You don't have to be afraid of taking a public stance against #GamerGate.

[Dizchu]

Someone brings up ZQ Anita, probably someone stating "GG is toxic because it began with ZQ"

GG Supporter says "GG is not about ZQ anymore"

Anti GG says "Why do you keep talking about ZQ?"

Repeat.

I'm not "officially" part of Gamergate. I support it because I want a fire to be lit underneath certain privileged hipsters that claim to speak for all women, non-whites and LGBTs but all they do is have childish tantrums. I am fairly certain that Gamergate won't succeed but I don't like the status quo and anything that helps to shake it up is good with me.

Now I think there's a lot that can be said about Zoe Quinn. Her (ongoing) saga is insane. I don't think she's relevant to Gamergate but as an example of certain internet phenomena, she's very interesting.

I used to be very supportive of her before I knew about the bad stuff she did. I used to think women got harassed by men just for being women all the time. At one point I even considered that women were superior (possibly somewhat influenced to my own gender dysphoria as a trans/androgynous person).

But I'm glad the Zoe Quinn controversy happened. It made me ask myself a lot of questions and really challenge my ideas on gender representations.

Zoe Quinn is a messed up person. She has numerous troublesome characteristics, some downright horrifying. The way many feminists have come to her defence speaks volumes about the nature of feminism today, tainted by the same patriarchal double-standards it claimed to be against.

Now Gamergate itself isn't about Zoe Quinn or feminism. But feminism and gender topics are really important to me so I can't help but be fascinated by how the trainwreck happened. The train de-railed when thezoepoest went live and now it is continuing to skid down the side of a jagged mountain each time Zoe re-enters herself into the fray and each time someone from her past reveals more damning info about her.

I hope she gets therapy and takes a long hiatus. She might possibly need rehab too.



inb4: omg you're talking about Zoe Quinn what a hypocrite

I am talking about her as a feminist and someone interested in gender, not a member of Gamergate.

 

[Uriel_Hayabusa]

A little thought-exercise for those who people against GG.

You remember Jack Thomspon, the lawyer who wanted to regulate video games because he thought they made people violent? He received death threats from certain gamers for that. Do you condone the fact that he was sent death threats because you (presumably) disagree with him?

...

Feels bad to be lumped together with lunatics just because you both disagree with the same person, doesn't it?

 

[redlemon]

He said, that this behavior is part of the reason why GG has an image problem, which you dismissed, because the only fault lies with the media. I'm not arguing that GG description in the games media is fair and unbiased, because I would have to be extremly biased to claim it, but I'm saying that the image problem is not just the result of unfair media coverage.
Does it play a part? Sure. Is it the only reason? Probably not, since there are people like me, who didn't read the biased articles and still can't/won't support it.

Yeah, that's clearly not what people who keep saying "GG is toxic because of a few trolls" are implying. And frankly, I'm not sure the media won't just start making crap up if we somehow managed to stop every single troll. We even have people trying to frame us.

I do not care what those articles say. I want to focus on the constructive criticism, on the good points. And I doubt articles and videos that look to be biased from the outside will help me with this. It's the same reason I won't watch a video that explains the "corruption", when it starts with "brought to you by Zoes vagina."

I understand that articles like that can make you angry and it's understandable that you blame them, but don't take the easy way of blaming everything on other people. Focus on the valid criticism, not the mudslinging.

You know, I'm starting to understand why you keep seeing people say "You didn't do your research".

Look up #Gamergate in 60 seconds.

The other side misinforms and lies? Great, show it. Prove that they have lied. But don't do it by misquoting, ripping quotes out of its context, or deliberately misunderstand someone to "prove" your point. This helps nobody and only makes every argument you make look suspect. Look at my quote above, why would I belive what somebody says about a developer or journalist, when I know that this person turns a "can" into a "must" to help his point.

Well, you'd know if you actually read the articles.

"Gamergate is full of misogynists"
"Gamergate is a hate campaign against women"
"Gamergate is conservative"
"Gamergate doxxed Brianna"
RPS lying about receiving death threats - http://imgur.com/Lrvtb2H

In addition to everything they intentionally avoid reporting (Notably, the attacks on pro-gg).

 

[webkilla]

I liked OP's post - go you

and ya, I think it would be a lot better if people just took a stance instead of remaining silent and neutral: I think all of this would have been over ages ago if just more people had spoken out against the bullshit they might have seen or heard in the journo industry.

