SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Brad Glasgow over at GamePolitics.com did something unique when setting out to cover the gamergate movement, he asked people taking part in it questions rather than only their detractors.
I decided to run an experiment and see first-hand the difficulties one might encounter when covering an online movement. Rather than wait for GamerGate to come to us, I went to them. I joined their very popular Kotaku in Action (KiA) subreddit and interviewed several hundred GamerGate supporters from Tuesday, July 28 through Tuesday, August 4. It is my hope that what I learned will assist journalists with covering GamerGate and any similar movements in the future.
The Experiment
I asked one question on the KiA subreddit every 12 hours. The question was stickied (placed at the top in the most recognizable area) until I posted a new question. The new question was then stickied and they were given an additional 12 hours to submit replies to the old question and vote on their favorite answer. After I asked 7 questions I then asked 7 follow up questions on the final day.
The article was interesting enough but what I found hilarious was when he then tried to do a similar interview with the anti-gamergate types over at Gamer Ghazi, he was quickly banned.
I did experience some hostility from the anti-GamerGate side for covering GamerGate. While I was treated well by the people of GamerGhazi when I tried to speak with them, I was quickly banned by moderators, who said I have spent too much time posting on the GamerGate subreddit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @08:06AM
it's about stories on soylentnews
(Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Thursday August 13 2015, @08:30AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Informative) by massa on Thursday August 13 2015, @09:24AM
huh... maybe RTFA and see that most respondents consider GamerGate to be "a movement" (in your analogy, "the Axis", or "the Allies") instead of "an event" (which would be "the war").
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Thursday August 13 2015, @10:57AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @01:56PM
Words can have multiple meanings. Using nouns to refer to a group is a valid practice in the English language [wikipedia.org].
How much attention should we pay to their rhetoric when they don't even know how to use words?
Personally, I'd rather judge people's arguments by their validity, rather than the language skills of the person making them.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday August 13 2015, @02:37PM
How much attention should we pay to their rhetoric when they don't even know how to use words?
You first have to show this is a problem. I just see rhetorical status signaling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @10:48PM
shut up phil fish, go have another twitter meltdown.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @01:52AM
That's pretty much the definition of an ad hominem.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @09:47AM
GamerGate has come to mean the movement which arose in the consumer protest of the same name and it's still going strong as evidenced by the activity in the respective subreddit. As a matter of fact, there is an upcomming debate [spjairplay.com] hosted by the Society of Professional Journalists on the nature of the movement and the alleged journalistic integrity issues.
(Score: 5, Informative) by wantkitteh on Thursday August 13 2015, @09:51AM
To clarify, it appears from the article that the GamerGate "side" consists of those opposing the views that video games have a tendency to be sexist/racist/whatever.
The article itself is quite excellent - it manages to tread carefully while simultaneously being pretty informative. On the other hand, the comments section.... ugh...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @12:02PM
Thanks for that, convinced me to RTFA and it is indeed balanced and informative from my POV*.
Like a lot of people, when the whole thing started happening I couldn't find a cogent explanation of WTF all the hullabaloo was over and what the pro- and anti- sides actually were, nor a list of what issues were apparently up for debate. Questions as to what was actually happening were met with asking me to filter out some meaning from a bunch of hashtag-infested bile. Apparently a woman was involved at some point although what she did/didn't do was left unclear but it was very bad/very good. A man might also have been involved and what he didn't do/did was terrible/fantastic. At least one of the men/women involved was a journalist of some description. In a nutshell I had absolutely no idea what the whole fracas was about and no-one seemed capable of providing a nice summary from someone not well versed in TwittedditBook conventions and the article provides most of the translation required.
Thanks Brad Glasgow for taking the effort and writing the piece and thanks TheMightyBuzzard for submitting it. Although the whole shebang still seems like another of those events that will be filed with an eye-roll into "humans act like such fuckwads sometimes".
