#GamerGate Needs Damage Control Badly (Small OP Update)

Recommended Videos

Jux

Hmm
Sep 2, 2012
868
4
23
BlackMageBob said:
Skatologist said:
Jux said:
Fappy said:
Jux said:
Looks like someone is going through the 3700+ pages of that IRC log, and surprise surprise, the accusations that ZQ was cherry picking don't seem to be holding water.

http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/09/08/zoe-quinns-screenshots-of-4chans-dirty-tricks-were-just-the-appetizer-heres-the-first-course-of-the-dinner-directly-from-the-irc-log/
That is some serious auditing o_O

Why would someone subject themselves to that kind of torture?!
That's sort of David Futrelle's thing, he runs a website that tracks internet misogyny.
Oh, I've seen his YouTube channel, his only videos there are unfortunately MRAs in there own words.
Just, all three of you, stop. The logs are publicly available. Take the lines he points out, and do a ctrl+f. Look at roughly the ten preceding lines, and the ten following lines. Letting other people confirm your biases is how we arrived at this point.

And honestly, Futrelle? Really? That particular individual is drenched in bullshit.
Yea, they are publicly available, and none of it is taken out of context.

A quote pulled from WHtM:
Aug 21 17.23.31 The problem is that making it about Zoe sleeping around amounts to a personal attack which, while funny and something she totally deserves, will hurt our chances of pushing the other point
And the context...
Aug 21 17.21.21 "You aren't allowed to use 4chan as a place to organize harassment campaigns."
Aug 21 17.21.25 since fucking when
Aug 21 17.21.29 i like how "going Phil Fish" is now a used expression
Aug 21 17.21.36 * AndChat|215124 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
Aug 21 17.21.53 tfw no retina macbook
Aug 21 17.21.53 I remember when 4chan jumped a webcomic's forums for not giving them porn for free
Aug 21 17.22.06 <Silver|2> Moot hasn't cared about 4chan for years now. It became obvious around the whole canv.as thing
Aug 21 17.22.25 * AndChat|215124 (~AndChat21@C6175276.224F1FAE.DE6D5023.IP) has joined #burgersandfries
Aug 21 17.22.35 >wanting a macbook
Aug 21 17.22.45 And where do we go when 4chan is dead?
Aug 21 17.22.45 I still say make this not about Zoe Sleeping around, make it about the 5guys giving publicity for sex
Aug 21 17.22.51 ^
Aug 21 17.22.54 Heaven
Aug 21 17.22.55 is say both
Aug 21 17.22.56 No shit, that's the actual point of this
Aug 21 17.22.58 <Silver|2> 7chan
Aug 21 17.23.01 <Silver|2> lol
Aug 21 17.23.14 I think Poole still cares about anonymity and posts not being permanent. But fuck free speech
Aug 21 17.23.15 guys, incase that thread is removed, here.
Aug 21 17.23.25 https://mega.co.nz/#!7FBj1RAT!ygutnsRwyjyuQJKrJ9bFUG2BbUCMGNvwc4rUWdzh09I
Aug 21 17.23.25 https://mega.co.nz/#!7FBj1RAT!ygutnsRwyjyuQJKrJ9bFUG2BbUCMGNvwc4rUWdzh09I
Aug 21 17.23.25 https://mega.co.nz/#!7FBj1RAT!ygutnsRwyjyuQJKrJ9bFUG2BbUCMGNvwc4rUWdzh09I
Aug 21 17.23.25 https://mega.co.nz/#!7FBj1RAT!ygutnsRwyjyuQJKrJ9bFUG2BbUCMGNvwc4rUWdzh09I
Aug 21 17.23.25 https://mega.co.nz/#!7FBj1RAT!ygutnsRwyjyuQJKrJ9bFUG2BbUCMGNvwc4rUWdzh09I
Aug 21 17.23.26 * GeorgeWashington has kicked Opfag from #burgersandfries (Stop repeating yourself!)
Aug 21 17.23.30 lel
Aug 21 17.23.31 The problem is that making it about Zoe sleeping around amounts to a personal attack which, while funny and something she totally deserves, will hurt our chances of pushing the other point
Aug 21 17.23.35 That's what you get
Aug 21 17.23.37 ******
Aug 21 17.23.38 ./v should be focused on the implications of gaming journalism
Aug 21 17.23.41 Stop kicking yourself Stop kicking yourself Stop kicking yourself Stop kicking yourself Stop kicking yourself Stop kicking yourself
Aug 21 17.23.41 * Opfag (Opfag@6430BC88.6A64B930.9E227775.IP) has joined #burgersandfries
Aug 21 17.23.45 eh la mayo
Aug 21 17.23.46 <Silver|2> ouch
Aug 21 17.23.47 No fuck you
Aug 21 17.23.47 Because SJWs will cherry-pick the /b/ shit posting and say "See? It's sexist MRAs!"
Aug 21 17.23.53 Op, anything happen with the posting to attack the 5guys last night?
Aug 21 17.23.57 I wasn't the one to kick you
Aug 21 17.23.59 It was George
Aug 21 17.24.02 ./pol should be focused on her self righteous schtick and the implications of the investigation
Aug 21 17.24.10 * nawl (~nawl@i.am.nawl) has joined #burgersandfries
Aug 21 17.24.10 and /b should be focused on ruining her life for being a slut
Aug 21 17.24.17 "See? It's sexist MRAs!" is the bullshit cop-out that Anita used to deflect criticism of her bullshit
How is that taken out of context exactly?

It doesn't take long to figure out where this is going.

Tell me again about how this is about journalistic ethics and not harassing some lady?
 

Agayek

Ravenous Gormandizer
Oct 23, 2008
5,178
0
0
Jux said:
It doesn't take long to figure out where this is going.


Tell me again about how this is about journalistic ethics and not harassing some lady?
I feel the need to point out that that the image I quoted is grossly misrepresentational and slanted. For example, if you do a regex search for slag of the press (such as "journo", "journalist", "press", "media", etc) the total number is around 2200 IIRC. Beyond that, of the 14 terms searched, 10, substantially more than half, are picked specifically to discredit the people talking while ignoring the culture and tone of the site entirely, which is explicitly to be crude, rude, and demeaning to everyone in equal measure, such as the use of 'fag' as a base descriptor.

As an aside however, and this is an honest question I'd truly appreciate a straight answer to, how do you get from "The problem is that making it about Zoe sleeping around amounts to a personal attack which, while funny and something she totally deserves, will hurt our chances of pushing the other point" to "Let's whip up an internet mob to attack Quinn"? Like, he's explicitly saying "Yo dude, we shouldn't even talk about Quinn because all it does is take attention away from and make it easier to ignore our other points". I really can't see how that points to a conspiracy to harass her, and I'm not sure if it's just not there or if I can't see it. I would appreciate you showing the logical process to connect the two.
 

Panda Pandemic

New member
Aug 25, 2014
59
0
0
carnex said:
Panda Pandemic said:
carnex said:
Seriously, lay off David Futrelle. Even if he does a service to all this, he's a fruitcake and his mere involvement is going to derail everything again. Let's not make this Red Pill central vs Feminism or SJWs. That will end up as one big stinking pile of garbage.
Fruitcake according to... who exactly? I only ever recall seeing MRAs complain about him prior to this.
I actually didn't hear anyone complain about him. I have read his blog about a year ago and saw someone who just pokes people without any goal whatsoever than to poke fun of them. He offers nothing but poking fun. I don't care which side he is on, he's counterproductive in my opinion.
I don't think you having a negative opinion is much of a reason to disregard him. First you're not even criticizing the actual thing he did now. Second you don't really give an actual reason for other people to have a negative opinion of him. Unless they already did I am not sure who would be convinced.

Personally I've seen him point out some really fucked up MRA positions with links to them to double check.
 

Jux

Hmm
Sep 2, 2012
868
4
23
Agayek said:
Jux said:
It doesn't take long to figure out where this is going.


Tell me again about how this is about journalistic ethics and not harassing some lady?
I feel the need to point out that that the image I quoted is grossly misrepresentational and slanted. For example, if you do a regex search for slag of the press (such as "journo", "journalist", "press", "media", etc) the total number is around 2200 IIRC. Beyond that, of the 14 terms searched, 10, substantially more than half, are picked specifically to discredit the people talking while ignoring the culture and tone of the site entirely, which is explicitly to be crude, rude, and demeaning to everyone in equal measure, such as the use of 'fag' as a base descriptor.

