Support NeoGAF

[megalowho]

I don't know what this means.

Not everyone that finds GamerGate largely reprehensible is looking to engage in a political fight online. Many of us barely identify with gamer culture to begin with. Condemning folks for "good but not good enough" or for having other life priorities or not feeling like they have a meaningful contribution to the conversation is exasperating, especially when there's little disagreement otherwise. It turns people away from engaging at all. That's what I take away from it, at least.

 

[charlequin]

The problem is you are no attacking the root, the studies are about offline and not media with emphasis in anonymity, and all points out, since UserNet days, that you are actually giving more attention to the harassers. Total silence is also unwise.

The way that statements of solidarity and the presentation of a unified front support those targeted for abuse is pretty universal, and if anything this result is easier to achieve in a medium like twitter, where far more people have a voice and a grassroots solidarity effort (like #StopGamerGate2014) can easily grow and be seen in a very short time. This was true on Usenet (where the regulars of a newsgroup getting together to run trolls out of town on a rail was generally far more effective than just ignoring them in every discussion) and it's still true today.

Again, it is not really relevant whether the harassers get more attention. A situation in which the harassers are happier but the targets feel protected and supported is dramatically better than one in which the harassers feel vaguely irritated but the targets are suffering in silence and have no access to support from the broader community.

My greater point (which you responded to part of) was that most reactions, including that from Giant Bomb, wasn't one of simply staying "stay silent." This is a discussion thread about the sort of reaction that's important.

That's true, and it's certainly very good that Giant Bomb finally took a stand on it. I have a problem with how long they, and many other sites, waited to do so (that unquestionably helped make the movement more visible, not less), and I don't think Jeff is right to defend that choice in the article, but the most important thing is certainly standing up against them now.

 

[kyser73]

You really have no idea who Jeff Gerstmann is, do you?

I know he's an editor/founder of GiantBomb, but beyond that I don't, no.

Quite why that has bearing on my interpretation of the words he's written I don't know. If he isn't naive about how gaming fits into the rest of the world, or has written extensively on the subject I have difficulty understanding why someone of experience & note would be trying to argue both silence isn't complicity and that victims of harassment should be circumspect about how they respond to that harassment.

 

[A Black Falcon]

Jeff? Naive? that is a new one... a pretty good one

It's accurate, though. That's how those two paragraphs are like Erik Kain's article -- the naive, I-hate-politics belief that somehow if people argued less everything would be better, or something like that.

Of course, that's totally wrong. Without political argument and debate, nothing good would get done; you don't accomplish things by sitting around saying nothing anyone could take issue with.

Now, there are times when not arguing back against someone saying something stupid does make sense. This is not one of those times. Because of the virulence of the speech, the number of people saying it, and the strength of the campaign, it is clear that ignoring this problem will not work.

An important part of that is because this isn't just a political argument, it's also a problem of bullying hate-speech. And bullies do NOT stop just because their victims, or bystanders, do or say nothing! That just encourages them to continue, unfortunately. This is not one of those situations where you don't argue about politics with your opposite-end-of-the-political-spectrum relatives in order to avoid unpleasant and pointless arguments. That kind of non-response here will do nothing to dissuade them from their hateful sexist campaign.

False dichotomy is not a valid argument. There are always more options.

There really aren't, though. Well, other than going hard-right sexist and joining GamerGate, of course. But that's a pretty bad option.

Interesting to see people so adamant about the injustice of basically a single line.

It's not a single line, it's pretty much the whole last two paragraphs of the article -- a significant portion of it.

The fundamental problem to framing this issue around whether people are "giving the harassers what they want" is that, fundamentally, what happens with the harassers doesn't matter. We have no way of knowing exactly what any given harasser wants or any way we can act that will guarantee they will not feel satisfaction; a lot of the reason miserable, disenfranchised people turn to harassment and social violence is that it's really hard to react to it in a way that keeps the harasser from enjoying themselves.

The correct framing is "what will help the people being targeted the most effectively," and the answer to that, as well established both by individual experience and academic study, is for people in privileged positions to actively respond in solidarity. The sooner people with less to lose stand up and say "this is unacceptable," the sooner it becomes more difficult to pull off additional harassment campaigns or to recruit useful idiots from the masses of people who simply don't realize what's really going on.

Very well said! With bullies, or discrimination, every situation is different. Sometimes just explaining that, and/or why, what they're doing is wrong will work, if someone really didn't realize it. But that clearly won't work with the dedicated hardcore of this group, so as you say, people in privileged positions need to respond strongly against their beliefs. This article goes partway towards that, and that's good, it's just unfortunate that he had to write those last two paragraphs.

