#GamerGate Needs Damage Control Badly (Small OP Update)

Recommended Videos

Nieroshai

New member
Aug 20, 2009
2,940
0
0
Sleekit said:
NinjaDeathSlap said:
Has anyone affiliated with #gamergate been forced out of their job?

Has anyone affiliated with #gamergate been forced out of their home?

The high ground. You do not have it.
you're incredibly nieve if you think a small group of people can take a term like "gamer" and internally redefine it as they see fit and then publish articles on large "gaming" websites claiming "gamers must die" and the consumers/customers of those websites (who all self-identify as "gamers") will not negatively react and there will be no career casualties.

that just doesn't happen in the real world.

you make a mistake like that or align yourself with a mistake like that then there may be a career price to be paid.

i don't expect people to disappear or anything...i'd rather they learned and grew...or didn't and kept failing...

much like a business.

but there's no way that was passing without an uproar of biblical proportions.

not in the real world.

if you're in a career like that and do something like that...then you're an fool.

you're an even bigger fool than gerald ratner...because at least he only insulted the product and people who bought it by extension.
Yes, many people are quite snow. :p
I am in agreement. Despite what we say in our arm (or desk) chairs, people DO identify with groups because it's in human nature to identify. Who would argue that someone who smokes is not a smoker, or someone who publishes written works is not an author? It's absurd, and so is the idea that one who games is not a gamer. That being said, it's our apparent inability to avoid butthurt that's making it hard for today's view of gamers to not parallel how RPG gamers used to be viewed. I remember back when we were treated like insane cultists for playing D&D, and now gamers--that is, individuals who game--are being treated like domestic terrorists in the making by the talking heads and being shamed by the very gaming press they thought was on their side. This isn't a nonissue, but it would do nothing but help if we could as a community avoid raging about it.
 

Nieroshai

New member
Aug 20, 2009
2,940
0
0
Slayer4472 said:
This post reminds me quite a bit of the reactions to Occupy Wall Street.

OWS: We're going to protest corruption in finances.

Conservatives: Look at this one person committing vandalism! All these protesters are anarchists who want to destroy the United States and freedom!

It's essentially the same thing. I'm very sorry that someone decided to send out a post calling all of y'all "subhuman", but ultimately I have no control over that individuals actions. The only thing I can do is try to conduct myself with honor, and encourage others to do so.
More looting and vandalism in any single #occupy protest than all Tea Party protests put together, however. Causes aside, angry teenagers with anonymity are not the most accountable of people.
 

Slayer4472

New member
Sep 1, 2014
58
0
0
Nieroshai said:
Slayer4472 said:
This post reminds me quite a bit of the reactions to Occupy Wall Street.

OWS: We're going to protest corruption in finances.

Conservatives: Look at this one person committing vandalism! All these protesters are anarchists who want to destroy the United States and freedom!

It's essentially the same thing. I'm very sorry that someone decided to send out a post calling all of y'all "subhuman", but ultimately I have no control over that individuals actions. The only thing I can do is try to conduct myself with honor, and encourage others to do so.
More looting and vandalism in any single #occupy protest than all Tea Party protests put together, however. Causes aside, angry teenagers with anonymity are not the most accountable of people.
Yeah, I think that's what the OP was trying to point out =P

Again, I can only be responsible for my own actions- not those of others. I'd ask that, if anyone has questions, they come over to the big thread and make a post. We'd be more than happy to answer your queries.
 

rgrekejin

Senior Member
Mar 6, 2011
267
0
21
Semiautodidactic said:
Hey, I can only point you to the information. If you can't be bothered to read that's fine.
Semiautodidactic said:
thethird0611 said:
Just googeling sexism in gaming doesn't mean theres misogyny.
http://nms.sagepub.com/content/9/4/555.abstract

http://gamasutra.com/blogs/JenniferAllaway/20140331/214320/The_Reality_of_Sexism_in_the_Game_Industry.php

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/art-imitating-life-how-sexism-in-video-games-mirrors-reallife-gender-imbalance-8381426.html

http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/12777/article/women-are-targeted-for-harassment-in-online-gaming-roughly-three-times-as-much-says-new-study/

http://fatuglyorslutty.com/

http://www.notinthekitchenanymore.com/

http://adanewmedia.org/2012/11/issue1-consalvo/

http://www.shapingyouth.org/sexism-in-video-games-tropes-trolls-and-terrific-upstanders/

https://twitter.com/search?q=%231reasonwhy&src=hash

http://clrn.dmlhub.net/content/gender-and-sexism-in-online-gaming-communities

I wanted to include this one too but it's behind a paywall: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2011.642401#preview
I see this sort of thing done often enough that there really ought to be a faux Latin name for it by now. Argumentum ab linkidium? That sounds about right.

