GamerGate

I 100% agree with what Matt said.

1 Like

Well, I guess it’s obvious where this thread is headed. I’ll pick up the other side, because someone ought to, but I’m not interested in being on the receiving end of a pile-on, so forgive me if I duck out when this turns into one, or if I don’t respond to every point in the meantime.

Here’s some background from a different perspective:

TechCrunch: techcrunch.com/2014/09/25/gamerg … h-2-sides/
KnowYourMeme: knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/gamergate

(…and…)

How do you feel about applying that logic to other groups? For instance, some people calling themselves Christians have committed horrible acts, from picketing funerals to murdering doctors. Does that mean others who use the name of Christianity are choosing not to separate themselves from the harassment, or that evangelists are recruiting for a hate group?

You can make the same argument about any large enough group: religions, political parties, social philosophies, etc. Some people on the “GamerGate is horrible” side have committed harassment as well. By taking the same stance, are you choosing not to separate yourself from the harassment?

I don’t think so. I think we rightly reject this guilt-by-vague-association the rest of the time, but when it’s politically expedient, it can be tempting not to. I recommend resisting that temptation and acknowledging that not everyone in a loosely organized movement is responsible for the actions of everyone else.

To be clear, are you saying you haven’t seen enough people distance themselves from the harassment, or that the statements you’ve seen weren’t worded as strongly as you’d like, or that you don’t believe them, or that the statements don’t matter at all because the movement still exists?

Also, have you seen anyone who describes them as an opponent of GamerGate face up to what other opponents have done? Do you expect them to?

vaporware wrote:

I get that, and I don’t demand a response to this. But I want to say the rest of what I was thinking last night. You wrote (in the other thread):

“That issue” is a dodge here. Are you saying that you want people to respect your values about good journalism and what IF means? So you can talk about those things without people yelling at you? That’s fundamental, I hope. That’s what I want, and I’d bail on this forum (or any forum) if I didn’t think I had that.

Or are you saying that you want people to respect you when you say that “GamersGate” refers to a respectable movement supporting good journalism? And that there is a reasonable moral equivalence between bad elements in GG and bad elements opposing GG? (I am summarizing your positions here as I read them.) You’re not going to get agreement on those things. You’re not going to get a “I disagree but I respect your beliefs.” There’s too much shit and fear and threat attached.

That’s why I suggested “Avoid ‘GamersGate’ as a label.” It’s the same dodge, yeah, I know – terminology. It lets us duck an irreconcilable difference without, I hope, quashing out the core issues of this forum.

Are you kidding me? The difference between GamerGate and those other groups is that GamerGate started out specifically as a way to perpetuate the horrible actions I’m complaining about.

To be clear, are you saying you haven’t seen enough people distance themselves from the harassment, or that the statements you’ve seen weren’t worded as strongly as you’d like, or that you don’t believe them, or that the statements don’t matter at all because the movement still exists?
[/quote]
I am saying I have seen zero statements distancing themselves from the harassment. Unless you count bullshit that minimizes its severity, like “The pranks and phone calls from reddit and 4chan may be childish and annoying, but are they really comparable to…” (some things that aren’t remotely as bad), or this lovely sentiment [EDIT: due to a formatting error by me, this didn’t originally appear as a quote]:

The count still stands at zero, by the way.

I’ve deleted something a bit more intemperate here (but don’t take this as an invitation to debate, please), but zarf is right: If you’re interested in discussing whatever you’re upset about, find a different label. GamerGate harasses people (this is a pretty mild description for what they’ve done), they harassed inurashii, and your attempt to say that you can support GamerGate without standing with that stuff is completely unconvincing. Even aside from that, why do you want to label yourself in a way that antagonizes so many people? It won’t get your ideas heard.

1 Like

Not a short read, but a good summary of why the GG well is poisoned and its well-meaning participants need to ditch the hashtag and start over.

twitlonger.com/show/n_1scfh0p

1 Like

I do want that, but specifically I was responding to the proposed ban against “recruiting” for “hate groups” and people associated with them, which was specifically mentioned as applying to GG. As far as I can tell, it was intended and expected to apply to this post and its author:

If we’ve going to allow discussion of GG as a phenomenon/movement/group/concept, I think the viewpoint above is one that ought to be included.

