Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Thoughts on the Zoe Quinn controversy, "Gamergate", the "death of gamer culture", etc.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Support lock. Any meaningful discussion has already been exhausted and all of us, me included, are just regurgitating the same talking points.
in b4 lock: where can I read a recap on each side's arguments, positions, counter-arguments, etc. on this stuff? Preferably written by their own adherents.
Well, here. Find something interesting, substantive, and productive to say about this. Maybe some sort of objective analysis of all the issues being presented, written in fairness to all sides.
If not, I'm locking this thread by the end of the evening. Which is probably a few hours away.
and I was almost ninja'd by Stormtroper.
In regards to the StopGamerGate side, I may as well repost the NeoGAF link debunking common GamerGate claims. It is only one post in bullet point format, so it should not take too long to get through. As for objectivity, it is a primarily fact-based rebuttal, and the only editorial part is the end with criticism of the Escapist interviews.
UPDATE: New version of the GAF post. This one includes links to 4chan logs at the beginning of GamerGate and an argument that GamerGate is actually an attack on ethical journalism.
That's not what I mean, silly person. What I want to know is the general climate surrounding the issue, who supports the ban, who is against it, etc. Also, from what little I've seen, the character's cultural significance is much bigger than a football team's mascot, and the support for keeping it the way it is much larger (proportionally)... of course, all I have to go from is articles, blogposts and comments that follow their own narrative, so I asked IA because I suspect him to be a godless heathen (also known as postmodernist).
Also, I'm not keen on having the thread close, but I understand that the insult threshold might not be as high as I'm used to.
^^This is pretty much correct, safe for that the TYC controversy also had to do with the doxxing of its primary contributor, which was done by Maya according to him. On the Topsy claims I've seen different results, but that probably depends on how what tags they inserted, so I think both sides are skewing them in their favour. Rest is accepted and also corrected towards noobs on KotakuInAction, as far as I've seen, though the post seems a bit dated with regards to the other hoaxes(Quinn sueing Internet Aristocrat, and the like).
I'm not the one to write an analysis, because in my consideration this is still an ongoing issue that I don't have a final opinion on until a)the bomb threat sender is found and his identity and info becomes public, b)advertisers start backing out at a rate that actually merits the bigger sites to do a response other than 'stay the course' and c)new relatively significant developments(such as that bullying tweet backlash) stop popping up every 2-3 days.
For anyone who wants to continue discussing this, is it okay to take it to PMs(and we can make a new thread on Black Pete anyway)?
Well I'm willing to leave it open if there's actually something interesting and meaningful going on here, rather than just rehashing our points and people getting upset over this.
FWIW, that was an interesting summary, Abyss, thanks. Some of that information is new to me, but the parts that I did recognize were in line with the information I've previously gathered.
As far as I can tell, there's been incivility, stereotyping, and/or impropriety (possibly severe) conducted by multiple sides, so I'm really not keen on offering anyone much respect at this point. That said, I do recognize that some people have legitimate, meaningful grievances that they've attached to some part of this controversy, and I feel bad for them. Those legitimate causes and grievances should be addressed, much preferably separately from this controversy.
I'm sorry I really don't have that much to say about this controversy itself. I haven't been keeping track of the who's saying who's done what to whom, and honestly...I just don't feel like it. I'm sorry.
Don't be. It's not worth the huge time investment involved.
I'm mostly concerned about the real-world implications, i.e. the chilling effect it has on people getting involved in video games. It is reminiscent of how American country music fans treated the Dixie Chicks after the Bush remark and sends the message that consumerism is more important than free speech. It doesn't help that so much of it is fueled by unsubstantiated accusations.
The NeoGAF thread frequently discusses ways for gaming to be more inclusive and how to show that, which I support. I agree that constructive solutions outside of GamerGate are the way to go, since engaging in the hashtag has caused enough destruction already.
I'm okay with the thread open as long as the discussion happens like this.
Actually, I have an idea. A major problem with trying to get any discussion in this thread is that it's a pain in the butt to follow unless you have prior knowledge. We all keep posting links and reactions without context to the point where it's hard to keep track of what's actually being discussed. As a result, it just becomes the same people regurgitating the same points over and over again, and everyone else is none the wiser. People shouldn't be still asking what the heck is going on after 300+ posts, and summaries like the NeoGAF post should have been posted a long time ago. This information needs to be organized in order to have a productive discussion.