 

[Gestault]

That's true, and it's certainly very good that Giant Bomb finally took a stand on it. I have a problem with how long they, and many other sites, waited to do so (that unquestionably helped make the movement more visible, not less), and I don't think Jeff is right to defend that choice in the article, but the most important thing is certainly standing up against them now.

I thought the coverage, particularly from Patrick Klepek, which predated the formulation of Gamergate, was quite good, and made clear the most appropriate reaction and support. I'd say the death of Gerstmann's father had something to do with the period after that.

 

[BocoDragon]

I would have taken a good long time to respond to this myself. Why? I really thought it would blow over. It's only after the length of time (2 months?) that you start to realize that this might be more than some virtual internet flash in the pan.... It's actually an ugly thing that needs to be addressed.

 

[Riposte]

I thought the coverage, particularly from Patrick Klepek, which predated the formulation of Gamergate, was quite good, and made clear the most appropriate reaction and support. I'd say the death of Gerstmann's father had something to do with the period after that.

I think it is also worth noting that, as far as I can tell, GB hasn't tolerated anyone planting a seed of GamerGate on their site and moderate their forums in a way that encourages inclusion (areas they have direct power over). By trying to create a safe space on the internet, they are taking an active role, one beyond the twitter arguments. (I agree that it's a false dichotomy.)

 

[Metroidvania]

The sooner people with less to lose stand up and say "this is unacceptable," the sooner it becomes more difficult to pull off additional harassment campaigns or to recruit useful idiots from the masses of people who simply don't realize what's really going on.

Sometimes just explaining that, and/or why, what they're doing is wrong will work, if someone really didn't realize it. But that clearly won't work with the dedicated hardcore of this group, so as you say, people in privileged positions need to respond strongly against their beliefs.

Given the internet's vast allowance for anonymity, does someone in a position of power/privilege have the same relevance they do in a real-world setting in providing a 'strong' response?

Obviously, as A Black Falcon states, it will affect the moderate, to some extent, but people don't have the same societal 'onus' that is required of them in real life? (until the cops get called on the death threats or continual harassment, at least).

The statement is important, of course, and it will hopefully help people realize what's going on with the GG hashtag. And, associating punishments within your community alongside your statements helps to add weight/action to your response.

But I'm honestly not sure Giant Bomb/Gamespot/IGN, or even the entire gaming community, have the level of respect/importance necessary to contain these kinds of people from making their presence felt.

 

[sonicmj1]

I think the reason Jeff wants to defend the neutrality of people who stay silent is that while he spent a month staying away from social media after his father died, he was getting shit for not speaking out. People have lots of reasons for not talking. Their choice to stay silent may well be unhelpful to those on the receiving end of harassment, but it doesn't make them enemies.

 

[Gestault]

I think it is also worth noting that, as far as I can tell, GB hasn't tolerated anyone planting a seed of GamerGate on their site and moderate their forums in a way that encourages inclusion (areas they have direct power over).

There was specifically a statement to that effect. Even in earlier topics, like the flare-up in the fighting game community, they made clear, direct statements condemning both the attitudes and mistreatment going on.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

The way that statements of solidarity and the presentation of a unified front support those targeted for abuse is pretty universal, and if anything this result is easier to achieve in a medium like twitter, where far more people have a voice and a grassroots solidarity effort (like #StopGamerGate2014) can easily grow and be seen in a very short time. This was true on Usenet (where the regulars of a newsgroup getting together to run trolls out of town on a rail was generally far more effective than just ignoring them in every discussion) and it's still true today.

But hashtags are supposed to be that, short and easy to see... And die. The fact that GG is still alive speaks more of the lack of proper management of the groups that denounce it to begin with.

Again, it is not really relevant whether the harassers get more attention. A situation in which the harassers are happier but the targets feel protected and supported is dramatically better than one in which the harassers feel vaguely irritated but the targets are suffering in silence and have no access to support from the broader community.

But also makes more difficult to have a different opinion. Look how dismissive people are her even when we agree with the core issue. I hope you don't take offense (I took time to use the support email of the site) but I was banned for a month because I was not fast enough with my phone connection to explain "evidence" of other cultural circles being toxic for the sake of activism. That seeds mistrust even when I understand that mods are under a lot of pressure here and a lot of concerned trolls like to attack here... But a closed and secure community doesn't mean a healthy one.

 

[Zaph]

I know he's an editor/founder of GiantBomb, but beyond that I don't, no.

Quite why that has bearing on my interpretation of the words he's written I don't know. If he isn't naive about how gaming fits into the rest of the world, or has written extensively on the subject I have difficulty understanding why someone of experience & note would be trying to argue both silence isn't complicity and that victims of harassment should be circumspect about how they respond to that harassment.

