Well, that's not the perception gamergate has, even among those (like me) who understand the need for honest reporting and even sympathize with GG. Search for blogs defending gamergate online. i.e. pro-gamergate blogs. I did. I didn't find them on the first page of google. I'm quite certain they don't exist. No one pro-GG is trying to clearly demarcate their territory. No one is trying to defend gamergate on rational mediums where arguments are well thought out. No one is trying to show that the set of people behind the harassment of Quinn and Sarkeesian do not majorly intersect with gamergate.

And if they do, and GG doesn't really want to confront this, then the argument is over before it really began.

The entire reason behind this shithole of an argument is that yes, there is (more than) a slight anti-female bias in the gaming industry, and this problem, which is much more widely sympathized with than ethics in gaming journalism, is getting exacerbated by people going fuck feminism, look at the problems in reporting first. Both Vivian James and the anti-bullying charity seem to be worked towards as a means to an end. To clear the name of Gamergate. To gain some legitimacy.

Gamergate is targeting real problems. I agree. However, seeing the origins of the movement, how the major stories about it have all been about female harassment, and the fact that no A-grade publication seems to see beyond this makes the argument a doozy. Gamergate wants to see a few niche publications get more ethical. What its followers end up doing is threatening two or three women into running from their houses fearing for their lives. In the present age, where violence and inequality against women is one of the greatest problems identified in society, how can you expect to really get away with an argument like that?

Despite all this, I sympathize with the issue being raised by some pro-GG people. That of ethics in game journalism. What I'm not, however, is a feminist, and hence I choose to ignore that side of GG. For feminists, GG (rightly) needs to publicly shame these elements and demonstrate it still has steam going forward. Else it will continue to seem like a bunch of self-righteous arse-covering bunch of idiots refusing to look beyond their own noses.

 

GG has been denouncing the harassment, but in the end trolls are trolls. we report them when we catch them but we can't catch them all. As for the three ladies leaving their homes, they aren't the only ones. Some of GG's more outspoken have left their homes on advice of the police, and King of Pol got a package with a knife in it with a note telling him to kill himself. the main reason why you don't see much in the way of high traffic pro GG articles or coverage is a mix of the fact a lot of GG are average people and the more outspoken tend more towards streams and youtube vids then articles and Gawker using, or was using, its connections to keep things under wraps. Thankfully with them losing a lot of money now people are starting to jump off the ship so we are seeing more fair coverage then we were before.

Edit: I've been following GG since it first began, I stumbled on the Quinn post via a random link on Youtube. I haven't contributed as much as I wish I had to it but I've been close to the the key pro GG since they started up. maybe that's been the problem cause I haven't seen anywhere near the level of harassment sent Anti's way that GG has gotten.

Anyway, Anita's twitter has been getting crazier lately, sounds like she's going into Jack Thompson territory. Of course, there are people who suspect that it's not even her writing them anymore, but Full Mcintosh himself.

Edit 2: Just finished IAs new stream. TB is a well spoken individual, he can put my thoughts about this into words way better then I usually can.

 

It's an internet argument. People are going to be threatened on both sides. By both sides. By trolls. By people who don't even care about this particular issue and just want to watch the world burn.

That X, Y or Z are being threatened doesn't make an argument invalid. It just means there are idiots on the internet. Fucktards gonna fucktard. That's it.

That antiGG (and then some proGG) people have been instrumentalizing that shit to further their own agenda and ridiculing any valid criticism -tyvm PR Stunt 101- is facepalm worthy.
Effective, sure, but pathetic.

I don't care that some people have been threatened. Yeah, the ones making those making threats should be punished -and punished harshly-, but if you have strong opinions, whether it is on politics, society, etc... and are incapable of handling some randoms hurling abuse at you, and in some cases, online threats, then you should get the fuck off the internet.

 

@Cruentus, I'm not talking articles in major publications, merely normal, everyday WordPress blogs. Most of the so-called intellectuals, who dominate the print media and traditional media outlets prefer reading over YouTube and other streams. I'm guessing if GG people started blogging en masse about it, their argument and side of the story would get out even more. It would appear more genuine, I think.

@Hachi, you're right about the abuse and threats, but if it leads to RL consequences, then it is quite bad. No differentiation of pro and anti here. If it happens to anyone it's bad.

 

And this attitude pisses me the fuck off. Because let's break it down to base principles - if I got anywhere near the number of death threats and vitriol I get for giving a Justin Moore or Chris Brown or Katy Perry or Lana Del Rey album a negative review in person, there'd be real consequences. At school people would be expelled or severely disciplined, at a workplace HR would have gotten involved and those people would have been fired, and at a bar somebody would have lost teeth. And if I was a woman making my reviews, it'd be roughly thirty times worse - and yet just because it's the Internet and you can't be held accountable, it's suddenly okay?

