Not to double post, But I think my favorite, aka worst, post was how zoey deserved it because she cheated. When it was pointed out that they were on a relationship break, the poster replied, "she wanted the break, not him, he didnt accept the break"
Now I've been single for about a year (ladies ;-) ), But have the rules changed that much? If the guy doesnt agree it doesnt "count"? Man that opens up a whole host of opportunities now! Can I ask a girl out and if she says no I can say, i dont accept that, I'll be at your house at 6.
Every single argument is the same at this point. It's all "My side didn't do the bad thing, YOUR SIDE DID THE BAD THING!"
"Eron abused Zoe!" "No! Zoe abused Eron! Get your facts straight!" "Anita/Zoe/Brianna are making money off of SJWs!" "Gamergate Supporters are scamming the crowd too!" "No they are not!"
It is down to straight belief at this point with the delusions. I've also noticed this trend where many Pro-GGers were people who were trolled and abused so to say...but they want to join another group that promotes trolling and abusing people. They want to continue the idea that "Everyone is trolled and bullied on the internet, It's a natural part of life, Deal with it," rather than actually help people.
As Chris Kluwe put it, GamerGate has no code or standards or figurehead to attach it's ideals to, so it has no universally agreed code. Like a pit of snakes. That's why I see so many people give thoughts on "Zoe Quinn doesn't matter anymore to GG" and "Why is anyone interviewing Vox Day and not Sargon of Akkad?"
This article bothers me, it doesn't seek to explain the order of events but to paint gjoni or w/e his name is as a bad guy. Which idk don't know much about it. And then there's quotes like "Niina Huntemann, an associate professor of communication and journalism at Suffolk University and the co-organizer of Women in Games Boston, says harassment has become so ingrained in gaming culture that there is a script gamers follow when talking to colleagues online: “You say you’re going to murder the men, and sexually violate and then murder the women."
Not sure I've ever met a gamer like that personally despite being a heavy mmo player since the luclin expansion in everquest.
Just finished the article in its entirety. I feel I have gained new understanding of Zoe Quinn and situation between her and the ex-bf I think it leaves out some of the aftermath that didn't directly involve Quinn. Back when these events began to occur I read comment messages stating that people had been banned for attempting to discuss, mention or inquire about the dramatic happenings. The order of events to my understanding is that.
Gjoni made his post(s). People reacted some with instant attacks some questioning various video game sites for more information. People were banned supposedly for speaking of the event. Within a couple of days "gamers are dead" opinion pieces popped up like crazy. People who had no idea about the first bit are offended by said blogs and look for more information that can only be attained from irregular sources due to mainstream gaming press clamping down on it. This probably lead to more misinformed people and more attacks. Somewhere trolls or misogynists broadened the scope of attacks.
I'm not really sure what can be done to fix anything. I doubt there's something that could be said now that would defuse either the ggers or the anti-ggers. If anyone has a factual list of events if such a thing exists I would be interested in reading it. I started off misinformed and glad I have enlightened myself somewhat but I still feel like I have an incomplete grasp on things.. Please let me know if I read anything wrongly. Also that quote I pulled out of there bugs me, from what I hear about espn2 and the heroes of the storm event it seems that gamer is still something discriminated against.
I'm not really sure what can be done to fix anything. I doubt there's something that could be said now that would defuse either the ggers or the anti-ggers.
I think you mean "ggers" and everyone else in society.
Does it bother you because you feel that you relate with a group of people who constantly harass women online?
Yes, I feel mislead. I did think that it was about ethical concerns with gaming press at first. But the amount of shit that's attached to it now and probably has been since the beginning makes me glad that I try to take my time before I talk about my thoughts. Though I do take slight offense that you think I currently relate to them.
I'm not really sure what can be done to fix anything. I doubt there's something that could be said now that would defuse either the ggers or the anti-ggers.
I think you mean "ggers" and everyone else in society.
True. But it seems like "GGers" will continue because any form of harassment only reinforces their world view.
I'm been trying to think of what lead to what and how things could be handled differently so that a movement like this never again reaches critical mass like this seems to have.