I wrote a bit about Jeff's letter in the GG thread a couple days ago:

I couldn't really get behind that particular paragraph of the GB statement, but what we have to put in perspective is that Jeff has been on the receiving end of abuse and (very scary/personal) threats on and off for almost two decades (don't need to remind you guys about 8.8). He's also supported and coached his employee through a very intense (and ongoing) hate campaign which even targeted his family.

I believe it was well intentioned and an extension of a legitimate strategy he's used to deal with similar shit throughout his entire life, and dismissing it is kinda arrogant and presumptuous considering none of us have lived it.

Again, I don't necessarily agree with it, but I think it's unfair to dismiss it as an attempted CYA justification when he's been on the receiving end of this shit more than all of us combined. Can't speak for him, but I feel he used his own experiences of what worked/didn't work, and rightly or wrongly applied it here.

 

[Shingro]

I found that really interesting conversation between Patrick and Shawn Elliot, I think there's stuff to think about for everyone in it, Who says good conversations can't happen on twitter?

https://twitter.com/patrickklepek/status/511922681487171584

For those who haven't been kicking around game journalism for the last 10 years, Shawn knows what the hell he's talking about when it comes to trolling.

 

[LumpOfCole]

In defense of 'how long' it took Giant Bomb to say something:

In the past, gross shit like GamerGate usually just went away on its own after a while and giving it more press and attention would've only served to prolong its influence rather than stifle it. Trolls do what they do for attention, and the majority of those stirring up shit are just doing it to troll. Staying silent (or relatively quiet) is usually the better way to handle trolls.

But GamerGate didn't go away like similar happenings in the past because it has continued to consistently go beyond trolling - GamerGate has evolved into a fatter, grosser animal and Giant Bomb rightly felt that they needed to address it.

 

[Aselith]

*raises eyebrow*

Okay, I feel like we got off on the wrong foot here. Here is my position:

- These people thrive on silence and take it as tacit approval. They can not argue with people being against them.

- In that sense, yes, silence is enabling them. It allows them to add veneers of credibility to shield the madness.

- People can choose to be neutral or whatever. That's their prerogative. But neutrality here isn't "no stance." It is a stance that inherently allows louder people more space to be loud and, right now, those loud people are doing and saying awful things.

Lime quoted this post from another thread before, but I want to repost this image:

To me, this is the price of silence and that's heartbreaking.

Crazy doesn't really respond to condemnation. These people making death threats and shit are CRAZY. Speaking out against them wouldn't do shit except give them attention.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

People are still too focused on the purpose of saying something having to be to stop GG or try to change people's minds. It's more about showing support, because honestly if people were rational they wouldn't be rocking a hashtag born in anger and hatred. Some people have come around once they've gotten information and realized you can campaign for more transparency in dev-journo connections without latching on, but those were also probably not the ones harassing people in the first place.

 

[Wensih]

I felt it was pretty obvious their feelings on the subject from the start, seeing as they were never quiet about the issue. They've denounced it from the beginning in podcasts and at events; this isn't the first time they've taken a stand on this mess.

 

[zhorkat]

But are they really controlling the conversation? All I've seen reported are the vague terminology of 'more ethics' (read: we don't like 'x'), and the death threats.

Gamergate isn't actually contributing to a conversation with the industry or the journalists who report on it. it's sole contribution (afaik) beyond Kotaku being more careful in stating conflict-of-interests and something with Gamasutra advertising, has been to basically 'shield' hate speech/harassment and death threats in order to silence opposition, (with the accompanied result of driving women out of the industry). And hopefully, the authorities have gotten involved.

Essentially, the movement's point (if there was one) regarding ethics has been forsaken in the quest for harassment and threats. But, barring policing the entire internet, you aren't going to shut down the harassers. People can be determined assholes.

You'll win some of the masses reporting on (as in not being silent) evidence of GG's flawed nature and lack of effectiveness as it continues to come out, and hopefully, the movement dissolve due to the actions of the people who are showing the true story, but the real misogynists hidden within the movement are just going to move on to a new venue/platform. (I'm not saying that like it's a good thing, because it's not. It's really, really shitty)



But at the same time, if you do rage back at them, does that stop them?

The death threats need to stop. The harassment needs to stop. And since GG is associated with that, it needs to be denatured.

But I'm not sure if shouting back repeatedly at what essentially seems like an ill-informed 'mob' is the most effective way to make that happen. (I'm not saying being utterly silent and hope it goes away is my response either, that'd be ludicrous)

My original point was moreso looking at Jeff's intention as not being to tell people 'shut up and it'll go away'. Rather, it was more to deny the trolls the possibility of furthering their conversation, while at the same time acknowledging and telling women in the industry 'don't give up'.