Anyway, it irritates me when people do this. You can't just post a wall of links and act like you've made an argument. Read them yourself, pick out the relevant bits, and construct your own argument as needed. Cite where necessary. Having an avalanche of links doesn't prove anything, especially when most of the links in question are opinion articles, non-scientific surveys, or, to pad out the number of links, multiple opinion articles about the same study. It's sort of the like the old appeal to authority fallacy - if there are a ton of links about a topic, it must be true, right? This tactic typically relies on observers being unwilling to read through the proffered list of links to determine themselves whether they're all true or even relevant to the topic being discussed. The mere presence of the long list is supposed to be enough to make the point. However, this is the internet age, and anyone can put up a post about anything. You can find a ton of link-based evidence for all kinds of ridiculous things. Cases in point:

Vaccines are dangerous (disclaimer: Vaccines are not dangerous. But you can produce a lot of links that say they are.)
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/01/22/uk-narcolepsy-vaccine-pandemrix-idUKBRE90L07F20130122

http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/05/uptick-whooping-cough-linked-subpar-vaccines?ref=hp

http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/searching-for-answers/vaccines-autism

http://www.undergroundhealth.com/the-lead-vaccine-developer-comes-clean-so-she-can-sleep-at-night/?ModPagespeed=noscript

http://www.morganverkamp.com/august-27-2014-press-release-statement-of-william-w-thompson-ph-d-regarding-the-2004-article-examining-the-possibility-of-a-relationship-between-mmr-vaccine-and-autism/

Climate Change is a myth (disclaimer: Not saying it is, just that you can find lots of links that say so.)
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-myth-of-settled-science/2014/02/20/c1f8d994-9a75-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/30/surprise-no-warming-in-last-11-years/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/29/noaas-temperature-control-knob-for-the-past-the-present-and-maybe-the-future-july-1936-now-hottest-month-again/

The Moon Landing was faked (disclaimer: ...yeah. Some people think this.)
http://listverse.com/2012/12/28/10-reasons-the-moon-landings-could-be-a-hoax/

http://realitysandwich.com/23226/kubrick_apollo/

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

http://www.moonconnection.com/moon_landing_hoax.phtml

http://www.ibtimes.com/space-odyssey-were-apollo-moon-landings-faked-film-director-stanley-kubrick-video-1171051

So... yeah. No one ever act like this is a valid argument tactic again.

Edit: I'm not trying to equate the presence or absence of misogyny in gaming with any of the above. I'm just pointing out that a list of links isn't a valid argument.
 

mitchell271

New member
Sep 3, 2010
1,457
0
0
000Ronald said:
This is literally the worst course of action you could possibly take. If the people around you are acting like children, you don't bow your head and ignore them, you stand up and tell them to sit down and act like adults. You don't raise your voice, you don't flip your lid, you just affix them with a stare that could peel the paint off of a wall, and you make them know that there will be repercussions if they continue their course of action.

Don't let yourself be intimidated. Stand up and say something, and say it loud and often. Because this problem won't go away on its own.
Have you tried reasoning with them? I've done the rational and adult conversation thing with them, before this mess. When someone takes an extremist or backwards stance like this, it is next to impossible to change their minds. If they believe that someone like Anita Sarkeesian is trying to ruin video games for everyone, to them, it's an ultimate law of the universe that nothing can overturn.

You know when you get into a religious or ethical debate with someone? Even though you have formal scientific papers, documentation from an ethics community or something else along those lines, they will continue to quote their own misinformation and sketchy websites made with a 12-year-old's understanding of HTML. Nothing you say will get through to these people and sometimes you have to realise that bashing your head against a brick wall isn't even making a dent.

