#Gamergate

[SinisterDeath]

 

 

Sky is blue, ice is cold, dogs wag their tails.

I can make statements too.

I don't understand why you're making yours.

What is the point of saying this? 

 

 

Ok, sure.

 

 

I think that specific example is more complicated, as I'm sure you know, but I would hesitantly agree.

I say hesitantly because there is kind of a difference between public opinion and reality.

What the public believes is not always true.

Do you understand what I mean by gamergate not being tangible in the same way as most other movements are?

 

Public Opinion can help a movement succeed or die in a firey death.

Look at feminism, it didn't have a great public image in the 60s, 70s, 80s, or even most of the 90s. It kept having problems with people identifying them all as the militant kind. It also didn't help that until the mid 2000s, homosexuality wasn't acceptable to the public. (It's related, because for the longest time, the public thought most feminist weren't just man haters, but lesbians, and lesbians = bad, thus bad public image.)

Since one view changed, the other followed, and now both movements have gained in an incredibly steam over the last decade.

 

Yes but it's not hard to understand the stated goals and understand the movement.

 

Sure. But not everyone goes to twitter, The world doesn't get all of its news from twitter. Want people to better understand gamergate 'goals'? Have those influential gamergate peeps, start up a website, to discuss gamergate. Be the shining beacon of the movement. A gathering ground of like-minded people. Twitter is not a good place to start.

 

Spend some time in the hashtag and ask about what people want, what they think, etc.

I get enough of people shouting back and forth at each other at DM, i'm not going to sink into the depths of twitter for that special kind of edjumacation.

 

 

 

Yes but it's not hard to understand the stated goals and understand the movement.

Spend some time in the hashtag and ask about what people want, what they think, etc.

You'll get different answers to be sure but on the important things it wont vary much.

We don't support harassment or doxxing, we are for ethics, etc, etc.

You're not going to find many (if any) people saying yeah we need to doxx more.

And if you do find one guy who says that you'll have 50 more ready to say this guy is an idiot or a shill and doesn't represent the rest of us.

Maybe not on Twitter, but just like Anon, the bad-apples have channels they still go through to communicate that.

 

If you're a substitute teacher and you walk into a class and one kid keeps throwing papers at other kids...do you send the entire class to the principals office?

Been awhile since you've been to school? Because in reality, the most common answer is if the teacher doesn't know who did it, everyone gets in trouble...

/bad example.

 

No. Individuals are responsible for their actions.

Of course, however..

 

This guilt by association shit needs to stop. When you have one guy sending threatening messages on twitter how many people do you need to counteract him and say he doesn't represent us?

Take Ferguson as an example. That's getting a lot of negative feedback from the public due to the looters that are taking advantage of the riots. Hell, its been shown people are coming from out-of-state just to loot! Yet, that doesn't stop the public's opinion of that movement as all a bunch of unlawful, looters and hooligans. And they, unlike you have real, tangible groups and leaders. They do condemn these looters as not being apart of there movement.  It's hard to repair that kind of damage from a tangible group with actual names behind it. It's even harder if not impossible to do so, as an non-tangible group made up of anonymous people.

 

 

 

I don't agree with that.

You can say it has some origins in anon culture but it has nothing to do with the group Anonymous other than similar origins.

I didn't say gamergate & Anon were the same thing.

I was saying they are following the same model. The model being how it is organized. Decentralized. Pure anarchy.

 

 

 

Is that wrong?

Listen to yourself man.

Read what you just wrote.

If you sent me some hate mail do the cops need to shut down Dragonmount?

If I say I hate teachers and tomorrow a friend of mine shoots up a school am I part of that?

Again this guilt by association shit needs to stop. I condemn harassment and so does 99% of Gamergate.

We're not responsible for what nutjobs do in our name. You may want to spin that as a matter of convenience but at some point I think you need to leave the realm of reality to do that.

If I were to make a bomb threat with the signature ~dragonmount, all eyes would be on Dragonmount. But unlike #gamergate, Dragonmount can put out a Press release that would condemn me as representing Dragonmount.

 

What I'm trying to convey to you is the difference between what you believe, and what the public sees. You might not give a damn about what the public thinks, but for change to happen, you need the public.

