize extremely toxic, patronizing and paternalistic attitudes about women.

She doesn't deliver proof of this statement either, but that's not the point we're arguing right now.

EDIT: Finally got the quotes right. Sorry.

Actually it's on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism

Aggregated data of absolute strength indicates that females have, on average, 40-60% the upper body strength of males, and 70-75% the lower body strength.[64] [footnote] "Strength training for female athletes: A position paper: Part 1". NSCA 11 (4). 1989.[/fotnote]

It even says at absolute peak training there will be a 30% consistent difference.

What Anita is arguing against according the multiple sources may be science itself in that statement. That is if you consider physical power to be the only form of strength that is.

According to studies women have better memories and a stronger immune systems.

Again large generalisations but still observed differences which are observable. The article in question has been edited a lot. It's a war ground on there at one point with claims that muscle mass differences were still observable on trained female vs untrained male and at one point a claim from a non scientific source that the only reason for the difference was social pressure for men to lift weights.


Testosterone, it's a hell of a drug.

I think she refered to things like thinking that the Olympic weightlifting champion in the women division can't beat an average male athlete, because she is a woman. To tell the truth, I haven't researched if she can do it or not.

EDIT: Or emotionally weaker than men in danger situations.

She was talking about what she called a "socially constructed myth" that women are more "frail and vulnerable". The context of her statement was fairly universally across the board and including physical strength. She also says this more than once. The example cited above was in the first Damsel video, but she elaborated it again in the third video by saying: "Damselled female characters tend to reinforce preexisting regressive notions about women as a group being weak or in need of protection because of their gender."5:25 mark

So when she talks about weakness here she's talking about the belief that women are weaker as a gender than men. But this is factually true on average. This is why we have problems with things like rape and why domestic violence affects far more females than males.

So there's a difference between reinforcing a stereotype and just depicting the statistical average. Stereotyping comes into play when you suddenly assume that any woman you ever meet is automatically weaker than you (if you're male). Now, I'm strong and quite competent in physical force but I know full well that a pro-female boxer could likely take me to task and fast. This would be because she has raised her body above the average and has developed skills to use her body to a higher degree of efficiency. But I'm also not wrong when I say that I am far stronger than the average female because I am also stronger than the average male. This isn't stereotyping, this is accepting facts and talking in aggregate like Anita is.

Additionally, there are also significant differences between genders emotionally:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/games-primates-play/201201/gender-differences-in-personality-are-larger-previously-thought

That's a 10,000 participant study split 50.1 female/49.9 male. Women score significantly higher in Sensitivity, Warmth, and Apprehension while males scored significantly higher in Emotional Stability, Dominance, Rule-Consciousness, and Vigilance. There's only about a 10% overlap between genders in these traits.

I think it's time to start owning the fact that we're a sexually dimorphic species. Both genders have specialized via evolution in specific areas and as such are generally weak in others. It's time we've started celebrating our differences rather than going forward pretending like we're all the same. Having differences doesn't mean one gender is better. Only that one gender on average will have a higher propensity for success in some areas but less in others.

Now, if you can somehow establish that she ONLY believes that the socially constructed myth is that women are emotionally weaker than men? Then ok. But the context is fairly damning that she was somehow under the impression that the average woman can go toe to toe with the average man when that isn't the case and is a reason for the issues the power disparity causes.

She also consistently confuses the definition of a grammatical object (the thing in a sentence which is acted upon) with the definition of the term objectification (treating a person as a thing without respect for their dignity). So I have a pretty significant argument against her believing that women receiving an action in a game from the protagonist somehow qualifies as objectifying her. By that sort of ridiculous definition "Anita defends feminists" would be a sentence in which she is objectifying feminists because they're the object of the sentence being acted upon.

I think the thing most people have issues with is her damsel argument. Her women as non-important background or sex toys is generally seen more favorably. I mean, we've all talked about the ridiculous nature of the chainmail bikini or whatever, long before Anita showed up.

 

[MaddKossack115]

Can you tell me exactly WHO in Anti Gamer Gate are "a Neo Nazi,many racists and sexists who go around bullying LGBT organizations and the like?" Like, with links showing the people making Neo-Nazi, racist and sexist comments? I'm not even being sarcastic, or anything - if guys like that really are running around Anti Gamer Gate, they deserve to be called out for their radical beliefs just as much as if they were running around Gamer Gate instead.

