The Gamergate: Girls have cooties and they are infecting Mega Man!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Gamergate: Girls have cooties and they are infecting Mega Man!

«‹›297 »

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

ThreeFingerHoek posted:

and a black developer getting shat on for the phrase "mechanical apartheid", and the row over medieval Bohemia not having the POC demographics of modern USA,

Do you get that being black really doesn't mean you're free from any criticism, and that the Witcher 3 is actually pretty cool about race stuff since it has dwarves and elves and a subplot about how they're oppressed?

Anyway, it sounds like mostly what you do is laugh at stuff. You're not under the impression you're, like, doing anything or having any effect on anything, right? This is just for the lulz?

# ? Jul 10, 2015 12:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 28, 2024 03:45

Tokamak: Dec 22, 2004

The Snark posted:

I think it would be fantastic if Milo's ethics violations were brought up in the debate. Sure would be nice if someone from the AGG side of things were there to do so!

Who would? The gamergate side is made up of pundits who want to sell a broader message, the only anti-gamergate pundit I can think of is Arthur Chu. The only other prominent figures are people whom gamergate have an obsessive fixation with; they have no invested interest in journalism ethics. Someone like Chu doesn't have a broader message to sell outside of his articles. He has nothing to gain by attending a panel, in fact it's a waste of time and money for people like him (and people like Brad Wardell). There is a good reason why there isn't a anti-gamergate panel, they don't actually exist.

# ? Jul 10, 2015 13:01

wiregrind: Jun 26, 2013

The solution to all this is to have more games with non-human, genderless characters, so that players and critics can finally talk about the gameplay, and let the medium evolve as an interactive art form devoid of preconceptions, exploring the possibilities beyond text or movie-like narrative. Something like Journey, or ... Pikmin (?)

# ? Jul 10, 2015 13:02

a bay: Oct 14, 2014; by Lowtax

Zoe Quinn: is she attractive sexually? I think she looks hot and I want to give her game a good rating but I would be interested to hear some poits from the other side.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Jul 10, 2015 13:07

Tokamak: Dec 22, 2004

a bay posted:

Zoe Quinn: is she attractive sexually? I think she looks hot and I want to give her game a good rating but I would be interested to hear some poits from the other side.

she is an abusive rapist, is slipping her octo-pussy tendrils into the gaming press, and besmirching the upstanding ethics in videogames journalism :tinfoil:

# ? Jul 10, 2015 13:15

BravestOfTheLamps: Oct 12, 2012; by FactsAreUseless; Lipstick Apathy

The Snark posted:

Well, if it's not harassing women off of the internet... I don't know. I'm not actually a GamerGator, I'm not active in any campaign of theirs. But it apparently isn't harassing women off of the internet. For someone accusing another of evasion, you seem to be glossing over that detail in favor of a curious demand to know the present activities of everyone who used a hashtag.

Well, I was tempted to leave it as SPJ thing, but thought the usual bitter whinging about how it was actually not an SPJ thing was getting old. As if even if you could say it wasn't SPJ connected in any way, that clearly meant it was entirely run by the evil Gators.

I have been actually giving them the benefit of the doubt, and judging them mainly by their ideology (the same goes for AGGers).

But let's look at what they actually do:

ThreeFingerHoek posted:

I primarily have a sensible chuckle at gaming articles and gaming forum posts and twitter meltdowns, and Randi Harper dying her dog and doxxing her legitimate debtors,

and a black developer getting shat on for the phrase "mechanical apartheid", and the row over medieval Bohemia not having the POC demographics of modern USA, and the aGG backlash against Wu after she dared have coffee with thought criminal Wardell,

and the Sunset devs going under, and other artgame indie devs screaming murder over the 2 hour Steam refunds because what about their 30 second vignette pieces, and this breathing punchline of a person

_______________ /

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7q-yZQL3qI

and the Women's History Month Keynote Address: Gender Equity in the Age of #Gamergate being presented by 3 trantys and a Bay Area human being:

In short, obsess over those people. Those people are so dumb. Those peple are so dumb in a funny way. Those people are liars and manipulators. Those people are ruining things. Those people are motherfuckers. Those people abuse dogs. Thoes people etc.

