Support NeoGAF

[Orayn]

Our incorrect perception that some lady said bad words about video games makes us equivalent to an actual oppressed minority.

WHEN WILL GAMERS HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS EVERYONE ELSE?

WHEN WILL OUR HOBBY BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AS AN ARTFORM AND ALSO IMMUNE TO ALL FORMS OF SERIOUS CRITICISM?

#GamerSolidarity

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

So fucking disrespectful. Who the eff changes a friggin' quote from a historical figure to not only something unrelated to their context but also something that didn't even exist in their time? Holy fuckballs. The balls.

Like, I'm literally raging over here.

 

[ApharmdX]

Sorry, but this isn't really true. Nobody is arguing that games journalism is perfect and doesn't have problems. But because of GamerGate we can't have any legitimate discussion on the topic.

It's sort of obvious when you see all the vitriol over how indie games get coverage versus practically ignoring the relationship that major publishers have with media. When the GMAs happened there wasn't a huge uproar from the GG crowd, as far as I'm aware.

Yeah. I don't deny that this is just about misogyny and trolling for a lot of the GamerGate crowd. It's in keeping with the political climate in America today, though; "majority" (white, male, straight, Christian) groups pretend to be disenfranchised. This will probably win them both houses of Congress today, so it's a working strategy for state elections, if not for national ones.

In fact, I'd say that GamerGate hit in a perfect storm of salacious scandal amid an American political situation that made it burn even hotter.

 

[L Thammy]

Agreed. When your movement is so hateful and toxic that Breitbart is one of your chief media proponents, you got to purge your ranks of the crazy. The problem is, as someone mentioned a couple of pages back, that there's no real way to reel in GamerGate. Anyone can do anything under the label.


I find myself in the "middle" but there isn't a true center. The most vocal and obvious pro-GGers are so unhinged and unwilling to stick to the issue of corruption that's important to me, I can't be a part of that. I'm not the stereotypical gamer; I'm not white, I'm older, extremely liberal, I have a wife and daughters who love gaming... #NotYourShield is not for me, because I don't think it's acceptable to hide your hatred of minority groups behind a few token individuals. I guess GamerGate was bound to end up like this, as the Zoe Quinn thing touched a nerve with a lot of MRAs and other right-wingers, and they ended up leading the charge. I post on another, very old gaming site that is strongly pro-GG, and this describes most of their community.

On the other hand, the other side has some bad apples too; opportunists who used this controversy as a way to grab more fame for themselves, but who really haven't contributed significantly to gaming. Also, we have to be careful who we are defending. My baseline is "harassment is never acceptable". At the same time, going back to the beginning, I hesitated defending someone who self-identifies as a feminist, but allegedly has a huge disconnect between that identity and her personal choices. Still, while that disconnect may have undermined Quinn's credibility as a mouthpiece, it in no way justifies what happened to her.

There's some fault on both sides, but not equivalence, I guess is what I'm saying. I just wish that the legit issues of the portrayal of women/minorities in gaming, or the corruption in game journalism, were the focal point of GamerGate, and not he said/she said, with dozens of minor Internet celebrities fighting for the spotlight

This is a common argument so I'm sorry if you've heard it before, but looking it as two sides shows a lack of understanding.

Gamergate consists of several groups tied by a common cause (which isn't actually ethics in game journalism) and banner. They make images and campaigns to use their numbers as a resource and draw visibility to each other by promoting the label.

Anti-Gamergate is not a group at all. It's separate, largely unaffiliated people who are seeing what Gamergate is doing, believe that it is wrong, and are acting to stop it. Some of them do bad things, yes, but there have never been organized operations near as I can tell, nor do they draw more visibility to the harmful Gamergate detractors by speaking out.

Think of it this way. The Nazis are an organized group. The Americans and the Communists both dislike the Nazis. Are the Americans and Communists part of the same group? Are the Communists to blame for something that the Americans did or vice versa?

 

[Mael]

So fucking disrespectful. Who the eff changes a friggin' quote from a historical figure to not only something unrelated to their context but also something that didn't even exist in their time? Holy fuckballs. The balls.

Like, I'm literally raging over here.

On top of that it's like parading a dead guy saying that he would totally lead the movement...
Hey this pic is an alsoran I guess.

 

[BlastProcessing]

While humorous, this is what's known as a false dichotomy.

It's a comment on the fact that your post goes out of it's way to create two distinct groups (Gamergate vs SJW's) which allows you to create a false equivalence while simultaneously setting yourself above both groups. My post has nothing to do with dichotomy's false or otherwise.