What I want to avoid is the situation where we only allow discussion of why some folks here dislike GG, the people associated with it, or those people’s actions, while prohibiting discussion of why it might be interesting to others here or might make a good audience for IF.

After decades of internet discussions in many forums on a wide variety of topics, I no longer have any expectation that people will respect me when I say anything, let alone respect my beliefs, let alone agree with them. That’s fine. What I want is to be allowed to express those opinions to the same degree as the people who disagree are allowed to express theirs, and to be treated with the same degree of civility.

I don’t want to see the forum taking an official stance on whether GG is a respectable movement, or whether the harassment suffered by GG or anti-GG forces is more deserving of our sympathy, any more than I want to see it taking an official stance on whether Firefly was an overrated show or Inform is better than Twine.

That’s a great link, inurashii. It makes very clear the problems with GG.

I get why supporters of GG stay with the hashtag. They are married to the principal of the argument. It doesn’t matter what other supporters say or do. It doesn’t matter how it began, or what the various goals of the movement are, or who is hurt by it. It’s the principal. I hear it all the time in right wing arguments. It’s the principal that matters. It’s the principal.

Well, I will stand my ground right here and say that I am against the principal. Sure, ethical standards in journalism sounds like a great intention. But the effect is that game journalists will not be able to speak out for women. That’s the effect. The silence of women. I am for Freedom of the Press. I am against, and will NOT stand for, any movement where the effect is the silence of women or the continuation of the status quo.

I hear you. I understand you have opinions. You are allowed to have them and should be allowed to express them. But I believe they are Wrong with a capital W. I’m going to call you out on them and say that they are Wrong when you do express them. I’m sorry if this means I’m uncivil. I’m not going to stop fighting these opinions tooth and nail. They are Wrong. They are Hateful. They are Wrong. I’m sorry if that means I’m uncivil.

Also an apology to Carolyn, your blog post was heroic, but I do feel we are at war. The war isn’t parser vs. non-parser. It’s between those who want the oppressed to have a voice vs those whose ideologies result in our silence.

1 Like

That reminds me of another claim about the origins of a controversial group. Perhaps you’ve heard this one: “Planned Parenthood? Don’t you know their founder was a racist and secretly wanted to exterminate the black race by stopping them from reproducing? Look at what she wrote in a private letter about her so-called Negro Project: ‘we do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population’. How can you support Planned Parenthood knowing that’s how they started?”

This claim has serious flaws:

  • It’s not quite based in fact. It takes words out of context and distorts the speaker’s intentions. While the quoted sentence is one that could appear in a discussion of covering up genocide, that’s not actually what the letter was about.
  • The founder is not the movement. Even supposing it were true that the founder was as nasty as claimed and had the goal she’s accused of having, that doesn’t mean that the organization she created ever shared it or took action in pursuit of it. The organization consisted of people other than the founder, and no evidence is presented that those other people were aware of this supposed goal or ever took action in pursuit of it either.
  • The movement has moved on and is no longer controlled by the founder. The organization is much bigger now than it was then, comprising many times more people who have joined to further the organization’s overt, stated goals. Some new revelation about what the founder was really thinking before she formed the organization might make an interesting historical footnote, if true, but it doesn’t invalidate what the organization has become since then, nor does it mean everyone who supports the organization has really been supporting genocide all along.

Every time I’ve followed up on a claim about what a chat log allegedly proves about the origins of GG, I’ve come away unsatisfied. I’ve also seen no evidence that any significant number of people involved with GG intended to use it in order to further harassment, even at the beginning, and certainly no evidence that any significant share of the people involved today have that goal. And the fact that it isn’t an organization, and has no leadership, makes it even less plausible that the people involved today are somehow unwittingly doing the bidding that their shadowy masters laid out in a chat room before this all started.

How hard have you looked? This took me a minute or so to look up:

I trust that you’re not going to dismiss that as “bullshit that minimizes its severity”. If you want more examples, I bet a polite request on Twitter would get you a lot of links.

Well, I think one reason people continue using this label is that it facilitates collective action.

I’m afraid I still don’t see a relevant difference between that statement and these:

“Christianity harasses people (this is a pretty mild description for what they’ve done), they murdered George Tiller, and your attempt to say that you can support Christianity without standing with that stuff is completely unconvincing.”

