The Big Picture: Remembering the Real Jack Thompson

[Silvanus]

Yeah, that's kind of the point. You don't prove things with poor evidence.

I'm not trying to prove anything, as I've said multiple times.

For the umpteenth time, the null hypothesis is no longer the default position. I did not need conclusive evidence for that to be the case.

If you believe everything I've presented is so deeply flawed as to be insignificant, then explain why, or present counter-evidence.

To compel: to force or drive, especially to a course of action

I don't know if this is a willful red herring or just being obtuse here...

This is getting silly. If you use the terms "cause" and "influence" interchangeably, that's fine. Let's move on.

If you want to discuss your hypothesis, then present it.

I don't, as I've said before.

 

[sexy=sexist]

Just out of curiosity what do you think about the fallowing?

Did Anita try and get Thunderfoot banned from twitter?
Myself, I doubt it was her, probably just a misguided fan.

What about not allowing anyone to record her classroom lectures and using the campus security to enforce the ban?
Well I guess she can do that, I wont call it censorship if everyone knew about it ahead of time, I find it pretty shady myself however.

Her use of her Facebook page Feminist Frequency.
Yah the heavy censorship of the FF Facebook page that removes any criticism, or even just comments politely disagreeing is pretty screwed up.


Why do you consider or not consider the above to be censorship and have there been any more?

 

[Lightknight]

Do you disagree that it was coordinated?

On phone so I'm only responding to this bit. I actually haven't read the rest of your post so I may or may not respond later.

I personally don't find 24 hours to be too little time for people to respond to the first articles with articles of their own.

We'd been having this conversation for two years previous to this and it was a Hot Button issue at that time, so I'd expect this old conversation was swirling around in a lot of minds.

The Twitter exchange shows two people independently planning similar pieces prior to their release. Some of the articles reference earlier articles. There's just oodles of time in the 24 hour window.

I could probably pop out a similar piece of similar length in a couple of hours because, again, I've got over two years thinking about this exact subject. If you count my comics experience, more like a decade of insisting that an industry shouldn't be catering only to the hardcore base.

If ten authors popped out articles about why there needs to be a Shogo 2, all saying variations on the same thing, I'd be suspicious because no one is thinking about Shogo.

But everyone has been thinking about the hardcore gamer and his relationship to the game industry... for the last two years. An article on the subject would be child's play to write and likely include commonly held opinions. All it needed was a tiny nudge to get rolling.

So you're thinking it was cooperation but not necessarily conspiratory? That they'd all been sitting around with this particular ax to grind against the "hardcore gamer" and once one started grinding it was a natural building of inertia?

I... I'd honestly find that a hell of a lot more insulting to be honest. That this kind of seething and outright bigotry towards gamers was just below the surface naturally. They should really move along to another industry if so.

It was really odd to be attacked by the people I trust (or trusted) for news on something I care about. I have no idea what they were trying to redefine gamer as but if this was just a bandwagon people jumped on and already shared thoughts of then that's pretty damning of the sort of culture the gaming media has established where their core audience (gamers) gets redefined as reactionary shit slingers that shouldn't be catered to.

 

[Lightknight]

Just out of curiosity what do you think about the fallowing?

Did Anita try and get Thunderfoot banned from twitter?
Myself, I doubt it was her, probably just a misguided fan.

What about not allowing anyone to record her classroom lectures and using the campus security to enforce the ban?
Well I guess she can do that, I wont call it censorship if everyone knew about it ahead of time, I find it pretty shady myself however.

Her use of her Facebook page Feminist Frequency.
Yah the heavy censorship of the FF Facebook page that removes any criticism, or even just comments politely disagreeing is pretty screwed up.

Why do you consider or not consider the above to be censorship and have there been any more?

Anita, though I disagree with specific components of her arguments on the damsel trope, hasn't really ever struck me as someone to lash out at others so much as pointing to people like Thunderfoot as examples of oppression rather than trying to silence his voice.