Yes, I feel mislead. I did think that it was about ethical concerns with gaming press at first. But the amount of shit that's attached to it now and probably has been since the beginning makes me glad that I try to take my time before I talk about my thoughts. Though I do take slight offense that you think I currently relate to them.
I'm glad you are beginning to recognize just how horrible and insular the group-think is with gamergate. If you feel offended, I'm sorry. It was meant to be a bit snarky :P
Some of the ickiness surrounding GG is that the manner in which GG has been tarred (often, probably even mostly deservedly) is very similar to the manner in which say, peaceful demonstrators are tarred. Look at Baltimore and how the press is all about the small number of people rioting while ten thousand plus peacefully demonstrating on the next street over are virtually ignored. Look at all the fake tweets all over the place using photos from Google Image Search to construct fake brag tweets about looting and destruction.
And then there's "Baltimore Mom", a story which at its heart as far as the mainstream media is concerned seems to be mostly an opportunity to infantilize the rioters and the reasons for their anger with a very thin veneer of praise.
A lot of the anti-GG stuff feels like that, even if only in tone, and it's troubling.
This doesn't validate GG, which I truly believe is probably 98% angry white male teenagers with an axe to grind, but it's an interesting juxtaposition.
True. But it seems like "GGers" will continue because any form of harassment only reinforces their world view.
GGers are just a radical sub-sect of people just like the Westboro Babtist Church, the Ku Klux Klan or ISIS. All poking will reinforce their misplaced extreme world views.
I'm been trying to think of what lead to what and how things could be handled differently so that a movement like this never again reaches critical mass like this seems to have.
It's not possible which is why extremist groups tend to keep cropping up (unless the breadth and level of education and common sense required to survive in the world is much higher than our current situation).
Some of the ickiness surrounding GG is that the manner in which GG has been tarred (often, probably even mostly deservedly) is very similar to the manner in which say, peaceful demonstrators are tarred. Look at Baltimore and how the press is all about the small number of people rioting while ten thousand plus peacefully demonstrating on the next street over are virtually ignored. Look at all the fake tweets all over the place using photos from Google Image Search to construct fake brag tweets about looting and destruction.
And then there's "Baltimore Mom", a story which at its heart as far as the mainstream media is concerned seems to be mostly an opportunity to infantilize the rioters and the reasons for their anger with a very thin veneer of praise.
A lot of the anti-GG stuff feels like that, even if only in tone, and it's troubling.
This doesn't validate GG, which I truly believe is probably 98% angry white male teenagers with an axe to grind, but it's an interesting juxtaposition.
I understand the desire for consistency. That somehow if something is good in one case, then it is good in other comparable cases. And if something is bad in one case, it is bad in other cases. It seems hypocritical to approve of something when one group does it, but disapprove when someone else does seemingly the exact same thing. This contradiction can definitely feel very wrong to a nerdily minded person who recognizes it. But I don't see it that way.
You are dead on about the story of Baltimore mom. It's bad. But if they used the exact same tactics to write the same kind of story that was anti-police instead, it would be perfectly OK in my book. The best way to fight someone's bad free speech is with good free speech. It's a battle. Shots fired from our side to their side are good. Shots fired from their side to our side are bad. That's all the consistency that is necessary.
What's important is to just keep fighting so that the good guys win. If we hold back our attack because we feel that the method of combat itself is objectionable, then that is the same as surrendering and letting the bad guys win.
Gjoni made his post(s). People reacted some with instant attacks some questioning various video game sites for more information. People were banned supposedly for speaking of the event. Within a couple of days "gamers are dead" opinion pieces popped up like crazy. People who had no idea about the first bit are offended by said blogs and look for more information that can only be attained from irregular sources due to mainstream gaming press clamping down on it. This probably lead to more misinformed people and more attacks. Somewhere trolls or misogynists broadened the scope of attacks.
I don't think is is accurate at all, quite frankly.
After Gjoni made his posts, the most immediate output was harassment of Quinn. I was on Twitter the day this all started, I saw it go down. Everything was on Twitter and Reddit. A thread about Zoe Quinn sleeping with game devs to get reviews/posts about that were deleted because that information was false, and has never been proven to this day. That is what the legal world calls "libel."