As an aside however, and this is an honest question I'd truly appreciate a straight answer to, how do you get from "The problem is that making it about Zoe sleeping around amounts to a personal attack which, while funny and something she totally deserves, will hurt our chances of pushing the other point" to "Let's whip up an internet mob to attack Quinn"? Like, he's explicitly saying "Yo dude, we shouldn't even talk about Quinn because all it does is take attention away from and make it easier to ignore our other points". I really can't see how that points to a conspiracy to harass her, and I'm not sure if it's just not there or if I can't see it. I would appreciate you showing the logical process to connect the two.
Posting from the phone right now, so I may come back and edit this, depending on how cumbersome this gets. First, if you look further down in the quoted section, you'll see someone suggesting that /b/ should be in charge of harrassment of ZQ. If this were simply about journalistic integrity, whats with the planned campaign of harrassment? Second, the specific quote I used was just one of many on Futrelles site, I used it at random not to back up my overall point that this is nothing but a witch hunt, but rather as a rebuttal to Mages assertion that his quoted parts were taken out of context.
 

Geo Da Sponge

New member
May 14, 2008
2,611
0
0
Jux said:
BlackMageBob said:
Skatologist said:
Jux said:
Fappy said:
Jux said:
Looks like someone is going through the 3700+ pages of that IRC log, and surprise surprise, the accusations that ZQ was cherry picking don't seem to be holding water.

http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/09/08/zoe-quinns-screenshots-of-4chans-dirty-tricks-were-just-the-appetizer-heres-the-first-course-of-the-dinner-directly-from-the-irc-log/
That is some serious auditing o_O

Why would someone subject themselves to that kind of torture?!
That's sort of David Futrelle's thing, he runs a website that tracks internet misogyny.
Oh, I've seen his YouTube channel, his only videos there are unfortunately MRAs in there own words.
Just, all three of you, stop. The logs are publicly available. Take the lines he points out, and do a ctrl+f. Look at roughly the ten preceding lines, and the ten following lines. Letting other people confirm your biases is how we arrived at this point.

And honestly, Futrelle? Really? That particular individual is drenched in bullshit.
Yea, they are publicly available, and none of it is taken out of context.

A quote pulled from WHtM:
Aug 21 17.23.31 The problem is that making it about Zoe sleeping around amounts to a personal attack which, while funny and something she totally deserves, will hurt our chances of pushing the other point
And the context...
Aug 21 17.21.21 "You aren't allowed to use 4chan as a place to organize harassment campaigns."
Aug 21 17.21.25 since fucking when
Aug 21 17.21.29 i like how "going Phil Fish" is now a used expression
Aug 21 17.21.36 * AndChat|215124 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
Aug 21 17.21.53 tfw no retina macbook
Aug 21 17.21.53 I remember when 4chan jumped a webcomic's forums for not giving them porn for free
Aug 21 17.22.06 <Silver|2> Moot hasn't cared about 4chan for years now. It became obvious around the whole canv.as thing
Aug 21 17.22.25 * AndChat|215124 (~AndChat21@C6175276.224F1FAE.DE6D5023.IP) has joined #burgersandfries
Aug 21 17.22.35 >wanting a macbook
Aug 21 17.22.45 And where do we go when 4chan is dead?
Aug 21 17.22.45 I still say make this not about Zoe Sleeping around, make it about the 5guys giving publicity for sex
Aug 21 17.22.51 ^
Aug 21 17.22.54 Heaven
Aug 21 17.22.55 is say both
Aug 21 17.22.56 No shit, that's the actual point of this
Aug 21 17.22.58 <Silver|2> 7chan
Aug 21 17.23.01 <Silver|2> lol
Aug 21 17.23.14 I think Poole still cares about anonymity and posts not being permanent. But fuck free speech
Aug 21 17.23.15 guys, incase that thread is removed, here.
Aug 21 17.23.25 https://mega.co.nz/#!7FBj1RAT!ygutnsRwyjyuQJKrJ9bFUG2BbUCMGNvwc4rUWdzh09I
Aug 21 17.23.25 https://mega.co.nz/#!7FBj1RAT!ygutnsRwyjyuQJKrJ9bFUG2BbUCMGNvwc4rUWdzh09I
Aug 21 17.23.25 https://mega.co.nz/#!7FBj1RAT!ygutnsRwyjyuQJKrJ9bFUG2BbUCMGNvwc4rUWdzh09I
Aug 21 17.23.25 https://mega.co.nz/#!7FBj1RAT!ygutnsRwyjyuQJKrJ9bFUG2BbUCMGNvwc4rUWdzh09I
Aug 21 17.23.25 https://mega.co.nz/#!7FBj1RAT!ygutnsRwyjyuQJKrJ9bFUG2BbUCMGNvwc4rUWdzh09I
Aug 21 17.23.26 * GeorgeWashington has kicked Opfag from #burgersandfries (Stop repeating yourself!)
Aug 21 17.23.30 lel
Aug 21 17.23.31 The problem is that making it about Zoe sleeping around amounts to a personal attack which, while funny and something she totally deserves, will hurt our chances of pushing the other point
Aug 21 17.23.35 That's what you get
Aug 21 17.23.37 ******
Aug 21 17.23.38 ./v should be focused on the implications of gaming journalism
Aug 21 17.23.41 Stop kicking yourself Stop kicking yourself Stop kicking yourself Stop kicking yourself Stop kicking yourself Stop kicking yourself
Aug 21 17.23.41 * Opfag (Opfag@6430BC88.6A64B930.9E227775.IP) has joined #burgersandfries
Aug 21 17.23.45 eh la mayo
Aug 21 17.23.46 <Silver|2> ouch
Aug 21 17.23.47 No fuck you
Aug 21 17.23.47 Because SJWs will cherry-pick the /b/ shit posting and say "See? It's sexist MRAs!"
Aug 21 17.23.53 Op, anything happen with the posting to attack the 5guys last night?
Aug 21 17.23.57 I wasn't the one to kick you
Aug 21 17.23.59 It was George
Aug 21 17.24.02 ./pol should be focused on her self righteous schtick and the implications of the investigation
Aug 21 17.24.10 * nawl (~nawl@i.am.nawl) has joined #burgersandfries
Aug 21 17.24.10 and /b should be focused on ruining her life for being a slut
Aug 21 17.24.17 "See? It's sexist MRAs!" is the bullshit cop-out that Anita used to deflect criticism of her bullshit
How is that taken out of context exactly?

It doesn't take long to figure out where this is going.

Tell me again about how this is about journalistic ethics and not harassing some lady?
This is all completely true. People keep pointing at the irc log and going "No no no, this was taken out of context. You have to dig deeper." I literally just went and did what BlackMageBob suggested, and none of the quotes were surrounded by things that made them look any better. It just reminds me of this:

The whole thing reminds me of this


You can say they're being ironic all you like, it's still toxic shit and there's such a constant stream of it on that log that it's really hard to believe that "Oh no, they were just joking."
 

Agayek

Ravenous Gormandizer
Oct 23, 2008
5,178
0
0
Jux said:
Posting from the phone right now, so I may come back and edit this, depending on how cumbersome this gets. First, if you look further down in the quoted section, you'll see someone suggesting that /b/ should be in charge of harrassment of ZQ. If this were simply about journalistic integrity, whats with the planned campaign of harrassment? Second, the specific quote I used was just one of many on Futrelles site, I used it at random not to back up my overall point that this is nothing but a witch hunt, but rather as a rebuttal to Mages assertion that his quoted parts were taken out of context.
Ahhhh, that makes more sense. That's pretty much 4chan IRC in a nutshell, tbh. He's basically calling out how he thinks the various boards will react, given their content and the type of posters they attract. Given the general nature of conversation on 4chan and the like, I don't personally see it as a call to arms for anything, but I can see why you would.

Geo Da Sponge said:
This is all completely true. People keep pointing at the irc log and going "No no no, this was taken out of context. You have to dig deeper." I literally just went and did what BlackMageBob suggested, and none of the quotes were surrounded by things that made them look any better. It just reminds me of this:

You can say they're being ironic all you like, it's still toxic shit and there's such a constant stream of it on that log that it's really hard to believe that "Oh no, they were just joking."
Eh, that's just how 4chan is, like it or not. The culture of the board is to be vile and crude and rude to anyone and everyone for no particular reason. It's just how they work. It's rarely ever said with any real malice though, it's a bunch of random anonymous twits on the internet hurling abuse at each other and responding in kind. It's surprisingly welcoming, assuming you've got a thick enough skin to not take everything personally. The same language outside of that context is horribly toxic, that much is true, which colors a lot of people's perception of the site and its posters, but if you keep the broader culture of the site in mind, the chat logs (or at least the excerpts I've read, which is only a small portion of it) are pretty innocuous. Take that however you will.
 

