The big Phil Fish, Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian discussion thread

Reekwind

Grumpypants wrote: »

Really shows the power of the media to manipulate the public. All those gamers hate women articles are sinking into the mindset of gamers.

And would that have anything to do with the fact that high-profile women in the industry who speak out against this GG 'movement' have a remarkable tendency to attract abuse and threats?

(I mean, you know that you're on dubious moral ground when you're lined up with the US Right talking about a liberal media conspiracy. Not to mention the attempts, which we've seen on this site, to blame the victims of abuse for, well, appearing as victims.)

At some point those who identify as GG are going to have to accept the reality that the media is not focused on the "legitimate concerns" because (leaving aside that these are in no way legitimate) the issue of ethics is a tiny sideshow in the great big mad camp that is GG. If it were genuinely about corruption the Sarkeesian, Quinn, Wu, etc, would never have entered the picture.

To which the standard response is 'yeah, that's terrible but it's not us doxxing and threatening'. Which is either cowardly or myopic. Those who issue threats do so under the GG banner. They do so because they've identified 'enemies' as 'LWs' or 'SJWs' or whatever. Because those who speak out against GG (particularly women) have been demonised by those who claim to have clean hands. Because of those absurd conspiracy theory jpegs that float around. Because this idea of an ideological crusade against 'SJWs' or the 'liberal media' is at the heart of GG. And so on.

For example, over on Reddit the current target of today's boycotting is Polygon, where hordes of gamergate supporters are being urged to write letters to Absolut Vodka protesting their sponsorship of the site. What morass of corruption is Polygon mired in? What heinous crime against journalism ethics has Polygon perpetuated? Apparently it's because GG don't like some of the writers and the site published a 'gamer as an identity is dead' editorial. To the barricades, comrade!

It's perhaps hard for those intimately involved in GG to realise just how entitled and nasty it seems when you look in from outside. At this stage GG is an echo chamber in which reactionary ideas and conspiracies constantly get bounced around; that some of these make it into physical threats should not be surprising.

So no, I have absolutely no sympathy with the idea that this is a dry matter of ethics in journalism that has been hijacked by a hostile media.

I think it's sad that now a gamer can't wear a t shirt with out being falsely labelled a threat and a gamer can't walk down the same street without feeling the need to cross over to the other side out of fear.

Yeah, the irony is that something that is supposed to protect the image of 'gamers' has tarnished it more than anything else could have. Talk about fulfilling the 'gamer is dead' prophecy.

Shiminay

We're missing a point here folks - it doesn't actually matter who did it - it happened. It wouldn't have happened if she didn't make that blog post. If your first reaction to yet another woman getting attacked and threatened like this is "how do you know it was GG people?" or "She probably arranged the whole thing herself" then you're a part of the problems women have been trying to speak up about for years.

Remember I said earlier that I think that this is nothing to do with Gamers and everything to do with the wider issue with Internet communication and hatred of women? This proves the point for me - regardless of what they think about Games Journalism Ethics, some deranged fuk decided that this would be the response to a woman talking about how this whole mess has fundamentally changed her outlook on the world and how it's caused such fear for her as a woman in gaming as well as nerd culture/sci-fi fandom.

Lets try and stop this sort of thing continuing please. Can we all agree that it's a vile and hateful act for anyone to do and condemn anyone who would do it to another human. Lets start finding things we can all agree need fighting - gaming journalism is definitely one of those things - but whilst people have to leave their houses in fear because there are people who are so fundamentally fked in the head that they have glomped onto this "movement" and are using it as the justification for committing criminal acts of terror. When that movement hasn't done anything about it or attempted to distance itself from that behaviour and instead seeks to justify or explain away then something is very, very wrong with the people involved in it.

Evac101

Shiminay wrote: »

We're missing a point here folks - it doesn't actually matter who did it - it happened. It wouldn't have happened if she didn't make that blog post. If your first reaction to yet another woman getting attacked and threatened like this is "how do you know it was GG people?" or "She probably arranged the whole thing herself" then you're a part of the problems women have been trying to speak up about for years.

