Merged Continuation - Feminist Bullies Tearing the Video Game Industry Apart Part II

[Wildy]

I'm not an anything. I can embrace a movement's constructive values without drinking their kool-aid. That was really what i was trying to drive home and encourage others to do. Someone is getting their nomination removed for jumping head first down my throat.

I think what has happened is that you've become part of Gamergate by virtue of not being against it. What I have noticed is that for some there is no fence, you're either for or against it.

 

[Dismalsage]

I think what has happened is that you've become part of Gamergate by virtue of not being against it. What I have noticed is that for some there is no fence, you're either for or against it.

Yeah...some folks see everything in black and white, us and them. It's not a hallmark of rationality lol.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

#gamergate origins, as it had always seemed to me, began with the series of articles being released within a few days that are now collectively known as the "Gamers Are Dead" articles.

Well, I'm glad we set you straight on this misapprehension then. It started with the Quinnspiracy Theory, gained momentum with hatred of Wu and Sarkeesian, and has always quite explicitly been a "culture war" against feminism in general and feminist influence in gaming in particular.

The manufactured outrage over the "basement-dwelling misogynist babies are no longer the only people who game" articles (referred to by gators as the "gamers are dead" articles) was never the main focus. Nor is it any way unethical games journalism to publish such articles outside of the gator conspiracy. Note that the gators always whine that these articles were "disrespectful" to their "main audience" (gators), but never make any kind of coherent case that they were unethical.

Actual unethical journalism has always been a sideshow for the gator movement, never the main event, and their approach has been to myopically focus on trying to destroy individual journalists while utterly ignoring the big companies who create the environment where ethical games journalism is a contradiction in terms. This is exactly the opposite of what legitimate consumer movements like, say, the Nestle boycott do.

 

[Dismalsage]

The Nestle Boycott is just a bunch of anti-semites who want an excuse to harass jewish people who work for food and beverage companies. A basic human right to clean water has always been a side show in the Nestle Boycott. "Consumer Boycott" phooey...

I know this because there are three incredibly vocal jewish people who work for Nestle who said they've been made to feel very unsafe by the boycott and have been getting harassed. (good thing Nestle has tons of blankets and cocoa) Nobody who has threatened these Nestle employees have been caught so we'll just have to take their word for it and quit boycotting Nestle because that's what Anti-Semites do....

 

[Babbylonian]

The Nestle Boycott is just a bunch of anti-semites who want an excuse to harass jewish people who work for food and beverage companies. A basic human right to clean water has always been a side show in the Nestle Boycott. "Consumer Boycott" phooey...

I know this because there are three incredibly vocal jewish people who work for Nestle who said they've been made to feel very unsafe by the boycott and have been getting harassed. (good thing Nestle has tons of blankets and cocoa) Nobody who has threatened these Nestle employees have been caught so we'll just have to take their word for it and quit boycotting Nestle because that's what Anti-Semites do....

Thinly veiled victim-blaming, right on schedule.

 

[kookbreaker]

The Nestle Boycott is just a bunch of anti-semites who want an excuse to harass jewish people who work for food and beverage companies. A basic human right to clean water has always been a side show in the Nestle Boycott. "Consumer Boycott" phooey...

I know this because there are three incredibly vocal jewish people who work for Nestle who said they've been made to feel very unsafe by the boycott and have been getting harassed. (good thing Nestle has tons of blankets and cocoa) Nobody who has threatened these Nestle employees have been caught so we'll just have to take their word for it and quit boycotting Nestle because that's what Anti-Semites do....

I'm going to assume you were trying to make some kind of parable or similie or somesuch, but really that just fell flat on its face.

 

[A'isha]

The Nestle Boycott is just a bunch of anti-semites who want an excuse to harass jewish people who work for food and beverage companies. A basic human right to clean water has always been a side show in the Nestle Boycott. "Consumer Boycott" phooey...

I know this because there are three incredibly vocal jewish people who work for Nestle who said they've been made to feel very unsafe by the boycott and have been getting harassed. (good thing Nestle has tons of blankets and cocoa) Nobody who has threatened these Nestle employees have been caught so we'll just have to take their word for it and quit boycotting Nestle because that's what Anti-Semites do....