But hey, maybe this is just a case of me completely misunderstanding your post. Before we move on, I would appreciate it if you went ahead and defined what you think an "SJW" is for for me.

 

[JackDT]

The real Payola schemes have all been from Youtubers. If there is any place where ethics are lacking in VG journalism I'd definitely be looking in that direction.

Remember:

I'm sorry, I didn't see anything about feminism in there, what should I be mad at?

 

[lifa-cobex]

Read the rest of the post you quoted

Please don't stop at the first sentence of my posts. I promise the subsequent sentences usually are relevant to understand the whole of my post.

I'm not rattling your cage or anything. I meant it as a legitimate question.

The interview was with and about Chew so in my pov, When he started asking him about why he was/ felt being grilled by him. I didn't really see a problem with it.

I felt all the questions had fair merit, He gave him plenty of time to respond and it was well presented on both parties.
in other words, I thought Chew had a good chance to put how he felt across with certain issues.

 

[ApharmdX]

This is a common argument so I'm sorry if you've heard it before, but looking it as two sides shows a lack of understanding.

Gamergate consists of several groups tied by a common cause (which isn't actually ethics in game journalism) and banner. They make images and campaigns to use their numbers as a resource and draw visibility to each other by promoting the label.

Anti-Gamergate is not a group at all. It's separate, largely unaffiliated people who are seeing what Gamergate is doing, believe that it is wrong, and are acting to stop it. Some of them do bad things, yes, but there have never been organized operations near as I can tell, nor do they draw more visibility to the harmful Gamergate detractors by speaking out.

Think of it this way. The Nazis are an organized group. The Americans and the Communists both dislike the Nazis. Are the Americans and Communists part of the same group? Are the Communists to blame for something that the Americans did or vice versa?

Neither "side" is really a distinct group. Anyone can tag their tweet with #GamerGate, or post with "I support GG" on their favorite site, just as anyone can denounce GamerGate in the same fashion. There is more organization among pro-GG people, sure, but the whole thing is pretty nebulous, with no central leadership (unlike the Nazis).

This is all pretty irrelevant, though. It's just easier to write "anti-GG" instead of saying "person who takes exception to XX in GamerGate".

 

[jstripes]

The real Payola schemes have all been from Youtubers. If there is any place where ethics are lacking in VG journalism I'd definitely be looking in that direction.

GG seems to hold YouTubers in very high esteem, but the reality is that unlike "journalists" on proper websites, YouTubers have no editorial oversight whatsoever, and no one to prevent ethical breaches.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Okay. Calmer now.

I just heard about some weird Holiday Gamergate event or something? People aren't buying video games this holiday season to protest anti-GG or something?

 

[Ayt]

I'm not rattling your cage or anything. I meant it as a legitimate question.

The interview was with and about Chew so in my pov, When he started asking him about why he was/ felt being grilled by him. I didn't really see a problem with it.

I felt all the questions had fair merit, He gave him plenty of time to respond and it was well presented on both parties.
in other words, I thought Chew had a good chance to put how he felt across with certain issues.

The interview was supposed to be about gamergate.

 

[Cybit]

GG seems to hold YouTubers in very high esteem, but the reality is that unlike "journalists" on proper websites, YouTubers have no editorial oversight whatsoever, and no one to prevent ethical breaches.

The irony of this is not lost on me. YT is easily the most corruptible of areas.

 

[mnz]

Okay. Calmer now.

I just heard about some weird Holiday Gamergate event or something? People aren't buying video games this holiday season to protest anti-GG or something?

Will it be as big as the PAX protest?

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

I'm not rattling your cage or anything. I meant it as a legitimate question.

The interview was with and about Chew so in my pov, When he started asking him about why he was/ felt being grilled by him. I didn't really see a problem with it.

I felt all the questions had fair merit, He gave him plenty of time to respond and it was well presented on both parties.
in other words, I thought Chew had a good chance to put how he felt across with certain issues.

Who the fuck is Chew

 

[Slayven]

Nah, they've been using Malcolm X and MLK photos for a while

guess the #notyourshield footstools told them it was a good idea

What is ti with people with shitty opinions using the civil rights era stuff ?

 

[vcc]

Okay. Calmer now.

I just heard about some weird Holiday Gamergate event or something? People aren't buying video games this holiday season to protest anti-GG or something?

The several thousand of them will make serious dent to the bottom line...

I recall most of the brigade into /r/games weren't gamers mostly. So I suspect it won't even have the effect of a few thousand less sales.