“Environmentalism harasses people, they’ve set fire to apartment buildings and farms, and your attempt to say that you can support environmentalism without standing with that stuff is completely unconvincing.”

The “X harasses people” bits are misleading generalizations, and the implication that anyone who supports X is “standing with that stuff” is toxic guilt-by-vague-association.

Did you hear that from a supporter, or did you just conclude that that must be why they do it? Because I think they’d tell you something different.

Hmm. Why do you think ethical standards in journalism have the effect of stopping journalists from speaking out for women? I don’t see a connection between the two, and I’m sure you’re aware that many of the people involved in GG are women.

No, that doesn’t mean you’re uncivil. Please, if you think I’m wrong, go ahead and disagree! Just don’t hold me to a different standard of discourse than yourself.

Hmm. I think everyone wants the oppressed to have a voice. Who do you think doesn’t want them/you to have a voice? What have you not been able to say, or what would you not be able to say if those people got their way?

This really scares me and worries me.

Whatever your opinions of the validity of the GamerGate hashtag, and however much worthwhile stuff you think happens under it, it is also true and unavoidable that it has been and continues to be used to deliberately organise extreme harassment and abuse. That someone is working to organise “anti-SJW” people using that hashtag to participate in the competition frightens me. As an author, I’m worried about what I might end up on the receiving end of, and I’m carrying relative amounts of privilege into the situation. I hope that comp organisers are watching this and are ready to act if necessary. Personally I think watching and ensuring there isn’t harassment and abuse is probably all that’s needed now, because I’m frightened that anything beyond that would actively incite such behaviour. Having seen the harassment and abuse that’s taken place under the hashtag, even writing this post makes me nervous.

1 Like

Via looking at that hashtag this may also be worth keeping an eye on: 8chan.co/intfic/

Yeeeeah, not going to stick my head in that buzzsaw voluntarily (also: not on Twitter). The thing is that I’ve read a fair amount of gamergate stuff, far more than is psychologically healthy, and its credibility is nil. I keep following links like “Zoe Quinn harassed clinically depressed people!” and finding out that it’s something like “Zoe Quinn said, truthfully, that she’d been harassed on wizardchan.” Or as here I hear “Gamersgaters have distanced themselves from harassment!” and find something like “Death/rape threats and harassment are bad at specific women, but journalists writing articles that make negative generalizations about gamers are just as bad!”

I’m not addressing the rest of your analogies because I don’t think I have any chance in convincing you, I frankly don’t think it’d be worth it anyway, and I hope that anyone who’s reading along can see how weak they are. As I said, not interested in a debate.

Let’s choose one issue: that website journalists and editors were donating to Zoe Quinn.

The websites that features these journalists are the ones that write articles supporting women in games.
GG is calling to boycott these websites.
A successful boycott will shut down these websites.
A successful boycott will remove the websites that writes articles supporting women.
The end result is there will be less articles supporting women.
The end result is there will be less journalists speaking out for women.
I am against this.

If you think other websites will pick up the mantle if these ones go, you are wrong. If you think other websites will hire the journalists not involved with the incident, you are wrong. The threat of the backlash is too great.

If it were simply about the donations, then the policies put in place to stop the donations would have been sufficient enough to calm the critics. But it isn’t. It’s about having these websites shut down.

I am against this.

(An aside, I’m leaving for a while, but happy to pick this up later. Also, I’m guessing we turned off the spam filter, because a spambot got through. Can we turn it back on?)

Taking the stance of “being at war” automatically creates opposition. Being at war only comes about when diplomacy has completely failed. Even the above quote uses the term “enemy”, which automatically creates a division – even though the intent is to avoid battle.

Further:

Why? Because former enemies become allies after a “war” ends.

I agree there’s some cause for concern, but I think it ought to be the same kind of concern we’d face if any other political group decided to take an interest in IF.

Let’s say you run the biggest, best auto racetrack in the same town as the Democratic Party headquarters, and you’re known for attracting a liberal crowd. One day you catch wind that the Republicans from a nearby town are organizing a field trip to your track. What’s going to happen?

Well, there’s a chance they’re coming as a political event: they want to go fight some liberals and score points for their team. Maybe they’ll harass your staff, intimidate your regulars, smash your windows, and spill beer everywhere, high-fiving each other as they leave and laugh about how they showed you who’s boss. You’ll want to make sure your alarm system works and that shotgun under the counter is loaded.