By not having a clear-cut, well defined centralized leadership, with clear doctrines, or a tangible place, even if that place is a website (not twitter), web forum, whatever.

The public will believe, that what is done in Gamergates name, is Gamergates responsibilty, even if they are clearly not involved in it.

What gamergate is currently, is Chaos.. Anarchy.

 

 

 

The entire thing "has a bad name" because media wants it to have a bad name.

There are people who have ideological leanings that have jumped into the fray on the side of the Journalists who are more than happy to have some more support on their side since they obviously can't defend their actions. These "things that keep coming up", they don't actually have connections to Gamergate other than the people saying it.

Then prove them wrong. Create a website made by pro-gamergate people. Show the world they aren't all misogynistic ass hats. Get journalists with integrity on that site to review games. Show the world what it is you are trying to do. Until then, you're just a collective of Anonymous people, who have no collective leadership, in an chaotic system that draws to it, extremists that love trolling within that system of anarchy.

 

 

 

My point is they shouldn't have to.

I think it's people like you that enables those trolls in the first place.

Stop giving them attention. 

Trolls will troll, whether they get attention or not. And gamergate being as chaotic as it is, is giving them a movement to rally behind. Much like the Ferguson riots have given real-life hooligans a cover to loot.

[Suttree]

[Suttree]

Is it just me or does the gamergate defense seem to consist entirely of one ginormous no true Scotsman fallacy?
 
Also, the Top 22 Most Ridiculous Things Said by 8channers About Anita Sarkeesian’s Appearance on the Colbert Report.
 
It's amazing to see some of the delusions of grandeur and paranoid fantasies these people have. I laughed at the one guy lamenting that they've lost so bad they'll be lucky if they're viewed as "reasonable in history books." Like they're going to be studying #gamergate in 9th grade American History class. 
 
It's also entertaining to watch some of the paranoid doublethink at play - the nefarious anti-#gamgergate forces are both omnipresent (controlling the mainstream media, the New York Times, Colbert, etc.) yet also on the verge of defeat ("this is their last stand!" "this means we've won!!")."

Lastly Newsweek and some numbers crunching:
 

So, is GamerGate really about ethics in journalism? Newsweek asked BrandWatch, a social media analytics company, to dig through the more than 2 million tweets about GamerGate since September 1 discover how often Twitter users tweeted at or about the major players in the debate, and whether those tweets were positive, negative or neutral. BrandWatch sampled 25 percent of tweets—what it considers a reflective amount of data—on the hashtag #GamerGate from Sept. 1 to Oct. 23.

In the following graphic, compare how often GamerGaters tweet at Zoe Quinn, a developer, and Nathan Grayson, a Kotaku games journalist. In August, GamerGaters accused Grayson of giving Quinn’s game Depression Quest favorable reviews because Grayson and Quinn had been in a relationship. The relationship was fact, those ‘favorable reviews’ were fiction. Grayson only wrote about Quinn once, for a story on a failed reality show, and that was before they were in a relationship, according to Stephen Totilo, the editor-in-chief of Kotaku and Grayson’s boss.

Twitter users have tweeted at Quinn using the #GamerGate hashtag 10,400 times since September 1. Grayson has received 732 tweets with the same hashtag during the same period. If GamerGate is about ethics among journalists, why is the female developer receiving 14 times as many outraged tweets as the male journalist?

Totilo has received 1,708 tweets since September 1—more than Grayson but fewer than Leigh Alexander. Alexander got 13,296 tweets, nearly eight times as many as Totilo. And Alexander’s only crime was writing an op-ed critical of so-called gaming culture—GamerGate hasn’t even accused her of any malfeasance.

The discrepancies there seem to suggest GamerGaters cares less about ethics and more about harassing women.

GamerGaters do tweet a lot at the official Kotaku account—more than any individual journalist or editor. That account has been pummeled with 23,500 tweets since September 1. But that number pales in comparison to the tweets received by Brianna Wu, another female game developer who has spoken out against GamerGate, and Anita Sarkeesian, who has been a vocal critic of sexism in gaming. Sarkeesian has been bombarded with 35,188 tweets since September 1, while Wu has gotten 38,952 in the same time period. Combined, these two women have gotten more tweets on the #GamerGate hashtag than all the games journalists Newsweek looked at combined. And, again, neither of them has committed any supposed “ethics” violations. They’re just women who disagree with #GamerGate.