As far as her controlling areas that are her forums, that's not censorship. Censorship is silencing people's voices generally. It isn't preventing them from commenting on your sites or pages. Those are private locations. You can tell a person in your own home not to shout obscenities.

Honestly, as much as I disagree with her I completely understand not allowing comments on those things. Look how verbose we are here. She would get trolled all day every day and even those of us who disagree with her should be able to understand that.

FYI, plenty of professors don't allow videotaping either.

 

[Lightknight]

So even if she had a philosophical issue with that, where the hell did she get off doing that to a charity group centered around giving development resources to females?

People against Gamergate seem to get really giddy about sabotaging charities. Beyond TFYC they've also tried getting charities to refuse (very large) donations purely because of a difference in opinion. It's like when Christians lobby to get atheist donations refused because they're "immoral".

These people think they're infallible so any bad things they do is for "a greater good". It's insane.

Yeah, I don't care where the money is coming from if it's going to a good cause. If nothing else, that's less money in the pockets of people you don't like and more money in the pockets of people we should like. It's one of those win/win scenarios.

It just feels particularly weird to have this happening on the feminist side of things... you know? Like they're supposed to be the more level headed of the bunch and now everything has gone bizarro-world on me. But maybe you come from a different background than me. Just keep in mind that by feminism I mean pushing for equality. Not this pseudo-feminism bullshit that's really just misandry that all men are just rape monsters who should feel bad and kneel when women pass.

Some feminists are very angry actually. However there does seem to be a problem with many feminists in realising that feminists can be really bad people. When they disagreed with Christina Hoff Sommers the response wasn't "we're both feminists but I take issue with your opinions", the response was "you're not a real feminist". They don't want to accept the possibility that there are geniunely troublesome people amongst them because in their mind it dilutes the "feminist" group.

Some day, we'll live in a world where we understand that people of all races, genders, sexes, ideologies and even dispositions are asshats. Asshats everywhere who are all biologically predisposed to take advantage of any exploits available to them.

The same thing's happened with Gamergate. People with differing opinions have been accused of "not really a part of Gamergate". In the Zoe Quinn scenario, her harassment claims coincides with the narrative many feminists cling to (ie. women are oppressed and face constant harassment). They are more likely to believe that than "a narcissist did bad things and didn't even realise that she was doing bad things which made her think it was okay".

It seems like gamergate's big purpose is to say that harassers don't speak for the majority. But I see what you mean.

Those journalism sites are garbage anyway. Zoe Quinn is just one of the more recent examples in a long history of favouritism.

Unfortunately, they're all we have that really cater to our market. Garbage or not, if they're going to claim to be legitimate components of journalism then they need to be held to the ethical standards of journalists.

What we should do is call Gawker Media out for being an awful company, not go after individuals like Quinn.

Gawker and individuals responsible should be brought to light. There's no reason why we can't call Gawker out on it's shenanigans and also call Quinn out on derailing feminist charities for personal gain. As the lynchpin that broke this whole scandal, she's certainly gotten a ton more shit than any single individual deserves but she's just as deserving of ire right now for the TFYC issue alone. That she abused her connections with media is every bit a part of the problem as the media connections that let her do it. It's really only with the Grayson components that I would put he blame on Grayson who may very well have written those articles without any direct prompting from Zoe (for example, I seriously doubt they exchanged sex for journalism, I think they just liked eachother like people do and Grayson decided to benefit her without disclosing the relationship which is all on him). So the entire five guys nonsense was a total red herring and should have all been told from Grayson's wrong doing side instead while the only thing discussed with Zoe would have been Wizardchan and TFYC. I guess that's what happens when the only source talking about it for weeks is her old boyfriend. When are people going to fully grasp the Streisand effect?

They're losing advertisers left and right and their arrogance is on social media for all to see. I'm not sure which they'd rather do, see their business crumble or admit that they were wrong. Because eventually one of these things will have to happen.

