GamerGate WTF?

[Gravekeeper]

If you think GG are the bad guys, or have hounded and harassed and threatened women in the gaming industry as one, then I'm sorry, but you've had the wool pulled over your eyes by the media narrative.

Yes, the wool over our eyes.

>.>

[Ginger Tea]

I am in both camps as TBF are plenty of people who are willing to zone out the extremists in both camps would probably agree.

I want to know if a reviewer is buddy buddy with a dev, even if it is a simple disclosure of "I went to college with X when I was 20, we met again 10 years later when I was asked to review his/her first game Y last year."

The review could be good bad or indifferent, but its better all round that the journalist states up front that they know the dev on some level than someone later posting pics of them during their college years and paint a new narrative.

One movie reviewer stated he could not review a new movie as he knows the writer, director or star and didn't want to be seen as a conflict of interests. This was posted in January, but someone outside of games journalism gets the idea.

TB wanted nothing to do with it for the longest of time, he was a moderate and still is, but as already posted, both sides wanted him to choose.

You cant see much in a shit storm.

He wrote (and also posted on soundcloud) when it was just starting to disassociate itself from Quinn.

He closed his PO Box as many smaller game devs would send random tat and he would then have that at the back of his mind when playing a game ready to do a WTF or anything about it.
He said on one Co Optional podcast.

"you gave me chocolates and that makes me like you, but now I cant review your game because I'm now bias.

Or words to that effect.

His StarCraft 2 team is sponsored by GoG.com who are in turn owned by a publishing house, so he wont do any of their games as to do so might make him look like he's in their pocket, he has prefaced vlog soundclouds tweetlonger and sections on the podcast with "GoG sponsor my Esport team and as such I can not give an unbias opinion on the subject." but if anyone else on the podcast wants to shit on the game for reasons, genuine or not, he wont stop them.



Women in games/STEM, don't care, you want to study work hard etc then go for it, I hope that all interview processes select on talent and not quotas to be filled. I, regardless of if the story is in a game, book, radio, stage, TV show or movie, want a good story.

If the game is story driven, I would rather have a good story than a shit one, I don't care who wrote it, shit writing is still shit writing.

If a tacky shirt or a tweet by Feminist Frequency changes your mind about going into a field, that's on you, but if the development house is full of 'Toxic masculinity' then I hope HR side with the right party, but I have read accounts of women in the business seeing nothing of the kind.


Why it had to be Quinn as the catalyst I don't know, there had been many scandals prior, hell the whole Xbox One shady dealings should have kick started it, but I had forgotten about it until a few days ago when someone posted it in passing elsewhere.

Though it and enough relevant backlash from #GG did force both the FCC and ASA to come down on endorsements, many YouTubers taking money to promote stuff never disclosed, some did but in a lazy fashion for example right down the bottom of the See more section where no one would scroll to.

TB was quick to call out his partner Polaris (who are now owned by Disney) and what now seem to be former friends the Yogscast for their failings in this regard.

He would state in the podcast that he and his fellow hosts were in a paid promotion for a game but when Polaris would upload the video, that fact was strangely omitted.

Jesse Cox (Co Host) runs a section called Jesse Sells Out which states very clearly he is doing a paid promotion and most of the time its for games he was going to do a video on anyway, he tends to not talk about the game itself so cant be seen to be kissing arse or shitting on the game whilst taking their money.

Hat Films were part of a paid promotion for Assassins Creed (whichever one was in France) and they shit on it, "Great French accent guys." "Jesus Christ the crowd just spawned around me." etc, bugs were left in and more fun was had riffing on the game than playing it. They would have shit on the game anyway if they chose to play it as part of their schedule, but getting paid to shit on it was that little bit of icing.

[Rageaholic]

So I've been following this some more, and I'm starting to understand the GG side. I don't see them as anti women or even anti feminism (they get along well with The Fine Young Capitalists). They're against moral crusaders who want to paint gamers as violent psychopaths (unfortunately, those DOXING and harassing opponents of GG are not helping matters).

Here's a good article that explains it better than I could. It compares Anita Sarkeesian to Jack Thompson (Fundie lawyer crusading against violent video games). Sarkeesian has also made several comments against violent video games and her influence may have gotten games pulled from shelves. She also said some assholish things on twitter (such as blaming "Toxic Masculinity" for a school shooting) and even slut shamed two "booth babes" at a convention. While advocating for games with more diverse characters doesn't ruin games or even affect them as a whole, she often goes beyond that into moral crusader territory.