Edit: Is it the best argument? Probably not, but I don't necessarily see it as dismissive either.

It's not that trolls and harassers and bullies want to have a specific "conversation". It's that this is a large industry with many conversations going on and these people look at a specific subset of those conversations and a specific subset of the people speaking in those conversations and want that to stop happening. They want "control" of the "conversation" in that they want to shut down the conversations and speakers that they don't like.

 

[kyser73]

I wrote a bit about Jeff's letter in the GG thread a couple days ago:



Again, I don't necessarily agree with it, but I think it's unfair to dismiss it as an attempted CYA justification when he's been on the receiving end of this shit more than all of us combined. Can't speak for him, but I feel he used his own experiences of what worked/didn't work, and rightly or wrongly applied it here.

Thanks for putting a 'you don't know, do you?' comment on context.

It's interesting that someone who has gone through that experience has responded in that way though, and it doesn't alter the point that saying 'silence isn't complicity' and framing an argument about how victims respond is pretty shaky ground to be on.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

I know he's an editor/founder of GiantBomb, but beyond that I don't, no.

Quite why that has bearing on my interpretation of the words he's written I don't know. If he isn't naive about how gaming fits into the rest of the world, or has written extensively on the subject I have difficulty understanding why someone of experience & note would be trying to argue both silence isn't complicity and that victims of harassment should be circumspect about how they respond to that harassment.

He has different opinion than you, I guess...

Thanks for putting a 'you don't know, do you?' comment on context.

It's interesting that someone who has gone through that experience has responded in that way though, and it doesn't alter the point that saying 'silence isn't complicity' and framing an argument about how victims respond is pretty shaky ground to be on.

George Orwell was not so hot that people called art not political or that people were no compromised enough to make a change. In Animal Farm the wisest animal, a donkey called Benjamin, did nothing to stop the tyranny of the pigs... And yet, Orwell was called by friends as "grumpy Donkey George" and admitted that neutrality is a political stance, one that he hated.

 

[Aselith]

I felt it was pretty obvious their feelings on the subject from the start, seeing as they were never quiet about the issue. They've denounced it from the beginning in podcasts and at events; this isn't the first time they've taken a stand on this mess.

They actually talked about it on the bombcast a week after it started and they were between podcasts when it started and also had a previous letter from the editor

 

[Lime]

I posted this in the other, similar thread, but why would I make a career out of developing or writing about video games when the major media outlets won't even say something to help protect my identity? Why would I want to participate in a culture where the power holders and those with influence simply close their eyes and put their fingers in their ears while I am being harmed through harassment and threatened out of my house for simply existing and having an opinion? When the resolution of some game is revealed, everyone immediately reports on it, but with issues like this, it reached the NYT frontpage article before the major games media (Gamespot, GB, Polygon, Eurogamer) decided to speak up.

I am talking in general here, not specifically GB.

 

[Wensih]

They actually talked about it on the bombcast a week after it started and they were between podcasts when it started and also had a previous letter from the editor

Yeah, so I'm not sure why so many are accusing them of being silent for far too long, or happy when they finally spoke up.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Again, it is not really relevant whether the harassers get more attention. A situation in which the harassers are happier but the targets feel protected and supported is dramatically better than one in which the harassers feel vaguely irritated but the targets are suffering in silence and have no access to support from the broader community.

Well said. The way the discussion in the last couple of pages went from talking about what harassers are doing wrong to what anti-harassment people are doing wrong was annoyingly typical for these scenarios.

 

[0xCA2]

The fundamental problem to framing this issue around whether people are "giving the harassers what they want" is that, fundamentally, what happens with the harassers doesn't matter. We have no way of knowing exactly what any given harasser wants or any way we can act that will guarantee they will not feel satisfaction; a lot of the reason miserable, disenfranchised people turn to harassment and social violence is that it's really hard to react to it in a way that keeps the harasser from enjoying themselves.

The correct framing is "what will help the people being targeted the most effectively," and the answer to that, as well established both by individual experience and academic study, is for people in privileged positions to actively respond in solidarity. The sooner people with less to lose stand up and say "this is unacceptable," the sooner it becomes more difficult to pull off additional harassment campaigns or to recruit useful idiots from the masses of people who simply don't realize what's really going on.