I don't really care which. I just want reliable news on a subject I'm passionate about. If they admit wrong doing and change their ways and I get reliable journalism then I'd be just as happy as if someone replaced them wholesale and brought reliable journalism.

The thing I don't want is to see them replaced with groups biased the other way. That's always the risk of these kinds of unseating of kings. The pendulum keeps swinging too far one way or another rather than stopping in the middle where it really needs to be.

 

[Netrigan]

Do you disagree that it was coordinated?

On phone so I'm only responding to this bit. I actually haven't read the rest of your post so I may or may not respond later.

I personally don't find 24 hours to be too little time for people to respond to the first articles with articles of their own.

We'd been having this conversation for two years previous to this and it was a Hot Button issue at that time, so I'd expect this old conversation was swirling around in a lot of minds.

The Twitter exchange shows two people independently planning similar pieces prior to their release. Some of the articles reference earlier articles. There's just oodles of time in the 24 hour window.

I could probably pop out a similar piece of similar length in a couple of hours because, again, I've got over two years thinking about this exact subject. If you count my comics experience, more like a decade of insisting that an industry shouldn't be catering only to the hardcore base.

If ten authors popped out articles about why there needs to be a Shogo 2, all saying variations on the same thing, I'd be suspicious because no one is thinking about Shogo.

But everyone has been thinking about the hardcore gamer and his relationship to the game industry... for the last two years. An article on the subject would be child's play to write and likely include commonly held opinions. All it needed was a tiny nudge to get rolling.

So you're thinking it was cooperation but not necessarily conspiratory? That they'd all been sitting around with this particular ax to grind against the "hardcore gamer" and once one started grinding it was a natural building of inertia?

I... I'd honestly find that a hell of a lot more insulting to be honest. That this kind of seething and outright bigotry towards gamers was just below the surface naturally. They should really move along to another industry if so.

It was really odd to be attacked by the people I trust (or trusted) for news on something I care about. I have no idea what they were trying to redefine gamer as but if this was just a bandwagon people jumped on and already shared thoughts of then that's pretty damning of the sort of culture the gaming media has established where their core audience (gamers) gets redefined as reactionary shit slingers that shouldn't be catered to.

There's been two years to pick sides. They've likely made their position on diversity known long ago (should be the same general mix of liberal and conservative in gaming as in general population). Several of these sites are decidedly progressive.

Such as, its no surprise MovieBob sided with Sarkeesian. He's been saying much the same for years now.

GamerGate divided gamers in a major way and these outlets picked a side. They see GG as being about harassment (and there's no denying the harassment of Quinn at the very beginning) and came down hard.

Anywho, I think they were just feeding off of each other. A couple of similar articles got a ball rolling.

I view the articles as well meaning but needlessly divisive. Gamers aren't going to die but they've mutated for the fourth or fifth time (remember arcades, remember mascots, etc.). There's always going to be the fanboys/girls, but the industry is much bigger than that and its past time we started acting like it. Such as more reviews targeting normals. This is yhe success of Marvel Studios. Fans have a place but never at the expense of the mainstream.

 

[The Deadpool]

For the umpteenth time, the null hypothesis is no longer the default position. I did not need conclusive evidence for that to be the case.

That's not how it works. The idea is that any hypothesis is untrue until proven otherwise. Not until it is BELIEVED otherwise, not until it is proven POSSIBLE, not when someone really wants it to be true. Until PROVEN true.

 

[Lightknight]

There's been two years to pick sides. They've likely made their position on diversity known long ago (should be the same general mix of liberal and conservative in gaming as in general population). Several of these sites are decidedly progressive.

But when did deciding not to cater to the core demographic become "pro-diversity"? Seems like that's just pro-exclusivity and deciding that they don't like one of the groups?

Such as, its no surprise MovieBob sided with Sarkeesian. He's been saying much the same for years now.