[Nolder]

Do you understand what I mean by gamergate not being tangible in the same way as most other movements are?

Yes and no.

Yes I get you're trying to say it's a purely digital movement whereas some others are real world such as Arab Spring.

No I still don't understand your point, if there is any. I don't know what that has to do with anything.

 

Public Opinion can help a movement succeed or die in a firey death.

This is true. But in this case the only actual opinion that matters in the consumer opinion.

It's not going to matter what non gamers think. Not really. It may cause some hills and valley's in sales/views/etc but when the public storm blows over what matters is what real customers think and what they do. If for example 70% of Kotaku's readership ultimately joins Gamergate and boycotts Kotaku it's not going to matter that soandso newspaper or soandso magazine wrote a scathing article about the movement because by and large their readership does not overlap with Kotaku's.

 

What I'm saying is I think the public opinion matters less in this case than most.

 

Sure. But not everyone goes to twitter, The world doesn't get all of its news from twitter. Want people to better understand gamergate 'goals'? Have those influential gamergate peeps, start up a website, to discuss gamergate. Be the shining beacon of the movement. A gathering ground of like-minded people. Twitter is not a good place to start.

I disagree entirely.

I think Twitter is a fantastic place to start...it's just a terrible place to stay.

 

Btw there are several Gamergate related websites that have been made.

Here are two I know of off the top of my head.

Gamergatefacts in particular is perfectly on point and a great resource.

 

http://gamergate.me/

http://gamergatefacts.com/

 

 

Spend some time in the hashtag and ask about what people want, what they think, etc.

I get enough of people shouting back and forth at each other at DM, i'm not going to sink into the depths of twitter for that special kind of edjumacation.

 

Yeah that's the thing though, you're getting your info secondhand from sources that have agendas. I've been very surprised at how level headed the people participating have been this entire time sans 4chan involvement early on and really would not characterize the Gamergate hashtag as "people shouting back and forth". But even if that's true, that's not the only avenue of Gamergate discussion anymore. If you have a reddit account go check out /r/Kotakuinaction or if that's not your thing head over to 8chan.co/gg/. There's a reason this is only growing and growing. Seriously, make a real effort to engage and I think you will be very surprised at the type of people you meet.

 

 

If you're a substitute teacher and you walk into a class and one kid keeps throwing papers at other kids...do you send the entire class to the principals office?

Been awhile since you've been to school? Because in reality, the most common answer is if the teacher doesn't know who did it, everyone gets in trouble...

/bad example.

 

Maybe it's been longer since you were in school than I was?

Substitute teachers aren't generally allowed to punish kids at all, let alone an entire class.

It's left to the regular teacher. Which ok still might make my example bad but uhh not only are you wrong anyway but you know what I meant so wtf?

 

Take Ferguson as an example.

I really can't, I know next to nothing on the subject.

All I know is some guy got shot and now there's riots.

 

I didn't say gamergate & Anon were the same thing.

I was saying they are following the same model. The model being how it is organized. Decentralized. Pure anarchy.

You seem to be linking them.

That's how it seemed to me.

If all you're trying to say is that it's a leaderless movement...that's nothing new and not unique to Anonymous or Gamergate.

 

but for change to happen, you need the public.

I think maybe we'll need to agree to disagree there.

 

Trolls will troll, whether they get attention or not.

Maybe. But feeding them obviously only exacerbates the problem.

Why do you think trolls love Anita Sarkeesian? She puts them in the limelight almost every day.

[Nolder]

 

Is it just me or does the gamergate defense seem to consist entirely of one ginormous no true Scotsman fallacy?

Yes. I've been telling people all along to stop with the "but they're not real Gamergater's" line and push the fact that even if all the negative crap that's going down is directly caused by Gamergater's (it's not), the majority who aren't harassing far outnumber those that are.

[Barmacral]

 

 

Is it just me or does the gamergate defense seem to consist entirely of one ginormous no true Scotsman fallacy?