 

[Sane user]

RPS lying about receiving death threats - http://imgur.com/Lrvtb2H

Wow, that poor, harrased man.

It must have taken a lot of courage to say all that. Does he have a patreon I can donate to?

 

[Dragonbums]

I must genuinely ask what are the key indicators of someone who is anti-GG? Like most of the people who are on the anti camp seems to disagree with the label itself, and not even the "journalistic Integrity" ideals.

That's what I don't get. Your basically pissed off at people for simply not wanting to be associated with the name...that's really it.

It also doesn't help that those who are on the Anti-GG side are also apparently not "tru Gamerz" who have "nothing to do with vidya".

 

[Panda Pandemic]

A little thought-exercise for those who people against GG.

You remember Jack Thomspon, the lawyer who wanted to regulate video games because he thought they made people violent? He received death threats from certain gamers for that. Do you condone the fact that he was sent death threats because you (presumably) disagree with him?

...

Feels bad to be lumped together with lunatics just because you both disagree with the same person, doesn't it?

A lot of GGers here have been tossing the antis in together all the time already. It's rather hypocritical and there's even hints of it in your post. Like, what have I actually said that makes it relevant to me as someone who dislikes GG?

 

[Panda Pandemic]

-snip-

Aye, and for a movement that's supposedly moved past it's misogynistic roots, they can kindly tell that to Brianna Wu. What's your channel? And tippy, most people have abandoned the gg thread, it's an echochamber. Any sort of criticism of it just gets lost, ignored, or met with the same talking points.

What misogynistic roots? You mean calling a journalist out on giving positive press to a woman who slept with him?

It was the woman and the journalist in question who shifted the focus onto her. The issue gamergate had was always with him.

Is that what you people are claiming is the start of gg now? I never knew thezoepost was all about the journalist (whats his name again?). Here I thought it was all started by a jilted ex trying to shame someone, and the subsequent explosion of spammed threads across the internet by a bunch of 4chan trolls.

Tell me again where the proof is that this 'positive press' was the result of sexual favors?

.......sigh. To paint gg with one broad stroke is just as distasteful as painting feminism with one broad stroke.

I see plenty of anti gg'ers as well as people who call themselves feminists who dont mind doxxing when its not "one of theirs" So if you want to contribute to the noise with broad strokes than you contribute to a further end of dialogue.

Talking about what started it is not painting anything in one broad and has nothing to do with people on both sides doxxing.

Fact of the matter is you can see what got this rolling, what people complain they were censored about etc. I do believe the original GG thread that started here is still around.

You also didn't answer him about the positive press.

 

[redlemon]

I must genuinely ask what are the key indicators of someone who is anti-GG? Like most of the people who are on the anti camp seems to disagree with the label itself, and not even the "journalistic Integrity" ideals.

That's what I don't get. Your basically pissed off at people for simply not wanting to be associated with the name...that's really it.

It's a matter of perspective. For a more civilized forum, this may look like we're pissed. But compared to what's been going on in places like Twitter, this doesn't even come close.

 

[Sane user]

I must genuinely ask what are the key indicators of someone who is anti-GG? Like most of the people who are on the anti camp seems to disagree with the label itself, and not even the "journalistic Integrity" ideals.

That's what I don't get. Your basically pissed off at people for simply not wanting to be associated with the name...that's really it.

It also doesn't help that those who are on the Anti-GG side are also apparently not "tru Gamerz" who have "nothing to do with vidya".

The first sign that someone is a Heavy Anti-GG person would probably be uninformed or ignorant comments about misoginy and other Buzz-Words that the gaming "journalists" are throwing out. Another sign would be creating topics like this.

I'm fairly certain that most of the rational Gaters doesn't dislike everyone in the Anti camp, just the ignorant ones.

Not sure where you go to find dumb comments about the Antis not bein "Tru gamerz", whatever the hell that would mean in this issue. Did you perhaps read that on Kotaku?

Be an an Anti all you want, as long as you're well informed regarding the whole debate and civil about it.

 

[Dragonbums]

Right now I'm not even sure I want to continue to visit the Escapist any longer, as it's no longer a website that makes me feel welcomed. I'm more of an outsider here than I ever was in high school

I'm super sorry about that.

Hey, if it helps the forum games section, and the gaming section are relatively care free. Take some time in there. Lots of good folks in there.