So what I propose is that, since this thread is continuously being resurrected anyway to justify the megathread treatment, that this thread be locked and reincarnated with a continuously updated OP that gives a brief overview of the whole issue. That way, people who don't follow Twitter etc. can get caught up to speed quickly and we don't have to refute points a thousand times. Alternately, Glenn can update the opening post in this thread with key summary links, which we can suggest.
Guys, don't lock the thread! Where am I supposed to go, watch train wrecks?
i mean, really, they probly would tho
Just ask Canadian National Railway.
Trucks can help them:
(note: this post was written in jest; I mean no offense to either trains or trucks, nor do I mean to belittle the severity of the crash.)
Oh, don't mind me, I've only just now started taking an interest in this whole thing so I thought I'd ask to know where to go after a thread lock. Thanks for the link.
You're welcome. I would like to make a post of useful links at some point, but I'm too tired and busy right now. In the meantime, Brianna Wu has written about the women scared off from gaming because of the mob:
Travis Touchdown's rant is still relevant here. (It perfectly summarizes what I think of GamerGate) Since the article, Game Informer has in fact joined the publications denouncing GamerGate.
(offhand comment) Honestly, right now I feel more curious to know who's on which side (or has stayed neutral), than statements or accusations of motive.
There's no real definitive way to know exactly how many people are pro, neutral, or whatever until this is all over, but you can get a sense from the overall tone from each side through the attitude they have in being interviewed by a neutral party.
^^ While that cost that Brianna mentions is something that might not apply to all women wanting to get into the videogame industry, the fact that it applies to anyone is enough of a problem. And that's the chilling effect right there. Chilling effects are not ones based in evidence (which I see a lot of people bandying around), but based in fear, and simply throwing evidence at that fear isn't going to do much about it.
As for Travis's rant, I've seen it before, and I don't really know how it's relevant here. Unless you mean to say that this has gone beyond just being about a game...but then again, it went beyond just being about a game ever since Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend posted that piece about her. If this is meaning to say that people are approaching this issue too casually...well I certainly see people taking this issue very seriously, on both sides.
^ Do also keep in mind that sampling bias is a thing, when having just one person each to represent each side. Furthermore, the merits of an idea are not the same as the merits of a person.
Anyway, the sense I'm getting is that the so-called "pro-GG" side consists of -- or at some point, consisted of -- people who genuinely care about ethics in journalism about videogames, and see problems with game journalism that they'd like to fix, as well as people who are (possibly unjustifiably) upset about so-called "social justice warriors" ("SJWs") changing the way people think about videogames, while the anti-GG side consists of people (who may or may not be videogamers) who are upset about sexist and severely harassing (or whatever is the right term for that) behavior from people on the pro-GG side, and in some cases taking the chance to opine about this sort of behavior that's been prevalent in some videogaming communities for a while now.
I can't help but feel that there's a little "talking past each other" going on on both sides. It's like, some pro-GG people keep on complaining how the media is censoring them and not reporting about their cause (which is allegedly journalistic ethics, though possibly disputable in some cases) but just painting them as sexist jerks, while some anti-GG people, rather than talking much about the role of the media, keep highlighting the harassment and chilling effects that people who claim to be pro-GG have done -- which seems to definitely have happened at least early on, though I'm not sure to what extent this continues...but given how people behave on the internet, I don't see any reason to think it's stopped.
I've heard accounts of pro-GG people trying to stop jerks from doing jerkish (for lack of a better term) things -- such as doxxing people -- and I've also heard accounts of women, transpeople, etc. on the pro-GG side. However, the mere presence of these people does not solve the issue of the chilling effects on social participation in gaming and the game industry that the anti-GG side has highlighted, and simply highlighting their presence may even demean them in the sense of seeing them as "token minorities".
Meanwhile, I understand that there are a lot of grievances with videogame journalism, and from what I can tell, quite a few of them are legitimate -- the enthusiast press's role as a hype machine, collusion between reviewers and publishers, and more. It seems that there's a number of articles in the media -- in high-profile journalism institutions that are not videogaming-specific, such as NPR or WaPo, for ones I've seen -- that seem to report more heavily on the harassment and death threats angle. This may or may not be just sampling bias on my part from reading relatively few of such articles, though. Anyhow, it seems at least some pro-GG people regard this as bias or even "censorship" of their side in the media. In fairness to the media, it looked like just a low-key internet flamewar until shit like death threats went down. In fairness to pro-GG, on the other hand, perhaps the media should also be attentive enough to run pieces discussing slower-burn issues...
