Gamergate, No "Right Side." - We Should Avoid Picking Sides

[Lieju]

And I had no bloody reason to care. Why do you care about people like those then?

You're defending stereotypes developed by an open misandrist?

Yes, I am obviously doing that.
Somehow.
By saying I don't care what they think.

?

 

[Calbeck]

Yep, seems Anita's claims ultimately didn't hold water, according to the Utah State University and its own report on the matter:

http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54179

Following a disturbing email received late Monday evening, Utah State University police and administrators have been working throughout the day to assess any level of risk to students or to a speaker scheduled to visit. USU police, in conjunction with several teams of state and federal law enforcement experts, determined that there was no threat to students, staff or the speaker, so no alert was issued...

...Throughout the day, USU police worked to assess the level of threat with other local, state and federal agencies, including the Utah Statewide Information and Analysis Center, the FBI Cyber Terrorism Task Force, and the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit. After a careful assessment of the threat, law enforcement officials determined that it was similar to other threats that Sarkeesian received in the past.

 

[Irick]

That's a great article. It even highlights more harrassment of women in gaming (what has Anita Sarkeesian have to do with Gamergate too? Oh right nothing, yet they keep on bringing her up) for no good reason.

Anyway even though it never came out until a week later, you should've mentioned it because it highlights the fact that no one involved with the Zoe Quinn abuse bothered (or more likely, cared) to check if the accusations were real. It wasn't until they got a bit more attention and others checked if their claims were real that it came to light.

Of course the smokescreen was quickly put up to try and make it look like it was about ethics in journalism, despite even that spawning from a review that never existed.

Serious question: does any of that actually matter to the question of ethics in journalism?
If ethics in journalism is being used as a smokescreen, does it make it any less important of an issue?
Is there some rule that says we can only discuss either ethics in journalism or the harassment of people in the gaming community?

What exactly is stopping them both from being discussed and considered?

They are obviously important issues to non-insignificant portions of the gaming community, so why exactly shouldn't we be discussing them like they are, rather than saying one is just a smoke screen or a distraction or a non-issue?

Do you want to talk about harassment? I'll talk about harassment with you. It's a problem. We have no-name assholes who are making death-threats and putting out private information because they don't like someone. That's some sick shit and it needs to be stopped.

We have members of the press 'jokingly' supporting bullying and gloating about it in the public sphere. That's some sick shit and it needs to be stopped.

We can't let people make our community toxic. We have to take steps to identify it, contain it, and penultimately nullify it while maintaining our own level-headedness and fairness.

It's going to be a challenge, and it's not going to happen overnight, but why shouldn't we?

And why the hell shouldn't we address the serious breach of ethics that's going on in the media? Have you been paying any attention to them? Beyond just the abuse that we've had going around on twitter and the very real censorship that is hitting as close to home as The Escapist itself we have the long history of shady practices in organizations like IGN. Games as a medium are growing up, and that means that it's more important than ever to have these kinds of discussions as our medium interacts more and more with the wider culture.

I don't see the issues in the same sort of natural dichotomy many seem to. They both need attention and discussion.

 

[Calbeck]

And I had no bloody reason to care. Why do you care about people like those then?

You're defending stereotypes developed by an open misandrist?

Yes, I am obviously doing that.
Somehow.
By saying I don't care what they think.

?

You don't care what the misandrists think, or what people think of misandrists driving a wedge smack into the gaming community on charges of widespread misogyny?

 

[Calbeck]

but comments were also made to the effect that the previous threats were just as empty.

I hadn't heard that (I'm uncertain if you mean previous threats against USU or her). Could you clarify which and link me to those?

Edit:

One sec looks like you added one.

Edit Edit:

Actually scratch that, that claim wasn't in the link, refer back to the original question.

Took a little extra digging to find the update, I mistakenly put up the original statement whereby the police decided Ms. Sarkeesian's life and that of the students was not actually at risk. That is later clarified as being that there was no actual serious threat at all.

Nonetheless, there's the narrative in the New York Times et al, clearly not bothering to check for updates or any sources beyond those supporting Ms. Sarkeesian's claim.

"Listen and believe", after all...

 

[cleric of the order]

They legitimately were concerned about journalists accepting sexual favors for reviews at the start, seen as a sign of corruption in the industry but it was vastly overshadowed by the vitriol thrown at Quinn at the time.

Don't forget that the review they claimed they were getting in an uproar about never existed and there was zero evidence of Quinn granting sexual favours to any journalists for gain.

That, coupled with the "SJW" comments (and a whole bunch of other stuff), made everyone see right through the "Journalistic ethics" smokescreen.

The reason I did not mention that is that it did not come out that all of that were lies made up by the aforementioned ex boyfriend until a week or so later. It is interesting to note, however, that GG was born in an act of harassment of a woman (by the ex boyfriend). This article has a good look at how all of this happened, and how well intentioned people have been mislead over time by the message of the movement, despite its behavior: http://jezebel.com/gamergate-trolls-arent-ethics-crusaders-theyre-a-hate-1644984010


Captcha: She sells

No, Captcha she does not. Depression Quest is free to play.