 

[Uriel_Hayabusa]

Feels bad to be lumped together with lunatics just because you both disagree with the same person, doesn't it?

A lot of GGers here have been tossing the antis in together all the time already. It's rather hypocritical and there's even hints of it in your post.

I was simply making a point.

And just so we're clear, I do not consider myself a ''supporter'' of Gamer Gate (mostly because I'm not naive enough to believe that something can be ''purged'' from ''corruption''). What I want is for game journalism and the gaming community to own up to the fact that they crossed certain lines when dealing with Jack Thompson. I've reasons of my own for that which I needn't get into now.

 

[Carrington666]

He said, that this behavior is part of the reason why GG has an image problem, which you dismissed, because the only fault lies with the media. I'm not arguing that GG description in the games media is fair and unbiased, because I would have to be extremly biased to claim it, but I'm saying that the image problem is not just the result of unfair media coverage.
Does it play a part? Sure. Is it the only reason? Probably not, since there are people like me, who didn't read the biased articles and still can't/won't support it.

Yeah, that's clearly not what people who keep saying "GG is toxic because of a few trolls" are implying. And frankly, I'm not sure the media won't just start making crap up if we somehow managed to stop every single troll. We even have people trying to frame us.

Ok, I'll try to make it clearer. Yes, those articles were harmfull and people who dismiss the movement because of the actions of a few trolls act unfairly. I am not denying this.
However, certain behaviors of pro-GamerGaters also damage its reputations. By simply ignoring this criticisms and soley blaming the media for any and all negative opinions you're doing a disservice to GamerGate itself.

I do not care what those articles say. I want to focus on the constructive criticism, on the good points. And I doubt articles and videos that look to be biased from the outside will help me with this. It's the same reason I won't watch a video that explains the "corruption", when it starts with "brought to you by Zoes vagina."

I understand that articles like that can make you angry and it's understandable that you blame them, but don't take the easy way of blaming everything on other people. Focus on the valid criticism, not the mudslinging.

You know, I'm starting to understand why you keep seeing people say "You didn't do your research".

Look up #Gamergate in 60 seconds.

This is the first time I'm actually involved in this disscussion and you are right. I didn't do my research outside of reading a number of threads on this forum. However "You didn't do your research" is often used against people that did their research but didn't agree to what was said. And it is this use that I disagree with.

The other side misinforms and lies? Great, show it. Prove that they have lied. But don't do it by misquoting, ripping quotes out of its context, or deliberately misunderstand someone to "prove" your point. This helps nobody and only makes every argument you make look suspect. Look at my quote above, why would I belive what somebody says about a developer or journalist, when I know that this person turns a "can" into a "must" to help his point.

Well, you'd know if you actually read the articles.

"Gamergate is full of misogynists"
"Gamergate is a hate campaign against women"
"Gamergate is conservative"
"Gamergate doxxed Brianna"
RPS lying about receiving death threats - http://imgur.com/Lrvtb2H

In addition to everything they intentionally avoid reporting (Notably, the attacks on pro-gg).

You do realize that sounds like you are saying that lying and misrepresenting is okay, because the others do it too?
When you demand that the media treat you fairly, you have to be fair yourself. Be as factual and unbiased as possible, because then the media will either react to you in the same way, or it will look worse for using underhanded tactics.
If both sides lie, cherry pick what strengthens their point and ignore the rest, why should I support one over the other?

 

[redlemon]

Ok, I'll try to make it clearer. Yes, those articles were harmfull and people who dismiss the movement because of the actions of a few trolls act unfairly. I am not denying this.
However, certain behaviors of pro-GamerGaters also damage its reputations. By simply ignoring this criticisms and soley blaming the media for any and all negative opinions you're doing a disservice to GamerGate itself.

We don't ignore it. In fact we're actually quite stringent in calling out our own, or anyone who harasses in our name. We actively condemn harassment and sexism within our own ranks. Threads in 8chan that call for a harassment or a raid usually get deleted within minutes. We called out Milo when we felt he went too far. Short of mind control, we can't prevent anonymous people from using a hashtag to say whatever they want.

And the recent doxxing and death threats that everyone's been blaming Gamergate on? Gamergators went and investigated, found the person responsible for it, and forwarded the information to the FBI. Very few people know this of course because the media will never report any of our good deeds. Giving up the hashtag isn't an option (We'd lose momentum, and the media would simply say whatever new hashtag we use is born from Gamergate, so it's tainted).