Jux

Hmm
Sep 2, 2012
868
4
23
Agayek said:
Jux said:
Posting from the phone right now, so I may come back and edit this, depending on how cumbersome this gets. First, if you look further down in the quoted section, you'll see someone suggesting that /b/ should be in charge of harrassment of ZQ. If this were simply about journalistic integrity, whats with the planned campaign of harrassment? Second, the specific quote I used was just one of many on Futrelles site, I used it at random not to back up my overall point that this is nothing but a witch hunt, but rather as a rebuttal to Mages assertion that his quoted parts were taken out of context.
Ahhhh, that makes more sense. That's pretty much 4chan IRC in a nutshell, tbh. He's basically calling out how he thinks the various boards will react, given their content and the type of posters they attract. Given the general nature of conversation on 4chan and the like, I don't personally see it as a call to arms for anything, but I can see why you would.
Aug 21 17.24.02 ./pol should be focused on her self righteous schtick and the implications of the investigation
Aug 21 17.24.10 * nawl (~nawl@i.am.nawl) has joined #burgersandfries
Aug 21 17.24.10 and /b should be focused on ruining her life for being a slut
Sorry, but I'm not reading it that way. When he says /b -should- be doing something, that is a call for action, not speculation on what will happen.

Getting back to my main points (because I'm back on a computer), I don't buy that this is about journalism ethics. Were it, it wouldn't be focused on the personal life of some indie dev, it would have focused on actual breaches of ethics. The fact is that Grayson never wrote a review for Depression Quest, and while ZQ's personal ethics may be questionable, it has had zero impact on the industry. This isn't some studio being exposed as bribing countless reviewers into giving them good reviews, it's about one lady and a jilted ex airing relationship laundry for the internet to see, and a bunch of misogynistic imbiciles using it as a proxy in their 'war' against the boogeyman SJWs coming to take away their dudebro games and enforcing diversity on everyone.

And speaking on the 'culture' of 4chan, I would liken 4chan to a boil on the asshole of the internet, except 4channers might mistake that for a compliment.
 

Agayek

Ravenous Gormandizer
Oct 23, 2008
5,178
0
0
Jux said:
Sorry, but I'm not reading it that way. When he says /b -should- be doing something, that is a call for action, not speculation on what will happen.
Like I said, that's fair enough. I disagree, but that's simply a matter of perspective. I've seen that kind of talk entirely too many times over the internet to read any sort of call to arms in it. I'm not nearly arrogant enough to assume my viewpoint is universal truth though, so I'll leave it at that.

Jux said:
Getting back to my main points (because I'm back on a computer), I don't buy that this is about journalism ethics. Were it, it wouldn't be focused on the personal life of some indie dev, it would have focused on actual breaches of ethics. The fact is that Grayson never wrote a review for Depression Quest, and while ZQ's personal ethics may be questionable, it has had zero impact on the industry. This isn't some studio being exposed as bribing countless reviewers into giving them good reviews, it's about one lady and a jilted ex airing relationship laundry for the internet to see, and a bunch of misogynistic imbiciles using it as a proxy in their 'war' against the boogeyman SJWs coming to take away their dudebro games and enforcing diversity on everyone.
This is true. As far as I've been able to tell, Grayson only had the appearance of impropriety, and that was pretty quickly debunked. Grayson only ever wrote two articles mentioning Quinn or Depression Quest, and neither was a review. And if that's all that was there, there would have been a furor for a couple days and it would have faded, just like every other 'outrage' in gaming history.

That wasn't all there was though. The big thing that kicked the whole thing off was the massive, concerted effort to censor any discussion on it. There was plenty of legitimate censorship, stopping people from doxxing, or bringing up things best left private, but there was also a lot of illegitimate censorship. There were posts being deleted, people being banned and even grossly insulted for going "Hey wait, Grayson slept with a subject. Isn't that a conflict of interest?". Anything at all that wasn't blatantly and blindly in support of Quinn and/or shouting that there was no possible way there might potentially be a problem was being heavy-handedly censored all over the goddamn internet.

Naturally, the Streisand effect kicked in, and that made people curious. That over the top reaction seemed to imply that yes, there really was substance to the accusations of impropriety, and so people started digging. It turned out that no, Grayson didn't do anything really wrong (though it was somewhat alarming that it was seen as normal for press to be sleeping with devs), but it also turned out that we found out about people like Patricia Hernandez, who was writing glowing reviews and recommendations for her girlfriend's games while living with her, and the massive web of Patreon support threading back and forth all over the industry. That's a very real sign of a very real problem in the industry as a whole.

Then, when people started talking about that and going "WTF mate?", pretty much everyone implicated by the amateur investigations doubled down and started screaming about 'gamer' being dead and pissing off a great many people who'd, until then, been confused on what the whole affair was about.

That's where the movement really came from. If it was about Zoe Quinn, it would have fizzled out weeks ago. Hell, the internet kept its focus on #GamerGate through fucking PAX, and it looks like Destiny is barely budging it. These are things that have never before failed to distract whatever internet mob was whipped up previously. How the fuck would 'a bunch of misogynistic imbiciles' be able to avert that and keep all the attention on Quinn? Please, explain. I would love to know so that I could abuse the shit out of it and maybe get some marginally unique games out of AAA publishers.

Jux said:
And speaking on the 'culture' of 4chan, I would liken 4chan to a boil on the asshole of the internet, except 4channers might mistake that for a compliment.
Which again, is fair. There's a reason I don't make a habit of visiting the place. My point is mostly that actual meaning relies on context, and the context of a 4chan irc is that language tends toward being much more offensive and toxic than it would be elsewhere, regardless of the topic[footnote]No seriously, go check out the IRC when their discussing a positive topic, like a solid debate on game mechanics or whatever. People use pretty much the exact same language then as they are in the IRC chat logs[/footnote]. It's disingenuous and intellectually lazy, at best, to claim "those people say mean things to each other, therefore everything they say or do is evil". They're basically speaking a different language, one where the default assumption is no one is ever offended by anything, and that assumption is largely born out.

On a only somewhat related note, it's actually a pretty good glimpse of where our language is going to end up if we ever succeed in achieving true social equality, to be perfectly honest. Where people simply don't care what they're called and so nearly anything is permissible. I could easily be wrong in that regard, I'm no master of sociology, but I'd be willing to put money on it.
 

Jux

Hmm
Sep 2, 2012
868
4
23
Agayek said:
This is true. As far as I've been able to tell, Grayson only had the appearance of impropriety, and that was pretty quickly debunked. Grayson only ever wrote two articles mentioning Quinn or Depression Quest, and neither was a review. And if that's all that was there, there would have been a furor for a couple days and it would have faded, just like every other 'outrage' in gaming history.

That wasn't all there was though. The big thing that kicked the whole thing off was the massive, concerted effort to censor any discussion on it. There was plenty of legitimate censorship, stopping people from doxxing, or bringing up things best left private, but there was also a lot of illegitimate censorship. There were posts being deleted, people being banned and even grossly insulted for going "Hey wait, Grayson slept with a subject. Isn't that a conflict of interest?". Anything at all that wasn't blatantly and blindly in support of Quinn and/or shouting that there was no possible way there might potentially be a problem was being heavy-handedly censored all over the goddamn internet.

Naturally, the Streisand effect kicked in, and that made people curious. That over the top reaction seemed to imply that yes, there really was substance to the accusations of impropriety, and so people started digging. It turned out that no, Grayson didn't do anything really wrong (though it was somewhat alarming that it was seen as normal for press to be sleeping with devs), but it also turned out that we found out about people like Patricia Hernandez, who was writing glowing reviews and recommendations for her girlfriend's games while living with her, and the massive web of Patreon support threading back and forth all over the industry. That's a very real sign of a very real problem in the industry as a whole.

Then, when people started talking about that and going "WTF mate?", pretty much everyone implicated by the amateur investigations doubled down and started screaming about 'gamer' being dead and pissing off a great many people who'd, until then, been confused on what the whole affair was about.

That's where the movement really came from. If it was about Zoe Quinn, it would have fizzled out weeks ago. Hell, the internet kept its focus on #GamerGate through fucking PAX, and it looks like Destiny is barely budging it. These are things that have never before failed to distract whatever internet mob was whipped up previously. How the fuck would 'a bunch of misogynistic imbiciles' be able to avert that and keep all the attention on Quinn? Please, explain. I would love to know so that I could abuse the shit out of it and maybe get some marginally unique games out of AAA publishers.
I had a nice long post in response to this, and then a 404 ate it, so I'm going to truncate it the second time around.

In response to 'concerted effort of censorship': Concerted efforts imply people working together to achieve a goal. I'm going to slap a big ole [Citation needed] here, because as far as I can see, threads were shut down because people were unjustly dragging this ladies name through the mud. I'm actually disappointed that the Escapist has allowed this charade to go on as long as it has. Were I in charge at this site, I would have shut down any thread about Quinns personal life, perma banned astroturfers showing up here specifically to talk about it, and told anyone that didn't like it to fuck off, and ban their asses too.