No one wrote an article called "Gamers are dead." I realize it's shorthand, but it's misleading shorthand. Leigh Alexander wrote "Gamers Are Over," which was about how developers shouldn't develop around a demographic, and that games are a medium that belong to every human alive and shouldn't become limited by what a small percentage of humanity perceive as good. Other people started writing similar articles as response articles, but almost all of them raised it as a question poised to the readers, with many taking different stances. A very angry group of people started saying "You said gamers are dead!" and then also admitted to not reading Alexander's article and learning what it was about. Tons of popular game critics make media about "Gamers are important and we matter, don't blame us for the actions of awful people!" which was conflating the point of Alexander's article entirely, but people latched onto that media as the narrative rather than the one that was actually trying to be created.
And quite frankly, there has been since before this was called GamerGate lots of places compiling actually decent and reputable sourced information keeping track of what actually happened. What happened is not that people could only go to bad sources, they chose to because they had it in their minds that mainstream media was "corrupted." Mainstream media didn't clamp down on GG discussion, they *literally* ignored it entirely for months. That's not really better, but it is a difference that is notable.
I appreciate that you're trying to get some understanding for what happened, but you can't whitewash what actually occurred. Gjoni spread horrible misinformation intentionally through his post, and admits as such (The claims that he made the article sound more dramatic to get 4chan interested). This misinformation is what websites wouldn't talk about, which is absolutely an acceptable response, since it was false unsourced information based on lies. People wanted to believe it, however, so they banded behind sources that agreed with that narrative.
The problem here is not that mainstream media "banned people." It's that mainstream media refused to take a side, and allowed a bunch of people to fall under the sway of jerks claiming some nonsense about Zoe Quinn and soon after, many other females involved in the game industry.
This was a bit rambly, I just...Your timeline missed a lot of crucial information.
Thank you Axel. Your post cleared up some things for me. Until a couple of months ago I had never really looked at twitter so that part of events was entirely lost on me.
As far as Leigh I read an article before getting to her that explicitly stated "gamers are dead" and was not in a charitable mood once i got there.
I said ireggular sources because I had no idea of their veracity or how much they were used prior to events. I started learning about this event post Leigh's post and pre- Jeff gerstmann's response. I was never sure of what source I could entirely trust at the time.
The banning I'm not entirely sure what happened there but I figure it could only compound problems especially with the delayed response by media outlets to even state something to the extent of we are investigating it. That is from my perspective and its entirely possible I missed something involving the main stream outlets.
The weird thing to me is how GamerGaters responded to the Boston Magazine article. They have for a long time attempted to declare that the Zoe Quinn doesn't matter to their movement, branding her "Literally Who" (which is all sorts of fucked up to begin with). However, instead of attempting to declare that this article doesn't matter, instead they're attempting to legitimize Gjoni's side of the story and paint Quinn as a liar and a horrible person.
Maybe that is even true. Maybe the Zoepost is 100% the truth. But what does that make GamerGate? A mob with torches and pitchforks making the life of one shitty person hell because another shitty person demands it? Is that what their consumer revolt is about?
Of course GamerGate can hardly outrun its legacy, considering the name of their movement is based on a hashtag from a tweet about the whole Zoepost fiasco. The thing is that GamerGate isn't really "a consumer revolution against corruption in games journalism". If that were the case they would rally against big publishers flying out journalists for events, publishers giving out review copies only to people who sign a document stipulating how the game can be reviewed or showcased, and publishers shunning outlets because of bad reviews attempting to directly influence those reviews.
Instead their narrative is about evil women devs and developers changing content because of negative audience response. GamerGate doesn't champion free speech. It champions being an asshole without consequences.
What's important is to just keep fighting so that the good guys win. If we hold back our attack because we feel that the method of combat itself is objectionable, then that is the same as surrendering and letting the bad guys win.
I... sort of agree. This makes me edgy because:
1. I think it's bordering on amoral at best. 2. I think the potential to paint yourself into a corner and hand your ideological opposition a fast and easy way to debunk you can come back and bite you hard
But I do agree that playing "nice" and making every argument rigorous is a slower process that doesn't gain ground quickly enough against people who aren't constrained at all and will just say any bullshit to win others over (and sadly, it works.)