Ian Miles Cheong is a admitted Neo Nazi who is one of the vocal Anti GG members around,Samantha Allen wrote a article that is very hateful towards men.GaymerX was guilt tripped and in some messages outright coerced into denouncing GamerGate.Just read for yourself.It's pretty sickening.

http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_14152252162148&key=81bbad36819532991d8639869d59381d&libId=d182373f-a10b-4ed6-8c77-638d53071edb&loc=http%3A%2F%2Ftechraptor.net%2Fcontent%2Fgaymerx-lgbt-gaming-convention-fire-gamergate-remarks&v=1&out=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FGaymerX%2Fstatus%2F519890536753160192&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dgaymerx%2Bgets%2Bbullied%26src%3DIE-TopResult%26FORM%3DIETR02%26conversationid%3D&title=GaymerX%20LGBT%20Gaming%20Convention%20Under%20Fire%20Over%20%23GamerGate%20Remarks%20-%20TechRaptor&txt=Yesterday%20the%20organization%20reported%20that%20they%20(GaymerX)%20were%20receiving%20hate%20mail%20from%20both%20sides%20of%20the%20issue%2C%20after%20one%20of%20t...

Ok, I admit that Ian Miles Cheong definitely shouldn't be an advocate for Anti-GG, even though, as far as I can tell, he's only in it to insult GG members instead of trying to argue what the points of Anti-GG really are in comparrison. Samantha Allen does seem a little extreme in her feminist arguments, but it seems more to be stretching the truth of how women are short-changed by men - it's not like she would call for men to stay out of gaming altogether, like some misogynists do when the bash feminists for being 'fake gamers' or whatnot. And as far as I can tell on the GaymerX tweets, he seemed to keep a cool head throughout the one Tweet post you had a link to, and even though a few commentators did get out of control, I didn't see GaymerX give in and then 'denouncing GamerGate' because he was 'outright coerced' into doing so. And to be fair, he personally sounds like what GamerGate as a whole keeps trying to claim they are - a gamer with legitimate concerns over gaming journalism who doesn't try to make erroneous "well this person can't talk about games because she does so with a feminist perspective" arguments.

 

[MaddKossack115]

Ok, so long story short, I understand that you clearly don't support the sexists that try to abuse the Gamergate hashtag to harass people, and I appreciate how your policy is to get the proper authorities to get on the case whenever one of these threats show up. But just because the police are going after the guys who make death threats under the Gamergate name doesn't really mean Gamergate itself can ignore the fact the guys making death threats are there.

Well let's clarify under what context the harassers are being ignored, or should be: I think that threats and harassment are irrelevant when discussing ethics in gaming journalism and when criticizing people such as Anita Sarkessian. No matter how poorly treated someone is, placing their work and statements under intense scrutiny and criticizing the person is still fair.

Discussion of the involvement of harassers in gamergate is another matter entirely, one that I would argue is not really Gamergate's problem. Hunting down anonymous comments from no one in particular and then taking the opportunity to disassociate from them sounds like a full time and thankless job that nonetheless the "gamergate harassment patrol" (as in, they patrol for harassment and report it, not that they post it) does precisely, but they're a small group of volunteers - not music giants with the pull of record labels and PR agents.

What I meant to say was Metal FANS were banding together to disavow Neo-Nazis, not Metal MUSICIANS (although them voicing the same thing as the fans certainly helped). And again, disavowing sexists from GamerGate doesn't have to be a game of whack-a-mole of finding every last sexist in the movement and calling them out one by one; just openly state that the GamerGate community as a whole ISN'T in this to call out feminism instead of gaming journalism in general, and DOESN'T support sexist and anti-feminist behavior under the guise of the movement (to link it back to the metal fans uniting against Neo-Nazis, it isn't because they called out each and every skinhead who claimed to like metal - it was just a matter of saying 'I like metal, but it's NOT because I'm a Nazi, and I WON'T accept the behavior of Neo-Nazis who just happen to like metal').

And you can't just blame the media for exclusively trying to smear Gamergate's name. There wouldn't be much for the media to smear Gamergate with if it wasn't for the misogynists giving them plenty of material to cover.

I most certainly can blame the media. They have outright lied and distorted facts about gamergate and the people involved. They could smear anything simply by omitting reactions from others of the gaming and gamergate community towards harassment and threats, and it's never going to stop because they're the exact same kind of people gamergate is criticizing.

Ok, fine, the media gave GamerGate as a whole a bit of a raw deal - I certainly would've hoped that some voices of reason from GamerGate's side could have at least gotten some lip service to how they're denouncing the sexists abusing the GamerGate name - but you still can't blame the media entirely if the sexists using GamerGate gave them the ammunition to use against the movement in the first place. If you don't think GamerGate can't get its message to the media with the way it's going right now, take a step back and try changing the strategy so you can make your message about gaming journalism without it being soiled by sexists.

 

[WhiteNachos]

After the Kickstarter, all the videos comments filled up with some pretty vile stuff.

That is actually untrue.

She used to close off her comments section before the Kickstarter. FOR the Kickstarters she opened them, and stated (herself) that she was doing so to prove that there would be a negative reaction.

Actually she never opened the comments as such.

Since very early into the campaign the comments were set to backers only so the only way for anyone to have sent abuse would have been to actually put money towards funding her.

That happens in every kickstarter. Before she did the kickstarter she had to approve all comments on her youtube videos before they were posted and she rarely let any through that disagreed with her.