Sure, and Bob's video on "dad" movies was pretty telling as well. He also regularly complains about every movie where a female actress does a good job but isn't he protagonist.

I view the articles as well meaning but needlessly divisive. Gamers aren't going to die but they've mutated for the fourth or fifth time (remember arcades, remember mascots, etc.). There's always going to be the fanboys/girls, but the industry is much bigger than that and its past time we started acting like it. Such as more reviews targeting normals. This is yhe success of Marvel Studios. Fans have a place but never at the expense of the mainstream.

Actually, I haven't felt harmed at all by diversity in games. These sites really pegged me wrong when they cried about us being somehow afraid of change. These indie games have been wonderful and I absolutely love them. So them bitching about diversity when responding to my complaints about journalism is practically crazy to me. Like if you were to talk to someone about how bad the city water tastes and they call you a racist.

It's like they can't comprehend the thought that people would be pro-equality and pro-unbiased journalism. Do they think their blatant bias is actually benefiting someone?

 

[Lissie InCode]

Even if the majority of Gamergate participants are trying to make a change in gaming journalism ethics (which is understandable) and not an unfortunate mix of misogynists, trolls, and angry young men: they are harming their cause's credibility MASSIVELY by taking on the #Gamergate banner. The brand is tainted beyond the ability of any outside repair, and inside repair is unlikely to happen. No matter what your position Anita Sarkeesian or anything one issue, this is a reality of marketing: you cannot fix a bad brand by reframing the issues. When a brand is tainted, you must address the branding if you want people to think differently about it.

If you don't believe a tainted brand image is very likely to kill your issue, I'd encourage you to ask yourself why companies have a history of changing their logos/color schemes after a major controversy or public image shift. And why logo, image heavy creative companies (such as Disney) work so hard to protect their brands from even the slightest wiff of negative public image. Ask Dell why, when they acquired Alienware, they still distanced themselves from that brand as far as they could. Your brand and what it represents cannot survive if it is in clash with your image.

So, GamerGaters, if you want to win women and journalists over to your cause and be the activists you so clearly want to be, you are going to have to rebrand both your image and your goals. Because I've been paying attention and as much as I don't like gaming journalists *some of the time*, you've been hostile (or silently complicit in hostility) to women and minorities like me *all of the time.* I don't see why I should support you if all I hear is how much you think me and mine are out to ruin you. The way I hear it from some of your loudest voices, because I support Anita Sarkeesian and her goals, and donated, and worked hard to create good feminist and female gaming spaces, I'm the enemy. Because I've been on the inside of gaming journalism and done creative work, I'm some sort of fan-hating kombanitor. And this isn't true. I know it's not true because I've worked *for* you in the past. And what's sad is: I think you have some good points because gaming journalism and ethics in journalism is a serious issue. But because you've allied yourself so staunchly to old-man-yelling-at-cloud misogynists and reactionary thinkers, you've done yourselves a huge disservice.

Let me ask you, GamerGate supporters who want this to be about changing gaming journalism: what made you seriously think this brand was the banner you wanted to fly under? No, really, tell me. Because given it's short history I can tell you no one cares it's goals for journalism... and I doubt that will change because right now, Wikipedia, Know Your Meme, and most of America won't get past the "Zoe Quinn's Boyfriend" part without dismissing you all. What I'm saying is: even if your goals are good, you were naive to think GamerGate was any type of vehicle for the changes you claim to want.

I'm not saying this to be mean-spirited, edgy, or cruel. I think some of you do have good, clear goals in mind. The Fine Young Capitalists raised money, and that was good. But the reality is thus: if you want to achieve those goals, you're going to have to reform your brand, apologize, and work together to frame the discussion away from misogyny and FOR GOD'S SAKE GET AWAY FROM THE LOVER'S QUARREL CRAPSLINGING THIS TIME.

Or, you know, business as usual. And if GamerGate wants to carry on with business as usual and doesn't change the brand, it will stagnate and collapse. And if the most it ever wanted to be was a punchline for Stephen Colbert, than I can say it's earned it.