* For clarity - I'm an adult male who sometimes plays games on a computer. Wouldn't classify myself as a "gamer", whatever one of those is. For the sake of preserving as much of my sanity as remains I tend to steer well clear of soshul meedja. Play mostly single player strategy or simulation stuff because I'm a curmudgeon with little patience for asshattery but whenever I have ventured into the foray of online multiplayer, women (or people pretending to be women) have been present and mostly treated like A. N. Other player, which to me is how it should be.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Thursday August 13 2015, @02:10PM
Well IMHO what caused things to blow up (and for the record nobody cared who ZQ banged, it was the fact that she was getting glowing press from those she slept with) was the whole "gamers are dead" thing which a leaker showed was a concerted effort of a bunch of insiders who were getting together to decide who to "push" and who to ignore on a hidden mailing list called GameJournoPros. Then of course because ZQ is a third wave feminist here come the SJWs [youtube.com], a group so vile that playing SJW or Stormfront [reddit.com] you'll be hard pressed to guess with even 50% accuracy whether you are reading a post by an SJW or a writer for Stormfront (or in the case of Jews if they aren't one and the same, as SJWs REALLY hate Jews for some reason) and that is when the excrement really hit the bladed cooling device as you really can't get SJWs involved in anything without a bunch of shit and drama following.
To me the debate is really VERY simple...are gaming websites journalists or are they propaganda written by publisher insiders? They really can't be but one or the other. If they are journalists they should have a written code of standards, just like every other avenue of journalism, and if they are the latter then they should disclose that so we know that their "articles" are about as newsworthy and unbiased as those GNC "miracle pill increases sexual prowess and boosts muscle!" you see on the front page of Yahoo. If you think the games made by Quinn and Wu are worthy of the heaps of praise they have been heaped on by the members of GameJournoPro? Fine and dandy but as a consumer I want to know if the ones writing that praise are getting or receiving money or favors from these devs because its MY money and I want to know which games are GOOD, not which games have the most insider connections or the biggest wallets. And if you don't think this is a problem...when was the last time you saw a big triple A game get a truly shitty review on any of these websites? I'm sorry but "8 is the new 2" really doesn't cut it, not when you have sites throwing perfect scores at games like Dragon Age II.
If you would like to see more about the insider connections of the game websites (and don't mind it being a little ranty) and want to avoid most if not all the "pro/anti" GG stuff you could try Downfall of Gaming Journalism [youtube.com] by Rageaholic, which was started a full 2 years BEFORE the whole GG mess, even back then there was those pointing out how incestuous the relationship between these "gaming journalists" and the devs and publishers they were supposed to be reviewing were. If these websites want to be the gaming equivalent of MSNBC and Fox News, with pundits pushing "their side" for all its worth? Fine, just admit it so that we all know that is what it is, don't pretend to be independent journalists when you are doing nothing but pushing a set of devs or publishers you have sat down and agreed upon with your supposed competition beforehand...is that REALLY too much to ask for?
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by wantkitteh on Thursday August 13 2015, @02:40PM
I don't understand why there's even a debate about this. We've known for a fact that game reviewers have been courted by publishers for decades, they've been up-front in telling us so for ages. You'd have to be blind not to have noticed. As far as I'm concerned, GamerGate is kidding itself if that's what it thinks it's about. And I couldn't care less about it, nothing constructive is going to come out of it at all and anyone involved on either side is just making themselves look sillier by the day.
It's easy to split the gaming press into it's two constituent parts; the publisher kool-aid drinkers [gamingnexus.com] and the independent honest thinkers [bit-tech.net]. Just read the reviews and compare, anyone with an IQ point can tell the difference after a while. Are we really having a huge row because some people can't accept that they have to decide for themselves whose opinion they should trust about video game reviews?