In response to legit complaints about journalistic ethical breaches: You can't swing a dead cat around here without hitting a post talking about Quinn. If this were about ethics, why is everyone still talking about Quinn?

In response to the 'gamers are dead' articles: I'm a gamer, and I think this community is filled with bile. I have zero sympathy for it as a whole.

As for how to exploit this to your own benefit:

Step 1) Show up on Reddit or 4chan with a story about a feminist/sjw type doing something bad
Step 2) Watch the internet hate machine start up.
Step 3) Profit.
 

Agayek

Ravenous Gormandizer
Oct 23, 2008
5,178
0
0
Jux said:
In response to 'concerted effort of censorship': Concerted efforts imply people working together to achieve a goal. I'm going to slap a big ole [Citation needed] here, because as far as I can see, threads were shut down because people were unjustly dragging this ladies name through the mud. I'm actually disappointed that the Escapist has allowed this charade to go on as long as it has. Were I in charge at this site, I would have shut down any thread about Quinns personal life, perma banned astroturfers showing up here specifically to talk about it, and told anyone that didn't like it to fuck off, and ban their asses too.
You're right, that was a poor choice of words. Perhaps "universal" would have been better. Whatever it was, pretty much anyone across the entirety of the internet who so much as considered thinking about possibly maybe posting about it was banned and insulted, even when it was just to say "Wait hold up. I don't give a shit who she slept with, but doesn't it strike anyone as kinda weird that she slept with a journalist?"

Jux said:
In response to legit complaints about journalistic ethical breaches: You can't swing a dead cat around here without hitting a post talking about Quinn. If this were about ethics, why is everyone still talking about Quinn?
Fucked if I know. I can't speak for anyone who made those threads or posts about it. You'd have to ask them. From what I've seen from the people actively involved in #GamerGate though (which predominantly is the bigfuckhueg thread), Quinn left the conversation weeks ago. The only people who I can remember off-hand that have brought her up in the last week were people trying to insist the whole thing was about her, and the people who in turn told the first group to knock it off because she's irrelevant.

There's probably plenty of people talking shit about Quinn for whatever reason, that's kinda what happens to controversial figures on the internet, especially when they and their supporters keep insisting a ruckus is about them, but I haven't seen it happen in relation to #GamerGate without being shouted down.

Jux said:
In response to the 'gamers are dead' articles: I'm a gamer, and I think this community is filled with bile. I have zero sympathy for it as a whole.
That's fair, but a lot of other people apparently don't. There've been a great many people, and even devs (see: Wardell, Brad), who were rather offended by the articles. You can argue whether or not they should have been offended (personally, I find it kinda silly), but they were. They're sick of being insulted and talked down to by the press, and they gave a rather large push to the momentum of #gamergate.

My whole post there wasn't about the validity or lack thereof to the arguments. It was merely a basic rundown of the sequence of events, and an implicit question of "If there's nothing to this affair but Quinn's sex life, why did all this other shit keep happening?". I'll make that implicit question explicit now. Can you answer it?

Jux said:
As for how to exploit this to your own benefit:

Step 1) Show up on Reddit or 4chan with a story about a feminist/sjw type doing something bad
Step 2) Watch the internet hate machine start up.
Step 3) Profit.
And how, pray tell, does that distract the internet hate machine from the shinies of PAX or the latest shiny? You're insisting this is just a random hate mob with no purpose, but if there's no purpose, why haven't they been distracted by the various usually very distracting distractions that have come up?
 

Jux

Hmm
Sep 2, 2012
868
4
23
Agayek said:
My whole post there wasn't about the validity or lack thereof to the arguments. It was merely a basic rundown of the sequence of events, and an implicit question of "If there's nothing to this affair but Quinn's sex life, why did all this other shit keep happening?". I'll make that implicit question explicit now. Can you answer it?
I can answer your questions, though my answer is simply a personal opinion, however, one I feel is backed up by the historical views of large parts of the community.

It was actually answered in part in #189, but I'll expound a bit. First, a shit ball rolling downhill is bound to pick up stuff along the way. And while this may have been unintentional to those first pushing this, it actually works out in their favor. It's easier to pushback against blatant misogyny, but when you entangle it with actual causes worth fighting for, it becomes much harder to fight against without looking like the corrupt one. So while I'm sure that people hoped Quinn was actually guilty of a bunch of ethical breaches, it doesn't really matter anymore because other stuff has been exposed along the way. And yet Quinn is still at the center of this with the harassment and rape and death threats.

Second, there has always been a large part of the community that has pushed back against any calls for reform in the way of diversity, or ending sexism in gaming; basically an Us v Them, with 'us' (I don't actually include myself here, but rather use it as a substitute for the aformentioned part of the community) being the people that want to maintain the status quo. Sure, some people say it's about creative freedom, but all it is is a resistance to the percieved attack on their hobby and 'Them' being everyone in gaming that wants more diversity/inclusion in gaming and non gamers that criticize the mediums community for it's general vitriol.

And I think this whole gamergate thing is just a proxy war for that. People latched onto Quinn because she considers herself a feminist and is therefore 'the enemy', and her game got some good reviews. And when all this is over, Quinn is still going to be the first thing that comes to everyones mind when #gamergate is mentioned.

And how, pray tell, does that distract the internet hate machine from the shinies of PAX or the latest shiny? You're insisting this is just a random hate mob with no purpose, but if there's no purpose, why haven't they been distracted by the various usually very distracting distractions that have come up?
I wouldn't call it a mob without a purpose. There is a purpose behind it, as I feel I explained above.
 

Agayek

Ravenous Gormandizer
Oct 23, 2008
5,178
0
0
Jux said:
I can answer your questions, though my answer is simply a personal opinion, however, one I feel is backed up by the historical views of large parts of the community.

It was actually answered in part in #189, but I'll expound a bit. First, a shit ball rolling downhill is bound to pick up stuff along the way. And while this may have been unintentional to those first pushing this, it actually works out in their favor. It's easier to pushback against blatant misogyny, but when you entangle it with actual causes worth fighting for, it becomes much harder to fight against without looking like the corrupt one. So while I'm sure that people hoped Quinn was actually guilty of a bunch of ethical breaches, it doesn't really matter anymore because other stuff has been exposed along the way. And yet Quinn is still at the center of this with the harassment and rape and death threats.
This is true, but if that's the case, why does basically everyone in the GamerGate thread here and on 4chan keep shouting down anyone who tries to drag the whole thing back to Quinn?

That's the main reason I'm disagreeing with you. People are actively going out of their way to tell anyone who brings Quinn up to shut up and stop trying to drag her into the spotlight, despite the fact that Quinn seems bound and determined to force herself into it anyway. Nobody cares about Quinn or harassing her. If you don't believe me, go into the thread here or anywhere on 4chan and suggest it, or simply just ask about her. You'll be shouted down for a shill and told in no uncertain terms to stop dragging her into something she has nothing to do with. I've seen it happen dozens of times, and every time it happens, it makes the constant claims of "it's all about Quinn" saturating the media ring a little more false.

I don't doubt at all that she's getting all sorts of nasty messages from all corners of the internet, but trolls are like that, and there's no way to stop them. There's absolutely no organized movement to harass her though, just a pack of dipshits getting their jollies.

Jux said:
Second, there has always been a large part of the community that has pushed back against any calls for reform in the way of diversity, or ending sexism in gaming; basically an Us v Them, with 'us' (I don't actually include myself here, but rather use it as a substitute for the aformentioned part of the community) being the people that want to maintain the status quo. Sure, some people say it's about creative freedom, but all it is is a resistance to the percieved attack on their hobby and 'Them' being everyone in gaming that wants more diversity/inclusion in gaming and non gamers that criticize the mediums community for it's general vitriol.

And I think this whole gamergate thing is just a proxy war for that. People latched onto Quinn because she considers herself a feminist and is therefore 'the enemy', and her game got some good reviews. And when all this is over, Quinn is still going to be the first thing that comes to everyones mind when #gamergate is mentioned.
Eh, yes and no. Check out the Publisher's Note that went up the other day and there's a good analogy there. Macris draws a parallel between video games and game enthusiasts, and cars and car enthusiasts. He puts it much more eloquently than I can, but the basic gist of it is that the auto industry figured out a long time ago that there's a whole bunch of different markets they should be serving (sedans for people who just need to drive, hot rods for gear heads, minivans for families, etc), while the video game industry has not, and they keep trying to sell hot rods to everyone by stripping down the engine, adding a back seat, etc, leading to a bland product that serves no market.

That's where most of the backlash against 'inclusivity' comes from. It's not 'there's women in that game, ewwwww' (see: any game with customizable protagonists, Beyond Good & Evil, Mirror's Edge, etc). It's 'they tore out the core mechanics to shoehorn in a token black guy? ewwwww'.