EDIT:

I'm going to try and be succinct since I already said my piece, however I want to add this: Jack Thompson was a hateful man who did bad things to women including the attorney general, but he's no one to compare Anita Sarkeesian. That's because Jack Thompson has been built into such a boogeyman by the gaming community, calling someone him roughly sounds to me like the video game community equivalent of calling someone Hitler in that it's so silly all I can think of is "literally Hitler." I've heard this from more than a few non-gamers and gamers alike, so I know it's not just me, it's something to think about.

If I were a GamerGate supporter who wanted any boogeyman to compare her to, I think a better go-to would have been Tipper Gore. If you don't believe me, look it up, because the history and facts actually support some of the comparisons, unlike a comparison to Thompson which is cartoonishly hampered in mythos. But I doubt anyone thought about that strategy too long.

 

[Netrigan]

There's been two years to pick sides. They've likely made their position on diversity known long ago (should be the same general mix of liberal and conservative in gaming as in general population). Several of these sites are decidedly progressive.

But when did deciding not to cater to the core demographic become "pro-diversity"? Seems like that's just pro-exclusivity and deciding that they don't like one of the groups?

Such as, its no surprise MovieBob sided with Sarkeesian. He's been saying much the same for years now.

Sure, and Bob's video on "dad" movies was pretty telling as well. He also regularly complains about every movie where a female actress does a good job but isn't he protagonist.

I view the articles as well meaning but needlessly divisive. Gamers aren't going to die but they've mutated for the fourth or fifth time (remember arcades, remember mascots, etc.). There's always going to be the fanboys/girls, but the industry is much bigger than that and its past time we started acting like it. Such as more reviews targeting normals. This is yhe success of Marvel Studios. Fans have a place but never at the expense of the mainstream.

Actually, I haven't felt harmed at all by diversity in games. These sites really pegged me wrong when they cried about us being somehow afraid of change. These indie games have been wonderful and I absolutely love them. So them bitching about diversity when responding to my complaints about journalism is practically crazy to me. Like if you were to talk to someone about how bad the city water tastes and they call you a racist.

It's like they can't comprehend the thought that people would be pro-equality and pro-unbiased journalism. Do they think their blatant bias is actually benefiting someone?

There's like 18 coversations going on. No one is ever having the one you want. I talk about game reviews, the other guy is talking about Sarkeesian. Someone is talking about harassment, the other person is talking ethics. Its a flame war writ large.

As for it being the core demographic... well, Call of Duty just called that into question as it was saif that CoD fans aren't gamers... they're CoD fans. Biggest franchise on the planet and these guys aren't terribly interested in playing anything else. Mobile games is huge, but they don't tend to self-identify as gamers. Farmville is big, same deal. A lot of WoW players play nothing else. If Sony can get Playstation Now off the ground, you won't even need consoles to AAA game.

And these sites didn't offend all gamers. Many (myself included) didn't much care what they said, because its their opinion.

Likely won't continue this conversation. Three new games tonight and I'm a gamer who would rather game than argue.

 

[sexy=sexist]

Anita, though I disagree with specific components of her arguments on the damsel trope, hasn't really ever struck me as someone to lash out at others so much as pointing to people like Thunderfoot as examples of oppression rather than trying to silence his voice.

Then I assume that you don't think she had a hand in silencing his voice?

As far as her controlling areas that are her forums, that's not censorship. Censorship is silencing people's voices generally. It isn't preventing them from commenting on your sites or pages. Those are private locations. You can tell a person in your own home not to shout obscenities.

So you would not consider it censorship if the escapist forum erased posts and banned anyone that shared your view?
I myself say you have the right to self-censor your own home, but it is censorship, and worse if you are inviting people to have a discussion but only allowing those who agree with you.

