Go Back   Fratching! > General > Pop Culture

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

  #11  
Old 10-24-2014, 01:42 PM
Rageaholic Rageaholic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,814
Default

LOL that editors note is pure gold. Well deserved snark.
Reply With Quote

  #12  
Old 10-24-2014, 03:46 PM
lordlundar lordlundar is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rageaholic View Post
I just don't see how one person allegidly sleeping around and an EX boyfriends rant can trigger this much of a shitstorm.
It itself it wasn't. I said in another thread and it's been mentioned here all of this crap has been a powder keg ready to explode for a long time. And in of itself the rant wasn't even the real catalyst. The real catalyst was that a number of sites who have readily put up far worse content not only did not cover it (fair enough, largely a personal choice and not one I take issue with) but that any and all discussion on it was completely banned. Not just moderated with the assholes being banned (as they should) but ANY discussion was banned and anyone even talking about it got permabanned no matter how civil they were. Reddit's /r/gaming was particularly bad with several thousand posts wiped out, most engaging in civil discussion. When confronted with just how bad the sites and their staff were behaving in the manner (mostly respectful but definitely some assholes, same as any criticism) the response was several articles on these sites attacking essentially anyone who was called a gamer.

That's when the explosion hit. Despite the claims of acting with the best of intentions, had the discussions been allowed to happen in a proper moderated environment, it would have largely blown over after a couple of weeks at most. It was how poorly it was handled that caused the blowout, not the original incident.
Reply With Quote

  #13  
Old 10-24-2014, 05:45 PM
Rageaholic Rageaholic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,814
Default

^

Wait did these boards ban discussions on review bias, the Zoe Quinn crap, or both? If it's the review bias, than I could see some shitstorm (though it still sounds like it was the Zoe Quinn thing that triggered this). But if it's the Zoe Quinn thing, than I wonder why the mods would react this way.

(though I should probably read up on this myself, though I tend to avoid Encyclopedia Dramatica)
Reply With Quote

  #14  
Old 10-24-2014, 06:14 PM
lordlundar lordlundar is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,908
Default

It was any mention of her that didn't put her on a pedestal that got locked down and the user banned. Even people asking for clarification on the matter had it happen to them. Like yourself, a lot of people were wondering what was the motivation behind such actions and were trying to find out. Then the articles came out.

In fact, most people didn't even know what the hell was happening when the mass lockdown hit it was that far below the radar. It could have been any event that had these sites doing it, it just happened to be this one. What had happened was the Streisand effect in action.

(And I would avoid wikipedia for info on this. There is a moderator going on a witch hunt on anyone detailing events that don't paint it as a hate group.)
Reply With Quote

  #15  
Old 10-24-2014, 08:17 PM
D_Yeti_Esquire's Avatar
D_Yeti_Esquire D_Yeti_Esquire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 566
Default

The Wiki editor wouldn't suprise me.

I think it was 2008-2010 when the Wiki article on MRA's (not the same thing, but the same political groups are involved in Gamergate) was mainly about the 60's, the philosophical underpinnings of feminism that gave birth to the academic MRA movement and then the criticism of it.

I'm not sure when but when I checked it last year, that entire article had been replaced by a heavily sourced (in feminism, that's easy because there's just so much out there to source) but cherry picked articles creating a very specific picture of a hate group or a tone deaf one. As of a few months ago, you could still find the old article in the internet wayback machine. Not sure if it's still there though. Many of the sources characterizing MRA positions are from feminist or feminist leaning sites which if you're going to be fair about it, is roughly equivalent to letting the Republican party write the Democratic party campaign literature.

It skips the 60's, touches the 70's and assumes the late 90's variant was the same thing as. Which is odd, because if you want to get into the history of it one is a movement from within men in the feminist movement to focus on their issues and the other is borrowing the name.

That's a long way of saying... not shocked. Seriously though, if you like rhetoric, actually reading the sources of that page are hilarious.
Reply With Quote

  #16  
Old 10-24-2014, 09:04 PM
Rageaholic Rageaholic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,814
Default

So now the quinnspiracy stuff is making sense. It's not so much the reviews, it's the censorship of anything bad about Quinn.

-Shit gets out about the sex life of a game developer.
-Mods on message boards go crazy censoring any thing that paints her in a bad light.
-People start to suspect foul play.
-MRA gets involved, accusing the mods of being pussywhipped (hence all the 'mangina' crap). Some assholes cross the line by sending rape and death threats.
-Now anyone who says anything about this is attacked by extremists on either side.

I still think the ones sending the death and rape threats are the worst, but on some of the sites I've been on, just mentioning this will result in a hoard of comments accusing the poster of trolling and painting them with the rape/death threat cowards.
Reply With Quote

  #17  
Old 10-24-2014, 09:35 PM
D_Yeti_Esquire's Avatar
D_Yeti_Esquire D_Yeti_Esquire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 566
Default

Just an aside - but Wikipedia talk pages are hilarious. I can see why the articles end up the way they do sometimes. I was reading the Gamergate talk page... honestly it's a better of summary of what this debate ends up being than the actual article.

It's just people invalidating each other's POV. People asking for neutrality are getting shouted down.
Reply With Quote

  #18  
Old 10-25-2014, 04:04 AM
Gravekeeper Gravekeeper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,867
Default

Screw it. I did have a long post explaining the entire thing but even being male and on a small obscure website I do not want to speak Voldemort's name out loud just in case.

Last edited by Gravekeeper; 10-25-2014 at 04:06 AM.
Reply With Quote

  #19  
Old 10-25-2014, 06:33 PM
Rageaholic Rageaholic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,814
Default

This is looking like one of those clusterfucks where you really don't know who's right because it's obvious that at least one party (or sub party) is not telling the whole story.

All of the anti gamergate stuff I initially read conveniently ignored the censorship from review sites. Anyone who tried to speak out against that was instantly labeled as an MRA troll who supports rape and death threats. Initially, this was understandable because the No True Scottsman stuff is very suspicious. But now I see there are legit concerns within the gaming community.

But how much of that is conspiracy crap?

I mean sure, the rapid censorship is very suspicious, but some of the accusations toward Quinn seem kind of baseless. Then there's the issue of feminists influencing video games. A lot of it is comparable to the so called "Homosexual Agenda" boogeyman (when all they want is equal rights).

I gotta stop before I get confused. I'm still suspicious of gamergate, but I understand them more and assuming that their concerns aren't just hyperbole, they might have a point. It just might not be being heard.
Reply With Quote

  #20  
Old 10-25-2014, 07:58 PM
Gravekeeper Gravekeeper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,867
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rageaholic View Post
This is looking like one of those clusterfucks where you really don't know who's right because it's obvious that at least one party (or sub party) is not telling the whole story.
Well, I'll give you a hint. The whole "journalism ethics" and "censorship" thing was retroactively added after the shit storm and attacks on Quinn to try and make it seem like they had some legitimate cause.

Bah, here, read this. It should help.

Last edited by Gravekeeper; 10-25-2014 at 08:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 10:28 PM.


vBulletin skins developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.