This article bothers me, it doesn't seek to explain the order of events but to paint gjoni or w/e his name is as a bad guy...
Is there any order of events where he isn't an objectively bad guy?
"Gamergate" exists solely because of these events, and he is literally just a psychotic ex trying to get revenge. There is no order of events that makes this story different. There is no order of events that makes this issue about games in any way whatsoever. It was never about games.
Within a couple of days "gamers are dead" opinion pieces popped up like crazy.
What is it with you people and your fixation on the "gamers are dead" stories? Are you honestly that unaware?
"X is dead" is basically a standard headline. In art crit, in finance, in technology: the form "X is dead" as an opening of a discussion is super common everywhere. It amazes me to no end that GGs take actual umbrage with this. It's like they've never read and art criticism or newspapers or essays.
People who had no idea about the first bit are offended by said blogs and look for more information that can only be attained from irregular sources due to mainstream gaming press clamping down on it.
I'm going to stop you right there. What you just said? That's crazy. Actually crazy. Paranoid. Delusional.
You really, honestly believe that the "mainstream" media "clamped down" on this "information?" That's both conspiratorial thinking and a line straight out of the US Tea Party playbook all rolled into one mess of nutjob.
I'm not really sure what can be done to fix anything. I doubt there's something that could be said now that would defuse either the ggers or the anti-ggers.
There is no such thing as "anti-GG." Framing it like that is saying that being a civil human being is somehow a "movement."
If anyone has a factual list of events if such a thing exists I would be interested in reading it.
You just read one. That is literally the beginning and drive of the whole movement. That's literally the specific thing that started it. There's nothing before that. That's it.
That anti-Zoe nutbag start became a specific campaign pretty much exactly as described on wikipedia. There was never any ambiguity. There was never any doubt about what it was. There's no mystery to anyone who isn't either part of that movement or party to ridiculous conspiratorial thinking.
They have literally been coming up with these conspiracies for months. They also think her boyfriend is a secret Jewish trust fund billionaire. Really.
While I don't doubt that GG is full of loons, I also think it's REALLY easy to go online and say "Hey I'm a member of this ideology and by the way here's my used tampon and toenail clippings collection that I've pulled out of the dumpster behind my apartment block!"
While I don't doubt that GG is full of loons, I also think it's REALLY easy to go online and say "Hey I'm a member of this ideology and by the way here's my used tampon and toenail clippings collection that I've pulled out of the dumpster behind my apartment block!"
It's an old, old, old, OLD tactic.
Yeah... No one is "false flagging" the gamergate movement. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that isn't happening.
It is an old tactic, but engaging with most of the honest and legitimate GG members has shown that they have this level of paranoia and conspiracy. While I wouldn't say the false flagging doesn't exist, I would say it is nowhere near the majority of the crazy people.
The problem with the constant suggestion that there are false-flaggers is that most of the people who have a reason to slander GG just want it to end, and this tactic doesn't actually accomplish that. Many GG members often claim that the 4chan/8chan contingents of their movement are not representative of them, but the *channer mentality is a huge part of GG's actions since the beginning (Anonymous "operations," MS-paint edited conspiracy images, crowdfunding to support "leaders," etc.).
Comments
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2015/04/28/gamergate/
Now I've been single for about a year (ladies ;-) ), But have the rules changed that much? If the guy doesnt agree it doesnt "count"? Man that opens up a whole host of opportunities now! Can I ask a girl out and if she says no I can say, i dont accept that, I'll be at your house at 6.
"But you don't know where I live..."
"Don't I?"
"Eron abused Zoe!"
"No! Zoe abused Eron! Get your facts straight!"
"Anita/Zoe/Brianna are making money off of SJWs!"
"Gamergate Supporters are scamming the crowd too!"
"No they are not!"
It is down to straight belief at this point with the delusions. I've also noticed this trend where many Pro-GGers were people who were trolled and abused so to say...but they want to join another group that promotes trolling and abusing people. They want to continue the idea that "Everyone is trolled and bullied on the internet, It's a natural part of life, Deal with it," rather than actually help people.