Now look at what's happening on the anti-gg side. We have Moviebob, who isn't a random anon, condoning harassment of GG. We have a journalist from RPS faking death threats. We have Leigh Alexander, another journalist and a figurehead for Gamasultra, doxxing people. I haven't even included the random anons from anti-gg who doxx people, perform DDOS attacks, and get people fired. I'm not saying all anti-ggs condone this, but if our image was based only on our actions, the anti-gg side's image should be at least as bad as the pro-gg side.

This is the first time I'm actually involved in this disscussion and you are right. I didn't do my research outside of reading a number of threads on this forum. However "You didn't do your research" is often used against people that did their research but didn't agree to what was said. And it is this use that I disagree with.

I'm not sure you can accurately gauge whether someone's done their research if you haven't done the research yourself. If you suddenly found yourself in the middle of a discussion about, say, nuclear physics, how would you be able to know which side has done their homework if you don't know enough about the topic?

You do realize that sounds like you are saying that lying and misrepresenting is okay, because the others do it too?

I see nothing in my post that suggests this.

When you demand that the media treat you fairly, you have to be fair yourself. Be as factual and unbiased as possible, because then the media will either react to you in the same way, or it will look worse for using underhanded tactics.
If both sides lie, cherry pick what strengthens their point and ignore the rest, why should I support one over the other?

Ok.

"Gamergate is full of misogynists/hate campaign against women" - Literally every anti-gg article will say this. But GG calls out harassment and misogyny all the time, and there are plenty of feminists and women in GG (See #NotYourShield).

"Gamergate is conservative" - Some of the articles (Guardian's articles for example) painted Gamergate as conservative backlash. Some of them still do. Here's our political spectrum: http://i.imgur.com/8aygcER.png

"Gamergate doxxed Brianna" - Pay any attention to the recent news about a developer fleeing her home? The person sending the threats didn't even use the Gamergate tag. And as I explained above, Gamergators discovered the culprit was a games journalist. Although he didn't seem to have any connections with the ones up against (He's in Brazil). http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2014/10/gamergate-journalist-allegedly-outed-as-twitter-harasser-sending-death-threats/

 

[Namehere]

For a group that has anti-censorship as one of its primary talking points, it sure seems like asking for trouble to say anything against it. Obviously, first off, you're going to get ten million comments telling you you obviously did no research, don't understand the movement, etc. Right? Well, yes, *but* it isn't that bad. I wasn't sure if I should say anything against GamerGate, even though it's something I follow very closely, because of the perception I had that I would be harassed, bothered, and that it would be a pretty serious clusterfuck to even broach the issue.

It wasn't. It was well worth it.

Sure, I got comments telling me I obviously did no research. I hate that one-- as if watching this thing unfold for over two months across hundreds of websites and forums, reading GamerGate in GamerGate's own words, doesn't count as research. What surprised me was that I only got a couple dozen comments like this among two hundred comments, and even then, other users were calling folks out about it. And no one was shit-slinging, either-- the video I did, while coming down firmly against GamerGate as a movement, didn't make any wild accusations and for the most part, neither did the commentors. And my channel is pretty small (7k subscribers), so it's a risk to come out with an opinion you know is going to alienate some of your viewers. I expected to lose up to a thousand subscribers. I ended up losing 120-- and considering that I lose 20-40 subscribers *every time* I put out a new video on anything, that's barely significant.

All in all, what I'm saying is that staying silent isn't as critical for your long-term security in the gaming community as you think-- all these blacklists and bullshit and bluster you see, it isn't actually very powerful. It's only got power now because they're the loudest voices in the room. It's important for people who are part of the consumer end of the gaming economy, who don't have any kind of agenda other than "I love games" to be able to have their voices heard too. It's not necessary to speak louder than the most toxic voices of GamerGate-- doing so would be incredibly obnoxious. Speak, though! GamerGate isn't as big or as meaningful as it thinks, it's only this bipartisan "Gamers vs. The Press, CHOOSE WISELY" dichotomy they try to force that makes it appear that way. This isn't a two sided issue. It's a thousand sided issue. The fewer people standing behind their honest, heartfelt opinions, the longer and more venomous this thing becomes.