Don't get me wrong, I would love for my reasoning backed by facts and rational to get through to these people, but it hasn't worked in the past in the hundreds of arguments I've had and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
 

RedDeadFred

Illusions, Michael!
May 13, 2009
4,896
0
0
000Ronald said:
RedDeadFred said:
000Ronald said:
Yes. You tell them to stop. But you don't just tell them to stop. You beg them to stop. You plead with them to stop. You make them understand that there is a way that you have chosen to conduct yourselves, and that their behavior isn't adhering to that. You explain to them that people pay more attention to inane death threats than actual, real discussion, and that their actions are doing more to harm the cause they're championing than help it. You sit them down and you tell them that their behavior is unacceptable, that it reflects poorly on you and the rest of the group, and that you will not be having it.

And if that doesn't work, you demand they stop. You demand they stop because they are embarrassing themselves. Because they are embarrassing you. Because for every person who will be cowed into silence by being threatened with murder or rape, two or three or five or ten more moderate, more reasonable people are going to leave the discussion, most of them from your side. Because they make you and everyone else who believes as you do, look like a clown. And you repeat it as often as you can, to as many people as you can, with as much conviction as you can possibly muster. You make sure that there is no question in anyone's mind how you feel about harassment.
Speaking as someone who is on the outside of this insanity, I think the issue is that it's simply much harder to convince someone of something through text than in person. A message through text can be easily ignored, discarded immediately, misconstrued, or simply be ineffectual. Speaking to someone in person is a lot more effective because you're right there, they can't ignore you and since you're speaking in person, there will be an emotional weight behind what you're saying. That's quite hard to convey in text. Simply telling them to try harder isn't really fair because effective writing (where you are getting through to someone on an emotional level) is a skill that many people do not posses.

For a while I was of the opinion that they should be ignored like any other troll and honestly, I'm still not sure if that might not be the best solution. "Don't feed the trolls" and all that? I know it's hard to ignore it with the sheer amount and severity of the vitriol being thrown, but really, has it actually been tried? Again, I don't know if that would work, but I feel like it should be given a try. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. What I'm trying to say is that I can sympathize with the seemingly impossible task of talking down an entire group of fairly irrational people through text. Especially when the average writer isn't going to posses the writing skills of something even close to that of a professional writer.

I don't know, this is mostly speculation. What do you think?
I think that we've tried ignoring them for years, and that's only made the problem worse. And there's a psychological aspect to that; you don't change bad behavior by ignoring it, you change attention seeking behavior by ignoring it. You change bad behavior by challenging it, by showing them new ways to do things, and how their actions are harming not just themselves, but others as well.

And even beyond that, I think (and I would hope that I've made this perfectly clear by now) that any kind of harassment, especially threatening people with rape and death, are absolutely unacceptable.

That being said, I don't mean to say that you should just beat people over the head with their own intolerance. Come to them compassionately at first. Let them know that you understand that they are exasperated, but flying off the handle isn't going to help anyone, least of all them. Don't go full-on confrontational right off the bat, is what I'm saying; they're likely to re-direct their anger right at you, and you probably don't want that.

That being said, it's a little bit more difficult to do that when you're talking over text. I acknowledge that. But as I said earlier, just because something is difficult doesn't mean you don't at least try to do it. Even just letting someone know how you feel can act as a stopgap, at least give them a chance to think about what they're doing.

And the absolute bottom line is this: I am absolutely fed up with this kind of behavior. I am sick of hearing about it, I am sick of watching it, I am sick of bearing the brunt of it. And I do genuinely hope that there are enough people around that feel the same way that we can make a difference.
Ya, that makes sense. It doesn't appear to be simple attention seeking. You're probably right. Definitely a case of being easier said than done though. I definitely agree that we should actually EXPLAIN to them why the way they're acting is wrong rather than simply telling them to "fuck off". If anything, that would rile them up more and cause them to act even worse. I agree that it's worth a try, but I am fairly skeptical on how successful it would be because there's always going to be assholes in the world, and the internet is the perfect vehicle for them to express this. Some people know that they're wrong, but just don't care. I also think that this shouldn't just be left to the "GamerGate" people. The necessity of feminism (I know they say it's not about this, but I HIGHLY doubt that it's not at least a big part of it) is something that should be explained to them as much as possible if this has any hope of working. Not saying that you were saying only the "GamerGate" people should do this, but I that a lot have. I realize that it's harder for people on the other "side" to explain something calmly to these people when they're the ones who are receiving all of the hate, but it should at least be attempted.
 