As Chris Kluwe put it, GamerGate has no code or standards or figurehead to attach it's ideals to, so it has no universally agreed code. Like a pit of snakes. That's why I see so many people give thoughts on "Zoe Quinn doesn't matter anymore to GG" and "Why is anyone interviewing Vox Day and not Sargon of Akkad?"
Not sure I've ever met a gamer like that personally despite being a heavy mmo player since the luclin expansion in everquest.
Just finished the article in its entirety. I feel I have gained new understanding of Zoe Quinn and situation between her and the ex-bf I think it leaves out some of the aftermath that didn't directly involve Quinn. Back when these events began to occur I read comment messages stating that people had been banned for attempting to discuss, mention or inquire about the dramatic happenings. The order of events to my understanding is that.
Gjoni made his post(s).
People reacted some with instant attacks some questioning various video game sites for more information.
People were banned supposedly for speaking of the event.
Within a couple of days "gamers are dead" opinion pieces popped up like crazy.
People who had no idea about the first bit are offended by said blogs and look for more information that can only be attained from irregular sources due to mainstream gaming press clamping down on it.
This probably lead to more misinformed people and more attacks.
Somewhere trolls or misogynists broadened the scope of attacks.
I'm not really sure what can be done to fix anything. I doubt there's something that could be said now that would defuse either the ggers or the anti-ggers. If anyone has a factual list of events if such a thing exists I would be interested in reading it. I started off misinformed and glad I have enlightened myself somewhat but I still feel like I have an incomplete grasp on things.. Please let me know if I read anything wrongly. Also that quote I pulled out of there bugs me, from what I hear about espn2 and the heroes of the storm event it seems that gamer is still something discriminated against.
I'm been trying to think of what lead to what and how things could be handled differently so that a movement like this never again reaches critical mass like this seems to have.
And then there's "Baltimore Mom", a story which at its heart as far as the mainstream media is concerned seems to be mostly an opportunity to infantilize the rioters and the reasons for their anger with a very thin veneer of praise.
A lot of the anti-GG stuff feels like that, even if only in tone, and it's troubling.
This doesn't validate GG, which I truly believe is probably 98% angry white male teenagers with an axe to grind, but it's an interesting juxtaposition.
You are dead on about the story of Baltimore mom. It's bad. But if they used the exact same tactics to write the same kind of story that was anti-police instead, it would be perfectly OK in my book. The best way to fight someone's bad free speech is with good free speech. It's a battle. Shots fired from our side to their side are good. Shots fired from their side to our side are bad. That's all the consistency that is necessary.
What's important is to just keep fighting so that the good guys win. If we hold back our attack because we feel that the method of combat itself is objectionable, then that is the same as surrendering and letting the bad guys win.
After Gjoni made his posts, the most immediate output was harassment of Quinn. I was on Twitter the day this all started, I saw it go down. Everything was on Twitter and Reddit. A thread about Zoe Quinn sleeping with game devs to get reviews/posts about that were deleted because that information was false, and has never been proven to this day. That is what the legal world calls "libel."
No one wrote an article called "Gamers are dead." I realize it's shorthand, but it's misleading shorthand. Leigh Alexander wrote "Gamers Are Over," which was about how developers shouldn't develop around a demographic, and that games are a medium that belong to every human alive and shouldn't become limited by what a small percentage of humanity perceive as good. Other people started writing similar articles as response articles, but almost all of them raised it as a question poised to the readers, with many taking different stances. A very angry group of people started saying "You said gamers are dead!" and then also admitted to not reading Alexander's article and learning what it was about. Tons of popular game critics make media about "Gamers are important and we matter, don't blame us for the actions of awful people!" which was conflating the point of Alexander's article entirely, but people latched onto that media as the narrative rather than the one that was actually trying to be created.
And quite frankly, there has been since before this was called GamerGate lots of places compiling actually decent and reputable sourced information keeping track of what actually happened. What happened is not that people could only go to bad sources, they chose to because they had it in their minds that mainstream media was "corrupted." Mainstream media didn't clamp down on GG discussion, they *literally* ignored it entirely for months. That's not really better, but it is a difference that is notable.