And don't get me started on the whole racism/sexism angles of GamerGate - those issues predated this whole sorry mess and any progress on them has been set back decades thanks to everyone who's decided to put their oars and pull in whatever direction they needed to for their own needs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @04:38PM
Ah, "setting back progress" arguments! Pretty good indicator of where you lie on the issue.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @05:58PM
Are you saying he's a concern troll?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday August 13 2015, @11:09PM
Wantkitteh does have a valid point here. What should be a few separate issues that could be more cogently discussed individually seem to have been rolled up into a huge ball of wax. The huge ball of wax makes it easy for the main stream media to boil it down to: “men who play video games are sexually frustrated misogynist criminals.”
This plays nicely into the larger narrative that men are somehow preventing women from entering tech careers because they're horrible, sexually frustrated misogynists.
Why always sexually frustrated? What if the man is homosexual? I digress.
On the other hand, some men become a bit more cagey around strange women because, thanks to the efforts of the Ada Initiative, we now seem to have Schrödinger's Victim running around. It's devolved to the point where an accusation of sexism is a conviction with no appeal. Better not tell jokes, and only speak when spoken to, because who knows if that woman is Schrödinger's Victim, especially if you've never had a girlfriend!
In the back of my mind, I do worry a bit about what's on the horizon and where this is leading, but the longer this goes on, the more difficulty I'm having trying to understand it all.
All these narratives do is put up barriers and put men on the defensive. I suppose ostensibly that may ultimately hurt women as well. I could easily see a young man in college who has already developed extensive programming skills deciding it's best to keep away from the one or two brave women in his class, fearing that they're there to accuse somebody of misogyny at the slightest misunderstanding. Maybe that woman who needs a little help was forbidden by her parents from learning programming (rare, but it happens, and not just in Amish communities either).
If he's accused of sexism, the conviction is instant and final, and he becomes a pariah. Better to actually be sexist and only interact with women when it's absolutely necessary.
Look over there! She's getting an error message she can't figure out. I've already completed the assignment and there's still 15 minutes of lab time left. Should I head over there and help her out? What if she thinks I'm Schrödinger's rapist and trying to set her up for date rape? What if I make some other faux pas or microaggression and get suspended for sexual harassment? Better not bother.
(Disclaimer: Yes, I know presuming the woman will have the error and require the assistance of a man is basically sexist, but it's how it often plays out. It is a bit contrived as well, but I remember having similar thoughts after sitting through a date rape presentation. Otoh that was probably just culture shock in general after entering the man's world again.)
Maybe somebody should write a companion guide to Schrödinger's Rapist [wikia.com] intended to help women understand how to enter tech careers without being Schrödinger's Victim.
This is indeed backwards progress. Men should be able to speak with their female colleagues without fear of a perceived microaggression turning them into a pariah. If sexism is an accusation with no defense when leveled at a man, and if we privilege women with being incapable of sexism, how can there be equality?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @06:11PM
This is just like the NSA spying apologists. What is with this wave of deny, Ignore, point out as obvious? There has to be a name for this weasely political tactic. This shaming of anyone that does not recognize or accept this obvious corrupt hidden agenda as being naive or "lacking a brain" makes it worse than merely being an apologist as it is an unprovoked attack on anyone that isn't an apologist.
This is something that human beings with any decency need to kill.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @07:50PM
So clearly you've never pointed out to anyone that Facebook collects all sorts of personal information on people and does all sorts of questionable things with the information they gather. As I am sure you have never shamed them for being so cavalier with their personal information.
You're just an apologist sonofabitch.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Friday August 14 2015, @08:57AM
Equating a world-wide multinational illegal data dragnet with some video game publishers trying to get good reviews from journalists. Can you see where you're going wrong here? Simply pointing the finger at both and screaming "Dishonesty!" doesn't even begin to show the slightest awareness of the repercussions of these issues. You have the choice of who you listen to when it comes to video game recommendations and no-one is going to die, be tortured, disappeared or doxxed because someone gave Battlefield Hardline a few extra %age points in return for a 3-day junket to Visceral's HQ, ostensibly to get early hands-on access for a preview a couple of months before the final release.