There's definitely a problem with representation in gaming, there's no question about that, and it's thankfully slowly shrinking as the medium grows, and there's certainly at least some subset of gamers who are actually misogynist or racist and hate the idea of inclusivity in their games, but it's a small minority, just like those people are a small minority of the wider society (seeing as the gaming audience is like 60% of the wider society, this makes perfect sense). Most gamers don't give a shit about whatever the social cause of the week happens to be and how a given game deals with it. Most gamers don't care what they're playing as long as it's fun and interesting, and they don't tend to like being told that games should sacrifice being fun and interesting in favor of championing social causes they don't give a toss about. That's where most of the backlash comes from. Not because they hate women and change.

Jux said:
I wouldn't call it a mob without a purpose. There is a purpose behind it, as I feel I explained above.
It's a purpose that barely anyone in the mob knows then, because as mentioned, they're putting a lot of effort into leaving Quinn out of it entirely and shouting at the people who bring her up.
 

Jux

Hmm
Sep 2, 2012
868
4
23
Agayek said:
This is true, but if that's the case, why does basically everyone in the GamerGate thread here and on 4chan keep shouting down anyone who tries to drag the whole thing back to Quinn?
I would say that at this point, with the whole thing being tied to Quinn so closely already, if they want to keep this going they'll do their best to publicly distance themselves from attacking Quinn and keep the threats anonymous. As for here specifically, the mod presence in that thread is pretty high, I would say that for fear of having it shut down, they're playing by the rules the escapist has set up.

That's the main reason I'm disagreeing with you. People are actively going out of their way to tell anyone who brings Quinn up to shut up and stop trying to drag her into the spotlight, despite the fact that Quinn seems bound and determined to force herself into it anyway. Nobody cares about Quinn or harassing her.
Then why is she being harassed?

If you don't believe me, go into the thread here or anywhere on 4chan and suggest it, or simply just ask about her. You'll be shouted down for a shill and told in no uncertain terms to stop dragging her into something she has nothing to do with. I've seen it happen dozens of times, and every time it happens, it makes the constant claims of "it's all about Quinn" saturating the media ring a little more false.
I have zero desire to insert myself in either of those shitholes. I argued in the thread when it was in R&P, and pretty much abandoned it when it was moved out, with the exception to check in on it now and then because I was misquoted a couple of times.

I don't doubt at all that she's getting all sorts of nasty messages from all corners of the internet, but trolls are like that, and there's no way to stop them. There's absolutely no organized movement to harass her though, just a pack of dipshits getting their jollies.
The IRC log suggests differently.

Eh, yes and no. Check out the Publisher's Note that went up the other day and there's a good analogy there. Macris draws a parallel between video games and game enthusiasts, and cars and car enthusiasts. He puts it much more eloquently than I can, but the basic gist of it is that the auto industry figured out a long time ago that there's a whole bunch of different markets they should be serving (sedans for people who just need to drive, hot rods for gear heads, minivans for families, etc), while the video game industry has not, and they keep trying to sell hot rods to everyone by stripping down the engine, adding a back seat, etc, leading to a bland product that serves no market.

That's where most of the backlash against 'inclusivity' comes from. It's not 'there's women in that game, ewwwww' (see: any game with customizable protagonists, Beyond Good & Evil, etc). It's 'they tore out the core mechanics to shoehorn in a token black guy? ewwwww'.
Can you point to a single game where core mechanics have been torn out so a minority character could be included?

There's definitely a problem with representation in gaming, there's no question about that, and it's thankfully slowly shrinking as the medium grows, and there's certainly at least some subset of gamers who are actually misogynist or racist and hate the idea of inclusivity in their games, but it's a small minority, just like those people are a small minority of the wider society (seeing as the gaming audience is like 60% of the wider society, this makes perfect sense). Most gamers don't give a shit about whatever the social cause of the week happens to be and how a given game deals with it. Most gamers don't care what they're playing as long as it's fun and interesting, and they don't tend to like being told that games should sacrifice being fun and interesting in favor of championing social causes they don't give a toss about. That's where most of the backlash comes from. Not because they hate women and change.
First, if it's true that its a small minority [citation needed], you can't argue that it isn't the most vocal part of the community. And if the gaming community wants to move away from the stereotype of the misogynistic neckbeard, people need to start speaking up, if not specifically against the assholes (though that would be preferable), at least for what it is they do value, so the dickheads stop having the biggest voice.

The problem I have with the 'gamers just don't want to sacrifice fun and interesting games for social justice' is that it's complete bullshit. I have yet to see a game where including a more diverse cast of characters would make something less fun or interesting, or even someone call for a game to be made 'less fun' for the sake of diversity and inclusivity.
 

Agayek

Ravenous Gormandizer
Oct 23, 2008
5,178
0
0
Jux said:
I would say that at this point, with the whole thing being tied to Quinn so closely already, if they want to keep this going they'll do their best to publicly distance themselves from attacking Quinn and keep the threats anonymous. As for here specifically, the mod presence in that thread is pretty high, I would say that for fear of having it shut down, they're playing by the rules the escapist has set up.
That seems incredibly Machiavellian and well thought-out for an internet mob. It's insanely unlikely

Then why is she being harassed?
Because she's a public figure who is both easy to harass and readily responds loudly and noisily to it. Welcome to the Internet. Anonymity leads to people being complete twats to others, especially when the target visibly reacts to it.

Though as a point of clarification, when I said "nobody" in the bit you quoted, I should have said "nobody who has been active in the discussion surrounding #GamerGate".

I have zero desire to insert myself in either of those shitholes. I argued in the thread when it was in R&P, and pretty much abandoned it when it was moved out, with the exception to check in on it now and then because I was misquoted a couple of times.
If you wish. I find it rather disingenuous to claim you know what the whole thing is about when you refuse to hear out the people talking about it, but I can't force you to.

The IRC log suggests differently.
I have no particular desire to read through 3 weeks of IRC chat logs for an internet argument, take that as an admission of whatever you want, but I have read the ones Quinn posted to Twitter, and the shots she posted by and large had nothing to do with the conclusion she drew from them (for example, a screencap of someone saying "Ok here's the plan: Don't harass Quinn, yell at the people that do and then take a screenshot of it to prove you did it" is not proof that they plan to harass Quinn. Similarly, a screencap saying "Maybe we should get Alec Baldwin involved" hours after Adam Baldwin got involved is not proof that they planned to get Adam Baldwin involved weeks ahead of time). Actually read the exchange in the images she posted and then what she says they're about, and not always but fairly often, the two are completely unrelated.

That does not fill me with confidence for her statements regarding the overall content of the logs.

Can you point to a single game where core mechanics have been torn out so a minority character could be included?

First, if it's true that its a small minority [citation needed], you can't argue that it isn't the most vocal part of the community. And if the gaming community wants to move away from the stereotype of the misogynistic neckbeard, people need to start speaking up, if not specifically against the assholes (though that would be preferable), at least for what it is they do value, so the dickheads stop having the biggest voice.

The problem I have with the 'gamers just don't want to sacrifice fun and interesting games for social justice' is that it's complete bullshit. I have yet to see a game where including a more diverse cast of characters would make something less fun or interesting, or even someone call for a game to be made 'less fun' for the sake of diversity and inclusivity.
Well, there's that article [https://archive.today/2t93l] that explicitly says:

11. We stop upholding ?fun? as the universal, ultimate criterion for a game?s relevance. It?s a meaningless ideal at best and a poisonous priority at worst. Fun is a neurological trick. Plenty of categorically unhealthy things are ?fun?. Let?s try for something more. Many of the alternatives will have similarly fuzzy definitions, but let?s aspire to qualities like ?edifying?, ?healing?, ?pro-social?, or even ?enlightening?. I encourage you to decide upon your own alternatives to ?fun? in games (while avoiding terms like ?cool? and ?awesome? and any other word that simply caters to existing, unexamined biases).

12. We don?t afford any credence to the idea that games are ?just for fun?. Games are not neutral. Anita Sarkeesian is not imposing her feminist values onto games; she?s identifying the misogynistic values that game developers have (sometimes unwittingly) incorporated into games. You don?t have to think her efforts are perfect, but what she?s doing is not inappropriate. Discovering the values expressed by games is a responsible thing to do; discouraging that practice is cowardly. We need to regularly compare our games? expressed values to our own real values. In the end, we may arrive at different conclusions about what different games mean, but we need to stop asserting that they?re meaningless.
That's a pretty clear statement that "fun" should be considered far secondary to "pro-social".

As for games, there's games like Gone Home, Dear Esther, Depression Quest, etc, that are remarkably boring to play, but have a social message so they're great or something.
 