Slavoj Zizek posted:

However, do the terrorist fundamentalists really fit this description? What they obviously lack is a feature that is easy to discern in all authentic fundamentalists, from Tibetan Buddhists to the Amish in the US: the absence of resentment and envy, the deep indifference towards the non-believers� way of life. If today�s so-called fundamentalists really believe they have found their way to Truth, why should they feel threatened by non-believers, why should they envy them? When a Buddhist encounters a Western hedonist, he hardly condemns. He just benevolently notes that the hedonist�s search for happiness is self-defeating. In contrast to true fundamentalists, the terrorist pseudo-fundamentalists are deeply bothered, intrigued, fascinated, by the sinful life of the non-believers. One can feel that, in fighting the sinful other, they are fighting their own temptation.

(Yes, I know the irony of comparing GGers to ISIS, but like I said before, this is to a degree applicable to AGG)

You can't really take it seriously as opposition to "SJWs" or liberalism. At best it amounts to a sort of naive liberalism/libertarianism. At best it amounts to distracting from the ethical issues plaguing the industry. No movement whose tenets boil down to "gently caress those peple" is workable in the long run. And probably not in the short run either.

The real difference between AGG and GG is not simple tribalism: it's the difference between being misguided at worst and being misguided at best.

# ? Jul 10, 2015 13:19

a bay: Oct 14, 2014; by Lowtax

Gamerhgate is like ISIS, but don't take my word for it, check out what Zizek has to say:

# ? Jul 10, 2015 13:30

Chocolate Teapot: May 8, 2009

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

In short, obsess over those people. Those people are so dumb. Those peple are so dumb in a funny way. Those people are liars and manipulators. Those people are ruining things. Those people are motherfuckers. Those people abuse dogs. Thoes people etc.

Those people are strong, and difficult to eliminate; those people are weak, and easy to eliminate

# ? Jul 10, 2015 13:33

The Snark: May 19, 2008; by Cowcaster

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

I have been actually giving them the benefit of the doubt, and judging them mainly by their ideology (the same goes for AGGers).

But let's look at what they actually do:

In short, obsess over those people. Those people are so dumb. Those peple are so dumb in a funny way. Those people are liars and manipulators. Those people are ruining things. Those people are motherfuckers. Those people abuse dogs. Thoes people etc.

(Yes, I know the irony of comparing GGers to ISIS, but like I said before, this is to a degree applicable to AGG)

You can't really take it seriously as opposition to "SJWs" or liberalism. At best it amounts to a sort of naive liberalism/libertarianism. At best it amounts to distracting from the ethical issues plaguing the industry. No movement whose tenets boil down to "gently caress those peple" is workable in the long run. And probably not in the short run either.

The real difference between AGG and GG is not simple tribalism: it's the difference between being misguided at worst and being misguided at best.

I believe this is far closer to the truth than most assessments that have been made in this thread, at least.

The tribalism definitely remains a powerful factor in it however, without it there would be a lot less defense of the truly obnoxious people or other support for them under delusions of fighting the good fight on the 'right' side and maybe, just maybe, some of these espoused ideals would could be pursued unimpeded by the sincere.

Which, again, is probably one of those ideas that wakes up the entrenched powers in the middle of the night with a cold sweat of fear.

Fortunately for them the attempt by influential people to use an idiotic and reductionist narrative in which they sell the tasty prospect of attacking all of these misogynistic monsters and thus prove heroic and progressive has only cemented this by encouraging all manner of zealotry which has fueled this psuedomovement endlessly as foolish people kept tossing moderates and neutrals into the GamerGate camp. Many of which, thus placed and angered, are not going to be shifted anytime soon. The zealots have been very useful idiots indeed.

