GamerGate

[Ashurbanipal]

It's entirely irrelevant. The forums one hangs at can be used to assess their character, but we are emphatically not having a discussion on character; I don't care what you think of me as a person, much as how you don't care what I think about you as a person. The truth-value of an idea exists independent of the person expressing that idea.


Paul Elam's "Bash a violent bitch month" is explicitly satire reversing the genders of this Jezebel article: http://jezebel.com/294383/have-you-ever-beat-up-a-boyfriend-cause-uh-we-have glorifying violence against men.


That you found it offensive is good! It's meant to be offensive, because the Jezebel article (and many others) are horribly offensive.


Red Pill is unrelated to GG and Men's Rights. Even if they were identical communities, however, that would have no bearing on their ideas.


Please, focus less on identity politics, less on character assassination, and more on ideas.


If you can do that, I'll indulge your further questions. Can you manage this? I explicitly will not waste time on you if you're unable to. A yes or no will suffice.

 

[DreamingofRoses]

It was actually meant to be a 'get your own damn material instead of parroting others, especially noted misogynists' criticism of your argument. (I have loads I can say about Paul Elam, but that's neither here nor there, but I will say the 'it was meant to be satire!' argument is bullcrap).


And no, honestly I can not, because your ideas on GG and Sarkeesian are going to be heavily affected by where you fall on the ideological scale as mine are. Ideas don't exist in a vacuum.


Also, you can take your wonderful condescension and shove it where the sun doesn't shine along with your faux-intellectualism.

 

[Ashurbanipal]

Your inability is noted. There will be no further communication between you and I. If anyone else is interested and able, I'll be happy to indulge them.

 

[FleetingInfinity]

And don't think I didn't notice you utterly failed to address anything said and settled for a snarky one-liner, Infinity. The avoidance of unpleasant facts in the face of the ability to be obnoxious is a classic.

Actually my quote was neither meant to be snarky nor avoiding. It encapsulated the fact that you bore nothing but ire and hatred toward a community that I would see restored, not divided. You in-fact pointed out that you would rather it not be restored if you do not get everything the way you absolutely want it.


The fact that you said that, pointed out to me that there was no need to have an actual discussion with you. Because you don't want a discussion. You just want everyone to accept that things are the way that you say they are. Which is indoctrination, not discussion. So yes, I responded to you with a "one-liner". It wasn't avoidance of what you said, it was an avoidance of wasting my time. Because I know no matter what I say I won't dissuade you. So my time is better spent trying to talk with people who actually want the community to be healed, or you know, doing something else constructive.


Hopefully that better explains things to you.

 

[Ashurbanipal]

I wrote a series of informative points, offered multiple male names to counter the claim of female-only attacking, elaborated on why the people spoken about are spoken about, and otherwise addressed everything you said.


Your response was "hurr hurr proving my point", and you have the unbridled audacity to say I am not looking for discussion? You have the self awareness of an ant and I have no time for hypocrites and the intellectually bereft.

 

[FleetingInfinity]

I wrote a series of informative points, offered multiple male names to counter the claim of female-only attacking, elaborated on why the people spoken about are spoken about, and otherwise addressed everything you said.
Your response was "hurr hurr proving my point", and you have the unbridled audacity to say I am not looking for discussion? You have the self awareness of an ant and I have no time for hypocrites and the intellectually bereft.

Before you attempt to make insults, you should probably brush up on your biology. Ants have a very in-depth society, and are not inherently lacking in self-awareness. They are fully capable of acting in their own defense and with the safety of their own self in mind when necessary. Ants actually often communicate amongst themselves as individuals and have quite a social structure. The idea of a hive mind where the creatures have no actual thoughts of their own and blindly follow the orders of someone else is an idea based in popular culture. One propagated by the lack of curiosity and the desire to research.


If you had bothered to read my entire post, rather than focusing on the beginning, you would have seen that I said that there were men and women who are seen as "anti-gamergate" who are just as bad as the people who are pro-gamergate. I also never stated that there were not men who are not targets as well.


Both sides are flawed and both sides have people who are prone to insults rather than trying to reach a mutual understanding and try to heal the divide.


As I pointed out, what matters to me is healing the divide. You don't want to do that unless everything goes your way. So what point was there in further discussion?

 

[Ashurbanipal]

"The self awareness of an ant" is not meant to presuppose that ants lack any sort of self-awareness. Insults are not meant to be taken literally. But you know this, and your focus on it is again the choice to prioritize snark over substance in what's rapidly becoming an identifiable behavioral pattern. Consider that two strikes; one more and you're out.


I don't care what you say about anti-Gamergate people. I was addressing what you said about GG and the people it talks about. That is called a discussion: you made points, you asked questions, I answered and addressed. While you are welcome to withdraw or otherwise concede, you are not allowed to brush me off with claims of not discussing, as I have responded to what you've said at length and touched on your concerns, whereas you have done nothing but bore me.


It's time to be a big boy, Infinity. Acknowledge your mistakes and we can move on.