Jux

Hmm
Sep 2, 2012
868
4
23
Agayek said:
Jux said:
I would say that at this point, with the whole thing being tied to Quinn so closely already, if they want to keep this going they'll do their best to publicly distance themselves from attacking Quinn and keep the threats anonymous. As for here specifically, the mod presence in that thread is pretty high, I would say that for fear of having it shut down, they're playing by the rules the escapist has set up.
That seems incredibly Machiavellian and well thought-out for an internet mob. It's insanely unlikely
You think it's unlikely that people realize their 600+ page thread would be shut down in a heartbeat if they went back to the 'but look how many guys she slept with!' shtick that was going on at the beginning? I wouldn't go so far as to say that every single person is in on it, I'm sure there are a number of well intentioned people going along for the ride. Just makes it that much easier to hide in the crowd.

Because she's a public figure who is both easy to harass and readily responds loudly and noisily to it. Welcome to the Internet. Anonymity leads to people being complete twats to others, especially when the target visibly reacts to it.

Though as a point of clarification, when I said "nobody" in the bit you quoted, I should have said "nobody who has been active in the discussion surrounding #GamerGate".
As it is beyond my capablities to find out if this is true, I'll leave it at that, though I think you'd have just as impossible a time proving that to be true.

If you wish. I find it rather disingenuous to claim you know what the whole thing is about when you refuse to hear out the people talking about it, but I can't force you to.
I'm not going to follow a 600 page thread just so I can sort the bullshit from the legit when I know it started as bullshit. I tried reading some of it earlier, and quite frankly, the low content posting with most people basically sharing no information whatsoever except to provide a link isn't worth my time.

Saying I'm the disingenuous one because I refuse to be doc dumped is amusing, but without merit.

I have no particular desire to read through 3 weeks of IRC chat logs for an internet argument, take that as an admission of whatever you want, but I have read the ones Quinn posted to Twitter, and the shots she posted by and large had nothing to do with the conclusion she drew from them (for example, a screencap of someone saying "Ok here's the plan: Don't harass Quinn, yell at the people that do and then take a screenshot of it to prove you did it" is not proof that they plan to harass Quinn. Similarly, a screencap saying "Maybe we should get Alec Baldwin involved" hours after Adam Baldwin got involved is not proof that they planned to get Adam Baldwin involved weeks ahead of time). Actually read the exchange in the images she posted and then what she says they're about, and not always but fairly often, the two are completely unrelated.

That does not fill me with confidence for her statements regarding the overall content of the logs.
Most of the content I looked at in the log was fact checking WHtM, as there were claims that the exerpts he pulled out were taken out of context.

That's a pretty clear statement that "fun" should be considered far secondary to "pro-social".

As for games, there's games like Gone Home, Dear Esther, Depression Quest, etc, that are remarkably boring to play, but have a social message so they're great or something.
This doesn't really answer my question. Can you point to a single game where core mechanics have been torn out for the sake of including a minority character? Second, maybe I'm getting something different than you reading that, but the guy doesn't seem to be saying that games should be made less fun for the sake of making them more pro social, only that 'fun' as a criteria isn't a great standard, based on the wide range of things that could be categorized as 'fun'.
 

Agayek

Ravenous Gormandizer
Oct 23, 2008
5,178
0
0
Jux said:
You think it's unlikely that people realize their 600+ page thread would be shut down in a heartbeat if they went back to the 'but look how many guys she slept with!' shtick that was going on at the beginning? I wouldn't go so far as to say that every single person is in on it, I'm sure there are a number of well intentioned people going along for the ride. Just makes it that much easier to hide in the crowd.
Oh not at all. I think it's unlikely that people intent on harassing Quinn would bother with setting up a thread like that in the first place. Why would they? Six dedicated people can endlessly harass Quinn in complete anonymity to the same level as six thousand random schmucks. All they have to do is set up shop, grab a couple proxies, and go to town. Nobody else needs to get involved. What possible benefit is there to a group of people trying to harass Quinn in orchestrating and setting up a movement specifically saying "Hey guys, shut the fuck up about Quinn already, let's talk about the real issues here"?

There's no reason I can conceive of. It explicitly works counter to their alleged purpose.

As it is beyond my capablities to find out if this is true, I'll leave it at that, though I think you'd have just as impossible a time proving that to be true.
Look at literally every public figure who has an internet presence. Any and every politician gets abuse hurled at them by the truck load. Hell, TotalBiscuit and Jim Sterling both got mountains of shit for saying "Hey guys, can we all calm down now?". Public figures incite the ire of random anonymous fuckwits who express it through verbal (or textual) diarrhea. It doesn't matter who they are.

I'm not going to follow a 600 page thread just so I can sort the bullshit from the legit when I know it started as bullshit. I tried reading some of it earlier, and quite frankly, the low content posting with most people basically sharing no information whatsoever except to provide a link isn't worth my time.

Saying I'm the disingenuous one because I refuse to be doc dumped is amusing, but without merit.
No, I'm saying it's disingenuous to insist that there's no merit and refusing to take ten seconds to use the handy resource to provide evidence to the contrary.

Most of the content I looked at in the log was fact checking WHtM, as there were claims that the exerpts he pulled out were taken out of context.
/shrug I have no idea what other people claimed. From what I saw, most of the logs she pulled were actually in context, or at least weren't improved by being taken with the surrounding conversation (though again, I don't see any of it as being particularly incriminating due to my perspective on 4chan's use of language), they just didn't match or logically lead to her conclusions. She was basically making shit up and claiming a chunk of IRC conversation about something completely different supported it.

This doesn't really answer my question. Can you point to a single game where core mechanics have been torn out for the sake of including a minority character?
Off the top of my head, no, but at the same time, I can't actually remember any games that got shit on for including a minority character. I vaguely remember there being a gun that anally probed people in Saint's Row 4 being pulled for being offensive and people getting mad about that, but that's all I can remember off the top of my head.

What games have been yelled at for including a minority character?

Edit: Actually, I just thought of something. The new COD game allows you to play as a female soldier, but as far as I've heard, there hasn't been any hooplah made about that. Why do you suppose that is?

Second, maybe I'm getting something different than you reading that, but the guy doesn't seem to be saying that games should be made less fun for the sake of making them more pro social, only that 'fun' as a criteria isn't a great standard, based on the wide range of things that could be categorized as 'fun'.
That could simply be a matter of perspective again. When I read it, I see "games aren't about 'fun' any more, they're about sending a message to your audience, and if you don't do that, you're a terrible person". If you don't, fair enough.
 

Jux

Hmm
Sep 2, 2012
868
4
23
Agayek said:
Jux said:
You think it's unlikely that people realize their 600+ page thread would be shut down in a heartbeat if they went back to the 'but look how many guys she slept with!' shtick that was going on at the beginning? I wouldn't go so far as to say that every single person is in on it, I'm sure there are a number of well intentioned people going along for the ride. Just makes it that much easier to hide in the crowd.
Oh not at all. I think it's unlikely that people intent on harassing Quinn would bother with setting up a thread like that in the first place. Why would they? Six dedicated people can endlessly harass Quinn in complete anonymity to the same level as six thousand random schmucks. All they have to do is set up shop, grab a couple proxies, and go to town. Nobody else needs to get involved. What possible benefit is there to a group of people trying to harass Quinn in orchestrating and setting up a movement specifically saying "Hey guys, shut the fuck up about Quinn already, let's talk about the real issues here"?


There's no reason I can conceive of. It explicitly works counter to their alleged purpose.
Why would anyone set up a million+ view thread that started as public shaming? That was a rhetorical question.

Look at literally every public figure who has an internet presence. Any and every politician gets abuse hurled at them by the truck load. Hell, TotalBiscuit and Jim Sterling both got mountains of shit for saying "Hey guys, can we all calm down now?". Public figures incite the ire of random anonymous fuckwits who express it through verbal (or textual) diarrhea. It doesn't matter who they are.
Not quite sure where you're going with this. Is this some variation of the 'women being harassed online is nothing special because guys get harassed too' argument?

No, I'm saying it's disingenuous to insist that there's no merit and refusing to take ten seconds to use the handy resource to provide evidence to the contrary.
At this point it just isn't worth my time. After this all dies down I'll go back and see about finding some relevant information after all the bullshit has been sifted out, but I was there at the start, and my memory is pretty damn good. As far as I've seen there isn't a short way of getting all the information quickly, at least not from a reputable source.

Off the top of my head, no, but at the same time, I can't actually remember any games that got shit on for including a minority character. I vaguely remember there being a gun that anally probed people in Saint's Row 4 being pulled for being offensive and people getting mad about that, but that's all I can remember off the top of my head.

What games have been yelled at for including a minority character?
Seriously? http://www.digitalspy.com/gaming/news/a375821/electronic-arts-urged-to-resist-gay-character-criticism.html#~oPpWErXSWaE1Ub

This wasn't that long ago. That aside, it wasn't really my point that gamers are yelling at games for including minorities, just that they yell against other gamers pushing for inclusivity for the sake of being inclusive. This is a tangent, but you see the same damn thing in the comic book industry sadly, with people poopooing Captain America being made black and Thor being a woman. Honestly I feel like there is a lot of overlap between the two communities, based on their reaction to this kind of stuff.