Sorry once more Shiminay that I have to disagree with you again. I've already said on a couple of occasions, on both threads regarding this on Boards, that no one, female or male, should be getting death threats or harassment regarding this subject (or most other subjects for that matter). I've made that, I feel, abundantly clear. What my point was regarding is evidence. If I received harassment or threats after posting, for example, an anti-republican message, I could suspect that it was a republican, or a republican supporter, but I cannot say with any certitude that it is true. I'm free to say that I suspect it, but saying it's true means I have to present evidence to substantiate that. Felicia Day was harassed after her post, the timing is certainly suspicious and would be regarded for that reason as being a valid line of enquiry by law enforcement but it is not proof. Saying that disagreeing with an unsubstantiated claim means "you're a part of the problems women have been trying to speak up about for years" is dishonest and an argumentative tactic which allows you to vilify those that don't agree with you, in this case unfairly.

Evac101

To feed this into the already muddy waters - did anyone else see the documentary of internet trolls a number of years ago on British TV? (Channel 4 I believe). In it trolls admit to adopting positions purely to cause strife (a given I would have argued) but also a number of them admitted to 'adopting' causes they had no personal stake in for the purposes of stirring 'dramah'. Once it was spent they would move onto another cause, etc, etc.

Even since seeing that, whenever I see strife on the internet I'm left wonder how much of it is being caused by core believers (on either side) and how much of it is trolls just escalating things for their own amusement.

(Amusingly the trolls, when tracked down, were almost uniformly offended/horrified that people had the gall to call them on their 'virtual' actions in real life. There was much "You can't do this" type with more vitriol)

shruikan2553

DeVore wrote: »

This is what irks me... allowing one side to define the other is a very poor. Imagine if we allowed Israelis to define Palestinians and then said "ok, now lets have a debate about this conflict within those parameters".

Game "journalism" absolutely stinks. The agendas of "identity politics", when they are unchecked, lead to "offence culture" where people seem to LOOK for offence, and also to politically-correct censorship.

The problem is as Mewso said GG has been corrupted both by the actions of a sizeable minority of people on the GG side and the preponderance of the other side to use those actions to smear everyone involved until no one wants to get involved.

Its very much a "squid-ink" defense and something I've seen used in a lot of extreme "identity politics" arguments. In their defence, the idiots who have been trolling and threatening have made this all too easy and frankly are to blame for mixing the message (if that message was ever in fact their intention... a sizeable number of people on the GG side seem quite happy to just troll the fnck out of AS, ZQ and others).

As Dav says, this thread is probably the most sane discussion I have seen on the topic.

There is a nuanced, complex, important discussion to be had around it.... but almost no one else seems to want to have it. They'd all rather fling poo.

There are a few groups involved, those who are trying to save the Titanic with duct tape and those who just want to cause trouble on the pro GG side and then those who think everyone who isnt against GG is a misogynistic asshole and refuses to engage with others because they must be just misogynists.

There are no winners here, everyone is as bad as each other. The best thing that could happen is letting it die.

wes

Reekwind wrote: »

For example, over on Reddit the current target of today's boycotting is Polygon, where hordes of gamergate supporters are being urged to write letters to Absolut Vodka protesting their sponsorship of the site. What morass of corruption is Polygon mired in? What heinous crime against journalism ethics has Polygon perpetuated? Apparently it's because GG don't like some of the writers and the site published a 'gamer as an identity is dead' editorial. To the barricades, comrade!

Going to have to disagree here. Its perfectly valid for anyone to contact advertisers, if a polygon editorial pissed them off. Attacking your readers is a stupid idea, and its back firing on them, and could have been easily predicted. TBH, its the most inoffensive part of this whole thing imo. If your angry with a publication, then going after the advertisers is a legit tactic imho. I would suggest just not going to the web site, but some people may have strong feelings about this, and have every right to voice there displeasure in a reasonable manner, by contacting advertisers.

Now, the other stuff, where some people are harassing and doxing etc, is completely wrong, but contact advertisers? Thats completely legit.

Shiminay

Then I have worded my argument poorly Evac and I apologise

I don't think any of these people who've been doxxed did it to themselves and I think suggesting they did is really sad, not because those making the suggestions are bad people, but within the context of this particular mess, no one seems willing to give these people, some of whom have been major targets for this sort of thing before, any benefit of the doubt at all. I don't know why that is myself - in the particular case of Ms Day, we're talking about a primetime mainstream tv person putting her career on the line by making this up? That doesn't fly for me at all, she's smarter than that and knows how easily these things get exposed.