Also, what's with the putting words in my mouth? I've been a gamer for 30 years and I fully acknowledge there's a problem with video game journalism, but I'm perfectly capable of an adult response to someone blatantly trying to lie to me for money - I ignore them. I don't try to intimidate or harass them, forcibly censor their entire publication or out their every little secret in public to silence them through shame. There is such a thing as overkill and GamerGate (and their opponents) are pretty much the living embodiment of that right now. There is nothing appropriate about having any level of pride that a website is in financial difficulty and considering downsizing and/or closing down because they said something you disagree with. Only a complete arsehole would support that kind of response to anything about a video game.
Wow, replying to ACs again... where am I picking up these bad habits from?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @01:56AM
Nobody cared because it was always just dudes getting pussy. The very second they found out it was a woman getting some cock instead, they suddenly found a reason to act concerned.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 13 2015, @02:43PM
Fine, just admit it so that we all know that is what it is, don't pretend to be independent journalists when you are doing nothing but pushing a set of devs or publishers you have sat down and agreed upon with your supposed competition beforehand...is that REALLY too much to ask for?
Do you really have to ask that? There's money in the trappings of credibility, even if all you do with it is flush it for a little profit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @08:14PM
OK, but then ABC, CBS, [MS]NBC, Forbes, etc. covered #GamerGate with slanted as fuck rhetoric. So, this pulled back the curtain on the entire news media and revealed that everyone, including 20/20, is pushing an extreme radical ideological stance "GamerGate is a hate movement" while pretending not to do a single bit of research. Some of those companies own "indiependent gaming news" outlets. CBS owns Gamespot, for example.
So, when you say this:
Do you really have to ask that? There's money in the trappings of credibility, even if all you do with it is flush it for a little profit.
Most people didn't realize ALL MAINSTREAM NEWS was completely and utterly corrupted. And the silence from major outlets was deafening.
Others, like myself, knew that people's minds would be blown as they realized all the media normal folks "trust" is bought off, and chose to promote visibility of the GamerGate issue even if we assumed everyone already knew "game journalism" was corrupt.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @11:01PM
All of those 3 letter "News" organizations will spin a story into what sells. That's their business model.
And backing a false Narrative that makes them look good is better for business than the truth.
Whipping the public into a stupid frenzy is what they excel at these days.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @02:54PM
>it was the fact that someone erroneously claimed she was getting glowing press from those she slept with
FTFY (source: plenty, try wikipedia)
And no, you do not get to argue this unless you come up with a decent source.
Some niche news-sites are not impartial..oh the horror. Have these people really not something more interesting to worry about? Apart from a ridiculous debate, a minority of the GG people have been engaging in such awful behaviour that the group as a whole lost all credibility. If you agree with a subset of their opinions, and feel its worthwhile to get worked up about, just invent a new hashtag. In any form of politics, you want to make it clear you are different from the people that make you look bad. Or you deserve to be associated with them.
--
Posted anonymously in an attempt to disprove hairyfeets sig!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 13 2015, @03:29PM
With who? Advertisers have found GG quite credible so far, as shown by the manifold victories in getting them to drop corrupt information sources.
And hand the SJW types a victory while having to start name recognition over from scratch? Whereupon claims of harassment and threats will promptly come in from SJWs about the new hashtag? Thank you but no.
Republicans have to put up with racist assholes, democrats have to put up with SJWs, and #gamergate has to put up with its trolls. The only ones they've lost credibility with are those who wouldn't listen to them if the choice were between that and having their ears amputated.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @06:10PM
> Advertisers have found GG quite credible so far, as shown by the manifold victories in getting them to drop corrupt information sources.
Please give us a short list of these advertisers. Not just the "corrupt information sources" - the actual advertisers which have dropped said sources.