I appreciate that you're trying to get some understanding for what happened, but you can't whitewash what actually occurred. Gjoni spread horrible misinformation intentionally through his post, and admits as such (The claims that he made the article sound more dramatic to get 4chan interested). This misinformation is what websites wouldn't talk about, which is absolutely an acceptable response, since it was false unsourced information based on lies. People wanted to believe it, however, so they banded behind sources that agreed with that narrative.
The problem here is not that mainstream media "banned people." It's that mainstream media refused to take a side, and allowed a bunch of people to fall under the sway of jerks claiming some nonsense about Zoe Quinn and soon after, many other females involved in the game industry.
This was a bit rambly, I just...Your timeline missed a lot of crucial information.
As far as Leigh I read an article before getting to her that explicitly stated "gamers are dead" and was not in a charitable mood once i got there.
I said ireggular sources because I had no idea of their veracity or how much they were used prior to events. I started learning about this event post Leigh's post and pre- Jeff gerstmann's response. I was never sure of what source I could entirely trust at the time.
The banning I'm not entirely sure what happened there but I figure it could only compound problems especially with the delayed response by media outlets to even state something to the extent of we are investigating it. That is from my perspective and its entirely possible I missed something involving the main stream outlets.
Maybe that is even true. Maybe the Zoepost is 100% the truth. But what does that make GamerGate? A mob with torches and pitchforks making the life of one shitty person hell because another shitty person demands it? Is that what their consumer revolt is about?
Of course GamerGate can hardly outrun its legacy, considering the name of their movement is based on a hashtag from a tweet about the whole Zoepost fiasco. The thing is that GamerGate isn't really "a consumer revolution against corruption in games journalism". If that were the case they would rally against big publishers flying out journalists for events, publishers giving out review copies only to people who sign a document stipulating how the game can be reviewed or showcased, and publishers shunning outlets because of bad reviews attempting to directly influence those reviews.
Instead their narrative is about evil women devs and developers changing content because of negative audience response. GamerGate doesn't champion free speech. It champions being an asshole without consequences.
1. I think it's bordering on amoral at best.
2. I think the potential to paint yourself into a corner and hand your ideological opposition a fast and easy way to debunk you can come back and bite you hard
But I do agree that playing "nice" and making every argument rigorous is a slower process that doesn't gain ground quickly enough against people who aren't constrained at all and will just say any bullshit to win others over (and sadly, it works.)
"Gamergate" exists solely because of these events, and he is literally just a psychotic ex trying to get revenge. There is no order of events that makes this story different. There is no order of events that makes this issue about games in any way whatsoever. It was never about games.
What is it with you people and your fixation on the "gamers are dead" stories? Are you honestly that unaware?
"X is dead" is basically a standard headline. In art crit, in finance, in technology: the form "X is dead" as an opening of a discussion is super common everywhere. It amazes me to no end that GGs take actual umbrage with this. It's like they've never read and art criticism or newspapers or essays.
I'm going to stop you right there. What you just said? That's crazy. Actually crazy. Paranoid. Delusional.
You really, honestly believe that the "mainstream" media "clamped down" on this "information?" That's both conspiratorial thinking and a line straight out of the US Tea Party playbook all rolled into one mess of nutjob.
There is no such thing as "anti-GG." Framing it like that is saying that being a civil human being is somehow a "movement."
You just read one. That is literally the beginning and drive of the whole movement. That's literally the specific thing that started it. There's nothing before that. That's it.
You want the FULL history?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy
That anti-Zoe nutbag start became a specific campaign pretty much exactly as described on wikipedia. There was never any ambiguity. There was never any doubt about what it was. There's no mystery to anyone who isn't either part of that movement or party to ridiculous conspiratorial thinking.
The core of people who identify with this "movement" are not just toxic, but dangerously obsessive.
It's an old, old, old, OLD tactic.
The problem with the constant suggestion that there are false-flaggers is that most of the people who have a reason to slander GG just want it to end, and this tactic doesn't actually accomplish that. Many GG members often claim that the 4chan/8chan contingents of their movement are not representative of them, but the *channer mentality is a huge part of GG's actions since the beginning (Anonymous "operations," MS-paint edited conspiracy images, crowdfunding to support "leaders," etc.).