But on the other hand, you know Republicans love auto racing, and there’s a good chance they’re just coming because you’ve got the only track worth going to. You might still hear them snickering at your HOPE posters, but they know they’re your guests, and to the extent they want to score political points, it’s by winning races and showing you they can compete on your terms – and that they aren’t the unruly mob you think they are. Maybe you’ll get to score some points of your own, maybe they’ll learn something from you, and hey, their money’s just as green as anyone else’s.

I think the best way we can prepare at this point is to make it clear that everyone is welcome, but everyone is expected to be honest and respectful in submission, voting, communication, etc. Let’s hope they don’t let us down.

My reply is in the applicable topic here:

[url]New users and IP bans]

If you don’t want to see evidence, you won’t see it. Most people who read those chat logs came away satisfied by the evidence. Especially after seeing the rape threats right there on Twitter for the world to see.

Not you, though. You’re not satisfied by the evidence. Maybe they faked the moon landing.

In the mid 20th century, racists rallied under a “states’ rights” movement. Federalism is a legitimate political concern. But soon enough, everybody knew that when you said “I support states’ rights” you meant “I support Jim Crow laws.” Even legitimate federalists who didn’t support Jim Crow found that they couldn’t make their argument any more; federalism itself was tarnished.

Today, it’s 1948. I don’t care how important federalism is to you. You can’t caucus with the States’ Rights Democratic Party as a moral person today.

Whatever you want politically, you can’t do it morally when you do it with the Gamergaters.

As I see it, the hashtag serves a valuable function: the only people left with the Gamergaters lack the empathy to see how what their doing hurts other people; they see a false equivalence between their own anger over minor slights and the serious damage self-proclaimed Gamergaters are doing to other people.

If you expect your opponents to concede that you’re completely right and they’re completely wrong, you’ll never be satisfied. And if the only way for them to meet your standard of evidence is to do that, then you’ll find no evidence that meets the standard.

All right. How do you feel about the teenage trans girl who, because of her involvement with GG, was threatened over the phone by someone planning to out her to her friends and family and pressure her college admissions office to reject her application? Have you heard GG opponents distancing themselves from that harassment in a more convincing way?

I believe those “you are wrong” assertions are incorrect. If the boycotts are because of perceived ethical violations, as stated, and not because they write articles supporting women, then what backlash is there to fear?

I think you’re also overlooking another possible outcome, which is that the websites just correct the conflicts of interest, and continue producing the same sort of content they have been, but without the perceived ethical violations.

Finally, this chain of logic seems to prove too much. Do you really mean to argue that if a website produces content you deem valuable, their misdeeds should be overlooked for fear of reducing the amount of that content? What line would they have to cross in order for you to decide that a boycott is justified?

This claim about evidence only addresses the “It’s not quite based in fact” bullet point. Even if we stipulate that the chat logs really mean what opponents claim they mean, that still leaves “The founder is not the movement” and “The movement has moved on and is no longer controlled by the founder”.

Hmm. So by aligning yourself with GG opponents, are you supporting the threats I mentioned above in my response to matt w, and every other threat that’s been made against people participating in GG?

(If your response is “No, because those threats didn’t use a common hashtag”, you owe me a dollar. :slight_smile:)

Wouldnt it be super easy to abandon the name and come up with another ? Its not that incredible brand, anyway. If they were called the Hitler Jugend would you still think they were using it for promotional benefits?

Laroquod is screencapping and posting large sections of this discussion to Twitter under the #GamerGate hashtag. It is starting to attract more and more GamerGate attention to this board. It is incredibly frightening to me. A massive target is being painted on this board and this year’s competition.

twitter.com/Laroquod

I highly recommend ceasing this discussion. I’m asking all participants to stop talking about the theoretical merits or problems of the GamerGate hashtag here. If you are critiquing GamerGate, know that your comments are being posted to Twitter with an incitement to further involvement. I believe this is a genuine danger to the safety of people in this community. It’s not your fault. But please stop this conversation. Now.

twitter.com/EvilBobDALMYT/statu … 6786721792 : “@Laroquod you’ve spread the fire to the most thoughtful and slow board in existence. Excellent.”