 

[FleetingInfinity]

Insults not being taken literally is because they were formed by people who lacked understanding. So hiding behind that implies the same thing.


If you want to talk about behavior patterns though, you're the one who keeps resorting to insults. Which is not exactly the behavior of someone who's mature. Which is I'm guessing what you were trying to imply by saying that I should be a "big boy". Every time I disagree with you, you insult me. That's not a mature behavior, that's a petulant behavior. Even basic psychology connects petulant behavior with immaturity.


I actually have listened to both sides on numerous occasions. I watch Youtube videos of interviews. I listen to internet-based radio shows. I formed my own opinions based on research and being an active part of the community. The fact is both sides have their legitimate points.


GamerGate wants ethics in gaming journalism. Yes, ethics in gaming journalism is an issue. Is it because of people having sex though? No. It's because the gaming industry boomed. It used to be a very small industry, so it was hard not to know people. Now the fact that those relationship existed is more obvious to the general public. Is it possible to be friends with a developer and still give them a fair review? Of course it is, it's called being professional. If people who were friends with developers or knew developers in the past didn't do reviews, no one would have.


The fact is, reviewers are gamers, too. Some of them do it as a job, but they got into it because they love it. So of course they'll make friends with some developers. Some people think it's impossible for them to remain professional because of that. I wholly disagree. Do I think that they should start stating the fact that they know the person? Sure, it would likely deal with a lot of peoples issues. They could read that they are friends with or know the developer and then make the decision then and there as to whether they would like to trust the article. It's their choice though.


A lot of different gaming sites have already change their ethics policies to include that fact. So Gamergate has made headway there.


What is commonly referred to as "Anti-GamerGate", but is a flawed term because GamerGate is not a movement itself and therefore there cannot be a movement against it. There are just differing opinions. Those who disagree with GamerGate though and see it as an attack on female developers, are at least partially correct. Why? Because Brianna Wu was indeed chased from her home. If the threats were not real then she would not have been able to get away with reporting them to the FBI. If she filed false claims, she'd be the one committing an illegal act. Saarkesian, you really say she wasn't chased from anything? Threatened school shooting? Ring any bells? Honestly I think Saarkesian is a bit of a problem herself. She's one of those feminists who believe that men are inherently flawed and that only women can fix them. Which is why she draws such ire. That doesn't make the people who attack her right though. Quinn? Well that's obvious. The Zoe Post, naked pictures of her being posted online, et cetera, et cetera..


The fact that they are referred to as LW1, LW2, and LW3 inherently proves that they are given too much importance by some people who associate themselves with GamerGate. Does everyone in GamerGate care about or attack them? No. But they've been targeted more and threatened as a result of it.


People who disagree with GamerGate throw around threats and stuff, too. Like Chris Kluwe, he hurts any actual standing that it could have by doing nothing but throwing insults. He's passionate and I'll give him that, but throwing insults back and forth solves absolutely nothing.


What would solve things is if people were willing to compromise and realize that the community is what's important. That gaming and game development is what's important. So if people could put aside the hate and ire and speak rationally, then things could get better. That however, as you pointed out, will not happen. That's what my one-liner referred to specifically.

 

[Ashurbanipal]

I'm poking fun at your immaturity, yes. I make no claims as to my own. When your response to a point-by-point reply is "derp you no discuss", you deserve to be mocked. And no, the non-literal meaning of insults is not because people don't understand. I assure you, no one calls a man a dog because they think he walks on four legs, barks, and has a startling propensity for loyalty to an owner--and no one mistakenly thinks so, either.


Don't try to be clever, you'll only hurt yourself.


As for the rest of your post: I'm glad you've finally managed to measure up! Going through it now:


No one thinks sex causes ethical misconduct. There's not a causal relationship there. The relationships are a symptom of the problem, not the source of it. Yes, you can still give a good review even with conflicts of interest. This is why Gamergate primarily wants disclosure as opposed to no one writing anything ever. Making your biases and relationships known provides the necessary context for people to understand your reviews, your coverage, and your dialogue in its entirety isn't coming from a neutral point of view and allows them to correct for it.


Personally, I think these people can't be professional, but not because of the industry--but because they, personally, have an exceptionally colorful history full of historical revisionism, clickbait, lies, harassment, and a total lack of investigative journalism or respect for the process. Other people in those positions, better people, would be fine. No matter how much he discloses, Arthur Chu will never be a good journalist (or make-believe journalist).


Gamergate being a movement or not inevitably comes down to semantic bickering. Same with anti. They're both organized campaigns with identifiable tags, group hubs, and coordinated efforts pursuing the average of the group's aims. Whether you want to call that a movement or not doesn't really matter to me.


Brianna Wu was not chased from her home. During the time she claimed to be, and said she couldn't return, she appeared in video interviews--interviews that took place inside her home, which she later confirmed via Twitter as part of an insult against the people who pieced it together (saying it's creepy they identified her home--an unrealized confession). There has been no evidence she's been harmed or inconvenienced in any way. There's no evidence the FBI has done anything with her. She's hot air like the rest of them.