The only people I don't agree with here are people who are harassing others and who are supporting the continued harassment of others. There're plenty of those sorts on all sides of this nonsense. Public perception is that this has been all the GG people and I know that's absolutely false, but lets forget about sides for a minute and focus on removing people capable of such extremism and violence from all parts of our mutually shared space and keeping them out. Then we can get back to the business of playing and enjoying games and maybe indulge in some grown up discussions about how we feel about the relationships between our hobby's press coverage and ethics.

Reekwind

wes wrote: »

Going to have to disagree here. Its perfectly valid for anyone to contact advertisers, if a polygon editorial pissed them off.

If someone publishes an article that you disagree with then you issue a rebuttal or write a letter to the paper/site or just suck it up. You don't start a letter writing campaign to their advertisers unless the article in question is grossly offensive and the paper/site refuses to take action about it. 'Being pissed off' is not in itself a valid reason for attacking a publication's commercial base.

Trying to scare off advertisers just because you don't like an article is nothing more than a juvenile attempt to silence an opinion that you disagree with. It's deeply ironic, but hardly surprising, that this move comes from a crowd that bemoans censorship and media manipulation at every turn.

And this is the core problem of GG that I keep coming back to: an inability to accept differing opinions or approaches. Someone writes something that I don't agree with? They must be corrupt bullies, let's try to silence them. This is less about ethics than it is a campaign to rid games journalism of alternative viewpoints. People can write what they want... so long as it doesn't offend the organised mob.

Attacking your readers is a stupid idea, and its back firing on them, and could have been easily predicted.

For a 'movement' that supposedly cares so little for 'identity politics' and the like, the GG gang sure are quick to take offence as 'gamers'.

I can only imagine dozens of mails flooding in like, "Dear Mr Absolut, one of the sites that you advertise on recently launched a vicious attack on me by suggesting, and I quote, that 'games are at a cultural turning point. No longer are games designed, marketed and sold to a niche group of young men.' As a male, I find this to be terribly offensive and insulting. Please stop funding these lefty feminists and SJWs. Sincerely."

wes

Reekwind wrote: »

'Being pissed off' is not in itself a valid reason for attacking a publication's commercial base.

Yes, it is a valid reason. You piss people off and they can contact you advertisers, organize boycotts etc. I wouldn't be bothered enough to do it myself, but its perfectly legit tactic. Various publications need to understand, there owed nothing.

Reekwind wrote: »

Trying to scare off advertisers just because you don't like an article is nothing more than a juvenile attempt to silence an opinion that you disagree with. It's deeply ironic, but hardly surprising, that this move comes from a crowd that bemoans censorship and media manipulation at every turn.

How is censorship exactly? Free speech doesn't mean that people can't respond in any legal way that they choose. Its not censorship, as there speech has not been banned in any way shape or form. In much the same way, as various threads etc being deleted in regards to gamergate wasn't censorship either. Sorry, but there are far to many people quick to scream censorship, and it is quite frankly bull****.

Reekwind wrote: »

And this is the core problem of GG that I keep coming back to: an inability to accept differing opinions or approaches. Someone writes something that I don't agree with? They must be corrupt bullies, let's try to silence them. This is less about ethics than it is a campaign to rid games journalism of alternative viewpoints. People can write what they want... so long as it doesn't offend the organised mob.

How is anyone being silenced by contacting advertisers etc? Sorry, but this smacks of the same people moaning about threads being deleted on reddit etc. You are not owed a platform for your views, nor are you owed advertiser revenue either.

Reekwind wrote: »

I can only imagine dozens of mails flooding in like, "Dear Mr Absolut, one of the sites that you advertise on recently launched a vicious attack on me by suggesting, and I quote, that 'games are at a cultural turning point. No longer are games designed, marketed and sold to a niche group of young men.' As a male, I find this to be terribly offensive and insulting. Please stop funding these lefty feminists and SJWs. Sincerely."

Well, they have had limited success, so I doubt they said anything even close to what you said there.

Again, I wouldn't be bothered enough to do such a thing myself, but its a perfectly legit tactic. No website is owed ad revenue, just like no one is owed a platform for there views. The whole entitlement thing is pretty prevalent on both side imho.

So again, you piss people off, and they decide to boycott and contact your advertisers, well that sucks for you, but it doesn't change the fact that its a perfectly legal tactic for any group to use, as your not owed ad revenue or a platform for your views.

Nody

Reekwind wrote: »

If someone publishes an article that you disagree with then you issue a rebuttal or write a letter to the paper/site or just suck it up. You don't start a letter writing campaign to their advertisers unless the article in question is grossly offensive and the paper/site refuses to take action about it. 'Being pissed off' is not in itself a valid reason for attacking a publication's commercial base.