 

[Lissie InCode]

Anita, though I disagree with specific components of her arguments on the damsel trope, hasn't really ever struck me as someone to lash out at others so much as pointing to people like Thunderfoot as examples of oppression rather than trying to silence his voice.

Then I assume that you don't think she had a hand in silencing his voice?

As far as her controlling areas that are her forums, that's not censorship. Censorship is silencing people's voices generally. It isn't preventing them from commenting on your sites or pages. Those are private locations. You can tell a person in your own home not to shout obscenities.

So you would not consider it censorship if the escapist forum erased posts and banned anyone that shared your view?
I myself say you have the right to self-censor your own home, but it is censorship, and worse if you are inviting people to have a discussion but only allowing those who agree with you.

Not all censorship is bad. If say, I ran a gaming forum, I would censor posts about under water basket weaving if it didn't relate to the discussion or community I was cultivating. On a pro-basket forum I would censor posts from the anti-basket people. One of the tradeoffs to private enterprise and private goals are often degrees of equally private oversight.

If Anita did silence Thunderfoot, I would ask: how? Did she use her power and position? Her "internet hate machine?" If so, than welcome to the 21st century and it's various special interest Twitter mobs. He might have been guaranteed speech but no one is required an audience or any sort of supportive audience. I think it's much more likely that he wasn't silenced: he just wasn't supported, either. And I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. He wasn't exactly saying anything ground breaking, he's been varying degrees of unstable in his videos, and his supporters have been awful. He's back anyways, and his Twitter feed is up again (full of the least-rational voices he could stand to align himself).

 

[sexy=sexist]

Not all censorship is bad. If say, I ran a gaming forum, I would censor posts about under water basket weaving if it didn't relate to the discussion or community I was cultivating. On a pro-basket forum I would censor posts from the anti-basket people. One of the tradeoffs to private enterprise and private goals are often degrees of equally private oversight.

Ok so you do think it is ok to remove posts that don't agree with you, if you control the forum?

If Anita did silence Thunderfoot, I would ask: how? Did she use her power and position? Her "internet hate machine?" If so, than welcome to the 21st century and it's various special interest Twitter mobs. He might have been guaranteed speech but no one is required an audience or any sort of supportive audience. I think it's much more likely that he wasn't silenced: he just wasn't supported, either. And I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. He wasn't exactly saying anything ground breaking, he's been varying degrees of unstable in his videos, and his supporters have been awful. He's back anyways, and his Twitter feed is up again (full of the least-rational voices he could stand to align himself).

I am not really sure what your answer is here. Could you clarify for me? If Anita silenced him it would have been by getting him banned on twitter with a false charge with the goal of stopping or discrediting his criticism. He was silenced, I am not sure how that could be argued but his account was unbanned and I don't think it can be shown to have been by her herself. If it was done without her knowledge and consent she can't be held responsible for it.

 

[Silvanus]

That's not how it works. The idea is that any hypothesis is untrue until proven otherwise. Not until it is BELIEVED otherwise, not until it is proven POSSIBLE, not when someone really wants it to be true. Until PROVEN true.

Wubbish. There are vast swathes of theory in history, science, psychology, and every other discipline which are unproven, and are yet considered valid possibilities.

It has not been proven that Europa can sustain life; that we dream for the purpose of information-processing; that the "lone gunman" was truly acting alone; that the meteoric impact accounts for the extinction of the dinosaurs; that the last common ancestor lived 3.5 billion years ago; that Charlemagne was born in modern Germany, or Belgium; or that Leonardo DiCaprio really was still dreaming at the end of Inception.

And yet, the null hypothesis is not still the default on these questions. Other possibilities are recognised as possibilities.

EDIT: This is particularly true of psychology, in which very little has (or, some would argue, can) be proven.