Great post. I wish I could upvote it.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

I posted this in the other, similar thread, but why would I make a career out of developing or writing about video games when the major media outlets won't even say something to help protect my identity? Why would I want to participate in a culture where the power holders and those with influence simply close their eyes and put their fingers in their ears while I am being harmed through harassment and threatened out of my house for simply existing and having an opinion? When the resolution of some game is revealed, everyone immediately reports on it, but with issues like this, it reached the NYT frontpage article before the major games media (Gamespot, GB, Polygon, Eurogamer) decided to speak up.

I am talking in general here, not specifically GB.

Because you like video games?

Not being dismissive. You like video games and like to write about them even when you hate the culture around it (and I disagree is that bad as whole, but that is a different issue on what you actually feel).

Well said. The way the discussion in the last couple of pages went from talking about what harassers are doing wrong to what anti-harassment people are doing wrong was annoyingly typical for these scenarios.

Sigh. Dude, people are really trying...

 

[njean777]

I know he's an editor/founder of GiantBomb, but beyond that I don't, no.

Quite why that has bearing on my interpretation of the words he's written I don't know. If he isn't naive about how gaming fits into the rest of the world, or has written extensively on the subject I have difficulty understanding why someone of experience & note would be trying to argue both silence isn't complicity and that victims of harassment should be circumspect about how they respond to that harassment.

You need to read more Taoist material. They are far more happy and calm then you, and they preach silence as a weapon of sorts. Action through non-action.

Not saying it is the right way, just saying there are times where it does work.

 

[Zaph]

Thanks for putting a 'you don't know, do you?' comment on context.

It's interesting that someone who has gone through that experience has responded in that way though, and it doesn't alter the point that saying 'silence isn't complicity' and framing an argument about how victims respond is pretty shaky ground to be on.

I completely agree. Without being too presumptuous about his rationale, I think it's safe to say a lot men internalise things as there's a fear that talking the abuse you receive will be perceived as attention seeking or feeling sorry for yourself. So often what 'works' is ignoring things like abuse until it goes away.

But what we often forget is that the online abuse women commonly receive has its foundations in a fear and reality that's been part of their entire life, which is why it can take a much larger toll on them and definitely why we shouldn't assume there's a 'one size fits all' approach to supporting victims because it may have worked for yourself.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Because you like video games?

Not being dismissive. You like video games and like to write about them even when you hate the culture around it (and I disagree is that bad as whole, but that is a different issue on what you actually feel).

You are being dismissive, although that may not have been your intent.

Gaming as both hobby and industry is young and immature, and the industry side does not extend the same basic considerations to its members. In most industries and associations, when members are singled out and harassed people step up and show support. It's happening slowly and clumsily from a few outlets now, but the dominant position is still to do nothing and protect the bottom line. If someone feels their safety and well being is secondary then it's natural they'll look somewhere else.

The women in gaming who stay even while being attacked have amazing strength.

 

[Shingro]

The fundamental problem to framing this issue around whether people are "giving the harassers what they want" is that, fundamentally, what happens with the harassers doesn't matter. We have no way of knowing exactly what any given harasser wants or any way we can act that will guarantee they will not feel satisfaction; a lot of the reason miserable, disenfranchised people turn to harassment and social violence is that it's really hard to react to it in a way that keeps the harasser from enjoying themselves.

The correct framing is "what will help the people being targeted the most effectively," and the answer to that, as well established both by individual experience and academic study, is for people in privileged positions to actively respond in solidarity. The sooner people with less to lose stand up and say "this is unacceptable," the sooner it becomes more difficult to pull off additional harassment campaigns or to recruit useful idiots from the masses of people who simply don't realize what's really going on.

I think you're off on the first but spot on in the second. When someone makes a special effort to insult someone, we know they want to know their barb landed and that it hurt.

When someone sends someone a death threat, we know what they want, they're attacking that individual, they want to get a reaction, almost always they want to invoke fear. Their actions show their intentions and also their desires. So it is totally legitimate to say (much as people have been in unmodded irc channels/forums/etc since the dawn of the internet) "Don't give them the satisfaction."

Again, from Shawn Elliot "It's a lot like in-game griefing. Absence of any direct response always shuts it down."

That being said, that isn't to say that there's absolutely nothing to be done, I'd say the best move is to loudly support the person being harassed, not by ascribing power to what the harasser said, but of positive reinforcement to the target's work/ideals/bravery/humanity/whatever you find good about them.

This doesn't give, or at least gives the troll a smaller feeling of power, and makes some effort to balance the scales mentally for the victim.

going hatred vs hatred I think will always end up in tears all around. I'd say the condemnation of GG has gotten incredibly prevalent and loud in the recent few weeks.

Yet the death/shooting threats have increased. Why? We basically told the abusers that it was effective. We showed them their own strongest weapon with the high level of our vitriol.