Why not? Because you say so? How about the suggestion to boycott Israeli products because of Palestine? Is that ok with you or should people continue to buy the products because it's not the Israeli companies fault what their politicians do? What about if a Sports Star does something stupid, should the advertisers who's using him simply shrug their shoulders and say "well **** happens" or are they likely to drop him like a hot potato because they don't want to be associated with said action and reputation?

And this is the core problem of GG that I keep coming back to: an inability to accept differing opinions or approaches. Someone writes something that I don't agree with? They must be corrupt bullies, let's try to silence them. This is less about ethics than it is a campaign to rid games journalism of alternative viewpoints. People can write what they want... so long as it doesn't offend the organised mob.

Or how about you're welcome to write what you want but I reserve the right to disagree and tell your add partners as much? It's not exactly unheard of that people go after the add revenue companies to get them to change. For example Greenpeace forced Lego to drop their cooperation with Shell recently doing the exact same thing by organizing people to write to Lego and tell them they would boycott their products. Is that also an issue for you of censorship?

I can only imagine dozens of mails flooding in like, "Dear Mr Absolut, one of the sites that you advertise on recently launched a vicious attack on me by suggesting, and I quote, that 'games are at a cultural turning point. No longer are games designed, marketed and sold to a niche group of young men.' As a male, I find this to be terribly offensive and insulting. Please stop funding these lefty feminists and SJWs. Sincerely."

You know it's comments like this that really rub me the wrong way in this whole discussion; this is so petty and downright insulting and thin veiled arrogance of "I'm right and the other side are a bunch of hulking morons" it's not even funny as a cynical joke. You're free to have an opinion but to stoop to this level of insults lower your argument below the standard insults thrown around; at least the standard user is stupid enough to not be able to put over an opinion beyond crude insults but as you've clearly exposed you got enough brains to express yourself properly. To then lower yourself to tar a whole group as a bunch of neanderthals because you disagree with them and their method that's been used for decades by all sides really tells a story...

DeVore

One thing I find strange is that other people have used the "contact the advertisers" route and not been admonished for it.

I'm very much in favour of equality in marriage but when that CEO Eich was targeted and ousted form Mozilla for having donated to an anti-equality political group... I dunno about that. He had a political opinion/position and it had nothing to do with his job and a big hoohaa was raised about it.
I dunno how I feel about that, but I do know that if you back that sort of tactic then you have to allow everyone to use it or you get into Ends-Justifies-The-Means territory.

You either allow both Eich and Biddle to be targeted through advertisers or you don't... anything else is hypocrisy

Reekwind

wes wrote: »

How is censorship exactly? Free speech doesn't mean that people can't respond in any legal way that they choose. Its not censorship, as there speech has not been banned in any way shape or form.

Let me see... how about because it's an attempt to shut down (or financially cripple) a site unless they change their editorial line or staff. Actual free speech would be acknowledging the site's editorial position and offering an alternative viewpoint. What we see here is nothing more than an attempt at intimidation.

What you're suggesting is that every time a publishes an article that you don't agree with then you're justified in bringing financial pressure to bear to get them to change it? That instead of either writing a response or, I don't know, stop reading the website you should write an angry letter to a third party get the statement that you disagree with withdrawn. That runs entirely contrary to the spirit of free speech.

This is exactly what I'm been banging on about in these posts. The problem with GG is not just that there are 'extremists' hidden in the ranks. It's that this mentality - this idea that people (read: SJWs) should not be allowed to push alternative views - provides a justification and framework for all types of intimidation and bullying.

So again, you piss people off, and they decide to boycott and contact your advertisers, well that sucks for you, but it doesn't change the fact that its a perfectly legal tactic for any group to use, as your not owed ad revenue or a platform for your views.

Wow. What happened to the idea that no one has a right to be offended? That this was all a case of SJWs looking for offence where none was?

I dare you, wes, to look through the offending article and find me something that justifies a campaign to scare off advertisers. Show me what it was about it that is offensive enough to spark this outrage. Show me how you'd explain to the advertiser that it's ground for withdrawing money.

Nody wrote:

Why not? Because you say so? How about the suggestion to boycott Israeli products because of Palestine? Is that ok with you or should people continue to buy the products because it's not the Israeli companies fault what their politicians do?