 

[Lightknight]

Let me ask you, GamerGate supporters who want this to be about changing gaming journalism: what made you seriously think this brand was the banner you wanted to fly under? No, really, tell me. Because given it's short history I can tell you no one cares it's goals for journalism... and I doubt that will change because right now, Wikipedia, Know Your Meme, and most of America won't get past the "Zoe Quinn's Boyfriend" part without dismissing you all. What I'm saying is: even if your goals are good, you were naive to think GamerGate was any type of vehicle for the changes you claim to want.

There's a few things to consider:

1. False or even planted name associations: Many of us have been around from the beginning and have never been about the Zoe's personal relationship stuff. Just because the group we're accusing of impropriety has framed us as mere slut shamers doesn't make them a legitimate source.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.858347-Zoe-Quinn-and-the-surrounding-controversy?page=14#21282642

"I don't mean the elements that are private and nitty gritty. I don't care who someone sleeps with. Just the elements that actually matter like criticisms of journalistic integrity and the claim that she fabricated attacks on herself and even got pro-feminist organizations trying to do charity work doxxed and pubicly shamed without any reasons as to why."

That's me on August 19th asking for legitimate journalistic responses to the journalism side of things. To the ethics.

So for many of us, the group has been falsely pigeonholed into being a harassment group by the very people we're allied against. It's an easy way for them to silence us and get people like you perhaps assuming that they're right and we should be silent.

2. A rose by any other name...: are you assuming that if we allied under a different banner that the few people who are actually harassing others wouldn't move right along with us? That looters show up to take advantage of a peaceful protest doesn't remove legitimacy of the cause or mean that we should stop protesting.

3. Brand recognition: Right now, for better or worse, this is causing a discussion to take place. As less biased sources are beginning to actually do their homework, they're finding legitimacy to our claims and we are starting to see the story unravel in a meaningful way. If someone started up some other cause it wouldn't have any sort of traction and would likely die in the water. It sucks that our opponents successfully tarnished our name by focusing on the small fringe members that did something wrong. But let's not forget what they've done, the charities they've tried to derail, the GGers they doxxed and harassed, and all the other things they've accused us of.

I'm sorry, but we really can't let them win this whole thing just because they were able to control the narrative that got out. I mean, it's hard to fight against journalism.

But I want you to consider the fact that some sites we've been involved with, like this one, have actually changed their policies for ethics and have edited old articles they wrote to reflect the truth they failed to obtain and got innocent people harassed for accepting someone's word without fact checking.

Good is and has been coming out of it, whether you or anyone else likes the term GG is irrelevant. It's what we've got to work with and us continuing to work under it has no bearing on our motivations anymore then the fact that many of us were here from the start. When people like the anti-GG community decide they're going to say we're like ISIS to try and defame us, it's time to just call Godwin's Law on them and move on through. Not roll over and die just because they wanted us to.

 

[Lissie InCode]

Not all censorship is bad. If say, I ran a gaming forum, I would censor posts about under water basket weaving if it didn't relate to the discussion or community I was cultivating. On a pro-basket forum I would censor posts from the anti-basket people. One of the tradeoffs to private enterprise and private goals are often degrees of equally private oversight.

Ok so you do think it is ok to remove posts that don't agree with you, if you control the forum?

If Anita did silence Thunderfoot, I would ask: how? Did she use her power and position? Her "internet hate machine?" If so, than welcome to the 21st century and it's various special interest Twitter mobs. He might have been guaranteed speech but no one is required an audience or any sort of supportive audience. I think it's much more likely that he wasn't silenced: he just wasn't supported, either. And I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. He wasn't exactly saying anything ground breaking, he's been varying degrees of unstable in his videos, and his supporters have been awful. He's back anyways, and his Twitter feed is up again (full of the least-rational voices he could stand to align himself).

I am not really sure what your answer is here. Could you clarify for me? If Anita silenced him it would have been by getting him banned on twitter with a false charge with the goal of stopping or discrediting his criticism. He was silenced, I am not sure how that could be argued but his account was unbanned and I don't think it can be shown to have been by her herself. If it was done without her knowledge and consent she can't be held responsible for it.