Yes. I've been telling people all along to stop with the "but they're not real Gamergater's" line and push the fact that even if all the negative crap that's going down is directly caused by Gamergater's (it's not), the majority who aren't harassing far outnumber those that are.

 

 

But it is. You have literally nothing to go on for whether they are gamergaters except your word against theirs. Your leaderless movement has exactly zero ability to definitively state that they aren't members of gamergate. Until you get some kind of leadership, have a manifesto people can sign or membership list or something to determine who is or isn't a part of Gamergate, the trolls are as much a part of it as you are.

[Nolder]

 

 

Is it just me or does the gamergate defense seem to consist entirely of one ginormous no true Scotsman fallacy?

Yes. I've been telling people all along to stop with the "but they're not real Gamergater's" line and push the fact that even if all the negative crap that's going down is directly caused by Gamergater's (it's not), the majority who aren't harassing far outnumber those that are.

 

 

But it is. You have literally nothing to go on for whether they are gamergaters except your word against theirs. Your leaderless movement has exactly zero ability to definitively state that they aren't members of gamergate. Until you get some kind of leadership, have a manifesto people can sign or membership list or something to determine who is or isn't a part of Gamergate, the trolls are as much a part of it as you are.

You're still wrong and frankly I think I'm in a much better position to judge that than you are, biased though I may be. I've participated in this from the beginning and continue to do so. From 4chan to twitter to 8chan and reddit and all around. I spend time on the Gamergate hashtag daily. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'd be willing to bet you haven't read more than two articles about this issue let alone talked to someone who supports Gamergate outside of me.

 

You can keep repeating the mantra of "guilty until leadership/organization/etc" but it doesn't mean anything to me.

I'm not going to accept the guilt that rightfully belongs with individual trolls and I'm not going to advocate changing how Gamergate works when it's winning.

When you're ready to talk about ethics I'll be here. Everything else is just a deflection from the real issues at hand.

[Barmacral]

You are correct, we have nothing more to talk about, you just said again you're not willing to take responsibility for your movement. When you are, and when your harassment of women stops, then please start posting more about ethics in gaming journalism. Until then everything you post is the real deflections to the real issues at hand.

[Nolder]

You are correct, we have nothing more to talk about, you just said again you're not willing to take responsibility for your movement. When you are, and when your harassment of women stops, then please start posting more about ethics in gaming journalism. Until then everything you post is the real deflections to the real issues at hand.

Wow really? Did you seriously just say that?

[Nolder]

I don't even know what to say to that.

You are holding me personally responsible for other people's actions.

Hell the law doesn't even do that. If you're with someone who commits a crime you're only an accessory if you didn't participate directly but here I am being declared guilty for things people I associate with may or may not even be doing. I'm convinced it's 99.9% third party trolls and maybe 0.1% idiots that genuinely think they're helping by being assholes all of which make up a tiny fraction of the activity in Gamergate. But nope, it's easier to just dismiss everything we say and call thousands of people harassers. Like, lol you're saying Christina Sommers is a harasser of women. TotalBiscuit is a harasser of women. Boogie2988 is a harasser of women. The ridiculousness of what you just said can not be understated. 

[Suttree]

The stats from the Newsweek article are rather telling.

[SinisterDeath]

How much involvement does the MRM have in Gamergate?

[Barid Bel Medar]

I don't even know what to say to that.

You are holding me personally responsible for other people's actions.

 

I don't think Barm was holding you personally responsible. 

 

He is pointing out that the movement is will be held responsible for what people do in its name. Whether you think it's right or not, that's what happens. I am sure some of the media is actively against the movement, but not all media sources which criticize the movement are doing so out of some conspiracy or because they are against the movement, and they will keep criticizing until the 'movement' takes control of its affiliates.

 

You can say its not right and you refuse to accept it, but it won't change anything. The comments are directed at making the movement more effective at attacking the issue of ethics. When something is a 'deflection' from the real issue, a serious movement doesn't just say 'your just deflecting' and refuse to budge. It takes away the cause for 'deflection' and says "you have no excuse now. let's talk." 

 

You provide examples, and that's a good start, but it isn't working. Which is why people are suggesting the need for a stronger and more tangible leadership/presence. 