As far as gamergate goes, it's made up of a bunch of anonymous people online. Literally anyone can come in and speak for GG so it's hard to divide the extremists (those harassing and doxxing) and those who are merely critical of Sarkeesian. This means that those who do have legit points are lumped in with the worst of GG. This gets really insane on some websites, such as the comments in the second article I linked to (here). At the top, one was called an "Elliot Rodger wannabe" just because they said they were sick of feminists wanting to censor things. Further down, someone compared "Don't like video games, don't buy them" to "Don't like slavery, don't buy slaves".

So overall, I can't say I'm in gamergate or even support it (not much of a gamer to begin with), but I have a better understanding of why Sarkeesian is such a controversial figure.

[Gravekeeper]

So I've been following this some more, and I'm starting to understand the GG side.

The problem is they don't have a "side". Their stated mission was retroactively added to their original intent and at no point have they ever stopped conducting themselves as psychopathic misogynists. GG is the "Extremists" and anyone actually trying to be reasonable under the GG banner needs to get the hell away from it.

I don't see them as anti women or even anti feminism (they get along well with The Fine Young Capitalists). They're against moral crusaders who want to paint gamers as violent psychopaths (unfortunately, those DOXING and harassing opponents of GG are not helping matters).

No. They are most definitely misogynistic and they refer to "moral crusaders" as "Social Justice Warriors" and it has nothing to do with painting gamers as violent psychopaths and everything to do with encroaching on their sacred rights as white male gamers with icky things like vaginas, gays and black people.

Sarkeesian does not have any "influence". She just has a vagina. If she were a he, you literally would have never have heard of him.

It compares Anita Sarkeesian to Jack Thompson (Fundie lawyer crusading against violent video games).

Not even a remotely valid or accurate comparison

her influence may have gotten games pulled from shelves

Did you even read that link? >.>

It was "pulled from the shelves" because it was an R-18 rated game being sold in Target in Australia that wasn't properly labelled about its contents.

even slut shamed two "booth babes" at a convention

....Did you even read that one either? Its total bullshit. The tone of the first paragraph alone should have clued you in as to what you were reading.

As far as gamergate goes, it's made up of a bunch of anonymous people online. Literally anyone can come in and speak for GG so it's hard to divide the extremists (those harassing and doxxing) and those who are merely critical of Sarkeesian.

No its not, because any sane reasonable person would not be associating themselves with GG.

So overall, I can't say I'm in gamergate or even support it (not much of a gamer to begin with), but I have a better understanding of why Sarkeesian is such a
controversial figure.

A) You're doing a great job of supporting it by buying into its bullshit.

B) No, you really don't have a better understanding. To repeat: If Sarkeesian had a dick, you would have never heard of him even if he did and said the exact same things. Same thing with Quinn.

C) Did you read none of this thread before posting? >.>

GG is a toxic wasteland of human filth. Just leave it alone and hope you don't get any of it on you.

[Rageaholic]

The problem is they don't have a "side". Their stated mission was retroactively added to their original intent and at no point have they ever stopped conducting themselves as psychopathic misogynists. GG is the "Extremists" and anyone actually trying to be reasonable under the GG banner needs to get the hell away from it.

Their response was beyond disproportionate and after having viewed the chat logs...



but even if their journalism ethics is just a cover, it could be a case of Jerkass has a point Especially if so many other sites were banning people just for disagreeing on video games. That does not at all justify the doxing and harassment, but it does explain why people were pissed off.

No. They are most definitely misogynistic and they refer to "moral crusaders" as "Social Justice Warriors" and it has nothing to do with painting gamers as violent psychopaths and everything to do with encroaching on their sacred rights as white male gamers with icky things like vaginas, gays and black people.

Sarkeesian does not have any "influence". She just has a vagina. If she were a he, you literally would have never have heard of him.

To be fair, a lot of those SJWs are batshit crazy. They see sexism and discrimination in everything. That's likely why Anita is not well liked.

Not even a remotely valid or accurate comparison

They have both made insane generalizations regarding gamers and are both very outspoken about violent games. I'll give Sarkeesian credit in that she's not trying to pass laws, but she's taken more seriously than Thompson.

Did you even read that link? >.>

It was "pulled from the shelves" because it was an R-18 rated game being sold in Target in Australia that wasn't properly labelled about its contents.

I skimmed through it.



Sounds like the game distributors effed up pretty bad.

....Did you even read that one either? Its total bullshit. The tone of the first paragraph alone should have clued you in as to what you were reading

Doesn't matter what the tone of the article is. She's still full of shit.