TL;DR: people talking past each other and broad brushes going every which way and little actual progress being made
Except GamerGate doesn't care about the actual issues. Their idea of "corruption" is giving a good review to Depression Quest. These are the people who see "every major gaming site gave Bayonetta 2 a 9+ score except Polygon" and conclude that Polygon is the one lacking ethics.Re: Travis: It's mostly the "This isn't a game" aspect I feel is relevant, since this has now spilled into real life. At least, the channers who astroturfed the whole thing have been treating it as one by being more concerned about their reputations than the death threats.
Early on, the media (and Wikipedia, for the matter) not reporting was in fact due to journalistic ethics. Since it involved sensitive information about Zoe Quinn, they had to tread lightly to avoid stepping on privacy issues.
Also, to add to Nyktos's post, GamerGate barely talks about major events like Shadow of Mordor attempting to buy off reviewers with pre-release branding deals.
As for talking past each other, at some point, how far are you willing to engage someone who is more interested in conspiracy theories than logic or facts? (e.g. every climate change denial argument ever) Several people, including Pixie Jenni, have made an honest attempt to listen to GamerGate, but their arguments are primarily rhetoric akin to the modern Republican Party. You've even seen it in this very thread, with ninjaclown ignoring my counterarguments in order to preserve his viewpoints.
At this point, every GamerGate claim has been debunked a thousand times over, yet they persist in believing them. Honest question, how long would you have the patience to attempt reasoning with them in that case?
This is something that I've noticed too. It may or may not be due to the whole allegations of sexism and harassment thing taking up all the oxygen though -- and then people responding with resentment and adding in zingers (the internet absolutely loves zingers) to mock (at best), or actively go and harass/doxx (at worst), anti-GG folks with an emphasis on the people they perceive as the problem with the anti-GG side, those being outspoken commentators regarded as "SJWs".
And I wasn't speaking to blame anyone or any side specifically with talking past each other -- I was just observing that that was happening.
And climate change deniers are idiotic nuts. Though I've come up with some ways of parrying their statements.
The only purpose "it's about ethics" has ever served in the movement is to distract from those allegations.There seem to have been people who joined it for the ethics aspect.
See, this is why I would recommend that they get out and come up with their own social movement name.
The thing is that the "ethical" complains that they do like to bring up a lot are the incredibly petty and meaningless one that by pure coincidence happen to involve prominent(ish) feminist voices. Anyone who is convinced by those arguments is either a misogynist or absurdly gullible.This one has a neat misogyny tester, for those wondering whether they're acutally a pissbaby or not: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html (I actually associate dudes more with libarts and girls with science, for some reason)
Anyhow, in the eyes of many people complaining about ethics and corruption, the payola and reviews dictated by PR firms and cases of hypocritical social justice posturing are part of the same cynical exploitation. The clowns like that NeoGAF forum owner who rail against harassment while having zero problem doing the same thing(see http://imgur.com/a/eBPYm) and the Gawker clickbait articles full of fill-in-the-numbers undergrad analysis are, to them, perhaps even more vile than blatant reviews-for-pay.
The first only affects your wallet, the latter dicks around with the very fabric of the social scene for members and clicks. It smacks of Clymer-types, and even though those eventually get eaten by their own, they always leave a roving pack of emulators, little different from the previous harassers save in preferred target. While the chaos they sow is entertaining, they get stale very, very quickly.
It's funny you say that. it was youtubers. like Total Biscuit, who broke the news on that. Not the gaming sites. They merely followed suit.
^^I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at, because your post is hard to read. Could you organize your post better, i.e. cut down on the parentheses and use simpler terminology? I do have a major issue with right-wing populists being among GamerGate's most prominent allies, and I'm not sure how ad money plays into that. Their disregard for evidence in favour of conspiracy is one of the most insidious things about both of them.
^But it wasn't GamerGate who broke the news or followed up on it. Also, the "first" mentality is damaging towards journalism in general, since it treats news as mere commodity.
Total Biscuit is a GamerGate supporter though. Although yes, the "first" mentality does commodify journalism. I'd say that with the advent the internet that process of commodification has accelerated beyond control. And that makes me sad.
Here, we get into correlation/causation. Did he do it because of GamerGate? That is, if GamerGate was not a factor at all, would he have done it anyway?