So basically you made a Utube video decrying gamergate and low and behold nothing terrible happened? I'm not surprised. What's more, with that said, why would you accuse gamergate of censorship when you personally have experienced nothing of the like? You were able to post that video on Utube and faced no real personal attacks? Great!

Too bad we can't have a GG forum on Reddit or 4Chan and that the media refuses to accept any evidence of wrong doing because it all isn't evidence... until some anti-gg figure brings forward the same sort of evidence and it's accepted. Strange double standard I think ? but that's just me and a few people in GG.

I can disagree with you, I can argue with you, but that isn't censorship. Censorship is when I disagree with something someone said or did then attempt to speak up on the issue... and the forum is shut down on a private site. Not because the rules of the forum were violated, but because the sites in question refuse to recognize the social importance of a topic to those commenting on it, and so shut down the discussion. When another thread and another start popping up, suddenly people are being mass banned for what appears to be having pro-gg or at least not anti-gg views. This is censorship. This is what happened and isn't in dispute. Utube has never been targeted for censorship claims. It has the difficulty of adjudicating it's DCM? DMC take down notices? More alphabet soup to choke on. Lol But that's hardly an act of censorship on Utubes part but rather on the part of those filing false claims and forcing videos to 'prove themselves pure of copy right infringement,' due to the Utube system.

So no, nobody should be afraid to express their views on GG anymore then anyone should be afraid to express their views on the anti-GG arguments. I'm glad to see you've realized this. I still fail to see how you can suggest a powerless movement ? you're own description of it ? is somehow censoring things, but whatever...

 

[Jux]

Yea, I'd disagree with that. [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2010/12/09/afl-cio-leader-gladly-accepts-communist-party-award/] That aside though, who cares if troglodytes call labor unions communist? I don't have anything particularly against communists. If anything, hard core communists are just wild eyed idealists to me, much like libertarians, but less destructive than the Randroids.

As shown by the millions of people put to death and jailed for nothing in libertarian regimes like the USSR and China.

If you need clarification, I'm speaking about communists in the US. I didn't think that needed much clarification, but considering our last conversation, I guess I was wrong to assume such a thing. That aside, there is nothing inherent in communism so far as I've seen that requires large scale death, so I still don't see your point. Shitty people do shitty things in the name of all sorts of movements.

 

[DANEgerous]

Good please do not fear #GamerGate we do not want you to fear us, just hear us.

Then stop all the war talk. Stop talking like you want to destroy all who oppose you. Stop immediately casting out anyone who doesn't agree with what you say. Stop the talk of burning games journalism to the ground. Stop acting like you're so much smarter than anyone who disagrees with you. Listen to your critics as much as people who agree with you.

GamerGate uses the language of an invading army, not of people who want to have a discussion about journalism ethics.

Is that not what you got from this, it is what I intended to imply.

 

[Bakuryukun]

Gamergate is a fucking unorganized joke, that just throws around accusations and is bizarrely defensive about how important it is and how much it's apparently needed and deserves to exist. It's a bunch of super entitled whiners who just want to have a group to huddle to whenever something isn't going their way. They seemingly have no idea how journalism or women even function on a basic level. The whole thing is goddamn ridiculous.

 

[aliengmr]

Feels bad to be lumped together with lunatics just because you both disagree with the same person, doesn't it?

A lot of GGers here have been tossing the antis in together all the time already. It's rather hypocritical and there's even hints of it in your post.

I was simply making a point.

And just so we're clear, I do not consider myself a ''supporter'' of Gamer Gate (mostly because I'm not naive enough to believe that something can be ''purged'' from ''corruption''). What I want is for game journalism and the gaming community to own up to the fact that they crossed certain lines when dealing with Jack Thompson. I've reasons of my own for that which I needn't get into now.

Jack? is that you?

I kid.

Seriously, What about the open letter condemning harassment? Are you expecting some sort of mass apology be given to a man that hasn't been relevant in years? In internet time that's like an eon.

I would argue its the systemic harassment that led to the Gamers are over articles. We've being seeing it for quite some time now, Jack Thompson is hardly a unique case in regards to receiving death threats. Yes they are wrong, but on a certain level of context Jack was a legit threat to games, where as David Vonderhaar and even Anita Sarkeesian were decidedly not a threat. That's not to say Jack deserved them, just that you can at least understand the level hostility that was directed toward him.

What's most disturbing is that level of hostility is being directed to people with the opposite intentions.