C) Did you read none of this thread before posting? >.>

Of course I did. I'm the one who started the thread in the first place.

[Gravekeeper]

Their response was beyond disproportionate and after having viewed the chat logs...

The chat logs of its inception are....yeah. -.-

but even if their journalism ethics is just a cover, it could be a case of Jerkass has a point Especially if so many other sites were banning people just for disagreeing on video games. That does not at all justify the doxing and harassment, but it does explain why people were pissed off.

But its not though. No reputable source, journalist or researcher has been able to find any factual basis to their claims ( which have all been debunked ). GG also attacked any journalists or researchers that attempted to speak with them. Even their donations to Fine Young Capitalists was an organized PR move to try and make themselves look better.

They also have pretty much exclusively attacked women and indie developers. Not the large corporations they allege are the root of all this evil.

To be fair, a lot of those SJWs are batshit crazy. They see sexism and discrimination in everything. That's likely why Anita is not well liked.

Citation needed. Anita is not well liked by them because she is a woman. Simple as that. Same with Quinn, Wu and everyone else they threatened to rape and kill because "ethics in journalism".

They have both made insane generalizations regarding gamers and are both very outspoken about violent games. I'll give Sarkeesian credit in that she's not trying to pass laws, but she's taken more seriously than Thompson.

Again, citation needed. What "insane generalizations" has Sarkeesian made and how are they on par with Thompson's lunacy? Where is she being taken so seriously as to threaten the white male gamer ego?

Did anyone ever threaten to murder and rape Thompson en mass? -.-

Doesn't matter what the tone of the article is. She's still full of shit.

The tone matters quite a bit given that it reveals a pretty nasty bias. Which should make you question its assertions. I mean, she "launches an attack" by making a one off comment on Twitter about her disappointment? It then goes on to make the awful "Feminism means equality for both genders" strawman. Before spirally off into basically the same bullshit claims GG has been making all along. I also don't see where she "slut shamed" booth babes.

Oh, and btw this same author recently interviewed Jack Thompson in a respectful and in-depth manner without being a complete asshole about it. He even asked him about Sarkeesian:

I got disbarred and my life threatened repeatedly. When she gets the front window of her house shot at like I did, then I’ll listen to her whining a bit more. The pioneers take the arrows, honey. Deal with it.

So, not only does he dismiss her rape threats, murder threats, bomb threats, etc, he even calls her "honey". Response from author? Not a damn thing. The author is completely fine and professional with Thompson ( he has a dick after all ) but he loses his shit over a handful of tweets from Sarkeensian?

Riiiight. Completely unbiased. -.-

Of course I did. I'm the one who started the thread in the first place.

I should have been a little more specific there as I was thinking about the chat logs.

[Rageaholic]

Oh, and btw this same author recently interviewed Jack Thompson in a respectful and in-depth manner without being a complete asshole about it. He even asked him about Sarkeesian:



So, not only does he dismiss her rape threats, murder threats, bomb threats, etc, he even calls her "honey". Response from author? Not a damn thing. The author is completely fine and professional with Thompson ( he has a dick after all ) but he loses his shit over a handful of tweets from Sarkeensian?

Riiiight. Completely unbiased. -.-

Okay, that's a pretty big fail on their part. It doesn't surprise me considering an article on Breitbart said the same thing about Thompson. If you're going to flame Sarkeesian for hating on games, then Jack Thompson should be fair game. Wonder what political spectrum they're on.

As for the SJWs, it's mostly tumblr users, though they're popping up in other places. They take offense at the drop of a hat and are extremely hostile to anyone with an even slightly different opinion. In other words, they're like if fundies adopted a straw version of liberalism. The comments section in this article has some good examples of this (comparing video games to slavery and players of the games to Elliot Rodger). While they are not taken too seriously, there has been some failed campaigns cropping up (remember banbossy a year ago?) that are very SJWish in nature.

[Andara Bledin]

Those failed campaigns are a sign of just how fringe those people are. They do not represent many of those who are in support of feminism, and typically get upbraided for their zealotry by those of us with more rational interests. They mostly stay under their rocks, though, which is why you typically find them in their own echo chambers with sporadic outbreaks in Facebook and news article comment sections and rarely ever see them in the news.