People thus lumped into GamerGate seem most unlikely to reconsider their stance by while the same stupid tactics that put them into that camp continue to be employed.

Far too much of Us Versus Them is still going on. There's no telling if it shall ever properly end at this point.

The Snark fucked around with this message at 13:57 on Jul 10, 2015

# ? Jul 10, 2015 13:46

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

The Snark posted:

What is the thread's opinion on this report?

http://womenactionmedia.org/cms/assets/uploads/2015/05/wam-twitter-abuse-report.pdf

Which, among other things, confirms the vast majority of harassers on Twitter, even just ALLEGED harassers, are not GamerGators.

And note again I am raising issue with this wonderful mental image a lot of people seem to have that GamerGators are all the worst people and that the BlockBot is doing something other than simply purging dissent with desired narratives.

Is WAM corrupted by GamerGate, or are they wrestling with immense amounts of internalized misogyny?

This was already posted and debunked, but I'm not sure what's more impressive - that months after Gamergate blew up, over 1/10th of all reported harrassing behavior across the entirety of Twitter was still connected directly to Gamergate, or that Gamergaters think this fact is somehow exonerating. The depth of Gamergater's stupidity never ceases to amaze.

"If Gamergate is so bad, then how come only ten percent of all reported harassment on a service used by hundreds of millions of people daily can be attributed to them, huh? Why isn't it 20% or higher? Checkmate :smug:

boner confessor fucked around with this message at 13:52 on Jul 10, 2015

# ? Jul 10, 2015 13:47

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

The Snark posted:

Well, if it's not harassing women off of the internet... I don't know. I'm not actually a GamerGator, I'm not active in any campaign of theirs. But it apparently isn't harassing women off of the internet. For someone accusing another of evasion, you seem to be glossing over that detail in favor of a curious demand to know the present activities of everyone who used a hashtag.

Well, I was tempted to leave it as SPJ thing, but thought the usual bitter whinging about how it was actually not an SPJ thing was getting old. As if even if you could say it wasn't SPJ connected in any way, that clearly meant it was entirely run by the evil Gators.

It isn't an SPJ thing. Why do you keep lying about the legitimacy of this panel? It's an odd thing to lie about.

# ? Jul 10, 2015 13:49

The Snark: May 19, 2008; by Cowcaster

The Snark posted:

Which, again, is probably one of those ideas that wakes up the entrenched powers in the middle of the night with a cold sweat of fear.

Fortunately for them the attempt by influential people to use an idiotic and reductionist narrative in which they sell the tasty prospect of attacking all of these misogynistic monsters and thus prove heroic and progressive has only cemented this by encouraging all manner of zealotry which has fueled this psuedomovement endlessly as foolish people kept tossing moderates and neutrals into the GamerGate camp. Many of which, thus placed and angered, are not going to be shifted anytime soon. The zealots have been very useful idiots indeed.

There is no conspiracy.

# ? Jul 10, 2015 13:57

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

The Snark posted:

The point remains that GamerGate is not comprised of just the harassers, or else that percentage would have been vastly higher, and that's just with alleged harassment. That's counting every last person who flagged every comment about GamerGate that wasn't to their liking as harassment.

I still wonder with such a large percentage utterly removed from GamerGate, what percentage could be connected to AGG. But I suppose asking that question is very much like asking GG proponents to publically and collectively turn on Milo, isn't it.

You're missing the point. No other cause associated with harassment on Twitter is singled out. Not any other hate group, hate movement, controversy, nothing. Somehow Gamergate is the one thing that recieves special mention in a general report on Twitter harassment, three months after the thing even started, and yet you're proud that a mere one in ten reports of Twitter harassment are liked directly to Gamergate? Doesn't this imply that you expected the number to be much higher?