I'm sorry, have you just compared an article discussing the evolution of the 'gamer' identity to the ongoing conflict in Israel and Palestine?

You have, haven't you. You also missed the part where I mentioned that it was of course okay to write to advertisers where "the article in question is grossly offensive and the paper/site refuses to take action about it". That is, I have absolutely no problem with the concepts of a boycott, merely its application in a case like this. Attempt to stifle opposing views in print - about computer games! - is not the same as drawing attention to deaths and repression in the Middle East.

You know it's comments like this that really rub me the wrong way in this whole discussion; this is so petty and downright insulting and thin veiled arrogance of "I'm right and the other side are a bunch of hulking morons" it's not even funny as a cynical joke. You're free to have an opinion but to stoop to this level of insults lower your argument below the standard insults thrown around; at least the standard user is stupid enough to not be able to put over an opinion beyond crude insults but as you've clearly exposed you got enough brains to express yourself properly. To then lower yourself to tar a whole group as a bunch of neanderthals because you disagree with them and their method that's been used for decades by all sides really tells a story...

Let me be blunt then: anyone who writes one of these letters to Absolut, arguing that the article in question constitutes bullying, is... well, let's break it down. They're very easily offended, have no sense of perspective and don't believe that others should publish dissenting views. I don't think it's a matter of intelligence per se but just a complete lack of awareness and nuance. This sort of letter writing campaign is a crude, blunt and, yes, cowardly measure.

But maybe you can take up the same challenge that I gave wes and can find something "grossly offensive" within that article that warrants employing financial pressure. Knock yourself out. Explain to me, playing Mr Absolut, as to why that article should not have been published.

gizmo

Evac101 wrote: »

Not trying to stir here Shiminay but is there any evidence that the person who dox'd her is linked to the Gamergate movement? Like at all? Or are we taking point A and point B and drawing a line between the two without any actual evidence?

Well that's one of the big problems, isn't it? What is the standard of evidence here? If the poster had appended the hashtag to the end of their post would that have been evidence? Of course not. Would it's inclusion automatically mean everyone who supports the campaign agrees with it? Absolutely not. In fact, to even suggest it wouldn't just be reductive, it would be entirely disingenuous.

As for how it reflects on the movement as a whole, personally I find making these kinds of tenuous links between one side and any abuse perpetrated by them to be pointless. They help no one since one side becomes more entrenched and concentrates on denying any wrong doing while another side suffers a knee jerk reaction and just assumes it was them. In either case, when one can easily point to the loudest voices in the campaign, those who drive the sites, make the videos and search for the evidence on the subject, for absolutely god awful behavior and statements, it's pretty clear both are wasting their time.

Grumpypants wrote: »

The failure of the media to address legitimate concerns about their failings and instead deflect with the nasty orchestrated campaign has drawn all the bottom dwellers out of the pond scum they inhabit. Who knew insulting people online would lead to more insults in return.

What legitimate concerns though? I mean, a few posters here have given suggestions on what they'd like to see the gaming press cover and address but outside of shouting "it's about ethics...and nepotism...and corruption", what has the campaign actually called for specifically for the media to address?

So far, the only thing that has been discovered that is demonstrably true is the failure of Patricia Hernandez to disclose her prior relationship with Anna Anthropy, I can't think of anything else particularly positive to come from it. Some may point to The Escapist revising their ethics policies while others will simply point out they were just reiterating them and the fact that the likes of Polygon et al, have had such policies on their sites since their inception. Admittedly, they have since been updated to include comments on Patreon but that is, in itself, a different debate which is rather obvious given their varying stances on it.

The actual goal of the campaign remains incredibly vague though. For instance, did you see the HuffPost Live interview where three women who are in support of the campaign spoke to host Ricky Camilleri? There's plenty of outrage there but nothing of actual substance or meaning is said. They repeatedly parrot on about the "terrible problem with nepotism, cronyism and the general ethics" in games journalism but give no actual examples or evidence for this.

What was even worse was that they again brought up this "objective review" nonsense, claiming that Arthur Gies' piece on Bayonetta 2 shouldn't have included his personal thoughts on the perceived sexism in the game and, as a result, shouldn't have adversely affected the score. Now as I've said before, I'm not a fan of Gies' work but that doesn't mean I don't support a reviewers right to give a personal opinion on a game. If I find I don't agree with it then I'll quite happily read some other reviews from people with whom I share a similar mindset or ideology.