GG, on the other hand, is made up of a huge number of virulent and aggressive assholes who go out of their way to be seen and have an affect on those they decry. They don't confine themselves to the underbelly of 8chan (having been banned from 4chan for being too excessive - that should give people an idea of how awful GG really is) and comments sections; they actively go out in search of outrage to agitate over and make personal and potentially physical attacks against those they believe have wronged them. They organize harassment campaigns and bully people online, dox them, swat them, send them threats in the mail... This is the standard MO for GG... You'll be hard-pressed to find more than one or two isolated examples of the same happening from the other side of the aisle.

The trouble is that GG isn't fringe; it's the diseased underbelly of the boys' club of gaming that's threatened by the fact that people are letting girls into their clubhouse. They used to be able to claim mastery in that one, narrow field, and now they're going back to just being the losers they are, and they can't handle that and are lashing out over it. This is the force behind people organizing behind a guy getting back at his (ex) girlfriend for deciding she liked someone else more. This is the force behind organized harassment campaigns against gaming-media personalities. This is the force behind bomb threats at airports that unsympathetic reporters are flying through. This is the force behind the publishing of addresses and pictures of peoples' families online in the attempt to blackmail their detractors into silence.

They're losers in every way and they are using their own self-loathing as fuel to feed the flames of their aggression.

Anyone who adopts their call-sign needs to think really hard about who, exactly, they're aligning themselves with. Any reasonable campaign can find a flag that isn't so tainted and mired in it's own ugly filth.

[Rageaholic]

^

Yeah, the more I analyze it, the less the arguments from the "sane" GG side hold water. Extreme SJWs are annoying, but I'm not convinced they have much influence because no one outside their clique takes them seriously (though their cult like behavior is pretty scary none the less). MRAs and GG supporters, on the other hand, are everywhere.

[Canarr]

One: MRAs and GG are not the same thing, and are not necessarily "in bed" together. And while MRAs have the same basic problem as feminists - the vocal, batshit insane minority gets most of the publicity - lumping them in with the toxic sludge of GG seems wrong to me. Many MRAs are sensible and sane enough, with legitimate grievances. Admittedly, that goes for Germany; can't say what it's like in the US or Canada.

Two: while MRAs and GG supporters may seem to be everywhere, they do not have the public forums that self-proclaimed SJWs and radfems seem to enjoy. Campaigning for fathers' rights definitely doesn't get you as many talkshow appearances and book sales as starting feminist hashtags does. Again, in Germany.

[Andara Bledin]

In the US, being an MRA is typically a front for being sexist.

You still run into pockets of #notall$, but as with GG, it appears that legitimate members joined after the movement was started as a smokescreen.

There are a very few issues where men are discriminated against, which is why the movement is viewed so poorly when compared to the overwhelming number of issues practically every other movement in action faces. The grievances are quite legitimate, but the scale is such that when brought up, they often give the appearance of "what about me?" whinging. Basically, they have it so good that when discussing ways to make things better for those who don't, white Christian males tend to feel left out.

At this juncture, and until such time as we don't have issues such as poor people dying of malnutrition in the best-fed nation on the planet, blacks being so overwhelmingly likely to be incarcerated or murdered by police, where atheists aren't viewed as untrustworthy and immoral for not having a faith (even Satanists are better regarded >_> ), and women stop being subconsciously encouraged to pursue family over career and soft sciences over STEM, men who really want to make a difference should gather under other banners with broader goals than family law, military requirement, and issues with sexism in welfare programs. All of those are merely symptoms of sexism against women and they would be best served by becoming feminists (oh, the irony).

[Canarr]

Andara, if you don't mind my asking: what is your chosen profession? I don't believe I've ever read that on here.

There are a very few issues where men are discriminated against, which is why the movement is viewed so poorly when compared to the overwhelming number of issues practically every other movement in action faces. The grievances are quite legitimate, but the scale is such that when brought up, they often give the appearance of "what about me?" whinging. Basically, they have it so good that when discussing ways to make things better for those who don't, white Christian males tend to feel left out.

At this juncture, and until such time as we don't have issues such as poor people dying of malnutrition in the best-fed nation on the planet, blacks being so overwhelmingly likely to be incarcerated or murdered by police, where atheists aren't viewed as untrustworthy and immoral for not having a faith (even Satanists are better regarded >_> ), and women stop being subconsciously encouraged to pursue family over career and soft sciences over STEM, men who really want to make a difference should gather under other banners with broader goals than family law, military requirement, and issues with sexism in welfare programs. All of those are merely symptoms of sexism against women and they would be best served by becoming feminists (oh, the irony).

Frankly spoken: I don't believe feminists will ever do crap for men. If even an intelligent, rational, well-read and (from what I can see) fairly moderate feminist like you classifies men's "quite legitimate" grievances as "whining", then I see no hope that feminism, as a movement, will ever take men's problems seriously, let alone do anything to solve or alleviate them.