# ? Jul 10, 2015 13:57

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

Obdicut posted:

Anyway, it sounds like mostly what you do is laugh at stuff. You're not under the impression you're, like, doing anything or having any effect on anything, right? This is just for the lulz?

When the topic is idiotic online shitlords making assholes of themselves "sit back and laugh" is the only good position to take.

# ? Jul 10, 2015 13:57

The Snark: May 19, 2008; by Cowcaster

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

There is no conspiracy.

No, there has been a un/fortunate intersection of foolish decisions.

# ? Jul 10, 2015 13:57

a bay: Oct 14, 2014; by Lowtax

This thread without Tezzor is like Gangs of New York without Daniel Dave Lewis

# ? Jul 10, 2015 13:59

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

blowfish posted:

When the topic is idiotic online shitlords making assholes of themselves "sit back and laugh" is the only good position to take.

That's not all of the topic, though.

# ? Jul 10, 2015 14:01

The Snark: May 19, 2008; by Cowcaster

The Snark posted:

What is the thread's opinion on this report?

http://womenactionmedia.org/cms/assets/uploads/2015/05/wam-twitter-abuse-report.pdf

Which, among other things, confirms the vast majority of harassers on Twitter, even just ALLEGED harassers, are not GamerGators.

And note again I am raising issue with this wonderful mental image a lot of people seem to have that GamerGators are all the worst people and that the BlockBot is doing something other than simply purging dissent with desired narratives.

Is WAM corrupted by GamerGate, or are they wrestling with immense amounts of internalized misogyny?

You know, every now and again someone links to KotakuInAction and I see them recycling things, and I was wondering if someone in this thread just copies things from there. This was refuted 2 months ago.

Rational Wiki posted:

WAM!
Claim
The study performed by Women, Action, and the Media (WAM!) proves that only 0.66% of Gamergaters are responsible for harassment.[claim 2]
Rebuttal
WAM!'s study was simple: for two weeks in November 2014, Twitter users who sent in abuse reports to staff could optionally send their report off to WAM! to vet it first and then escalate it if necessary. WAM! recorded the nature of the report and whether or not Twitter acted on it. Their analyzed data was released the following May, showing a disparity on Twitter's part in responding to particular types of harassment. WAM! also acknowledged that Gamergate was happening during their study (it hasn't really ended yet) and compared their data with Randi Harper's Good Game Auto Blocker (GGAB) tool, and found that 12% of the reports they handled were on accounts blocked by GGAB.]
As for the "0.66%" claim, it is of course a vast underestimation, only really proving Gamergaters don't understand statistics. Sure, according to their calculations, 12% of WAM!'s data is 65 accounts, and those 65 accounts account for 0.66% of the GGAB account list. However, WAM! only analyzed a small fraction of Twitter harassment: the survey only lasted two weeks, and contributing was optional. Claiming that the 65 accounts represent the full extent of Gamergate harassment is incredibly disingenuous.
At the time of the analysis, Twitter had ~288 million monthly users, yet somehow 12% of the reported harassment came from the 9844 accounts on the GGAB blocklist. Yes, it's true that the study was biased against Gamergate, thanks to selection bias and false positives (which are only there to protect their secret blends of herbs and spices). Once again, Gamergaters make up about .004% of the population on Twitter, and they accounted for 12% of the abuse reports that WAM! was sent. There's no knowing how many support tickets were not part of the trial period, but even with a very generous fudge factor it's clear that Gamergate has an unusually large number of harassers in its ranks. Particularly because the GGAB tool works by identifying central harassers and anyone who follows several of them through the weird echo chamber Gamergate created with #OpSkyNet.

So: self-reporting, 2 week window. Randi Harper's bot was released on the 10th of November (the study began on the 6th). One could don tin foil and question if the autoblocker may have reduced the harassment. One could also question whether people who chose not to self-report were the majority of GG-harassed individuals. However, at best this survey proves nothing OR it proves that GG provides a disproportionate amount of the harassment to be found on twitter, by orders of magnitude. The survey says nothing as to GG's proportion of southern fried birds.