carnex

Senior Member
Jan 9, 2008
828
0
21
I can give you a good course of action

Give the opposition research data that came from unbiased source, that is peer reviewed, whose sampling, quantification and analysis methodology is presented with it and that has conclusive result. Anything less can be easily dismissed and should be dismissed as anything but purely speculative topic.

To give you a hint

On effects of sexual themes in media on capability for sexual violence and aggression or general position towards women in humans there is non that is even remotely conclusive.
 

burnout02urza

New member
Nov 22, 2009
51
0
0
The easiest and most corrosive way to steal support from a movement is to insist that they censor themselves. It's a great way to get the people who are personally invested to drift away, because they feel that they're no longer being represented. #GamerGate has got this far because there are so many, many viewpoints, and all the pent-up frustration with the blatant corruption in the industry is coming out at last.

'Damage control' is pointless. You never hear about the other side talking about 'Damage control' of their own insane opinions; MovieBob, Zoe Quinn's feeding of the flames, Anita, the posts by feminists about how ten-year-old boys should be murdered for speaking up.

This is basically another attempt to get #GamerGate to shut up and stop making a fuss, in the hope that it'll just...go away and everything will be fine. As long as more and more evidence of corruption is uncovered, it frankly does not matter what a few cranks say: They don't represent the general thrust of the movement, which ultimately has truth on it's side. It's like the paid shills who say - "Oh, we can stop now, we've done enough damage." when there really hasn't been any change yet, and things are still gaining momentum.

The game industry is already feeling the effects of this. Hopefully, the corrupt will lose their jobs over the whole mess, and otherwise be called to account.

Perhaps the thread title shouldn't have been 'Damage control', but the more honest 'GamerGate should stop saying things I don't like, already!'

This has come this far because of passion. The people who contribute to #GamerGate genuinely care, and are genuinely invested in video games and the way the industry has tried to bend them to their own ends.

It's not going to just go away, you know, no matter how much the Powers That Be want them to. More, self-censorship would be pointless: Just look at how Quinn took the Gamergate Chat Logs out of context, anyway, or #gameethics - which was an actual attempt to derail the course of the discussion, in the hope of drawing attention away from Gamergate.

The entrenched and corrupt power structure isn't fighting fair. Forcing their opposition to account for everyone and everything, when the objective is free discourse, sounds disingenuous at best and malicious at worst.
 

rgrekejin

Senior Member
Mar 6, 2011
267
0
21
000Ronald said:
I think that we've tried ignoring them for years, and that's only made the problem worse. And there's a psychological aspect to that; you don't change bad behavior by ignoring it, you change attention seeking behavior by ignoring it. You change bad behavior by challenging it, by showing them new ways to do things, and how their actions are harming not just themselves, but others as well.
I like the logic of your response, I really do, but there are some logistical issues here. I mean, it's one thing to call one another out on places like this board, where, even if we don't use our real names, everyone has a defined identity (and, to their credit, I see a lot of people on the GamerGate thread calling out their more seedy elements fairly regularly). But it's quite another when we're dealing with literally anonymous posting boards like the chans, and hateful comments coming from burner accounts on twitter. That's where most of the bile has been coming from. You can't challenge them, because, realistically, you don't even have any way to communicate with them. It's hit-and-run bad behavior.
 

NinjaDeathSlap

Leaf on the wind
Feb 20, 2011
4,474
0
0
Sleekit said:
I'm fairly sure the foundation of this whole affair ensured that nobody involved would be living in the Real World, considering the centre of the web of nastiness that has now been spun are still accusations that nobody has been able to show as anything other than complete nonsense, and yet are still treated as meaning something.