[Andara Bledin]

First, my job (which is irrelevant, but I'll indulge) is holding multiple positions at a company at the upper end of small. I do several things that keep the company running, including order entry, accounts receivable, and data entry and management. I wear hats numbering only slightly fewer than the owner herself.

Otherwise, feminists have done "crap" for men. Feminism is, at it's heart, about equality, but with a focus on women's issues since women get such a shit deal in society.

Also, I never called men's grievances whining. I said that, in comparison to the huge swathes of prejudice against which nearly every group that isn't male faces, piping up about mens' issues gives the appearance of whinging for the sake of feeling left out. Every issue over which men are given the shaft is actually related to bigotry against women, and the swiftest way to address those issues is to champion the cause of feminism.

If you really want to be taken seriously, the first step is to not make straw men out of the comments you are responding to.

[Canarr]

First, my job (which is irrelevant, but I'll indulge) is holding multiple positions at a company at the upper end of small. I do several things that keep the company running, including order entry, accounts receivable, and data entry and management. I wear hats numbering only slightly fewer than the owner herself.

I didn't mean your job; sorry if I misstated that. I meant the field of education you chose.

To elaborate: I hold a Bachelor in Business, majored in Marketing and Finance. My girlfriend has a PHD in Medical IT (sort of an IT doctorate with a focus on medical applications). Of the two of us, she is the more technically oriented one, from discussing mathematical theories to the assembling of IKEA furniture.

I chose a soft science; she chose STEM. And she's never felt that her gender was any kind of hindrance in her work.

The reason I am asking this is: after the whole "Shirtgate" bullshit, I read quite a few blogs, Tweet and Tumblr posts from selfproclaimed feminists, bemoaning the lack of women in STEM/MINT fields, calling for women to storm these bastions of men, break male stranglehold on these professions.

Only... not a single one of these posts came from a woman actually holding a degree in a STEM field. Those I could identify (which, admittedly, wasn't possible for all the Twitter and Tumblr posts), held degrees in German Lit, Journalism, Communications, Politics, Gender Sciences... but not Physics, Mathematics, Engineering, IT.

Not a single one of these people gave a rallying cry of, "Yes, I work as a woman in a STEM field! Join me, and let us show men that we can do it just as well as they can!" It was more like, "It's important for women to gain a greater share of STEM jobs! Some other women should really get on that!"

Is there a point to this rant? Yes. If not even women who believe in the importance of "more women in STEM" actually practice what they preach and study STEM fields - is it, then, so absolutely inconceivable that women, on average, actually aren't as interested in these fields as men, on average? Does it have to be a big conspiracy? Can it not just be diverging interests?

Otherwise, feminists have done "crap" for men. Feminism is, at it's heart, about equality, but with a focus on women's issues since women get such a shit deal in society.

I know that's the dictionary definition. I just don't believe that is what is actually practiced by feminists. Or can you point me to an example where feminism, as a movement, actually and intentionally did do "crap" for men?

Also, I never called men's grievances whining. I said that, in comparison to the huge swathes of prejudice against which nearly every group that isn't male faces, piping up about mens' issues gives the appearance of whinging for the sake of feeling left out. Every issue over which men are given the shaft is actually related to bigotry against women, and the swiftest way to address those issues is to champion the cause of feminism.

If you really want to be taken seriously, the first step is to not make straw men out of the comments you are responding to.

Saying that someone "gives the appearance of whining" isn't that different to calling someone whining, I'd say. At least, not different enough to warrant calling that a strawman. But my apologies if I misread your words. That wasn't my intention.

So, okay, I'll bite. Say my issue is the lack of a support structure (help lines, shelters) for male victims of domestic abuse. How will championing the cause of feminism help alleviate that?

[Kheldarson]

Not a single one of these people gave a rallying cry of, "Yes, I work as a woman in a STEM field! Join me, and let us show men that we can do it just as well as they can!" It was more like, "It's important for women to gain a greater share of STEM jobs! Some other women should really get on that!"

Wait, what? So unless we're in a STEM field we can't make commentary on how STEM is traditionally male and is hard for women to break into or women have been made to feel like they shouldn't try? Because, you know, I could've gone into a STEM field. I'm damn good at math. I *hate* doing it though. I loathed sitting in math class. Does that mean I shouldn't be concerned at the fact that a future daughter of mine may be given less chance at getting a good job simply because I preferred to study history and education?