Wanderer posted:

Not exactly. (...)

Thank you for this post, it's a nice summary of the gaming industry's woes with regards to risk.

# ? Jul 10, 2015 14:03

The Snark: May 19, 2008; by Cowcaster

Tesseraction posted:

You know, every now and again someone links to KotakuInAction and I see them recycling things, and I was wondering if someone in this thread just copies things from there. This was refuted 2 months ago.

So: self-reporting, 2 week window. Randi Harper's bot was released on the 10th of November (the study began on the 6th). One could don tin foil and question if the autoblocker may have reduced the harassment. One could also question whether people who chose not to self-report were the majority of GG-harassed individuals. However, at best this survey proves nothing OR it proves that GG provides a disproportionate amount of the harassment to be found on twitter, by orders of magnitude. The survey says nothing as to GG's proportion of southern fried birds.

Thank you for this post, it's a nice summary of the gaming industry's woes with regards to risk.

So at best it proves nothing, or it says what you think it does and certainly- if nothing else- does put to lie any assertion #GG is responsible for anything approaching the majority of harassment on twitter. Disproportionate? Perhaps.

What would you say it proves or doesn't regarding the efficacy of the blockbot in combating harassment?

# ? Jul 10, 2015 14:07

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

The Snark posted:

Am I missing the point? That it singles out GamerGate specifically is to be expected. Someone no doubt expected confirmation that GamerGate was responsible for all that is bad in the twitter world.

Perhaps one should ask why they didn't look at what percentage of harassment came from other directions, other more genuinely menacing groups. A missed opportunity perhaps. Maybe they could have shown GG was responsible for more harassment than the KKK. Wouldn't THAT have been damning.

Well for one, the KKK is smart enough not to use a singular hashtag on Twitter when they want to terrify minorities. The KKK also isn't a singular, unified hate group, but rather a collection of loosely-affiliated and self-identifies hate cliques.

And yes, you are missing the point, and I'm not suprised. Being a True Believer, you're naturally inclined to interpret damning evidence as faint praising evidence as a defense mechanism. "Only one in ten reported cases of harassment on this giant, global service came out of our group of tens of thousands of dedicated trolls, obviously ~~we have a serious issue with untreated anger problems~~ the mainstream media is misrepresenting us because they are actually terrified of us!"

I mean it's common for criticial thinking to fly out the window when you're this invested in a hollow ideology, but geez, I've seen Gamergaters jump to some bizarre conclusions but the fact that this was collectively interpreted as a good thing in Gamergate theology is just embarrassing.

# ? Jul 10, 2015 14:08

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

The Snark posted:

So at best it proves nothing, or it says what you think it does and certainly- if nothing else- does put to lie any assertion #GG is responsible for anything approaching the majority of harassment on twitter. Disproportionate? Perhaps.

Who ever asserted this? Congrats in answering a question nobody ever asked, I guess???

Twitter has 300 million monthly users. Ten percent of that is 30 million. Are there 30 million people actively supporting Gamergate?

# ? Jul 10, 2015 14:09

BravestOfTheLamps: Oct 12, 2012; by FactsAreUseless; Lipstick Apathy

Chocolate Teapot posted:

Those people are strong, and difficult to eliminate; those people are weak, and easy to eliminate

The GG counterpart to articles about GG being dead is the"we're winning" spiel.

The hashtag is the most obvious source for this: AGGers not showing up for the debate thing is victory. Anita is being criticised by other anti-GG types: "cracks are showing up". And so on and so on. AGGers/SJWs/Feminists just revealed more of their conspiracy network; "let's uncover the truth":

e:

The Snark, it is okay to see A/GG as a false conflict and still think one side is worse than the other.

BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 14:13 on Jul 10, 2015

# ? Jul 10, 2015 14:10

Scrub-Niggurath: Nov 27, 2007

The Snark posted:

The point remains that GamerGate is not comprised of just the harassers, or else that percentage would have been vastly higher, and that's just with alleged harassment. That's counting every last person who flagged every comment about GamerGate that wasn't to their liking as harassment.

How big do you think GamerGate is? Like even just on twitter what % of users do you think would described themselves as either GG or aGG

# ? Jul 10, 2015 14:12

Radbot: Aug 12, 2009; Can't post for 3 years!

So people read about video games now instead of just playing them? What a world we live in! The New Pac Man Times is my personal favorite Video Game Newsletter, and it is very important to me as my life is otherwise completely lacking any redeeming value.

# ? Jul 10, 2015 14:12

Rush Limbo: Sep 5, 2005; its with a full house

The Snark posted:

Am I missing the point? That it singles out GamerGate specifically is to be expected. Someone no doubt expected confirmation that GamerGate was responsible for all that is bad in the twitter world.

Perhaps one should ask why they didn't look at what percentage of harassment came from other directions, other more genuinely menacing groups. A missed opportunity perhaps. Maybe they could have shown GG was responsible for more harassment than the KKK. Wouldn't THAT have been damning.

I don't think even ISIL, when it sets up Twitter burner accounts, sends specific threats at specific people. You don't even have the head of ISIL's PR sitting on twitter sending pictures of goatse or rape fan fiction to Barack Obama's twitter account.

Just think about that, the leader of the free world, assuming he even bothers to check his twitter account and it's not just run by an intern, probably doesn't get nearly as much abusive poo poo directed at him from the most zealous anti-America organization in the world as Anita Sarkeesian does from people using the GamerGate tag.

# ? Jul 10, 2015 14:14

The Snark: May 19, 2008; by Cowcaster

You have some citation on that Ddraig? Because that seems a bit hard to believe.

The Snark posted:

I'm a True Believer now! Brilliant. Why not go ahead, point a finger, and demand to know my twitter account handle. (I don't even have one.)

No, I am primarily continuing to express my irritation with people who prefer hyperbole to reason by noting even by the WAM report, a hashtag does not comprise of only the worst people.

Yes, but you ignore the real problem: that the people who aren't the worst are no good either, in their capacity as GGers.

# ? Jul 10, 2015 14:15

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

Ddraig posted:

I don't think even ISIL, when it sets up Twitter burner accounts, sends specific threats at specific people. You don't even have the head of ISIL's PR sitting on twitter sending pictures of goatse or rape fan fiction to Barack Obama's twitter account.

Just think about that, the leader of the free world, assuming he even bothers to check his twitter account and it's not just run by an intern, probably doesn't get nearly as much abusive poo poo directed at him from the most zealous anti-America organization in the world as Anita Sarkeesian does from people using the GamerGate tag.

To be fair, ISIL actually goes out and hustles for real world results. Gamergate is 100% internet tears.

The Snark posted:

I'm a True Believer now! Brilliant. Why not go ahead, point a finger, and demand to know my twitter account handle. (I don't even have one.)

No, I am primarily continuing to express my irritation with people who prefer hyperbole to reason by noting even by the WAM report, a hashtag does not comprise of only the worst people.

You're not expressing irritation. You're actively invoking Gamergate canned responses to defend Gamergate from attacks leveled against Gamergate. You're not just making terrible and easily disproven arguments, but you can't even admit to participating to your obvious support for and probable participation in Gamergate? The entirety of Gamergate is arguing on the internet, and here you are arguing passionately on the internet in defense of Gamergate, sooo....

It's weird that every single person who posts in this thread who is a steadfast and active defender of Gamergate claims not to be a participant in Gamergate. Maybe there are no True Gamergaters, and everyone is just a self-identified "I'm laughing at both sides" excuse maker? What does it say about a movement when even the people who will defend it to the death won't actually admit to supporting it, liking it, or being a part of it?