Funny you should bring up anti-Semitism in a thread about Gamergate...

 

[Dismalsage]

You found me out. It was me all along.

 

[Butter!]

 

[cntdrv55]

Well, I'm glad we set you straight on this misapprehension then. It started with the Quinnspiracy Theory, gained momentum with hatred of Wu and Sarkeesian, and has always quite explicitly been a "culture war" against feminism in general and feminist influence in gaming in particular.

The manufactured outrage over the "basement-dwelling misogynist babies are no longer the only people who game" articles (referred to by gators as the "gamers are dead" articles) was never the main focus. Nor is it any way unethical games journalism to publish such articles outside of the gator conspiracy. Note that the gators always whine that these articles were "disrespectful" to their "main audience" (gators), but never make any kind of coherent case that they were unethical.

Actual unethical journalism has always been a sideshow for the gator movement, never the main event, and their approach has been to myopically focus on trying to destroy individual journalists while utterly ignoring the big companies who create the environment where ethical games journalism is a contradiction in terms. This is exactly the opposite of what legitimate consumer movements like, say, the Nestle boycott do.

Thanks for the ghazi revisionist history lesson. It was quite humorous.

 

[Myriad]

Here's my complete-outsider-but-I've-been-to-junior-high-school version: members of low-status group (gamers) object to their treatment as same. Members of a nearly-but-not-quite-as-low status group (game professionals and journalists) see opportunity to improve their status by keeping the low-status group in its place ("are you staring at me, freak?"). Some members of the low-status group respond in ways that remind everyone why they're a low-status group in the first place. The cool kids (mainstream media) pretend to sympathize with the NBNQAL-status group, but they're actually snickering at both groups like always.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Kind of? I'd say that lots of men who have crappy lives play video games, and lots of men who have crappy lives resent feminism because they think they have bigger problems than women do, and lots of men who have crappy lives are misogynistic and single (cause/effect relationship unclear), and lots of men who have crappy lives want an outlet for their feelings of resentment about life in general and women in particular. The overlap of those four sets, I suspect, is the core of gamergate.

My guess is that the gators are demographically very close to the MRAs, mostly a bunch of boys in the sixteen to twenty-five range pretending to be older.

 

[Wildy]

And here we see the anti-gamergater attempt to turn a rather diverse group of people into an easy to attack strawperson.

Kind of? I'd say that lots of men who have crappy lives play video games...

Here is the initial set up. The idea that gamergate is "men".

...and lots of men who have crappy lives resent feminism because they think they have bigger problems than women do...

This is then followed with an appeal to worse problems. This appeal also ties into traditional ideas of masculinity, specifically the idea that men should just "deal with" problems on their own.

...and lots of men who have crappy lives are misogynistic and single (cause/effect relationship unclear)...

This is then tied into another traditional idea, that of a man being able to attract and provide for a woman. It is clear that a heterosexual relationship is implied here by tying the idea of being "single" to being "misogynistic". The implication is protected from scrutiny, if you will, by the comment in the brackets, but the conclusion a reader is supposed to draw is that "gamergaters are misogynists".

...and lots of men who have crappy lives want an outlet for their feelings of resentment about life in general and women in particular.

And finally the conclusion of the strawgamergater, this part of the statement ties in the previous two premises, that these men are not being "stoic" as traditional roles tell them to, and that they are "misogynistic" by being single. This statement also implies the rather dangerous idea that men should not express their feelings to others - another traditional view of masculinity.

The overlap of those four sets, I suspect, is the core of gamergate.

And so the attempt at strawmanning is complete, by suggesting that a carefully defined subset of the set of "men who have crappy lives" is in fact an overlap of many different subsets.


What is possibly the most interesting thing to note is that this fall back to traditional gender roles is in no way surprising. It allows an easy way for a person to easily "other" someone which has the added bonus of justifying referring to these "others" in terms of terrorist organisations while allowing that person to maintain that they are, essentially, "good".

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

And here we see the anti-gamergater attempt to turn a rather diverse group of people into an easy to attack strawperson.

Here is the initial set up. The idea that gamergate is "men".

This is then followed with an appeal to worse problems. This appeal also ties into traditional ideas of masculinity, specifically the idea that men should just "deal with" problems on their own.

