Thoughts on the Zoe Quinn controversy, "Gamergate", the "death of gamer culture", etc.

Nyktos

As far as I can tell "moderate" is just a GGer who doesn't send death threats.

InsanityAddict

Moderate, in my opinion:

*Detests unsavoury tactics when used by either side(dismissing entire arguments because person X is a bigot/nazi/feminist/whatever based on a single statement, dogpiles, snark over substance).

*Recognizes the cancerous nature of media platforms in fostering a good discussion(Twitter, Tumblr).

*Actually takes time to check facts, has a healthy dose of skepticism, knows how to recognize shoops, use Hanlon's Razor.

*Recognizes there are multiple narratives to different groups and different texts(as in how, there's multiple ways to analyze a game). 

*Backs up claims with data, links to sources, welcomes scrutiny. 

RedEyedAbyss

I have expended all my MP on this thread, but there is something I need to acknowledge:

ninjaclown wrote:

Then what is r/gamerghazi then? Also, how do you know "many female developers" are being threatened, or is just a feeling you have? Game developers must tow the SJW narrative because "you're either with us or against us", is that supposed to be fair? If anything, the absolute shit level reporting by gaming and news media are perpetuating the very thing they accuse GG of, scaring women out of the industry.

Also, what Glenn said.

So you finally decided to acknowledge my post. Unfortunately, your response still indicates you're a delusional intellectual coward because if you believe my harassment claim is just a feeling, then you've clearly been ignoring everything in fear that you might be proven wrong. In fact, I bet that I could post every goddamn link of someone being scared to speak up, and you'd still deny harassment like the despicable coward you are. But I'll try anyway.

Let's start with the Escapist Article on female developers speaking up on GamerGate. You should have been aware of that since I only linked the GAF post 3 times already. Note that none of them feel like revealing their names, which should tell you something already. But since you're an idiot, I'll spell it out for you. They're afraid of revealing their names because they fear the mob will come after them if they do. Note that male developers don't have this problem. (and a few of the interviewees in the latter are responsible for perpetrating the harassment)

Geek icon Felicia Day says that she felt afraid to engage with the gamers she once thought were friends. Oh, and she got doxxed soon after. Yes, I know she's not technically a developer, but to anyone but you, this clearly demonstrates what humans call a fear of harassment.

I have previously linked Brianna Wu's article on the female developers we lost to GamerGate, which you obviously did not read since you consider posting her tweet while ignoring the context a counterargument. Again, to spell it out:

Every woman I know in the industry is terrified she will be next.

My friend Quinn told me about a folder on her computer called, “The Ones We’ve Lost.” They are the letters she’s gotten from young girls who dream of being game developers, but are terrified of the environment they see. I nearly broke into tears as I told her I had a folder filled with the same. The truth is, even if we stopped Gamergate tomorrow, it will have already come at too high a cost.

As an aside, just because someone yells at organizations to do something doesn't mean they actually listen. Otherwise, we'd have a solution to climate change by now. So to post her protest tweets as evidence of SJW collusion is a sign that you need to get out more. You obviously haven't seen a real protest in your life.

And obviously, there are many more sources, but you're not worth the effort.

I'm done attempting to be civil with you. You forfeited the right to Hanlon's Razor by hiding away from my counterarguments for more than a month, showing that you're not just stupid, but willfully stupid.

glennmagusharvey

Oh, great.

First, @RedEyedAbyss, calm down.  Calling someone a "despicable coward" doesn't help your point at all.

Second, @ninjaclown:

1. 'Game developers must tow the SJW narrative because "you're either with us or against us"' is not what that tweet says, unless by "the SJW narrative" you mean the mere idea of being respectful, or if you're going to claim that @Spacekatgal's line about respecting women has some other implication.

2. It seems that you're presuming collusion between the "SJWs" and the gaming press, which I seriously doubt.  A lot of people have opinions, and this whole affair has been people voicing their opinions and joining(or becoming painted as part of one or the other side, and as I've characterized them before, we're basically dealing with mob dynamics at this point, where it's a fallacy to assign one person's motive to another.