Edit: Actually, I just thought of something. The new COD game allows you to play as a female soldier, but as far as I've heard, there hasn't been any hooplah made about that. Why do you suppose that is?
While the snarky answer would be 'because COD is shit', or 'because COD is late to the game on this one', I'll just go ahead and link a few articles I found reporting on this. I mean, when you say 'no hooplah', what are you expecting? Us to throw a parade for EA or something?

http://kotaku.com/why-female-soldiers-were-finally-added-to-call-of-duty-1142063196

http://www.vg247.com/2013/08/17/call-of-duty-ghosts-and-female-soldiers-%E2%80%93-what-took-so-long/

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-08/15/cod-ghosts-female-soldiers

http://www.polygon.com/2013/8/14/4621446/call-of-duty-ghosts-multiplayer-adds-female-soldiers-new-modes

http://www.sentralgamer.com/female-soldiers-spark-sexist-controversy-in-cod-ghosts/ <~ This is is especially good, for the comments the author found regarding the inclusion of female soldiers.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.825378-Call-of-Duty-Ghosts-Lets-You-Play-as-a-Woman#20020430 And from our very own Escapist.

That could simply be a matter of perspective again. When I read it, I see "games aren't about 'fun' any more, they're about sending a message to your audience, and if you don't do that, you're a terrible person". If you don't, fair enough.
I think it sort of depends on what you mean by fun. Just a hypothetical here, but I would be perfectly willing to sacrifice fun in games if fun was say... a rape simulator.
 

Agayek

Ravenous Gormandizer
Oct 23, 2008
5,178
0
0
Jux said:
Why would anyone set up a million+ view thread that started as public shaming? That was a rhetorical question.
And I'll give you a rhetorical answer (/Goku). The reason is, there kinda isn't one. For one, how do you get a million views on a thread that's about nothing but shaming a relatively obscure indie dev? I mean that seriously by the way. How do you get a million unique views on a thread when it's all about shaming someone. Surely you can't think 4chan is this lurking Lovecraftian horror with tentacles that reach so far into the internet that it can enslave the masses into doing its bidding. You can't be stupid enough to actually believe that, so it's gotta be something else. How on Earth could a public shaming be enough to create the single biggest thread in the history of the Escapist's forums?

Not quite sure where you're going with this. Is this some variation of the 'women being harassed online is nothing special because guys get harassed too' argument?
Kinda? I said "Because she's a public figure who is both easy to harass and readily responds loudly and noisily to it. Welcome to the Internet. Anonymity leads to people being complete twats to others, especially when the target visibly reacts to it.", you responded with "It's impossible to prove either way". I cited evidence supporting my claim. It's not okay that anyone gets harassed ever, but Quinn isn't being harassed because she's a woman. She's being harassed because she's a public figure on the internet. As evidence, I give you every public figure who's ever been on the internet. Every single goddamn one gets harassed, regardless of if they're from gaming, politics, religion, sociology, etc. Whenever there's a large enough audience who can be anonymous, there's going to be some twats within that audience who get their jollies by harassing the public figures. It happens everywhere. It's the unfortunate cost of being on the internet.

I'm not saying it's good or acceptable that she's being harassed. I'm saying that she's not special because of it.

At this point it just isn't worth my time. After this all dies down I'll go back and see about finding some relevant information after all the bullshit has been sifted out, but I was there at the start, and my memory is pretty damn good. As far as I've seen there isn't a short way of getting all the information quickly, at least not from a reputable source.
If you're looking for reputable sources, you can check out the Slate [http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/09/gamergate_explodes_gaming_journalists_declare_the_gamers_are_over_but_they.html] and Forbes [http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/] articles about this whole kerfluffle for a pretty concise summary of what's going on with the whole affair. Both of them are pretty good, balanced looks into the whole affair.

There's also a couple breitbart articles, but they tend to lean a little heavy on the rhetoric, so I won't link them.

Seriously? http://www.digitalspy.com/gaming/news/a375821/electronic-arts-urged-to-resist-gay-character-criticism.html#~oPpWErXSWaE1Ub

This wasn't that long ago. That aside, it wasn't really my point that gamers are yelling at games for including minorities, just that they yell against other gamers pushing for inclusivity for the sake of being inclusive. This is a tangent, but you see the same damn thing in the comic book industry sadly, with people poopooing Captain America being made black and Thor being a woman. Honestly I feel like there is a lot of overlap between the two communities, based on their reaction to this kind of stuff.
That article you link sounds an awful lot like gamers getting together and telling Christian activist groups to fuck off and let them be inclusive. Really not seeing how that's gamers up in arms that there's gay characters in there.

Also, this totally reminds me of a game that had a core mechanic cut out for the sake of inclusivity: Dragon Age II. They literally went through and completely threw out any sense of good writing and strong characterization specifically so that any Hawke could be any sexual orientation under the sun. It's impossible to prove they worsened the game for it, but it certainly made the characters and world seem substantially less real when literally everyone Hawke interacted with was bi-sexual and interested in him/her.

While the snarky answer would be 'because COD is shit', or 'because COD is late to the game on this one', I'll just go ahead and link a few articles I found reporting on this. I mean, when you say 'no hooplah', what are you expecting? Us to throw a parade for EA or something?
Nah, I'm expecting to have heard about the internet hate machine targeting Activision or whatever for including female soldiers. I haven't heard a negative whisper about it.

Though apparently I missed it for Ghosts, so /shrug.

I think it sort of depends on what you mean by fun. Just a hypothetical here, but I would be perfectly willing to sacrifice fun in games if fun was say... a rape simulator.
Two things:

1) Why would you want to play a rape simulator?

2) That's kinda my point. A rape simulator sounds both disgusting and having probably incredibly shitty gameplay, because it's a game made to hammer home a point first and be a game second. There's certainly a market for that, but it's not the primary one. Most people plays games as entertainment, just as most people watch movies for entertainment. There's room to have artsy or agenda-driven games, but it's never going to dominate the market, and trying to force them to is just going to cause a repeat of the 1983 crash.
 

EyeRobotronics

New member
Sep 10, 2014
2
0
0
Let's talk about this whole debacle. This comment will be a lengthy ramble, likely visceral and probably, unforunately, upsetting. Read this with the knowledge that anyone with a similar history of abuse that I've had will likely remember how they felt in that moment vividly. Frankly, a flashback triggered by a seemingly innocuous post is the whole reason behind this account's creation.

Harassment is a very real issue. There is plenty of it not just online, but in face to face encounters, written word, videos, etc. Asking "why people are offensive online" is a loaded version of the simple question "why are people offensive at all". That, in turn is just the age old question of "whence comes evil?" It is persistant throughout absolutely everything which is done. Can harassment be stopped? No. Pretty simple honestly - it works, so people will do it. Yes, it's ethically wrong, yes it's terrible - but it still works. If someone stops doing something due to harassment, the harasser has won. We all know of instances where this has happened, for good and bad.

So, where has the harassment been in this gamergate movement? Well, it's certainly fair to say that a lot was initially levelled at Zoey Quinn and anyone who defended her - people just LOVE to be outraged and take it out on others, and this was no exception. Is it fair to say there's been some back? Absolutely. Is it fair to say that the harassment to Zoey shouldn't have happened at all? Absolutely. But let's just look at what's been said to the other side of the fence, because one side has been extremely well documented.

At the time of writing, supporters of so called gamergate have been called children, virgins, losers, assholes, compared to terrorist groups, misogynists, and in the case of a particularly foolish Gearbox employee, been accused of distributing child pornography. Whilst there's certainly people using this gamergate tag who are doing wrong, the amount of harassment back has also been staggering. This is what motivated the creation of this account, and why you'll probably not see anything written by me after it with such a serious tone.

WARNING: the things I'm going to describe are horrific and likely to upset anyone who's been the victim of sexual abuse. Sorry. I truly am.

Before we delve much further, I'll tell you about my position in all of this. I want people to understand the sort of people who have stood behind, and continue to stand behind, the notion that the press should be entirely financially seperate from the media they are covering. No undisclosed funding either to or from people involved in game creation, no undisclosed relationships, etc - the fact that this has to even be said when it's a basic assumption in the majority of journalism is, frankly, already an issue. Because we are people, and we all have stories.