Camilleri then countered Morgan on this who then gave a rather bizarre response composed of repeating what she had said already, listing her co-interviewee as an example of an excellent objective reviewer, throwing in some odd digs at feminism before denouncing reviewers giving positive reviews to people they're sleeping with. *Sigh*

The debate then shifts to Bharaj who completely dodged the question, instead listing the publications they were against for known corruption, again with no examples. She then listed the usual suspects except this time included Gamasutra and ****ing Neogaf. The former is only "guilty" in this case of publishing the Alexander piece which had nothing to do with corruption or any of their other claims and the latter is a god damn forum.

Now, this would all be fine except after this interview they were held up as having "rekt" the argument against the movement and encapsulated what it was all really about all with some nice infographics of boot.

wes wrote: »

Advertisers don't owe them a damn thing, and at this point, I doubt gamergate is responsible for any company stopping there ads on various websites at this point. Why would any company want to be associated with either side of this utterly insane toxic mess? As long as both side continue this foolishness, I think we will see more advertisers get the hell away from this whole mess.

Of course they're responsible for it, they've organised a rather successful email campaign against each of their sponsors. On the basis that the only thing these companies care about is their public image, it's not surprising that many marketing departments have played it safe and suspended ads while they look into the matter.

I have no love for Gawker but I don't like seeing any advertiser cowering to demands from a faux outrage campaign. And yes, it is false because no rational person thinks Biddle is seriously in favour of bringing back bullying nor do they believe that the company he works for is in support of it. Kotaku is their real target here and as a result, their parent company. The tweets from some of the individual employees have just given them the air of legitimacy they needed to take it to advertisers.


On the subject of whether it's appropriate to go after advertisers in this kind of instance. Well they're certainly entitled to do so and it's a perfectly valid tactic but personally I see it as a method of last resort. In this particular instance, I find it lazy, spiteful and just a little bit hypocritical. I'd very much side with Erik Kain on the matter and point to what I believe to be the first reasonable response in such a case. A rebuttal.

wes

Reekwind wrote: »

Let me see... how about because it's an attempt to shut down (or financially cripple) a site unless they change their editorial line or staff.

Again, you are not owed a platform for your views. You are not owed ad revenue. Its not censorship, as they could potentially lose there platform, and there not being for example jailed for there views.

Reekwind wrote: »

Actual free speech would be acknowledging the site's editorial position and offering an alternative viewpoint. What we see here is nothing more than an attempt at intimidation.

Boycott and contacting advertisers is not intimidation. It is well know legitimate tactic, used by non-violent movements the world over. To say its intimidation, is to belittle actually intimidation such, as you know harassment, threats of violence etc, that some have used.

So harassment etc are intimidation. Boycotts and contacting advertisers is not. To try and muddy the issue like this, by likening a legitimate way of people to voice there displeasure, by saying it is intimidation, is just feeding into a sense of entitlement, that you can say as you please, and no one has a right to use any legal method to express the disagreement, which yes can include contacting you ad partners.

Reekwind wrote: »

What you're suggesting is that every time a publishes an article that you don't agree with then you're justified in bringing financial pressure to bear to get them to change it? That instead of either writing a response or, I don't know, stop reading the website you should write an angry letter to a third party get the statement that you disagree with withdrawn. That runs entirely contrary to the spirit of free speech.

If someone feels strongly about it, then its there right. They may very well be doing it for some stupid reasons, but what there doing is perfectly legal.

Again, you seem to think that these website are entitled to ad revenue, and are owed a platform for there views. There not, just like no one who posts on Reddit or 4chan has any right to post about gamergate if the owners decide it violates the rules on there platform.

Reekwind wrote: »

This is exactly what I'm been banging on about in these posts. The problem with GG is not just that there are 'extremists' hidden in the ranks. It's that this mentality - this idea that people (read: SJWs) should not be allowed to push alternative views - provides a justification and framework for all types of intimidation and bullying.

You can argue that same for the other side, what with reddit etc deleting threads and what not, but again neither side is owed a platform, and all you talking about is how your side is entitled to one. There not, and neither are gamergate. This is not censorship, as you can always peddle your views somewhere else.

Reekwind wrote: »

Wow. What happened to the idea that no one has a right to be offended? That this was all a case of SJWs looking for offence where none was?

No one has any right to be offended? Who said that? Everyone has a right to be offended. You, however have no right to have anyone take your offense seriously. Its up to the offended to make the case, as to why that matters.