At this point, I find it fair to consider all individual blog posts, tweets, "evidence" compilation pictures, etc. with the same amount of salt -- basically, no one has any credibility.

Sure, you can argue about whether anyone is losing credibility, but while stuff like what you've cited about Gawker and Adobe may reduce the credibility of the anti-GG side, it does nothing to help the pro-GG side either, and is essentially irrelevant.

Right now, what we basically have is each side holding up the ideals they claim to be championing, and targeting those who behave badly on the other side.  So basically:

* the pro-GG side claims to be on the side of journalistic integrity, and is targeting what they perceive as censorship on the part of journalists and SJWs (and impressions of collusion and/or impropriety that they perceive as leading toward that censorship, and also note that citing "SJWs" implies a presumption of an agenda by the opposition)

* the anti-GG side claims to be on the side of women in the game industry and being more respectful of the portrayals and treatment of women both in the industry and in its media content, and is targeting what they perceive as a chilling effect caused by harassers/doxxers/people who make rape and death threats on behalf of the pro-GG side.

So, you have group 1, which is espousing ideal A and targeting behavior D, while group 2 is espousing ideal C and targeting behavior B.

The problem is that, thanks to the magic of the internet, short quips, mockery and sarcasm, 140-character-limit tweets, instant gratification, general poor wording, etc., some members of group 1 presume that most members of group 2 exhibit behavior D, and some members of group 2 presume that most members of group 1 exhibit behavior B.  And once this happens, that's when people argue right past each other.

(Also, if I recall correctly, there was an earlier occasion where @RedEyedAbyss addressed you in a post, and you ignored him.)

 

Anyhow, this thread has been going in circles for a while now, and while it pains me to lock a thread because I believe that people should be able to say what they want and have their ideas freely and critically evaluated, I think we ought to have some sort of a cooldown.  @RedEyedAbyss, you seem quite worked up about this, and need to calm down, and as much as I think that @ninjaclown argues badly, the ad hominems aren't the right way to deal with it.  @ninjaclown, I've seen this happening for a while now, but you need to find more credible sources for your information (which I'm not even sure is possible anymore), or qualify your arguments (or something else) to accommodate that lack of credibility.

Note that my not mentioning anyone else doesn't mean I endorse your arguments either.  I understand that, as something that's been playing out largely over the internet and on under-the-radar places that either simply aren't credible (e.g. imageboards) or have lost their credibility (various gaming journalism sites), this conflict has not been well-documented other than by...I guess the term is "gonzo journalism"(?) -- i.e. participants reporting what they see, hear, do, and experience.  Which is a shame, really, but that's what we have to work with.  If anything, that should be a message that we should all be cautious in making our points, painting anyone with any brushes of motive, and drawing conclusions.

That said, I think we can all agree on a few points:

1. There are a number of flaws in videogame journalism.  What exactly those flaws are is not quite clear, but what is clear is that there is a lot of dissatisfaction about this.

2. Gender issues and gender perceptions are still, broadly speaking, a touchy subject in the videogame industry and metacommunity.  (Note that this has been an issue long before #GamerGate, or even much of the internet, I think, became a thing, so it's not something that was just made up by SJWs on Tumblr etc..)

3. Harassment, doxxing, invasion of privacy, and threats of violence/rape/murder/other crimes are NOT okay at all, are NOT acceptable responses to accusations of improper behavior of consumers, developers, or journalists, and are also NOT acceptable responses to other instances of such actions themselves either.  We can argue all day about how baseless or how undeserved these actions are, but that does not change the fact that they are unacceptable.  However, sadly, such things appear to have in fact happened.

4. One result of this whole controversy, and especially of the actions I just mentioned, has been a number of chilling effects, which have affected a lot of people -- including, but almost certainly not limited to, aspiring female game developers.

 

So yeah.  Thread lock.  Sorry.

If there are major new #GG developments to discuss, post them in the general vidya gaems thread and/or request a thread reopening.