My introduction to gaming was watching as my mother beat Sonic the Hedgehog 1 & 2. I can't remember much of it in honesty, but I remember seeing my mother happy at just losing herself in a game, pouring hours into something. My first experience of playing a video game was running through sonic 2 as tails while one of my sisters (the youngest of two) played andd beat the game as Sonic. I can remember being bitterly disappointed that I couldn't play past Metropolis Zone, but had fun watching her continue regardless. Just after this, we got our Windows 95. I can remember failing miserably at Commander Keen, and how awesome the idea that a square pushed into a port contained a massive game. I never actually got very far of course, but I was hooked.

Later on after joining school, there was a very kind girl who, having seen me be pushed to the ground for holding one of my best friend's hands on the playground and called a lesbian (by someone who was 4, even though I'm male) invited me back to her house. There, we played Sonic Spinball, Earthworm Jim and some other stuff. We became very good friends and that was my only contact with anyone else who I knew played video games. It stayed like that for a while, until I ran into another guy who actually played games - my first such encounter. Even by the time I was 7, I still knew far more girls who played games than boys. In fact, it's fair to say most of my upbringing around games was from women helping me find my feet playing them.

But this is where the story stops being happy. I'm sorry if the following paragraph seems incredibly formal, but I hope everyone reading understands that it helps me keep emotional distance and it's very challenging to write about. When I was 15, a girl at my friend's 16th party spiked my drinks with alcohol. I remember knowing that it was much stronger than what I'd asked for but at the same time, I'd never really drank any sizable amount of alcohol - the most I'd ever had was a glass of wine at christmas. Sometime between 3 and 4 hours in, I was in no fit shape to do much of anything. I could barely walk, barely see straight and was generally extremely drunk. What I do remember is that at some point after that, this girl took me away from the crowd, into a back room and put her hand down my trousers. I remember saying that I didn't want it, that I didn't like anything that was happening and that I just wanted to go and sit down, but nothing stopped her. I remember her pushing me to the floor and unzipping my jeans, lying on top of me, putting a condom on me while I wasn't even up. I... well, I guess the only thing I can really say after that is that it turns out that genital stimulation happens regardless of you saying to stop repeatedly, and that the reason I lost my virginity at 15 is not due to my own desire. Sorry that's so awkwardly worded, it's just... well, I hope you understand that this is still hard to write. Did I report it to the police? Of course not - I felt like, if I'd really not wanted it, I wouldn't have gotten erect, right? So it must have been my fault. 7 years of therapy later, a 5 year relationship ruined because I've tried to commit suicide three times and a heavy medication of anti-depressants later, I still get niggling doubts about it - it's very hard to not think it's your fault when you read almost daily that men simply can't be raped because erections imply consent. It doesn't end there - a few days later, that girl's boyfriend had heard that I "made advances on her" at the party, so he pushed me into a barbed wire fence and started hitting me whilst calling me "a pussy" and saying I "didn't deserve [the girl] anyway". Did I tell anyone? No, I told my parents that I'd fallen against the fence because I got dizzy on the wway home, and because she only kicked me in the chest, I had no bruises not hidden under clothes. Again, I didn't get anyone involved - I still thought it was my fault.

What I did do is reach out to feminism online. The people I talked to were very kind, and it felt like they really empathised with me. I felt like I belonged somewhere, and quickly tried to understand them as they had me. But, then, I was used not as a person but as a tool. I was no longer someone who was doing what they could to help others, but instead a flag of a ship held up to say "look at what we're doing". I was disgusted and outraged, because the people I'd grown to trust told me to vilify others and say things like "teach men to stop raping" - but my attacker wasn;t a man. I felt used, so stopped visiting those sites.

Then I found the MRA movement. Again, I felt welcomed and they understood that I felt scorned from the feminist side due to being politicised when all I needed was help and affection. I was shown support groups, help sites and given skype addresses to message if I felt suicidal again. But, as with everything which has seemed good in my life, they also treated me as a weapon - suddenly I was showing up the "feminists" who'd clearly rejected me because I was male. Again, that's not what had happened and again, I was upset to be a ball in some sick game of harassing other people. I disassociate myself from both groups now, because apparently neither can stop using people who're hurting as their shield and sword against ideological opponents.

Eventually, I just kept doing what I am now - losing myself in games as I did when I was 3. It's escapism at its best, but it's also just fun. I love seeing what I can do in modern games, it never ceases to amaze me. It's the furthest away from those experiences I've gotten. It's not my only hobby by any means, but it's my old faithful one which I rely on heavily.

Now imagine that you're me. Imagine that you are, daily, seeing articles from the press saying that you're a misogynist. Imagine that you're told that you're inherently sexualising women, and pushing them out of games. Imagine reading one day that it's wrong to demonise women for their sex lives, then the next be called a virgin, neckbeard, fedora wearing loser for the heineous crime of saying you;re a "gamer". Just think of what I see when I read all of these pieces about what apparently people are saying and doing in the name of a movement I'm a part of.

So you take the high road. You know, because of your abuse and just generally because you try to be kind, that you're not going to convince anyone by being cruel. You post why you want gaming journalism to be fair. You say that yes, of course people in the industry can make friendships, but they should be mentioned when articles are written by those journalists. You say that there needs to be accountability in the media because allegations of fraud are floating around. At the same time, you actively seek people being offensive to opposition and tell them to cut it out. You note as a matter of pride that you've barely had to do so, and actually the harassment seems to have become almost non-existant.

And then you're told to apologise for the harassers.
You're told you aren't doing enough.
You're told that, until all harassment is gone from your side, your message won't even be considered.

So you double down. You dedicate literally hours trying to find all these people tweeting harassment. You spend ages scrolling through forums and message boards trying to see this apparent plague of misogynists. But you can't - they're barely there, a pinch of salt in a thousand litres of water. Even so, you continue to call them out while also trying to make the people opposing you understand your issue.

And they ignore you, and they harass you, and they continue to tell you to stop the harassment from your side.

In the past fortnight, I've been told:
-I hate women
-I want to drive out women from gaming
-I want to enable harassers to drive out women
-I support the side of abusers
-I'm worse than the ISIS
-I'm sexist
-I'm racist
-I'm lying about my rape
-That my rape is insignificant because there's more male-on-female rape
-I'm part of "rape culture"
-I couldn't have even been raped, because I'm too physically strong now
-If I was attacked, it's something I did to deserve it
-I am enabling child pornography
-I am homophobic despite being bi
-I'm a "lying piece of shit man baby"
-I'm "a fucking slut shaming asshole"
-I'm "a literal turd"

What have I said to deserve this? I was called racist for saying we shouldn't be prejudiced against people based on their skin colour. I was called a misogynist for saying I call myself a gamer. I was called misogynistic for saying I supported my sister coming out as gay, because it must have been very hard to do so. What am I meant to do any more? Why do I need to keep saying sorry to these bigots? I know I am not any of the things I've been called. Where's my apology? Why do I even persist against such hatred? I've done absolutely nothing to these people, and I am demeaned regardless. I'm not the one monetising harassment of women. I'm not the one blaming others for vile acts like tweeting child porn. I'm not the one who refuses to disclose the absolute BASICS required in any other journalism. I'm not the one who wrote news reports on how some website with a suicide hotline in the header was apparently attacking a female game dev without even having any evidence. I'm not trying to pretend a website like 4chan with several hundred thousand users is somehow engaged in some elaborate plot run by 10 people in a public IRC, nor am I pretending that 4chan is some exclusive group instead of a board which literally anyone can post on anonymously in seconds. I'm certainly not trying to shut down anything other than corruption. And yet, I'm either a worthless, pathetic excuse for a human one day, or a kind soul being manipulated by people I don't know, have never met and don't care about who're subjecting me to their whims.

It's all crap. I refuse to apologise any more, because I've had 100 times the vitriol thrown at me personally than I've even SEEN levelled at the people I'm against. I am a human, with a basic goal and I'm sick of being used. I will no more say sorry for these, frankly, bullies in the media trying to cover each other's asses when they can't even treat me with basic respect. I am disgusted that I should even have to any more when no such apology has been raised from the people stood against. I refuse to yield until the people who're saying these vile things are fired, or otherwise forced to accept that they're in the wrong here. I am not making money from this, I am not going to allow one of my limited outlets of depression be taken over by a nepotistic media and I absolutely will not stand for having to cope with flashbacks of abuse every day whilst some fool says I should apologise more. If I behaved like these journalists in my own job, I'd have been out the door in an hour. The harassment must end - from both sides, yes - but I need it to stop from the people against me, because I cannot deal with these suicidal thoughts again. I cannot cope with reading these people seriously defame me for what is little more than an escapist hobby. I cannot deal with being "called out" for things I've not even done. This farce must end, and there must be a serious address to the issue raised without slinging mud.

And I expect that I'll be able to sleep well with the knowledge that I might not be insulted by the people representing me in the media when hell freezes over. I don't even know what I've got any more, nor what's left to say. I am a man who likes games. That's all I want to be. Please just give me that, without calling me some slur or hating me for one day.