# ? Jul 10, 2015 14:17

The Snark: May 19, 2008; by Cowcaster

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

Yes, but you ignore the real problem: that the people who aren't the worst are no good either, in their capacity as GGers.

If none of them have a sincere belief and desire to pursue the stated ideals, that is true. But I don't think it is. It may not be the majority, for all I know it doesn't necessarily approach half with most fueled mostly by generously provided spite, but dismissing them all in favor of demonization is no less mistaken at best.

I would sooner see both sides demonized than just one and preferably neither.

The Snark fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Jul 10, 2015

# ? Jul 10, 2015 14:26

BravestOfTheLamps: Oct 12, 2012; by FactsAreUseless; Lipstick Apathy

I am reminded of Totalizator's early post that he was into this to "watch Tumblr burn".

There will never be a moment of vindication. Nobody will get theirs. People will just keep saying stupid things on Twitter. The only thing you can do is try to understand them and apply some Christian forgiveness.

e:

The Snark posted:

If none of them have a sincere believe and desire to pursue the stated goals, that is true. But I don't think it is. It may not be the majority, for all I know it doesn't necessarily approach half with most fueled mostly by generously provided spite, but dismissing them all in favor of demonization is no less mistaken at best.

I would sooner see both sides demonized than just one and preferably neither.

You can say that some people are utterly wrong without demonizing them.

BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Jul 10, 2015

# ? Jul 10, 2015 14:27

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

The Snark posted:

Probable participation? Admit?

Perhaps you would like to put me on the witness stand, maybe televise an interrogation under oath?

Go back to comparing international terrorism favorably to Gamergate.

Hey, you pretentious little dullard, when you claim neutrality but don't act in a neutral way, you get those kind of questions. If you want to be treated as a neutral observer, you need to act like it.

# ? Jul 10, 2015 14:29

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

The Snark posted:

Probable participation? Admit?

Perhaps you would like to put me on the witness stand, maybe televise an interrogation under oath?

Go back to comparing international terrorism favorably to Gamergate.

When you're trying to indicate that you're not feeling defensive or persecuted, this kind of language is... less than convincing.

This is something else I commonly see in Gamergaters - a kind of sputtering indignance when their weak fig leaf is questioned. "I'm not invested in this! I'm an impartial third party! I just think it's funny that nobody wants to talk about how, on August 17th at 17:44 EST, Zoe Quinn stated that she would..."

# ? Jul 10, 2015 14:40

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

The Snark posted:

I would sooner see both sides demonized than just one and preferably neither.

Who is on the agg 'side'. Who is the leader of internet feminism?

BravestOfTheLamps posted:

I am reminded of Totalizator's early post that he was into this to "watch Tumblr burn".

There will never be a moment of vindication. Nobody will get theirs. People will just keep saying stupid things on Twitter. The only thing you can do is try to understand them and apply some Christian forgiveness.

e:

You can say that some people are utterly wrong without demonizing them.

Absolutely, that's fine- but also not entirely accurate. There are ethical problems. To dismiss them wholesale as being completely wrong seems like you are surrendering any complaint on on those issues as well and quite needlessly. I would say most people on both sides rather agree that further reforms are called for and that harassment is a bad thing- even if on the latter it would seem harassment is defined as disagreement by some.

I would like to see people care a little bit less about the hashtag either way and go after the problems we ultimately agree exist instead of insisting on slapping at the monsters that certainly appear to have been painted on other people.

Which, yes, is probably unrealistic. Attacking problems just doesn't satisfy the same way it does to attack people, does it?

# ? Jul 10, 2015 14:47

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

The Snark posted:

Which, yes, is probably unrealistic. Attacking problems just doesn't satisfy the same way it does to attack people, does it?

Agreed. Why does Gamergate attempt to force ethical reform in indie gaming journalism by attacking people not involved in indie gaming journalism, then?