Personally, I think that was a mistake. Tactically speaking.

 

[charlequin]

I thought the coverage, particularly from Patrick Klepek, which predated the formulation of Gamergate, was quite good, and made clear the most appropriate reaction and support.

Patrick has been doing a very good job but I don't think that what he was saying really got out to the userbase as a whole, especially since so many people already had nonsense like the "NoPat" app.

But also makes more difficult to have a different opinion. Look how dismissive people are her even when we agree with the core issue.

I don't accept that showing solidarity with victims of abuse and harassment makes it "more difficult to have a different opinion," unless that opinion is "harassment is awesome."

Because you like video games?

I know a lot of people who love video games a whole lot, but do they love video games more than not getting calls from their parents asking why a random person called them up and threatened to rape them?

Again, from Shawn Elliot "It's a lot like in-game griefing. Absence of any direct response always shuts it down."

This simply is not factually accurate. Silence and lack of response is not an effective strategy for dealing with harassment. It is, however, a very effective strategy for blaming people for their own harassment.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Does anyone have any idea how tiring being constantly told "don't feed the trolls" is when you are being literally, constantly bombarded with vitriol? These women and men are not just receiving sporadic one-off comments. They are receiving thousands of threats daily.

It's not the same as rage mail in a game or snark on a message board.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Let's please stop treating this like trolling. Like "if you don't respond, they have nothing more to do" sort of arguments. This isn't calling someone a nasty word in a game to rile them up. This is literally sending death threats to people at work. This is finding out everything you can about their personal life and spreading it to the entire world. Nothing I've ever done in a game or online has come close to this.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

You are being dismissive, although that may not have been your intent.

Gaming as both hobby and industry is young and immature, and the industry side does not extend the same basic considerations to its members. In most industries and associations, when members are singled out and harassed people step up and show support. It's happening slowly and clumsily from a few outlets now, but the dominant position is still to do nothing and protect the bottom line. If someone feels their safety and well being is secondary then it's natural they'll look somewhere else.

The women in gaming who stay even while being attacked have amazing strength.

There is no doubt about it. But I will be dishonest to myself If I said that the answer depends one as an individual and the current realities. My mother worked as an electronic engineer in a factory. It didn't help that my father died and she needed to maintain me. But she said she loved her work and loved the place where she lived. But when I wanted to enter to Literature related career, she was mad at me because I didn't choice a safe option.

Yeah, is more easy to a man to choice what to do, but still. But my mother changed her mind when she realized that was something I was willing to do (and being intelligent about it). She still snides to me now and then even when she is enjoying her retirement. The question of "is worth the pain?" Is so personal, the unfairness about it just makes it more difficult.

 

[Metroidvania]

I posted this in the other, similar thread, but why would I make a career out of developing or writing about video games when the major media outlets won't even say something to help protect my identity?

While I agree with the latter intent of your point, could you clarify on how you expect media outlets to protect your identity in this instance?

Barring getting rid of a potential policy that requires such things as the journo's/subject's true name being used, I can't see how someone getting doxxed is the company's fault, unless it stems from hacking into company files?

This simply is not factually accurate. Silence and lack of response is not an effective strategy for dealing with harassment. It is, however, a very effective strategy for blaming people for their own harassment.

This is unfortunately true. Typically, the silence in this case would refer moreso to the creator ceasing their production of content, rather than to ignore the trolls themselves, especially when it is getting as bad as is being reported.

 

[HK-47]

Does anyone have any idea how tiring being constantly told "don't feed the trolls" is when you are being literally, constantly bombarded with vitriol? These women and men are not just receiving sporadic one-off comments. They are receiving thousands of threats daily.

It's not the same as rage mail in a game or snark on a message board.

Also GGers arent "just" trolls. The meaning of trolling has been so overused literally anything seems to fall under it these days.

 

[vcc]

I know he's an editor/founder of GiantBomb, but beyond that I don't, no.

Quite why that has bearing on my interpretation of the words he's written I don't know. If he isn't naive about how gaming fits into the rest of the world, or has written extensively on the subject I have difficulty understanding why someone of experience & note would be trying to argue both silence isn't complicity and that victims of harassment should be circumspect about how they respond to that harassment.

He's been in the industry since almost the very beginning. I think your statement badly distorts what he's said.

PS. Wouldn't it be more productive not saying stuff like 'they haven't gone far enough' and twisting the words of someone who clearly thinks #GG isn't a good thing; and instead save words for people who are supporting #GG like boogie and Total Biscuit?