 

You can argue that it isn't fair, just or right. Unfortunately, the way the world works isn't fair, just or right. A movement has to be smart and work within the limits of society's structure. The problem here is: how serious is the movement? What does it want, to be stubborn or effective? 

 

That's where criticism is opened up. People start to wonder just how serious this 'movement' really is, if it is unwilling to tackle the unpleasant issues that - if dealt with - would gain the movement far more traction. It doesn't matter that you or others think you 'shouldn't have to deal with it. It begs the question, "why doesn't GG want to clear its name? Surely a movement that is so against sexism would do everything it could to clear its name.' The fact is, right or wrong, just or unjust, it is an issue that needs to be addressed. Wouldn't you rather that GG finally ended the issue once and for all, which would make it far easier to gain results, instead of refusing, and inviting more critics. 

 

You have provided some good examples that the movement is being slowly structured and moving away from the twitter platform, which is a plus. You can also say that it is 'working' - although the companies don't care about the issue, they are removing themselves from a volatile situation, they don't believe they are doing the right thing, and if GG were to fade away, they would resume their previous advertisements as before without hesitation. 

 

However, admittedly, it is a good start. It just could be far more effective and solve any issue of sexism - real or fabricated. 

 

Until the movement takes a firm and clear stand, it will be criticised and hindered. 

[Nolder]

How much involvement does the MRM have in Gamergate?

Hard to say really.

I mean how far do you got to categorize someone like that?

Do you say how many Republicans are involved in the NFL?

No, you'd say how many football enthusiasts. Just because MRA's are involved doesn't mean their involvement has anything to do with them being MRA.

A lot of people like video games.

 

That said, I know some are involved but I think most of the major players are staying out of it beyond giving friendly shoutouts and whatnot.

[Nolder]

 

I don't even know what to say to that.

You are holding me personally responsible for other people's actions.

I don't think Barm was holding you personally responsible.

 

Read his post again. Actually, no need. I'll go over it with you.

 

We, as in Barm and I (Nolder) have nothing more to talk about because I (Nolder) am not willing to take responsibility for the movement (Gamergate). When you (Nolder) are, and when your (Nolder) harassment of women stops, then please start posting more about ethics. Until then everything you (Nolder)post is the real deflections.

 

I don't think there's any other way to read this. The entire post was spent talking about me but I'm supposed to assume that in this one instance the "your" was referring to Gamergate and NOT me? When the first "you" in the sentence is clearly referring to me?

 

Maybe Barm can tell us what he meant (or backpedal) but for my part I think it looks pretty clear and I'm disgusted by the accusation.

I may not like people like Anita Sarkeesian, Max Read, etc but I've reported doxxing and harassment accounts almost daily this month.

The way to beat these people is to do what they wont and treat them with the dignity and respect that all people deserve. 

So to label me as a harasser when I'm doing the exact opposite for people who wouldn't give a shit if their followers did for real what I'm being accused of is just outrageous.

 

I mean you want to talk about harassers why not talk about the former Gawker employee being A OK with buying the doxx of prominent Gamergaters or how about Mat Lees calling Christina Sommers scum hours after her husband passed away? Why not talk about Sam Biddle wanting to shame nerds and bring back bullying? Why not talk about the knife that was sent to Kingofpol (after he was doxxed twice), the syringe sent to Milo, or the SWATing of Mike Cernovich? Let's talk about Brianna Wu trying to false flag attack herself on 8chan and twitter. Let's talk about Zoe Quinn taking Eron to court just to shut him up when all he did was post about his own personal relationship with her. Is anyone going to talk about the fact that Gamergater SailHatan caught a repeat harasser of Anita Sarkeesian and has tried to contact her multiple times to report the man to the FBI because apparently only she can do it but Anita wont respond or acknowledge? Are we going to talk about this MotherJones editors going on a tirade about killing white men and then following it up with shaming language directed at Gamergate? I can go on but what would be the point. Anti Gamergaters have nothing to stand on let alone the god damn moral high ground.

 

I'm fine with not talking about all that.

It's kind of ridiculous, but fine.

I can agree bad things are happening on all sides.

Why can't the other side agree on the same thing and come to the table to talk about the ethics?

That is not an unreasonable request, but the refuse every time.

They'd rather fling insults and accusations and ad hominems than engage in a rational discussion because they have nothing to say.