That's jezebel, I'm sorry but I don't think that would make the best citation.
That site is a thing....politically it's like getting your news of some sort a anti-/pol/.
I've been around watching those whole thing unfold and I can assure you that isn't what happened, not entirely.
Now what seemed to get the ball rolling was the mundane matt video which are actually lacking in harassment, hell compared to his other videos they are pretty tame.
He went over what happened and then found the video fulled and across the internet every piece of information destroyed and people banned because of it.
Now that enraged me like a fair amount of people the implication that a person could have enough pull to silence a swath of people even as far in as 4chan.
When people started talking about it, boom, gamers are dead and Alex Baldwin gets angry and then we rallied around that title for that goal.
At the very least we have evidence of corruption, in the indie-cadie and the like. at the very least the mailing list and i understand how tiresome it is but at this point i feel like we could for better from out established media.

on another note, just because I have a love for expunging trivia here is a list of things I know Zoe has done. If it does help to build the character of Zoe Quinn, objectively we have proof that she intentionally shut down TFYC, has lied about the proceeds of her game going to iFred and Harassed wizard chan. All of which leaves me sad. TFYC's business model and goals were something i really liked, it's a shame they were blacklisted.

 

[cleric of the order]

but comments were also made to the effect that the previous threats were just as empty.

I hadn't heard that (I'm uncertain if you mean previous threats against USU or her). Could you clarify which and link me to those?

Edit:

One sec looks like you added one.

Edit Edit:

Actually scratch that, that claim wasn't in the link, refer back to the original question.

Took a little extra digging to find the update, I mistakenly put up the original statement whereby the police decided Ms. Sarkeesian's life and that of the students was not actually at risk. That is later clarified as being that there was no actual serious threat at all.

Nonetheless, there's the narrative in the New York Times et al, clearly not bothering to check for updates or any sources beyond those supporting Ms. Sarkeesian's claim.

"Listen and believe", after all...

Crud that's something

 

[cleric of the order]

]objectively we have proof that she intentionally shut down TFYC,

Actually no. No we don't.

We have this though. [http://imgur.com/a/KEtcp]

Really, huh.

 

[Calbeck]

Actually it says in your link that they've increased security measures after the threat. That like, the total opposite of what you just said.

USU police, in conjunction with several teams of state and federal law enforcement experts, determined that there was no threat to students, staff or the speaker, so no alert was issued.

Yes, totally opposite, except not.

Clinging to the fact that most public places will perform heightened security checks regardless of the merit of claim, you seem pretty keen to dodge that sentence.

 

[cleric of the order]

]objectively we have proof that she intentionally shut down TFYC,

Actually no. No we don't.

We have this though. [http://imgur.com/a/KEtcp]

Man those guys at the TYFC are pretty cool fellows, I meant in the case of the Google doc, that was some dramatic stuff, can't believe someone wrote that but I would but it past the those sods.
Funny though i have to respect anyone that would write "I salute your skill, may we met in hell."
Riveting really I'd love to read more official documents with tones as ironically dramatic like that. Don't know why though after double checking it, it does not make contextual sense.

Now as to that Maya stuff, I remember watching a video by sargon recently, that tackles some of this, her nature is rather suspect.
Zoe also was found on twitter mentioning how she somehow DDOSed them, that was some shit. Not sure if that was a joke

This is the pic in question, wished it would be more tactful but it does get the point across how she has acting in public one way or another

 

[Calbeck]

]objectively we have proof that she intentionally shut down TFYC,

Actually no. No we don't.

We have this though. [http://imgur.com/a/KEtcp]

Yes, it's well-known by anyone who's done a little homework that ZQ gave this half-hearted "I didn't do anything" apology AFTER having dragged TFYC's name through the mud, garnered negative press for the group on basis of specious allegations, and as a result one of their major backers dropped out, nearly deep-sixing the project --- except that, of all people, 4chan took up a collection to save the fundraiser.

Which was itself a primary core of the "4chan is in cahoots with Gamergate" narrative. Because, for once in their miserable lives, they actually did something NICE. Forget that, it's ammo for more slander! Wheeeee!

Just in case you can't be bothered to check, ZQ's entire argument boiled down to two things:

1) That a woman who gets 8% of sales from a game which they conceived of and then helped with the subsequent design process, was being ripped off. Regardless of 8% of sales being an amazing deal for ANY game designer, ANYWHERE, who doesn't shoulder the entire top-to-bottom burden of development.

2) That TFYC was "bigoted" against transgendered persons --- because they required a TG to have made the transition to female before the contest began. The whole point being to prevent MEN from co-opting a fundraiser aimed at WOMEN, without exclusion the TG crowd altogether. ZQ's response? To scream that TFYC was "checking genitals".

You're not only dragging old news in here, but you're ignoring whatever doesn't suit you in order to defend a person who damaged female access to independent games development. Well, except that 4chan rode to the rescue. Sheesh, that statement curdles my spine.

 

[Calbeck]

That quote you just said is nowhere in your link.

You mean the corrected link, in THIS POST, which you seem to be studiously ignoring?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.863033-Gamergate-No-Right-Side-We-Should-Avoid-Picking-Sides?page=2#21516221

 

[Calbeck]

That quote you just said is nowhere in your link.

You mean the corrected link, in THIS POST, which you seem to be studiously ignoring?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.863033-Gamergate-No-Right-Side-We-Should-Avoid-Picking-Sides?page=2#21516221

There's a difference between "ignoring" and "posting something in a seperate post not involved in our quote chain and then pretending that they're ignoring it".

Even in that link it points out that they were increasing security because of the threat (the complete opposite of what you said) and you still haven't linked to your first claim.

I've cited, you've ignored. Everything I cited was, indeed, cut-and-paste from the USU's articles.

Sorry, but constantly ignoring inconvenient truths isn't helping your case regarding anyone not already willing to follow your lead.