Seems like some gamergate people did exactly that, as is there right to do so. They manged to convince companies to agree with them. Its up to the websites to convince them otherwise, but I think when they decided to call some of these companies childish names like Gawker did, it doesn't help there case, but again how people respond to this sort of thing is up to them. If it backfires, that is on them.

Reekwind wrote: »

I dare you, wes, to look through the offending article and find me something that justifies a campaign to scare off advertisers. Show me what it was about it that is offensive enough to spark this outrage. Show me how you'd explain to the advertiser that it's ground for withdrawing money.

Your dare is nonsense. I am not running the campaign, and am not involved in it. It clear that some people are pissed of about it, go ask them, and not someone who isn't involved in it. I already said I would stop visiting the site, and wouldn't be bothered enough to anymore than that.

Again, my point is that these people have a right to contact advertisers and boycott, that is there business. You have no right to say what someone can or cannot be offended by, and as long as those who are offended act in a legally, then they have every right to be offended by anything and everything, even if its stupid.

The tactics of boycott and contacting ad partners is legit, regardless of your feeling on there cause being stupid, doesn't change that in any way shape or form.

Also, asking people to justify a campaign there not involved with, just show that you are having another argument, not based on what I said. My point is simple the tactic of boycott and contacting advertisers is legit. You have yet to provide any reason as to why it is not, other than how you disagree with why there doing it.

BTW, there is nothing stopping anti-gamergate people from organizing there own campaign, to contact advertisers themselves, as opposed to complaining about non-existent censorship.

wes

gizmo wrote: »

Of course they're responsible for it, they've organised a rather successful email campaign against each of their sponsors. On the basis that the only thing these companies care about is their public image, it's not surprising that many marketing departments have played it safe and suspended ads while they look into the matter.

Oh, I think some of stuff that people who should know better have said, helped them a bit there.

gizmo wrote: »

I have no love for Gawker but I don't like seeing any advertiser cowering to demands from a faux outrage campaign. And yes, it is false because no rational person thinks Biddle is seriously in favour of bringing back bullying nor do they believe that the company he works for is in support of it. Kotaku is their real target here and as a result, their parent company. The tweets from some of the individual employees have just given them the air of legitimacy they needed to take it to advertisers.

People can be outraged over a joke done in poor taste if that is what pisses them off. Gawker brought this on themselves, as I said before, plenty of people gunning for them (long before gamergate), and they gave them all the ammo they needed. 0 sympathy for them. They brought it on themselves. They should have known better, and are now paying the price, for acting like children no better than the people they complain about in gamergate.

BTW, Biddle also was having a go a Boogie2988:

Boo-ghoul 29666

Sorry, but its pretty clear that Biddle acting like a bully to people on twitter, and got called out for it, and then posted a joke in poor taste. He should have known better, and is now trying to make out that it other people who were at fault, and not him, as it was all a "joke". It clearly didn't cut it for a lot of people.

kunst nugget

DeVore wrote: »

One thing I find strange is that other people have used the "contact the advertisers" route and not been admonished for it.

I'm very much in favour of equality in marriage but when that CEO Eich was targeted and ousted form Mozilla for having donated to an anti-equality political group... I dunno about that. He had a political opinion/position and it had nothing to do with his job and a big hoohaa was raised about it.
I dunno how I feel about that, but I do know that if you back that sort of tactic then you have to allow everyone to use it or you get into Ends-Justifies-The-Means territory.

You either allow both Eich and Biddle to be targeted through advertisers or you don't... anything else is hypocrisy

Tbf, this is the only way to look at it. If you're in favour of people using it for causes you support, you're going to have to accept that people will use it for causes you don't.

gizmo

wes wrote: »

Oh, I think some of stuff that people who should know better have said, helped them a bit there.

People can be outraged over a joke done in poor taste if that is what pisses them off. Gawker brought this on themselves, as I said before, plenty of people gunning for them (long before gamergate), and they gave them all the ammo they needed. 0 sympathy for them. They brought it on themselves. They should have known better, and are now paying the price, for acting like children no better than the people they complain about in gamergate.

I said the above in the context of what I believe the response should have been, my last paragraph kind of covers it too. It's also by no means a defense of Gawker or a sign of sympathy for them specifically. Ultimately, all it's done in my eyes is reduce their credibility even more so.

wes wrote: »

BTW, Biddle also was having a go a Boogie2988: <image>

Sorry, but its pretty clear that Biddle acting like a bully to people on twitter, and got called out for it, and then posted a joke in poor taste. He should have known better, and is know trying to make out that it other people who were at fault.