In any case, debates about what exactly those columnists meant by the 'Death of Gamers', and exactly who they were talking about, is beyond the pail at this point. While I would claim a lot of what was said was misconstrued at first, then purposefully twisted later, I think we can at least agree that wording it in those terms wasn't very smart in hindsight. Of course it was going to rub a lot of people up the wrong way, and of course some backlash was to be expected.

However, here's what springs to mind for me when I think about the sort of backlash that would be 'expected': A lot of angry comments on forums directly relating to the articles; a lesser degree of angry personal correspondents; maybe even some angry letters to the editor, informing him/her that they had just lost a reader...

That is the sort of thing that people should 'expect', and nobody is ever put off having anything to do with a culture ever again because of any of those things. The kind of systematic, laser-targeted vitriol and personal invasion that was aimed at some of these writers should neither be expected or condoned; and all the perpetrators achieved by any of it was to give their detractors ammunition, make the scene seem less attractive to young journalistic minds who may well have been the people to bring the kind of change they say they want, and to make whatever reason they had for being angry in the first place (be it legitimate or not) completely irrelevant when stacked up against their disproportionate response.
 

dragoongfa

It's the Krossopolypse
Apr 21, 2009
200
0
0
Just got wind of this thread...

First of all for the regular patrons of the Escapist's forums, I would like to apologize for anything that has been done and said to you by anyone who claims to be a part of GamerGate.

I am a long time lurker of the Escapist, I follow many of it's shows and articles but I rarely posted on the forums. That's because I already had plenty of other forums I frequented for years. I did look through the comment sections now and again but I always avoided the forums and I will probably avoid them again when all of this is over, one way or the other.

It must have been said already but I will say it anyway:

Everything did begin from a disgruntled ex boyfriend who wanted to shame his ex but that is not what GamerGate is about. I arrived later, right at the time when Total Biscuit and Boogie where shamed by certain members of the other side because they called for calm and reason. I am a followed of both of these YouTubers for two very simple reasons:

I trust TB because he always has been upfront with everything and thus I trust him to inform me if a game is worthy of my time and money.

I follow Boogie because I see myself through him. I didn't have such a shitty life as he but I did suffer through similar circumstances.

That's when I decided to join GamerGate fully.

I post mainly on the MegaThread right at the top of the forum. Despite what you may believe people are trying to keep things civil and the posters talk with everyone.

It is not an Echo Chamber and it is not a Flame War. It would have been long locked if that wasn't the case.

It has been stated numerous times from the vast majority of the posters that all harassment is deplorable and must be stopped. Although we were (some of us still are) skeptical about the threats, harrasment and the CP attack aimed at Anita Sarkeesian, we were shocked that this took place and several posters themselves contacted the authorities when it was needed.

We are not misogynists and we do not seek to cause harm.

Everyone joined GamerGate for his or hers own reasons, I can't name them all.

I already told you why I joined and now I will tell you why I remain after two weeks of being a part of it.

I want transparency in Games Journalism and I want game devs to be free to express their art without any form of outside censorship.

I want each and every game to be reported on its merits and not because of monetary or other kickbacks.

I don't think that this is a bad cause.

I am a gamer, I love games and they gave been part of me for most of my life.

Games are for everyone and everyone can find a game that he or she will like.

That's what I think and that's what I have seen from the vast majority of the posters in the Mega Thread above us.

Thank you for your time and I apologize again for anything that has been done to you by anyone who claims to be a part of GamerGate.

With respect

Dragoongfa

Captcha: The cat lady

I do have a cat but I ain't a lady you damn machine.
 

Jux

Hmm
Sep 2, 2012
868
4
23
@Sleekit
For some reason I can't use the quote button in this thread, it's cut off at the edges. So you won't be getting a notification on this response, but I hope you see it.

ye i was one of the ones that pilloried it in R&P...and left shortly after...that changed when people were hacked and doxxed especially when many of the same hackings and doxxing apportioned false blame.

those are real world crimes with victims as far as i'm concerned.

not an acceptable way to control the narrative on social media....and then just forget about.

and yet that is how it is being used.
I'm not familiar with who is doxxing or being doxxed, and none of that is defensible. But I don't see what that has to do with what I said.

real storys, develop and draw people in. that thread was specially set up later in the day as a hold all for all developments and that's what it's done.
Oh come on man, don't do the history revisionism thing on me, I was there in the thread from the start when it popped up in R&P. The whole thing was focused on ZQ's alleged cheating, with some attacks on feminism thrown in the mix. Or do you not remember the original title of the thread? 'Gaming journalism exposed as a feminist hugbox'. It was an attack piece from the getgo, and only shifted to 'ethics' once the new people realized that shit wasn't going to fly here, and that it was their only hope of keeping this thing alive.