# ? Jul 10, 2015 14:48

Tesseraction: Apr 5, 2009

The Snark posted:

So at best it proves nothing, or it says what you think it does and certainly- if nothing else- does put to lie any assertion #GG is responsible for anything approaching the majority of harassment on twitter. Disproportionate? Perhaps.

What would you say it proves or doesn't regarding the efficacy of the blockbot in combating harassment?

Did... did two sentence collapse into each other up there? It feels like "So at best it proves nothing, or it says what you think it does" and "certainly- if nothing else- does put to lie any assertion #GG is responsible for anything approaching the majority of harassment on twitter" seem to be completely different bits? As for the latter half of the sentence, you're coming to a favourable conclusion 'GG isn't responsible for the majority of the harassment on Twitter' but aren't taking important factors into account:

the survey was opt-in self-reporting, this may mean the results are under or over reported
the survey specifically looked at tickets submitted to Twitter staff, removing the people who choose to block or ignore, which could potentially over-report people who were overly sensitive to less vitriolic abuse and under-report people who laugh off violent rhetoric (perhaps against their better interests)
the survey does not show statistics as to the severity of the remark vs. association with GG (the form asks if you fear for your safety due to the harassment, which is in itself subjective)
the survey readily admits that issues such as 'tweet and delete' harassment can give all the negatives of harassment without the e-trail to analyse
the ggautoblocker list was retrieved a month later than the recording period but wasn't updated as time went on, which could suggest an under-report of people who hadn't gotten around to following the 'leader' accounts
their choice of the ggautoblocker to determine association with GG hides contributors like throwaways or people savvy enough to avoid making themselves obviously 'GG'

The list could easily go on.

More importantly, though, the survey also does not note any other alignment amongst the 'harassers' - the only 'association' of harassers are GGers. This implies that the only 'campaign' worth noting in a harassment context was GG.

As to your question on the efficacy of the blocklist, it doesn't prove anything one way or another. How could it?

# ? Jul 10, 2015 14:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 28, 2024 03:45

ThreeFingerHoek: Feb 6, 2009; i attribute the quarrelsome nature of the middle ages young men entirely to the want of the soothing weed

Dominic White posted:

Wow. Yeah, I'm sure you're going to convince so many people that Gamergate is an ethical thing for cool people who are not total right-wing creeps by ranting about 'trantys' (sic) and 'bay-area faggots' and apparently have weird issues with dyed hair?

As for the obsession over Harper's dog? If I remember right, she used specific pet-friendly vegetable colouring based dye so she could take it to a childrens hospital to cheer up the kids. Clearly, she is a monster for the ages and must be punished. Which is why at least one charming Gamergate representative started hanging out around her house and offices and started taking photos on a regular basis to prove that she was under surveillance!

Edit: Just noticed the 'Retard Simulator 2015' video too. Is there any wonder why nobody actually in game development or the press wants to even touch Gamergate with a bargepole?

I'm picturing you clutching a tin of smelling salts and waving a fan, regaining just enough composure to type the edit.

Obdicut posted:

Do you get that being black really doesn't mean you're free from any criticism, and that the Witcher 3 is actually pretty cool about race stuff since it has dwarves and elves and a subplot about how they're oppressed?

Anyway, it sounds like mostly what you do is laugh at stuff. You're not under the impression you're, like, doing anything or having any effect on anything, right? This is just for the lulz?

It's an internet slapfight about computer games i don't know how you could get more immaterial.

Tokamak posted:

she is an abusive rapist, is slipping her octo-pussy tendrils into the gaming press, and besmirching the upstanding ethics in videogames journalism

This but unironically.

Nevvy Z posted:

Who is on the agg 'side'. Who is the leader of internet feminism?

There was one admitted gg'er. He hasn't been back since his rant about "trantys" and "faggots".

HE MUST BE A FALSE FLAG

I admitted to nothing.

# ? Jul 10, 2015 14:52

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Gamergate: Girls have cooties and they are infecting Mega Man!

«‹›297 »