I'd imagine this is what Boogie is referring to. A tweet, I might add, which I found to be far worse (for a variety of reasons) than what he's actually being pulled up on.

DeVore

They weren't targeting Gawker advertisers before the "bullying" and "neuroatypical" tweets... I for one found them offensive.

Links234

https://twitter.com/alqaeda/status/524985414973935616

Evac101

Aye - suspect people won't react with the levity you seem to get from that - I'll be back here with the popcorn.

wes

Evac101 wrote: »

Aye - suspect people won't react with the levity you seem to get from that - I'll be back here with the popcorn.

Its always amusing to see some one go out of there way to piss people off, and then act surprised, when exactly that happens. Will have to get some popcorn myself me thinks.

DeVore

Btw... I'm not sure how comfortable I am with the whole "targeting the advertisers" approach, be it Lego, Mozilla, Gawker or anyone else for any "movement".

I'm particularly uncomfortable when its done because of a single employee's private business/beliefs. I employ people and have employed many more. They are, thankfully, a very wide and divergent group and their individual flavours bring much to the banquet. This sort of thing logically ends up either with me trying to employ spreads of people to pander to the "diverseness" police but not too diverse or their private lives/actions will affect the company. Or it ends with us finding advertisers from the small pool of companies who wouldn't care/be affected by this sort of pressure.

On the other hand people have the right to spend their money where they see fit and with whom. Free market economics and all! If people are influenced not to spend their money with advertisers who support things they object to, then that is there right.

Complicated isn't it... not reducible to 140 characters.

DeVore

I'd prefer if we could continue to tease out the interesting and nuanced bits of this whole debacle and the wider politics behind it. Or we can just, you know, throw poo.

Evac101

Not intended to direct this at either side but too many people seem invested (even here) on the whole 'other is incapable of being right' thing that I'm unsure that the discussion will actually get anywhere. That said a split off discussion which eliminated any references to this main argument to discuss games as art and the future of games in that respect would be interesting.

Generic Dreadhead

DeVore wrote: »

I employ people and have employed many more. They are, thankfully, a very wide and divergent group and their individual flavours bring much to the banquet


Complicated isn't it... not reducible to 140 characters.

@Devore Canz I HaVe j0b? Vry n0t hAcKeR! mUcH Objctfy w0m€n oThErWiz€!

kunst nugget

DeVore wrote: »

Complicated isn't it... not reducible to 140 characters.

What annoys me is that hashtag activism - totally boils my piss and is always used to just sledgehammer and bully someone. Look at that #cancelcolbert nonsense recently because people seemed incapable of understanding the context of the original tweet. That Justine Sacco twitter shítstorm is also one that stands out as being utter nonsense to me but somehow people on the internet are able to whip themselves into hysteria over incredibly minor instances.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-campaign-to-cancel-colbert

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2013/12/23/justine-sacco-and-the-self-inflicted-perils-of-twitter/?&_suid=141407177361306991618967149407

Let's be clear - I hate this shít on all sides. People tell jokes and people say stupid things all the time but the mob mentality reaction on the internet that these things inspire these days is the basest form of humanity there is imo.

kunst nugget

Evac101 wrote: »

That said a split off discussion which eliminated any references to this main argument to discuss games as art and the future of games in that respect would be interesting.

Not going to happen at the moment because it will be dragged straight back to gamergate.

Shiminay

kunst nugget wrote: »

Let's be clear - I hate this shít on all sides. People tell jokes and people say stupid things all the time but the mob mentality reaction on the internet that these things inspire these days is the basest form of humanity there is imo.

QFT!

DeVore

Cormac... wrote: »

@Devore Canz I HaVe j0b? Vry n0t hAcKeR! mUcH Objctfy w0m€n oThErWiz€!

Ah, perhaps I should have mentioned... while they are all diverse, they do all have one common trait. They're all brilliant at what they do and ... forgive me, you don't seem brilliant. So yes, I'm prejudiced against "dumb".

kunst nugget

Evac101 wrote: »

Aye - suspect people won't react with the levity you seem to get from that - I'll be back here with the popcorn.

You know that saying 'The first casualty of War is Truth', I reckon the first victim of gamergate was people's sense of humour…