This is then tied into another traditional idea, that of a man being able to attract and provide for a woman. It is clear that a heterosexual relationship is implied here by tying the idea of being "single" to being "misogynistic". The implication is protected from scrutiny, if you will, by the comment in the brackets, but the conclusion a reader is supposed to draw is that "gamergaters are misogynists".

And finally the conclusion of the strawgamergater, this part of the statement ties in the previous two premises, that these men are not being "stoic" as traditional roles tell them to, and that they are "misogynistic" by being single. This statement also implies the rather dangerous idea that men should not express their feelings to others - another traditional view of masculinity.

And so the attempt at strawmanning is complete, by suggesting that a carefully defined subset of the set of "men who have crappy lives" is in fact an overlap of many different subsets.

What is possibly the most interesting thing to note is that this fall back to traditional gender roles is in no way surprising. It allows an easy way for a person to easily "other" someone which has the added bonus of justifying referring to these "others" in terms of terrorist organisations while allowing that person to maintain that they are, essentially, "good".

Wow. That is so deep. By making things up, you discovered all sorts of discreditable hidden subtext and assumptions!

It also entirely avoided, except by implication, in any way addressing whether my assessment is factually true.

It also entirely avoided discussing what difference, if any, the stuff you made up would have if it were true.

Are gators mere victims of toxic patriarchy, lashing out against a cruel world that judges them for involuntary celibacy, misogyny, lack of social skills and other woeful conditions? Are they merely symptoms of some deeper problem? Maybe. I'm pretty sure that threatening to rape and murder feminists is not an appropriate response though.

 

[cntdrv55]

It also entirely avoided, except by implication, in any way addressing whether my assessment is factually true.

Well good thing we have Hitchen's Razor then. Which I should also mention applies to just about every single post of your's in this thread.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Well good thing we have Hitchen's Razor then. Which I should also mention applies to just about every single post of your's in this thread.

I think you are misapplying that razor, if you think "Gamergate is a tragically misunderstood, altruistic and enlightened consumer rights movement entirely unrelated to anti-feminist culture warring, rape threats, death threats, blatant misogyny, fake social media accounts and general awfulness" is not the greater claim and hence the one with the burden of proof.

 

[cntdrv55]

I think you are misapplying that razor, if you think "Gamergate is a tragically misunderstood, altruistic and enlightened consumer rights movement entirely unrelated to anti-feminist culture warring, rape threats, death threats, blatant misogyny, fake social media accounts and general awfulness" is not the greater claim and hence the one with the burden of proof.

All I see is you making claim after claim "educating" everybody about what gamergate ACTUALLY is (while ignoring all of the evidence against those claims and generally being abrasive to anyone on the other side). Problem is you never back any of it up and are merely making baseless claims that appear to be straight copy/pasted from ghazi.

So said Razor applies perfectly, thanks.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

All I see is you making claim after claim "educating" everybody about what gamergate ACTUALLY is (while ignoring all of the evidence against those claims

All of that evidence being what, exactly, other than gators endlessly demanding that the evidence be rehashed for them personally? By all means if you have this evidence show us the evidence that gamgergate did not start with the Quinnspiracy theory, that it did not start on 4chan before being kicked off for being too toxic even for 4chan, did not shift camp to 8chan and deliberately try to reinvent itself as a consumer movement to disguise its actual anti-feminist goals, and has not obsessively focused on fomenting hatred of the Literally Witches trio and attacking individual journalists (or occasionally journals) while doing absolutely zip to attack the big gaming companies who have rigged the games journalism industry.

Any time now.

and generally being abrasive to anyone on the other side).

Oh no! I have been abrasive! Well, that will keep me up at night. Some ideas and claims merit a little abrasiveness. Or more, but we all have to live within the membership agreement, don't we?

Problem is you never back any of it up and are merely making baseless claims that appear to be straight copy/pasted from ghazi.

I wouldn't call any subreddit a reliable source, because the reddit voting system predictably leads to bad content driving out good content and communities developing extremist groupthink. Kotakuinaction is a much more extreme example than gamerghazi of sheer idiocy becoming the local cultural norm and driving out all critical thought or normal morality, but both exhibit the trend.