And this is coming from a guy who's been on DLP since 2008 - I'm used to the language and tone here, and none of it is intended maliciously. Hell, harsh criticism on stories is our benchmark, but I don't get death threats here (that I'll take anywhere close to seriously). I don't have a problem with telling somebody to go fuck themselves, because tone and intent matter.

But when you get people doxxing or flooding someone's emails with rape threats, including calls to their home to the point where they fear for their lives, it's a different intention and attitude than here. I can brush off the death threats and people saying they'll have 'words' with me at a convention - but that's because I'm 6'4, I work out heavily, and I carry knives. And if I'm being brutally honest, there are points even I get concerned and I don't want to get jumped or surprised. And the harassment I get is practically insignificant, but the core principle remains the same: you don't fucking hurl abuse at people period, because the more of it you get, the harder it is to differentiate between mindless trolls and people who really have malicious intentions.

You want an answer why that sort of justification that keeps getting made by parts of GamerGate pisses me off? That's why.

 

What Silens said. It's what I meant, he just expanded upon it nicely. And finger-pointing and saying that the other side is also doing it won't work here. You already started out without the moral high ground, it's up to you to justify why you deserve to have it.

 

No one is fucking justifying it, ffs.

The internet is a terrible, horrible, vile shithole where, mostly, people can be disgusting shit bags and face no consequences.

It's an issue that transcends GG. It's a societal issue, one that affects ALL walks of life, and is thus irrelevant in this discussion.

 

It's like people have forgotten what 4chan is.
Over the top harassment was basically a guarantee once Wizard chan was attacked, and then there was the censorship and moot shit.
Basically anyone on the side of GG is going to say harassment is bad, go to any of their communities and they're bending over backwards to suck the dick of anyone. 8chan spammed their own board for half a day because someone posted dox and hot wheels was taking a cripple nap, KotakuinAction basically has a "calm down guys be friendly love everyone ty based boogie" thread every 20 minutes and fucking /v/ funded a feminist game.
Doesn't change the fact that a lot of 4chan (mainly /b/) doesn't give a shit, feels targetted/betrayed by their own mods, already hated the majority of things about anti-ggers, don't care or even celebrate the fact that any attacks will negatively implicate normal pro-ggers, and in general are dumbass 14 year olds with so sense of consequence obsessed with the reputation of the chaotic neutral final boss leejun.
And honestly a lot of their targets really should've seen this coming. Not to "victim blame", but posting a picture of yourself on "4chan patrol" to Twitter is the internet equivalent of headbutting a hornets nest. You should know better
Added to the fact there are people actually false flagging in hilarious fashion AND that Quinn herself (an actual notable person of a side who we know is definitely not a troll on either side) being implicated in a swatting attempt (because she tweeted out Mike Cernovich's doxx) that just reached the FBI and LAPD, with intent to sue (something I'm only bringing up because he's a lawyer), and you'll see why the narrative of gamer gate harassment is fucking annoying.

 

Both sides lack of maturity is staggering, bu GGs take it to another level. They should be better, they should clamp harder on trolls and assholes, why? Because when you demand for moral superiority, you must have it. The preacher's hell is 10 times worse. So wearing slutty clothes means you're okay with sexual harassment? Not on the same level, but same kind of argument.

That picture is retarded though.

 

So one side can doxx/swat/force out of their houses a dozen people, literally say more people should've been bullied in high school, say they like ISIS more than people who disagree with them on video game journalism, actually conspire to kill off an entire subculture identity with what can only be described as propaganda, tell a guy he should die of cancer while he's in chemo because he was neutral to the affair, send people knives and syringes in the mail and generally be shitty people, and they're somehow ahead of the competition because they couldn't reel in the extremist parts of 4chan when they're at their most angry.

fuck it this is pointless

 

Let's not pretend that the other side was all roses either. They did have the extremist parts of 4chan on their side. Threats of bodily harm were made to Quinn, and a massacre was promised to Sakreesian if she decided to give that talk. No one is saying that the antis are blameless. But saying that GG itself is innocent of what you accuse anti of doing is plain wrong.

 

No, it's most certainly not okay, which is exactly why I said those guys should be severely punished if they're ever caught. But X sending threats to Y will happen, unless you 1984 the shit out of the internet. Because there are sickos on the internet. If you're not ready for that kind of abuse, simply don't get involved in those discussions.

Yes, it'd be great if people could argue civilly. No, it's not gonna happen when it involves thousands of people from different backgrounds. Not everyone can keep a cool head.

And I perfectly understand your point. That sort of escalation (you're threatening X, so I'm gonna send a death threat to Y) is radicalising the shit out of everyone (both pro and antiGG).

I'm not saying it's not wrong. It is wrong. Obviously. You don't threaten to rape someone, or kill them, whether IRL or online, to keep them from expressing their opinion.

What I'm saying is that it is unavoidable when a huge crowd is talking about a sensitive subject.