Because my impression is that they are like Intel - an unthinking instinctual reaction to avoid anything controversial soon reversed [forbes.com] followed by an endorsement of the very people gamergate rages against. [cosmopolitan.com]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 13 2015, @07:12PM
The list includes, but is not limited to, Ford Motor Company, Nissan, Mercedes, BMW, and Adobe. Those are just the ones a moment's thought brings back that have dropped Gawker. Not everything's a victory, of course, but every victory is still important.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @07:53PM
> The list includes, but is not limited to, Ford Motor Company, Nissan, Mercedes, BMW, and Adobe.
The Adobe that said the following: [adobe.com]
We were mistakenly listed as an advertiser on the Gawker website (which we are not), so we asked Gawker to remove our logo
Oh what a victory for gamergaters - the company that wasn't advertising on Gawker continued to not advertise on gawker.
Basically the same thing with all those car companies too, as the editor of gawker site Jalopnik said on KIA: [reddit.com]
Mercedes has not recently advertised with Gawker and is not currently advertising with Gawker, thus there were no advertisements to pull
Thanks for educating everyone else reading along as to how wrapped up you are in the delusional narrative of gamergate relevancy where convincing someone to continue not doing what they have been not doing is a victory!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @11:04PM
thanks for being a Try Hard. How far are you reaching for those straws now?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @04:13PM
and for the record nobody cared who ZQ banged, it was the fact that she was getting glowing press from those she slept with
She should have known that the standard payment method is cash?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2015, @02:03AM
That's why her sex life isn't at the center of the issue, right? Oh wait...
(Score: 4, Funny) by ikanreed on Thursday August 13 2015, @12:09PM
Why do I always hear about how awful comments sections are in comments sections?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 13 2015, @10:23AM
You more or less nailed it while also managing to miss it. #GamerGate is a discussion; the anti-#GamerGate types go absolutely postal over any discussion that doesn't precisely fit their narrative. Exposing corruption in journalism [twitter.com] or opining negatively about pressure on developers to bow to the social justice cause of the day cannot be allowed at any cost by their way of thinking.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday August 13 2015, @10:59AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 13 2015, @11:10AM
During? It's still going strong a year later. That link above was from less than a week ago. Check the #OpSkyNet tag on twitter, you'll see plenty of action.
You'll see plenty of rage on both sides of the discussion, which is fine. People should get worked up about issues important to them. Rage about people having the gall to break your narrative by having a discussion at all is not fine.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by ticho on Thursday August 13 2015, @03:05PM
Another day, another hashtag. Someone should make a hashtag to announce all these new hashtags, so people with actual lives can keep up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @08:40PM
Done, the #OpSkynet and other hashtags related to it are also attached to the #gamergate hashtag, and listed in places where discussion about said hashtags take place.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday August 13 2015, @06:55PM
I was against WWII once I realized that it wasn't actually WW11.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by K_benzoate on Thursday August 13 2015, @08:31AM
The article was interesting enough but what I found hilarious was when he then tried to do a similar interview with the anti-gamergate types over at Gamer Ghazi, he was quickly banned.
Hilarious maybe, but not surprising. The cult of Social Justice does not allow dissent or even inquiry. You either step in line or you get doxxed, harassed, banned, blacklisted, and shunned.
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: 5, Funny) by aristarchus on Thursday August 13 2015, @08:56AM
The cult of Social Justice does not allow dissent or even inquiry. You either step in line or you get doxxed, harassed, banned, blacklisted, and shunned.
Your lack of social justice has been noted. Prepare to be harrassed, baned, bluelisted, and shuffled. We will welcome you to the league of Social Justice Warriors League when your education is complete. (Notice that I did not even have to say "re-education"? Because you can not re-educate someone with no prior education. What you call dissent is assholery. What you call "inquiry" is unreconstructed ignorance! Do you have a point? Do you, you uneducated backbirth of a human being? Huh? Excuse me for asking, there is no point.)