If this had been a piece on ethics from the start, it wouldn't have been a focus on some insignificant indie dev and her alleged relationship with a journalist who supposedly wrote a good review for her, except oh wait, I'm still waiting for that review to actually show up. If ya'll (impersonal ya'll here) wanted to do a piece on ethics, you could have picked any number of actual issues on gaming journalism that Jim Sterling has railed about in the past for heck knows how long.

but its not a "this is what it was and who was in involved at the start" game and the thread is really badly named now tbh.

Clintons impeachment wasn't about the fact he got his dick sucked it was about who he was, where he worked and the lies to cover it up.
Are you saying that ZQ is in any way comparable as a figure in her sphere of influence to the way Clinton was to politics? That aside, Clinton's impeachment was about him getting head. The Republicans were looking for blood, and they latched on to anything they could think of as a way to smear the guy and get him out of office. And look at what happened to them as a result. If you're going to carry on with that analogy, you would do well to remember what happened in the end, it wasn't Clinton that ended up with the egg on his face.

the only way zq is relative to the "ethics" issue (rather than the fact she appears to have very little) is the people in the industry she slept with...rather than herself personally...one of whom was married and her boss.
In other words, there is no connection to what happened with ZQ and the issues gaming journalism has with ethics.

that and Grg Tito admitted the escapist did no fact checking on the wizzardchan story at all which has since been proven to be false...and, if the sites publisher is to believed, there will be a statement about that in due course.
Then bring that up with the Escapist. If this is about journalistic integrity, the people you need to be crusading against are the journalists.

her PA (yes she has a PA) has allegedly got fingers in all sorts of mucky places...
This is vague, elaborate.

but no its not "4chan astrotruf".
Based on what I've seen, yea, it is.

/v/ doesn't have the manpower to move the traffic graphs like have been happening even it it wanted to.

people went to twitter and 4chan and here because they were leaving everywhere else.
they went to places where they knew they could speak (including the escapist).

no, the sites with their censorship, insane moderation and "gamers must die" articles created "gamergate" mostly all on their own.
I don't see it as insane moderation to lock threads that are little more than slut shaming women. And while 'censorship' may have contributed to the specific traffic here, the whole thing was, and is, a fucking hurricane in a teacup.
 

psijac

$20 a year for this message
Nov 20, 2008
281
0
0
Fappy said:
But what the fuck is all this unrelated bullshit doing here? Why have the lines been drawn between so-called 'SJWs' and 'misogynerd' (or whatever the fuck they're called)? Why is feminism a factor at all? Oh wait, I see, many of the 'misogynerds' are saying that the Indy/Gaming Press Illuminati is using feminism/misogyny as a smokescreen to censor debate. Well if that's the case, then why the fuck are women, some of which have NO connection to any of this (like Anita), getting bombarded with harassment in the form of death and rape threats in relation to this?
That's like saying, "If all muslims are peaces why is ISIL beheading journalist in Iraq?"

Don't paint an entire group by the actions of the most extreme individuals
 

Cid Silverwing

Paladin of The Light
Jul 27, 2008
3,134
0
0
The way I understand this - people threaten and harass Anita Sarkeesian because she's a blatantly fake non-gamer who only does enough research that she can twist the most fundamental facts to suit her con artist agenda and then rake in all the cash while playing her next "masterstroke" - cry wolf and be a professional victim. She's not really affiliated with feminism at all, she has a degree in some economics-related subject from some kind of den of vipers disguised as an educational institution. She does this because she gets paid to start shit and fan the flamewars, nothing more or less. Everything else is just more thermite on the inferno, therefore more revenue.