The ISF forums, on the other hand, is a place where ideas have to stand for themselves. On kotakuinaction you can just post a petulant whine that the people stating the correct historical facts about gamergate are wrong, have any rebuttals downvoted out of sight and out of mind, and avoid having to really think. If you want to get any traction here though you need actual facts and evidence.

My guess is that you don't have any because all you are doing is repeating things you heard in internet echo chambers that breed wrongness and weed out inconvenient truths.

 

[cntdrv55]

show us the evidence that gamgergate did not start with the Quinnspiracy theory,

That was definitely the boiling over point, but it can certainly be argued that things like doritogate, Hernandez, Eurogamer, and others were already brewing what was to later come. Those things obviously happened before any of the ZQ crap.

that it did not start on 4chan before being kicked off for being too toxic even for 4chan,

This one is always funny to read. Moot banning talk about GG on 4chan (along with neogaf, r/games, and pretty much everywhere else) is one of the key factors that got everybody riled up. You know?... all of those social media sites colluding together to keep people from discussing something? You revisionists have turned that into "GG was too toxic/violent/whatever for EVEN 4CHAN OMG!!!!", when the truth of the matter is that all of those community leaders buddied up to protect and whiteknight the poor helpless zoe, which alienated a lot of people that simply wanted to discuss something that was obviously a popular topic.

If they had just let it be it most likely would have fizzled out in a matter of days and literally nobody would give a **** about it anymore.

did not shift camp to 8chan and deliberately try to reinvent itself as a consumer movement to disguise its actual anti-feminist goals,

Discussion moved to 8chan and other places. So? What do you expect to happen when nearly every site simultaneously decides that a topic is not to be discussed? And at this point there was nothing "anti-feminist" about it. People were pissed that posts were getting deleted by the thousands and discussion of the zoe post was getting banned everywhere. Or to put it another way, people were pissed about coordinated censorship and blatant cronyism.

and has not obsessively focused on fomenting hatred of the Literally Witches trio

That has obviously been a part of it, but it can be easily proven that 2 out of 3 of them deliberately inserted themselves into the whole thing on their own and were not "focused on" before that. Also, the movement is clearly split between those that care about that side of things and those that do not.

and attacking individual journalists (or occasionally journals) while doing absolutely zip to attack the big gaming companies who have rigged the games journalism industry.

Everything starts somewhere. It's not like people are just ignoring damning evidence of bigger happenings while explicitly targeting these poor helpless feminists. If bigger things, or things about bigger players come out you can bet your butt that GG will jump all over it. It's laughable to think otherwise.

Oh no! I have been abrasive! Well, that will keep me up at night. Some ideas and claims merit a little abrasiveness. Or more, but we all have to live within the membership agreement, don't we?

Whatever floats your boat man. It makes no difference to me... be a total ***hole to everybody that simply disagrees with you for all I care, but it certainly isn't a good look if you're trying to convince anybody that what you are saying is true.

I wouldn't call any subreddit a reliable source, because the reddit voting system predictably leads to bad content driving out good content and communities developing extremist groupthink.

Can't argue with that.

Kotakuinaction is a much more extreme example than gamerghazi of sheer idiocy becoming the local cultural norm and driving out all critical thought or normal morality

Can't agree with that. edit - Actually, you have to be completely delusional to think that. Yes things get downvoted on KiA, but you know what?... you can actually say things there that go against the herd. Try that on ghazi?... banned and deleted. Try it on sjwgaf?... banned. Try to go against the herd ANYWHERE that the aGGro side is running things?... banned and likely deleted.

To think that KiA is the more extreme example of no critical thought or dissenting opinions is just absolutely ridiculous.

The ISF forums, on the other hand, is a place where ideas have to stand for themselves. On kotakuinaction you can just post a petulant whine that the people stating the correct historical facts about gamergate are wrong, have any rebuttals downvoted out of sight and out of mind, and avoid having to really think. If you want to get any traction here though you need actual facts and evidence.

Or in your case, you don't need any facts or evidence, just baseless assertions repeated constantly until it begins to look like it's the truth.

My guess is that you don't have any because all you are doing is repeating things you heard in internet echo chambers that breed wrongness and weed out inconvenient truths.