(Score: 2, Disagree) by K_benzoate on Thursday August 13 2015, @09:25AM
I'm still waiting for you to make an intelligible point I can respond to. Take your time.
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: 5, Informative) by FlyingSock on Thursday August 13 2015, @09:31AM
I think it was supposed to be satire.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Kell on Thursday August 13 2015, @12:07PM
The truly sad thing is that sometimes in these matters, it's hard to distinguish satire from an earnest statement of position.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Thursday August 13 2015, @02:54PM
Would a "Depressing" mod be +1, -1 or neutral?
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday August 13 2015, @03:50PM
A +1 as it would be more in the vein of True, but depressing. At least that's how I would think of it.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MrNemesis on Thursday August 13 2015, @09:34PM
Feature request: a "±1 Poe's Law" mod option to be made available :)
"To paraphrase Nietzsche, I have looked into the abyss and been sick in it."
(Score: 2) by meisterister on Thursday August 13 2015, @06:14PM
The correct term here is, "Whoosh!"
(May or may not have been) Posted from my K6-2, Athlon XP, or Pentium I/II/III.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @06:22PM
> I'm still waiting for you to make an intelligible point I can respond to.
So, you are saying he made lots of 'intelligible' points for which you have no response?
(Score: 2) by MrNemesis on Thursday August 13 2015, @02:06PM
Is there a "Collected Wisdom Of Soylent" fortunes file we can put this gem in? Well played, sir.
"To paraphrase Nietzsche, I have looked into the abyss and been sick in it."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by lyserge on Thursday August 13 2015, @11:17AM
When I asked whether suggesting victims of harassment keep a lower profile would be considered victim blaming, the top response claimed that "these 'victims' were actively soliciting their own abuse" and, "Stating that someone receiving unwanted negative attention from the masses should be keeping a low profile is not 'victim blaming.' It's just common sense."
With attitudes like that, I certainly wouldn't trust these people with their stated aim of pursuing ethics in gaming journalism.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 13 2015, @11:23AM
Why's that? You jump in a mosh pit, you expect a few elbows in the face. If you don't want that, you shouldn't have jumped in. Saying so is not an ethical faux pas.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by lyserge on Thursday August 13 2015, @11:33AM
Because the mere act of being a prominent woman in the games industry shouldn't be akin to a mosh pit.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Thursday August 13 2015, @11:46AM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pe1rxq on Thursday August 13 2015, @01:52PM
Both sides are claiming the other side are bigotted assholes.
Both sides claim that acting like an asshole themselves is ok as long as you are targeting a bigot.
You appear to claim that acting like an asshole is ok as long as you are an equal opportunity asshole....
All I see is a lot of assholes and it looks like that particular industry is just sick.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @02:07PM
All I see is a lot of assholes and it looks like that particular industry is just sick.
I see assholes everywhere, too. Rancid assholes. My fetid little friend wants to have a word with them...
(Score: 4, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 13 2015, @12:00PM
You think someone who didn't invite themselves into this extremely volatile conversation either by their corruption or by actually taking part in said conversation was given a hard time? Who, pray?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @08:26PM
I'll tell you who: Zoe Quinn. Even if she was an admitted doxer and harraser herself, overcomming her "helldump* addiction" (*a Something Awful doxing and harssing forum), and even if she used her media ties to shut down a feminist charity that sought to get girls involved in gamedev (which gamergate "supporters" later funded), and even if she reveled in her media palls raiding and harassing WizardChan (a site for men suffering from extreme socially anxiety) on her behalf (to get ZQ more damsel-in-distress attention after a failed attempt to get her Interactive Fiction on steam [instead of existing I.F. sites, which no one mentions exist]), and even if all the news outlets were running questionably ethical "Depression Quest Released in the Wake of Robin Williams Suicide" using the actor's death to boost visibility -- SHE DID NOT DESERVE ANY CRITICISM. (note I didn't even mention "sex for favors" here).