The shooting threat made to Anita Sarkeesian was deemed non-credible by both local and state authorities. This is documented and on record. It was a PR move: Anita knew she'd be safe, but the value of being driven off by hateful, violent misogynists far outweighs the value of a single speech, especially since she can give a speech any old time or place. It was mean words on the internet, something everyone is thoroughly familiar with.


Naked pictures of Zoe Quinn were not posted online. Zoe Quinn was a pornographic actress. Soft-core, yes, but those pictures were not leaked. They weren't private. She did pornographic modeling for a website. A public website. Those pictures were already online. But the media never mentions that, do they? Such a delightful twisting of the narrative, especially on the coattails of the Fappening--entirely deliberate, you can be sure. Because "poor victimized women's sexual privacy is violated" is a LOT more clickbaity and attention-getting than "porn model's pornographic pictures are still pornographic and still online, as always".


The insistence on painting it as "female devs getting attacked" is annoying, by the way, especially when I've explicitly named men getting attacked (and if you want a male dev, Tim Schafer, there you go). The LWs are talked about extensively, yes -- they're also the single most aggressive people around when it comes to engaging and blaming GG. Brianna Wu can't go an hour without spouting off some angry nonsense, and Zoe Quinn is an active moderator of a Gamergate forum.


There's no sympathy in my heart for people who provoke and troll and then pretend to be victims for money and attention. Anita, at least, is professional about it -- she knows how to aim for the big bucks, the big markets, the big con. I respect her ability to manipulate her image and play the media, and she found a perfectly exploitable market. Her and McIntosh both are great at what they do. Horrid little people, but great at their business.


As for putting things aside, forgiving and forgetting: I'm totally willing to once the problems are solved, which means once GG wins. I, and those like me (and there are many) are not going to just shrug and let bygones be bygones because the problems still exist.

 

[FleetingInfinity]

Naked pictures of Zoe Quinn were not posted online. Zoe Quinn was a pornographic actress. Soft-core, yes, but those pictures were not leaked. They weren't private. She did pornographic modeling for a website. A public website. Those pictures were already online. But the media never mentions that, do they? Such a delightful twisting of the narrative, especially on the coattails of the Fappening--entirely deliberate, you can be sure. Because "poor victimized women's sexual privacy is violated" is a LOT more clickbaity and attention-getting than "porn model's pornographic pictures are still pornographic and still online, as always".

Actually that was made clear. She did softcore nudes for a site, which was behind a pay-wall. Which meant that yes, she posed nude for money, but she did it with the understanding that it would remain private. Do those sorts of things remain private? No, of course not. A lot of people do things they are later ashamed of for money.


What was done though, was that someone did one of two things. They either paid for access to the site in order to post them publicly, or they went to where someone else had already done that and posted them publicly. Either way it was an act only meant to debase and lower her credibility. Tabloids do it all the time. So where are the ethics that they supposedly stand upon if they do something that is both immoral and actually illegal. Those are pictures that are meant to stay privately on that site.

 

[Ashurbanipal]

The fact porn is paid for doesn't mean it's private. It's for an infinitely-sized audience that's willing to pay. Home movies are private; selling your body to a website whose purpose is the arousal and titillation of the masses is not. Seriously, there's no world where "Zoe Quinn's private pornographic pictures were leaked" is anything other than a bad joke.


She was a softcore internet porn actress. She did not have her privacy violated. I look at porn for free all the time, as do hundreds of millions of people. There's zero expectation that these things aren't out there.

 

[FleetingInfinity]

The fact porn is paid for doesn't mean it's private. It's for an infinitely-sized audience that's willing to pay. Home movies are private; selling your body to a website whose purpose is the arousal and titillation of the masses is not. Seriously, there's no world where "Zoe Quinn's private pornographic pictures were leaked" is anything other than a bad joke.
She was a softcore internet porn actress. She did not have her privacy violated. I look at porn for free all the time, as do hundreds of millions of people. There's zero expectation that these things aren't out there.

You can't have it both ways. If you're for journalistic ethics, then you should practice ethics yourself. Even if her nudes showing up publicly was a foregone conclusion, they were posted with the intention of lowering her credibility. Which is mud-slinging, which is political. Politics hardly are very ethical.

 

[Ashurbanipal]

I'm not a journalist and I'm under no obligation to behave like a good journalist. I also never said posting those pictures was a good thing. What I said is that they weren't a violation of privacy and they're not "leaked nudes of an innocent woman" the way the media and anti likes to spin it.


She was a softcore online porn star for a time. The pictures are legal. They aren't private. They weren't intended for her use or the use of a loved one. They're designed, explicitly, for the view and consumption of anonymous masses on the internet.


There's no violation of privacy here at all. None. Zilch. Nada. Was it a dick move? Absolutely. It happened solely to poke fun at her. But being made fun of is a very different thing from having your privacy violated, especially in a sexual fashion.