Yes. If you have a private forum and you are in control of it, it is "okay" both legally and ethically to remove posts. You are also legally and ethically responsible for what you choose not to remove. You're audience and users can react however they want, but as a mod myself, I can tell you removing stuff comes with the job. Community management hinges on it. Checks and balances for forums and communities are a great idea, but on most forums you can add and remove whatever your users post. The reaction to you doing that is yours to own as well, for better and worse. It would be too easy to blame the dictatorship of private site ownership but this is neither the Internet we need or deserve (though it seems President Obama might be working on that with Congress). It just is.

I don't know what exactly happened with Thunderfoot and I doubt anyone ever *really* will know either because the man (and who he has surrounded himself with) are all rather unreliable sources. I can't even really detect if Anita DID "silence" him so much as ask Twitter to take action, and they did the easiest thing which was suspend him. But he's back, so in either case it wasn't successful.

But even so, now I have to ask: why do you care about this Thunderfoot person as far as his merit within Gamergate? Within a few short clicks, I was able to find links to MRA forums and videos on his Twitter page which linked to GamerGate lit and links. I'm willing to grant Sarkeesian isn't perfect but anyone who thinks Roosh and the like are "credible allies" is no one of merit. He's not exactly someone to help the Gamergate journalism cause (but I doubt he's one of those in it to help journalism). If I was a GamerGater, I would be running away from people like Thunderfoot as far as my two legs could carry me. Gamergate can have ethics in journalism or it can have keeping feminists away from gaming, but it can't have both.

 

[Lightknight]

Anita, though I disagree with specific components of her arguments on the damsel trope, hasn't really ever struck me as someone to lash out at others so much as pointing to people like Thunderfoot as examples of oppression rather than trying to silence his voice.

Then I assume that you don't think she had a hand in silencing his voice?

Oh, I have no idea.

As far as her controlling areas that are her forums, that's not censorship. Censorship is silencing people's voices generally. It isn't preventing them from commenting on your sites or pages. Those are private locations. You can tell a person in your own home not to shout obscenities.

So you would not consider it censorship if the escapist forum erased posts and banned anyone that shared your view?{/quote] That is censorship within this particular arena. When GG stuff started up there was an industry wide effort to censor discussion on the topic as well.

I myself say you have the right to self-censor your own home, but it is censorship, and worse if you are inviting people to have a discussion but only allowing those who agree with you.

Sure. But what's your point? Why is it unethical to censor certain things in your own home?

Censorship really only becomes an issue if it becomes widespread in any meaningful way. If you aren't allowing a book in your bookstore that's fine. But not allowing it in any bookstores and it becomes the sort of censorship we're talking about.

That's why false DMCAs are so insidious. They're basically censoring people on the entire internet all at once with youtube being so many peoples' entry point.

 

[sexy=sexist]

Sure. But what's your point? Why is it unethical to censor certain things in your own home?

So when Jim in this video points out that this dev was censoring negative views in his forum you do not see anything unethical about that just to be 100% clear?

 

[Lissie InCode]

Sure. But what's your point? Why is it unethical to censor certain things in your own home?

So when Jim in this video points out that this dev was censoring negative views in his forum you do not see anything unethical about that just to be 100% clear?

It might be "wrong" or "stupid" to censor things on your own forum, but unethical? NO! Not a bit! You can do damn fool things and they might be damn fool things, but unethical implies it carries real world harm, is against your stated goals and cause, or creates a wider chilling effect. Filing a takedown notice with Youtube IS a real world harm and unethical, in that it loses real dollars and creates a chilling effect. A dev censoring discussion on his own one small forum doesn't carry the weight because it's impact isn't the same. He's not Youtube.

 

[sexy=sexist]

It might be "wrong" or

Why would it be wrong? Do you consider it a form of dishonesty to keep dissenting voices hidden away so others won't be influenced by it? Maybe it could be seen as deceitful if your trying to make it look like more people agree with you?