You know who else? Brianna Wu. Even if she forgot to log out before posting a harassing message to herself, as herself. SHE DID NOT DESERVE THIS HARASSMENT. Shame on whomever harasses themselves, the perpetrators should be punished severely!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday August 13 2015, @08:56PM
Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu, and Anita Sarkeesian are the only women in the games industry? And they're all perfect little angels who would never ever do anything to provoke anyone else, so if somebody has an issue with one of them, that person must be a misogynerd, right?
Look, I don't give that much of a shit about gamergate. I was worried at the beginning because I wasn't certain whether it'd be used to strong-arm video game publishers into doing some things I recall hearing about years and years ago like preventing anybody who is legally male from selecting a female avatar. Gamergate has become such of a confused shitstom I don't think I have anything to worry about.
I really only give a shit about Brianna Wu because she is such an awful hypocrite and some of the things she does make me feel ashamed to be in the same demographic as her! Over on the other site, at least two other regulars who are trans women expressed the same sentiment as well, so I am not alone in feeling that way.
Ok, pet peeve. If Wu wants to complain about hypersexualization of women in games, she would make a good start to apologize for basing her own character design off of Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball! Her attitudes about other trans women and who is even allowed to speak about trans issues are deplorable. The pinnacle of her hypocrisy is any time she utters the word privilege. She is a spoiled brat who will never know what the average trans woman's struggles are or the struggles of somebody raised by a single parent in the ghetto for example, and she is so privileged she has the privilege of being unaware of her privilege.
Yes, I am being “toxic.” I hope my pseudo-resignation comment on the other site made her break down and sob uncontrollably for hours (yes, I know she won't because she's a sociopath), not because she's a woman, not because she's transgendered, but because she is simply a shining example of self-delusional hypocrisy. That woman has no right to be a poster child for online or sexual harassment.
Yet the mainstream media has Spoken, and I'm supposed to believe their rubbish Narrative? Whatever. I guess I'll just be proud to be a misogynerd and a traitor to my own demographic if that's what the Narrative has Decreed.
Ah, Star Citizen is finally done updating! Off to have some misogynerd fun!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @09:02PM
> I hope my pseudo-resignation comment on the other site made her break down and sob uncontrollably for hours (yes, I know she won't because she's a sociopath)
You have issues.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @12:20PM
It's not a hivemind.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @03:10PM
They speak the truth [lolcow.wiki], which is the kind of actions that I would expect from people pursuing ethics in any form of journalism. You have no idea to what lengths will these professional victims go to grossly misrepresent reality [youtube.com] in order to promote their victim narrative.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @06:18PM
When I want to be left alone I don't leave the house and turn my phone off. Works wonders.
(Score: 3, Funny) by ghost on Thursday August 13 2015, @01:42PM
So, is it good or is it whack?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by M. Baranczak on Thursday August 13 2015, @01:54PM
(Score: 4, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 13 2015, @02:12PM
I know it's breaking tradition but you really might want to RTFA this time. It's the only summation by a proper journalist so far that didn't set out right from the beginning to be a hit piece. That it's taken a whole year to get one unbiased article shows something of what #gamergate is still going on about.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by wantkitteh on Thursday August 13 2015, @02:49PM
Ok, so a woman made a fairly simple game about depression and her boyfriend reviewed it positively. That's the original inciting incident here. Pretty much everything since then has been escalation and tit-for-tat with a healthy side-order of post-rationalisation and goalposts on wheels. Both sides have entrenched themselves and are trying to sound like they are the voice of reason and that the other side is irrational bullies with a strong "you're either with us or against us" factor to polarise that discussion wherever and whenever it happens. Quite frankly, everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves without exception.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 13 2015, @03:21PM
You're way out of touch if you think that's what #GamerGate does. Assuming truth of what you say for the sake of argument that's at most idle chatter to amuse themselves while they run email campaigns that do things like get advertisers to drop Gawker [nymag.com] like a hot potato.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @04:45PM
I can't figure out if you are bragging about that link or embarrassed by it.