 

So the ultimate answer here is when there is contentious issues, we're supposed to just give up on civilized discourse because that's what's going to happen anyways? Yeah, no, I don't buy that. Sure, there are shitheads in the world (and from I've seen, they are indeed on both sides), but they've been dominating the conversation, and nobody has taken the higher ground or forcibly drowned them out. The attitude of 'oh, it's the Internet, it's gonna happen' promoted here is laziness promoted by people unwilling to find themselves socially castigated by the larger crowd for speaking out. It's herd mentality at its worst, because it's so easy to ignore responsibility for being a piece of shit in that environment.

 

No, the answer is that, as a society, there are issues that need solving, desperately.

That does not mean everything else in the world stops until said issues are resolved.

There is civilised debate going on - don't pretend there isn't (we're doing it here) - but the crazies are perceived loudest because they provoke the most violent reactions.

 

So, as someone who's mostly been staying out of this shitstorm, I've got a couple of questions.

Did the first chick that 'started' all this fuck over a pro-women charity event to promote her own game, or did she not? This seems somewhat important, at least as far as the supposed 'moral high-ground' of the narrative goes.

Secondly, to all the people putting down Gamergate supporters for not reeling in extremist 4chan: It's not that I disagree, but how precisely do you recommend that they manage this? I'm pretty sure that better groups then gamergate have tried and failed to stop the internet hate machine.

 

Not her own game. Her own initiative. TFYC claims that she doxxed them, and she claims she didn't. There is an interview with TFYC which I read in which they claim they had a lot of problems with her, and then there are articles in which the authors say that TFYC is lying. This here is apparently the email exchange between them. The comments and captions are Quinn's.

http://imgur.com/a/KEtcp?gallery

Regarding your second point. See, you have assholes in every argument. No one denies that. And 4chan, most of all, is uncontrollable. The problem is when trolls begin to be seen as the bulk of your campaign. You might have really legitimate points. But since almost everyone visibly supporting you is a troll, no one else will take you seriously.

Edit: There's not many places where this discussion remains as civil as it is here.

 

Alright, I hadn't read that. The last bit seems a bit jarring, like some info is missing, but that could just be that I don't trust any of these people half the time.

Still, my point was that the anti-gamergate people seem to have attacked a pro-women whatever it is in the name of feminism, which in my mind automatically removes any high-ground gained from claiming to be fighting misogyny, if true.

The thing is, and keep in mind that I've mostly been staying out of this, I've heard of a shitton of threats and associated crap from both sides. And after a point, whether or not your campaign is seen as mostly trolls boils down to propaganda.

Most of the anti-gamergate stuff seems incredibly biased to begin with, refusing to acknowledge that there's anyone on the other side that isn't a misogynistic asshat, or even that anyone that identifies as a gamer isn't, in some cases.

I see a lot of pro gamergate stuff that basically boils down to, "Hey, what the fuck. Being a gamer doesn't mean I hate women! Why are you people doing this?"

But all of that is irrelevant to my original point. Without changing the tag or renaming the movement, which would destroy everything and may not even work, how do you propose that the trolls are stopped? How, precisely, do you change how people think of gamergate? Because it sounds to me like you're saying "4chan sided with Gamergate. It lost."

Yeah. Hail DLP.

 

This is getting hilarious.

I was just Kicked for a week on AlternateHistory.com for saying that I don't like Anita Sarkeesian.

What.

Here's what the Admin on that board said to me:

 

Maybe you shouldn't support mosogyny so much, Xandrel.

But yeah, thats bullshit.

 

Yes, it does. But the point is that those guys started out from the moral high ground. GG didn't. And while anti had been able to (kind of) keep that high ground for a while, the perception still remains that it hasn't lost it. As I said, the TFYC affair has been messy, with no objective account. The emails published by Quinn herself do not make it easy to support her, nor do they make it easy to support TFYC. The only thing quite clear from those emails that Quinn was trying to get out of it, and TFYC were trying to make sure she took a share of the blame. The rest is all hearsay and conjecture.

This is one reason my personal sympathies are with GG. And why I'm cheering them on. Making generalizations, as the anti-GG camp seems to be doing is a pathetic thing to do while dealing with a multifaceted opponent. The other reason, of course, is that I prefer objective reporting myself.

No. What I'm saying is that GG isn't marketing itself properly. If the members of GG care about it so much, they need to convince the people who follow the blogosphere to support them. Blogs are an incredibly powerful source of spreading an opinion, because blogs are more respected by mainstream publications than YouTube streams. They usually attract a more nuanced crowd, and having intellectuals on your side always helps. In this case, it will bring a lot of convincing power to GG. It will show that yes, they have trolls within their ranks, but their argument is good enough that <influential-intellectual-person/reporter-converted-by-GG> is supporting it. That is damn important for GG now. And that is the way they can stave off their association with 4chan. When a nuanced argument addressing all the points brought up by the opposition are addressed by a pro-GG person not writing a rant or a forum post, but a well-thought out, researched blog post, where the language is professional. And it shouldn't just be one blog post. There should be hundreds.