She's been exposed time and again as having no genuine "criticism" to levy against the gaming media. Ever. She basically acts like a Fox News spokeswoman - a troll that deliberately overreacts to completely innocent things and fabricates controversy by quote-mining and "investigating" situations taken completely out of context before smugly pushing it in our faces, before sitting back and waiting for the inevitable shitstorm to engulf her clickbait material.

With that in mind, she's made a technically successful career of destroying gaming journalism as a whole - the fact that she's female is completely irrelevant since anyone of either gender can accomplish this. Imagine if instead it was a guy named Brad Sarkeesian drumming up controversy over "men's rights" based on a hypothetical situation that feminist-affiliated women have completely infiltrated gaming and undermined the (admittedly very real but increasingly reduced) patriarchy not in the name of equality but to exterminate men altogether or something like that.

Or have I missed something else that's overshadowed this?
 

Jux

Hmm
Sep 2, 2012
868
4
23
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/
 

Fappy

\[T]/
Jan 4, 2010
12,010
0
41
Country
United States
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?!
 

runic knight

New member
Mar 26, 2011
1,118
0
0
Well, this is probably gonna be another long post. Buckle in people. Why is SJW concepts tied into this and why do people still care? Well, it relates to both what started the thing and what keeps it going. While that sounds damning though, do understand that reference and mention of SJW don't always mean that the people talking about it are just MRA types. This requires looking back at the controversy itself as a sort of historical take. Lets explore.

The Pre-formation - The Zoe Chronicles 1. The Spark

First, we have to remember what this movement itself formed out of. After a revelation about Zoe and her relationship with people in the media, people started to ask questions about the implications. Rational questions.

"She slept with a reporter? Did it impact her publicity? Does it relate to why she won her award? Does it relate to the articles about her harassment?"

Now, as journalists, the responsible way to handle this would have been to investigate a little, dig up the important information, make an official statement and then go on. Sadly, this did not happen. Instead, people started to get banned all over, videos covering it got falsely flagged down, TotalBiskit openly attacked and decried after a civil post on it, as well as his and other entire threads vanished in mass chunks and people were told, quite severely, to shut up about it entire. Of course, because this is the internet, the Streisand effect took full force and people were now interested and saw the efforts as an attack on them for daring to be curious.

This then resulted in the massive publicly lead inquiry into Zoe herself. All previous mentioned, who the guys were, how they related to her and gaming itself...Anything people could dig up about her because the media refused to do that job for those concerned, and in part out of spite for the attempts to stifle conversation.

The Pre-formation - The Zoe Chronicles 2. The Inferno
Because of the sudden huge interest in Zoe, things started to happen very quickly. More mass censorship on various gaming sites lead to confusion and outrage about what was going on. On Twitter, people lashed wildly on both sides and many tried to claim that investigating into Zoe was sexist. This was then picked up and ran by representatives of many gaming sites, and even our own Moviebob. The defense to any and all inquiry was a tactic of manipulation of outrage, using the loaded term of "sexist" or "misogyny" to try to shame and silence people asking or talking about it. On top of that, more investigation into Zoe resulted in discover of a sabotaged Pro-women gaming project, a browbeat into silence claim of harassment, and a revelation that the previous claim about her being harassed by a forum were demonstrably untrue. Oh and Phil Fish lost his mind on twitter again in a screaming foaming at the mouth rage. The result was a fanning of the spark of frustration and discontent into an inferno. People began to shift the conversation away from Zoe herself and onto the people protecting her and impeding their efforts to call out wrongdoing on her part. It also lead to people rapidly supporting the attempted Pro-women game jam and the creation of /v/ daughter, the Vivian James character many probably see around the site. Eventually all this was caught wind by Adam Baldwin of Firefly fame, and he jumped into the fray, increasing awareness and soon he coined the term #gamergate as a monicker for the new controversy in gaming itself. (Also worth noting for sheer brilliance, be it intentional or not, a gamergate is also an ant who can help a colony reproduce without the need of a Queen, possibly a jab based on the perceived notion that gaming journalism itself was being run by Quinn herself. Essentially having all who rally behind the tag saying that gaming didn't need a queen.)