Well, knowing you I can am sure that you are bragging about it. But having read your post before reading your name, it sure sounded like you thought gamergaters were a bunch of whiny little bitches.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 13 2015, @07:23PM
Well, to be fair, I do think most humans are whiny little bitches regardless of their political affiliations. I try to always ask myself, What Would John Wayne Do, and then do that but more manly and awesome.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Thursday August 13 2015, @11:21PM
GamerGate go after Gawker for exaggerated failures of journalistic practice (that every press sector close to it's industry commits on a daily basis without similar "punishment", by the way) while accusing Feminist SJWs of going after targets outside the scope of their chosen original cause. Me'thinks I'm not the one out of touch. Goalposts on wheels.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @04:44PM
One side doesn't make bomb threats against meetups the other side has, that's about the difference in levels of rancor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @11:15PM
No, they just call on their followers to do that for them by doxxing anyone that doesn't agree with them, because KILL ALL HEATHENS IN THE NAME OF OUR RIGHTEOUS LEADERS!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday August 13 2015, @10:07PM
Let me add to this. One possibility I've never seen discussed (link plz if it has been) is that there's a 3rd party trolling both sides for the lulz. It would seem entirely plausible.
It seems impossible to separate out fact from fiction from false flag.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @04:38PM
It is weird that Glasgow went to GamerGhazi and not AgainstGamerGate. [reddit.com] The later is where normal people hang-out, the GamerGhazi reddit is mostly the extreme fringe. For example, see the thread Why exactly is it so bad to have sexual objectification in gaming? [reddit.com] - a post that is straight-up challenging the anti-gamergate consensus and yet not only was it not deleted by the mods, it got over 400 posts, practically all of which were serious and engaged.
I think Glasgow was making a statement about gamergaters by equating their normal to extremists in a way that gamergaters would not (can not?) recognize as criticism of themselves.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @06:11PM
https://www.reddit.com/r/AgainstGamerGate/comments/3gpixz/brad_glasgow_interviews_gamergate/ [reddit.com]
Glasgow himself touched on the subject on /r/AgainstGamerGate:
I wanted to apologize for not including r/AgainstGamerGate in the article. You guys did provide me with some very helpful "control" type information. The reason I didn't mention you is because I was worried about the length of the article. I cut out a lot of stuff, including an interview I did with another journalist and a discussion of "straight" or neutral news vs. news presented with opinion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @06:20PM
Perhaps he was not aware of that reddit or was not aware of the difference. You could email him and request he do a followup article using the same methods with AgainstGamerGate instead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @06:28PM
I think an actual journalist investigating the story would be well aware of that reddit. I barely pay attention to gamergate and I found that reddit in about 2 minutes of searching for context on this story.
And as another poster mentioned, he's written that he deliberately left them out of the article and that they had been very helpful. I think that confirms my theory - he was comparing extremes. Is there some other pro-gamergate reddit that isn't filled with extremists? I couldn't find one.
(Score: 2, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 13 2015, @07:17PM
You find the position that the press should always cite possible conflicts of interest extreme? Or is it the idea "if you want SJW-friendly games, make your fucking own games and leave ours alone" that you find extreme? Those are pretty much the only widely agreed upon goals of #GamerGate regulars.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 13 2015, @07:33PM
> You find the position that the press should always cite possible conflicts of interest extreme?
Wow. You really live in your own little echo chamber of irrationality don't you?
What I said was that equating the extremists of GamerGhazi to the 'normal' gamergaters of KotakuInAction leaves no doubt as to the author's opinion of the 'normal' gamergaters. All that other random spittle you just spewed out is irrelevant to that simple equation.
I can see how that would get you worked up though, you thought you had a clearcut 'gotcha' of people opposed to gamergaters when in fact it turned out to be an indictment of gamergaters. Self-inflicted wounds hurt the most.