 

[Talon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

I'm just learning about the whole #GG movement and controversy but if you disagree with their ideas and motives (which for the most part from what I gather, are just people for ethical discourse in journalism and against bias in gaming news sites among other things), try arguing against their ideas rather than smearing #GG supporters as all filthy misogynists.

Granted I'm pretty ambivalent to the whole movement on both sides but there do appear to be level headed people in the #GG movement (Adam Baldwin for one) who I'm sure don't ascribe to the whole "burn the feminists" or agree with sending death threats. Don't persecute the many for a few idiots.

Oh, man. This is amazing. Haha.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

I don't accept that showing solidarity with victims of abuse and harassment makes it "more difficult to have a different opinion," unless that opinion is "harassment is awesome."

And people most are showing solidarity here. Even Jeff.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Oh, man. This is amazing. Haha.

Wow, can't believe I missed that

I guess Baldwin's level headed

if your level is racism and misogyny

 

[jacksepticeye]

I'm glad Jeff said something, but I still feel like he's perhaps missing the underlying point.

There's so much going on with it by now that its easy miss parts of it. I have no idea what its all about anymore since it started

 

[7DollarHagane]

I posted this in the other, similar thread, but why would I make a career out of developing or writing about video games when the major media outlets won't even say something to help protect my identity? Why would I want to participate in a culture where the power holders and those with influence simply close their eyes and put their fingers in their ears while I am being harmed through harassment and threatened out of my house for simply existing and having an opinion? When the resolution of some game is revealed, everyone immediately reports on it, but with issues like this, it reached the NYT frontpage article before the major games media (Gamespot, GB, Polygon, Eurogamer) decided to speak up.

I am talking in general here, not specifically GB.

Most of the people in the games media know each other either casually or as friends. We don't know what private supportive phone calls, emails, or visits occurred.

To say that the industry has no support for women who recieved harassment just because many deemed the actions as reprehensible and not worthy of attention doesn't mean they didn't reach out individually and personally for support.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Most of the people in the games media know each other either casually or as friends. We don't know what private supportive phone calls, emails, or visits occurred.

To say that the industry has no support for women who recieved harassment just because many deemed the actions as reprehensible and not worthy of attention doesn't mean they didn't reach out individually and personally for support.

The problem is that for most of the time, that has been the only support offered.

 

[jon bones]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

I'm just learning about the whole #GG movement and controversy but if you disagree with their ideas and motives (which for the most part from what I gather, are just people for ethical discourse in journalism and against bias in gaming news sites among other things), try arguing against their ideas rather than smearing #GG supporters as all filthy misogynists.

Granted I'm pretty ambivalent to the whole movement on both sides but there do appear to be level headed people in the #GG movement (Adam Baldwin for one) who I'm sure don't ascribe to the whole "burn the feminists" or agree with sending death threats. Don't persecute the many for a few idiots.

i guess that's one way to neuter your own opinions

btw, it's been said a million times before, goober gate isn't about "ethical journalism."

 

[zhorkat]

When someone sends someone a death threat, we know what they want, they're attacking that individual, they want to get a reaction, almost always they want to invoke fear. Their actions show their intentions and also their desires. So it is totally legitimate to say (much as people have been in unmodded irc channels/forums/etc since the dawn of the internet) "Don't give them the satisfaction."

...

going hatred vs hatred I think will always end up in tears all around. I'd say the condemnation of GG has gotten incredibly prevalent and loud in the recent few weeks.

Yet the death/shooting threats have increased. Why? We basically told the abusers that it was effective. We showed them their own strongest weapon with the high level of our vitriol.

Personally, I think that was a mistake. Tactically speaking.

I would think that when somebody threatens a woman like Brianna Wu with death and leaks her personal information online, that person knows they've been effective when Brianna Wu leaves her home, and not when a site like Polygon condemns the people that sent her death threats.

 

[Booshka]

I still don't really get the whole GamerGate thing. It just seems so petty, rage, threats, and an identity not even worth defending is being vehemently defended in the worst way possible.

The passion behind it is what baffles me the most, this amount of vitriol and targeted hatred toward those trying to deconstruct an insular classification of hobbyists seems strange to me. It's an entertainment medium and way to pass time, not some overlying social justice issue worth going nuts and starting rallying cries for.

 

[TetraGenesis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

I'm just learning about the whole #GG movement and controversy but if you disagree with their ideas and motives (which for the most part from what I gather, are just people for ethical discourse in journalism and against bias in gaming news sites among other things), try arguing against their ideas rather than smearing #GG supporters as all filthy misogynists.

Granted I'm pretty ambivalent to the whole movement on both sides but there do appear to be level headed people in the #GG movement (Adam Baldwin for one) who I'm sure don't ascribe to the whole "burn the feminists" or agree with sending death threats. Don't persecute the many for a few idiots.