Formation - Gamergate
After the name takes off, more people come into it and more people start investigating on their own. I believe it was around this time that many claims of harassment and being hacked appear, though they may have been going on beforehand as well. These claims themselves come off as not only ridiculous in nature due to various technical and social absurdities in how they happened, but further cement the idea in the gamers of gamergate's consciousness that such claims are the results of trying to appear the victim to avoid criticism as well as shame and blame all who are asking questions. Added to this the continued use of terms such as "misogynist", "sexist" "Attack on her for being a woman" and so on, and the narrative is quickly and firmly painted in a "gamers versus SJW" light that it still remains in.

Furthermore, the growing awareness of the movement and the end of the gaming media silence in order to report she was being harassed for being a woman and other general misrepresentations increase the size of the conflict by bring in many new people. As a result of the similarities to another often claimed professional victim in gaming, people start jumping in to argue against the trend in gaming news to push for SJW causes. People who had seen the way gaming journalism reported and commented on many stories, as well as the use of click-bait journalism in general, saw this as a point to jump on as well. Then the Pro-Women game jam TFYC was hacked, claimed to be in retaliation for siding against Zoe, and the outage and anger grows more.

Ongoing
As people learn about the cause of the who ordeal and the actual intent and purpose of gamergate, they tend to settle down. Indeed, many can quickly see that it was not so much the social causes being pushed that they disliked but rather the manufacturing and manipulation of outage in order to attack or deflect criticism that they hated in the media of late and that was exemplified by the major gaming news media's near universal reply to this. With the launch of "Gamers are dead" as a narrative, people uninterested thus far were then pulled in as well and even more were made aware of the rumblings of gamers that had been largely ignored or unreported otherwise. From that we have had many more revelations, up to the most recent ones of outright criminal fraud and racketeering.

Now, there is more and I might have messed up the order of some things (when zoe claimed to be hacked 6 times in the course of 24 hours or Phil Fish's impossible to upload hack), but that generally gives an overview and the how and why the SJW sentiment is here and still lingers. And sets the explanation to the questions of the OP.

Because of how people have seen the attempted to dismiss and cover up Zoe's actions by the press as simply acts of misogynists, many have come to start questioning connections to both other such occurrences of those tactics, as well as the motivations for them. The revealed connections to Silverstring media both to Anita and many already implicated because of the original investigations only made this worse, and when that mixed with those already tired of the click-bait "we are only bloggers when we are told to take responsibility" sort of journalists, as well as still ongoing attempts to paint this as simply doing it because she is a woman, many have thus lumped the entire counter-gamergate as shills abusing the emotional connections people have for social causes to, as you said, use it like a smokescreen. Furthermore, because the implications of gaming journalists being without integrity, it undermines the use of any sort of ideology from an honest interpretation to a front for the benefits that come from being a social justice parasite (essentially manipulating the passion of those who fight for social causes for personal gain.)

People, still flooding in, being impassioned, Having listened to the gaming journalist narrative, being narrow-viewed, not having the words to properly represent what they mean or just associating it all together, thus drag this up as SJW against gamers as well. Name calling of "misogynerd" and so on, as well as rampant stereotype use further result in more of the same in kind. Add in a hell of a lot of anger and ideological fervor to the mix and there you go, you have what is happening now.


As for supporting harassers, that is something I have yet to see anyone say they do. And it is not as if harassment is only from one side to the other. Both sides have many examples of people harassed and threatened and as I have argued before, it is impossible to blame the actions of nameless individuals like that on the entire movement. Hell, most I see is people dogpiling those that do threaten or harass out of concern for gamergate as a movement itself. I challenge anyone to go back in the "Quinn and conspiracy" thread and find when Anita had CP sent to her. You will find that the vast, overwhelming response from people supporting gamergate was to massively report the one who did it and publicly call it out for being horrible.

Why would someone subject themselves to that kind of torture?!
The people involved in this are the same sort of people who would complete a 200 hr game 100%, improve skills to become perfect, or dedicate themselves to a game for over a decade just to show they could. Honestly, these sorts of gamers are probably the most insanely determined group of people I can think of some days.