The breach of ethics are indefensible and they know it so the throw a tantrum and blame it on Gamergate.

It's not going to work because the thing is, we don't need the damn table. Keep your table, we'll be busy emailing advertisers.

 

It begs the question, "why doesn't GG want to clear its name?"

You don't need to clear your name for something you're not responsible for.

[Barid Bel Medar]

 

 

 

It begs the question, "why doesn't GG want to clear its name?"

You don't need to clear your name for something you're not responsible for.

 

 

That is actually the very definition of clearing your name. Clearing it of something you are accused of but not responsible for. Let's not get this mixed up with law. The media and social perception are not governed by the legal system. "Innocent until proven guilty' doesn't cut it in terms of perception and moral culpability within a movement such as this.

 

 You say you are disgusted by the accusations, but unwilling to say "alright, let's end this once and for all, let's clear GG stigma." Instead you are saying "we shouldn't need to." Unfortunately in the circus that is the media (which I do not like, and I also would like better ethics in ALL types of journalism) it IS necessary if you want to gain traction. As I mentioned, the 'successes' are not because they agree with your moral compass, it is pure business. Once GG fades, even if you shut down the sites you mentioned, it will only start again with new sites and nothing will have changed. I assume that the movement wants real and lasting change. To get that, you need to get people to agree with you and the community as a whole work towards change.  

 

So you then have two choices. 1) Clear your name. 2) Stick to what you have been saying. 

 

Both are fine. But you have to be prepared and know that you will get slammed for doing the latter. Complaining about it you then start sounding like your playing the 'victimization card'. (Which I am not, by the way, saying you are.) 

 

The thing is, your asking why aren't people talking about all these other issues. That is a problem with GG. These stories are not being effectively conveyed, yet another reason for the movement to become a tangible entity. Unless you are actually spending hours on the hashtag, you don't know. That is not effective, and of course people aren't going to talk about it, because it is being lost in the jumble of hundreds, perhaps thousands of GG tweets an hour. Unless you keep a constant watch on it, you can't get this information. Then you bring trolls into the mix and a person who is not intimately affiliated with the movement sees nothing but a mass of conflicting information. 

 

Of course, if you are fine with the wider community criticising and doubting the movement, that's fine. If you are happy with the progress as it is, fine. I wish you all the best in fighting for better ethical codes. But I can't support it as it is, along with a great many people who could be allies. And if you don't want/need more allies, that's fine, but I think the cause should strive to convince people that they are right and get as many on board as possible. 

 

My posts are not aimed at trashing GG. I am not intimate with the gaming scene, but I support anti-corruption, so I wish the main purpose of the movement goes well, and pointing out why and how GG has got a bad name and some possibilities to focus it into a real, solid movement without enabling the trolls and crazies to use GG's name to attack and harass people. 

[Barmacral]

I meant you as in your movement, not you personally. Sorry for any confusion.

[Nolder]

I meant you as in your movement, not you personally. Sorry for any confusion.

I'm not going to lie, I don't believe you.

I'll let it drop though.

[Barmacral]

Please do, I don't appreciate being called a liar.

[WWWwombat]

An article on Wu in today's Globe: http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/style/2014/10/29/threatening-video-gaming-industry-movement-grows-arlington-game-developer-forced-flee-her-home/BRHwDSGjMsSnHquH9jYQIJ/story.html?hootPostID=eb62bc0dce61f16449439972c99189fe

 

Oo didn't realize they were that close to me.

[Suttree]

I meant you as in your movement, not you personally. Sorry for any confusion.

That's exactly how I read it, as did Barid.

[Leelou]

 

An article on Wu in today's Globe: http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/style/2014/10/29/threatening-video-gaming-industry-movement-grows-arlington-game-developer-forced-flee-her-home/BRHwDSGjMsSnHquH9jYQIJ/story.html?hootPostID=eb62bc0dce61f16449439972c99189fe

 

Oo didn't realize they were that close to me.

 

 

Down the street, apparently. 

[WWWwombat]

Not anymore -_-

[Nolder]

http://imgur.com/a/2dEot

[Suttree]

"Meanwhile: Gamergaters, not just misogynistic but anti-semitic too."