Five posts ever on Gaf and this is one of them. By that metric, at least 20% of this user's posts are defending GamerGate.

That doesn't sound like ambivalence to me.

 

[Nerokis]

If I couldn't open up my inbox or social media account without a near constant stream of filth streaming out of my monitor and into my fucking face, talking about a middle-ground would seem kind of insane to me too, honestly.

If this started affecting my actual day-to-day life, yeah, I'd be pretty militant about it. I'd hope others would empathise and help me.

When someone mentions a middle ground, I would hope it is not in relation to the questions, "Is GamerGate a negative force? Is it wrong what has happened to these women?" The answer to those is clear enough. I think I clarified in my post who I'm referring to when I mention the "people in the middle."

I like this because of how you reacted to the sentiment and not the actual words people were saying in a post where you excoriate people for reacting to sentiment and not actual words.

This is a complete mischaracterization, though. The point is not to respond to the sentiment, as opposed to the "actual words" - it's that even if you disagree with these words, with this sentiment, demanding perfection when someone so clearly contributed to your cause is neither reasonable or productive. It's perfectly fine to debate this or that specific point, but there are a number of posts in this thread that go beyond that, and I find the nature of the backlash surprising.

The fundamental problem to framing this issue around whether people are "giving the harassers what they want" is that, fundamentally, what happens with the harassers doesn't matter. We have no way of knowing exactly what any given harasser wants or any way we can act that will guarantee they will not feel satisfaction; a lot of the reason miserable, disenfranchised people turn to harassment and social violence is that it's really hard to react to it in a way that keeps the harasser from enjoying themselves.

The correct framing is "what will help the people being targeted the most effectively," and the answer to that, as well established both by individual experience and academic study, is for people in privileged positions to actively respond in solidarity. The sooner people with less to lose stand up and say "this is unacceptable," the sooner it becomes more difficult to pull off additional harassment campaigns or to recruit useful idiots from the masses of people who simply don't realize what's really going on.

This is a good point. However, even after we accept that solidarity is important, there are still questions as to how to handle something like this productively. You want to show support to the people being harassed. You want it to be known that harassing people in this way is wrong, as well as unacceptable to the community. But you probably don't want to let a conversation be completely hijacked by the harassers, you probably want to minimize their power/influence to the best of your ability and within reason. The point of "solidarity" should be to rise above the negativity, not necessarily to give the negative forces center stage, even if that is a very difficult balancing act (especially for the actual victims).

If the debate in this thread is fundamentally about solidarity, I also have to question how productively people are going about achieving that. A prerequisite for solidarity shouldn't be agreeing about everything.

 

[7DollarHagane]

The problem is that for most of the time, that has been the only support offered.

Its just my opinion but I guess I would feel that the best course of action would be to continue business as usual, continue to support inclusion of all groups in official channels, while encouraging those worst affected in more personal ways.

Things come and go so fast on the internet that many were probably hoping this whole ridiculous thing would go away. Now it clearly has not.

I do wish that game developers would come out and make some official statements or do something supportive for those affected.in some way take the money that gamergate supporters are spending on their games and donate it for the good of females and other minorities in Science and Tech industries.

In the end you can't force anyone to change. If someone chooses to be filled with hate they will continue to be filled with hate. You can show support for others and you can leave the misuguided shouting in an empty room at themseves.

 

[cocopuffs]

Five posts ever on Gaf and this is one of them. By that metric, at least 20% of this user's posts are defending GamerGate.

That doesn't sound like ambivalence to me.

I don't know, maybe it's because I'm new to GAF and found this a worthwhile thread to post in. Maybe try ending the personal attacks and looking through my post history just to find something to latch on to and instead argue against the points I'm presenting.

This is my problem with most of the people in this so-called "anti-#GamerGate crowd". Attacking a person's political beliefs (Baldwin apparently being rightwing), smearing a group by claiming they're all misogynistic minority haters and dismissing them as a bunch of people who hate women (as said by someone in this thread) is frankly dumb. Come on guys, yes sure without a doubt there are people like that (as is evident by the horrific threats that some people are getting) but there are other level-headed people who simply want a discussion on journalism. It's not all "burn the feminists".

Like I already said, I'm not actively for or against any of this (aside from the obvious death threats, harassment and such) but rather than framing this as an issue where it's just a bunch of lonely white men who hate women not only falls for the fallacy of attacking the person rather than their argument but it also dismisses any potential discussion that can be had. But once again, I just bothered to read about this about a week ago so don't paint me as some hardcore supporter or hater when I've already stated my stance on this.