The irony here is just flat out awesome. Well done.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

That was definitely the boiling over point, but it can certainly be argued that things like doritogate, Hernandez, Eurogamer, and others were already brewing what was to later come. Those things obviously happened before any of the ZQ crap.

Technically anything "can be argued". The existence of Bigfoot and chemtrails "can be argued". It's disingenuous to try to handwave away the fact that virtually everyone agrees that gamergate as a distinct phenomenon kicked off with the Quinnspiracy Theory, and that the core of gamergate from the start was drawn from people who got a big emotional kick out of punishing a woman for corruptly inserting herself into "their" games industry, based on the provably false manifesto of one psycho ex.

Even if the Quinnspiracy were true, as opposed to requiring time travel, it would not be anything a rational adult would care deeply about. So one person gets arguably undue exposure for a free indie game, so what? That's not an ethics breach on the scale of a of major gaming company demanding good reviews in exchange for preview access and advertising revenue, say, to pick one kind of issue which had been going on for ages beforehand and which the gators didn't lift a finger about.

Do the math. Gators don't give a damn about ethics in games journalism, until an excuse comes along to attack a woman for being an evil, sexy seductress to get ahead somehow in gaming. Does this support the claim that it's really about ethics in game journalism? No. Does this support the claim that it's about femininity, sexuality, feminism and young male gamers' resentment of those things? Yes.

That was the core group who got the ball rolling. Any pretence that this was a grass roots consumer advocacy movement came along much later and was a story cooked up by that core group.

This one is always funny to read. Moot banning talk about GG on 4chan (along with neogaf, r/games, and pretty much everywhere else) is one of the key factors that got everybody riled up. You know?... all of those social media sites colluding together to keep people from discussing something? You revisionists have turned that into "GG was too toxic/violent/whatever for EVEN 4CHAN OMG!!!!", when the truth of the matter is that all of those community leaders buddied up to protect and whiteknight the poor helpless zoe, which alienated a lot of people that simply wanted to discuss something that was obviously a popular topic.

Nobody wants to be a breeding ground for the sort of slime who send death threats and rape threats to women for being feminists. There's a fairly select list of people so vile that 4chan punts them, and I don't think it's an error that child molesters and gamergaters are two of the few who make the grade.

You are not a victim if you are part of a group that nobody wants to associate with for good reasons.

If they had just let it be it most likely would have fizzled out in a matter of days and literally nobody would give a **** about it anymore.

...and the victim-blaming begins. It's your fault you can't go on the internet without attracting massive, organised harassment, you made them kick us off 4chan, if you hadn't done that none of this would ever have happened! None of it! It's all your fault!.

It's not really surprising. By definition gamergaters are a self-selecting group who take no responsibility for their actions, because those who take responsibility for their actions already left.

Discussion moved to 8chan and other places. So? What do you expect to happen when nearly every site simultaneously decides that a topic is not to be discussed? And at this point there was nothing "anti-feminist" about it. People were pissed that posts were getting deleted by the thousands and discussion of the zoe post was getting banned everywhere. Or to put it another way, people were pissed about coordinated censorship and blatant cronyism.

You think you've got it tough? Try finding a venue for a meeting of NAMBLA or the KKK! They have a really tough time what with all the coordinated censorship and blatant cronyism. Or possibly well-informed repugnance. You say tomato, I say tomato.

That has obviously been a part of it, but it can be easily proven that 2 out of 3 of them deliberately inserted themselves into the whole thing on their own and were not "focused on" before that.

Yup, roll on that victim blaming. They deliberately inserted themselves, they wanted the death threats and rape threats, gators were helpless before their sexy female wiles, gators are the real victims here! When will these evil women stop making people threaten to kill them? When oh when? Only then will this madness stop!

Everything starts somewhere. It's not like people are just ignoring damning evidence of bigger happenings while explicitly targeting these poor helpless feminists. If bigger things, or things about bigger players come out you can bet your butt that GG will jump all over it. It's laughable to think otherwise.

Yup. Any minute now they'll be boycotting EA. Any second. It would be laughable to think otherwise. Gamergate isn't just about an excuse to work yourself into a frothing hatred of women and feminists and feel like a victim, no no! Gators are 100% ready to stop buying any major video game franchise the second they uncover evidence of unethical behaviour. Just you wait.

It's laughable to think otherwise.