 

[L Thammy]

Neither "side" is really a distinct group. Anyone can tag their tweet with #GamerGate, or post with "I support GG" on their favorite site, just as anyone can denounce GamerGate in the same fashion. There is more organization among pro-GG people, sure, but the whole thing is pretty nebulous, with no central leadership (unlike the Nazis).

This is all pretty irrelevant, though. It's just easier to write "anti-GG" instead of saying "person who takes exception to XX in GamerGate".

I think it's fair to say that most people who post with the #Gamergate tag support Gamergate. I think it's fair to say that most of the harassment that matches up with Gamergate goals is from Gamergate supporters. They could switch to a new label that isn't associated with this crap if they were generally concerned about ethics. That's been suggested a billion times. Instead, that puts you on ignore mode on the shill list (which is an actual list that's being distributed, by the way, I'm not being figurative here.) And, again, they have campaigns and other activities that are very much the activities of an organized group.

You're still treating GG's detractors as a group when you say "both sides have their bad eggs" or whatever it was. If you oppose Gamergate, you're on the other side. That's how they define it.

 

[More_Badass]

Who the fuck is Chew

?

No, but seriously, I think he meant "Chu", as in Arthur Chu

 

[lifa-cobex]

Who the fuck is Chew

Sorry. Chu.

I forgot how the name was spelt

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Will it be as big as the PAX protest?

I just heard it from a co-worker. They were buying Gabens from the GameStop and said the cashier had mentioned it to him. I don't know anything about it, thought you guys might.

EDIT: Would be hilarious if it was the same guy from last night.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

"historical revisionism, nothing more"

-man actively trying to revise history of: accusations against zoe quinn; the origins of the GG hashtag; the "gamer identity is over" articles; anita sarkeesian's video schedule and death threats against her; the number of woman attacked; his own involvement in the hashtag; and now how the movement reacted to shadows of mordor

 

[L Thammy]

"historical revisionism, nothing more"

-man actively trying to revise history of: accusations against zoe quinn; the origins of the GG hashtag; the "gamer identity is over" articles; anita sarkeesian's video schedule and death threats against her; the number of woman attacked; his own involvement in the hashtag; and now how the movement reacted to shadows of mordor

At this point, this whole Gamergate situation isn't even a matter of making molehills into mountains anymore. It's about staring directly at molehills, having your face shoved into them, and still insisting that they're actually mountains.

 

[frequency]

I'm not rattling your cage or anything. I meant it as a legitimate question.

The interview was with and about Chew so in my pov, When he started asking him about why he was/ felt being grilled by him. I didn't really see a problem with it.

I felt all the questions had fair merit, He gave him plenty of time to respond and it was well presented on both parties.
in other words, I thought Chew had a good chance to put how he felt across with certain issues.

And I gave what was meant as a legitimate response. The rest of my post explained why I thought he didn't do a very good job as an interviewer. So we disagree. That's fine. But you cut out the rest of my post and basically asked me to just explain myself again.

 

[Oersted]

This, I guess.

That's why I chuckle a bit when I see posters saying "GG has no legitimate gripes." This has gone on for ages, the gaming media generally sucks and is too incestuous with game creators/publishers.

2 months after it started, some Gamergaters had an actual point. Thats quite bad.

 

[lifa-cobex]

And I gave what was meant as a legitimate response. The rest of my post explained why I thought he didn't do a very good job as an interviewer. So we disagree. That's fine. But you cut out the rest of my post and basically asked me to just explain myself again.

I did read it. I didn't cut it down to make offence.
I just normally quote one or two lines from the person. No one has ever kicked off about it before.

But anyway...
What I meant by it was, you said he started grilling him about things he had put towards the host. I felt it was legitimate as he was the one being interviewed.
I for one wanted it to be brought to light as I had seen these comments myself.

It's difficult to get a complete context of something in text form so I was interested in hearing it from the horses mouth.
If anything, I would have thought he would be glad to sum-up statements he had previously put.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

2 months after it started, some Gamergaters had an actual point. Thats quite bad.

I wouldn't call it that.

Some people that identified with Gamergate had a point.

 

[Feep]

Is it just me, or is this finally starting to die down?

Not seeing nearly as much of it as I did.

 

[kadotsu]

Is it just me, or is this finally starting to die down?

Not seeing nearly as much of it as I did.

COD is out.

 

[BocoDragon]

COD is out.

Ha!

 

[kingdoug87]

COD is out.

Press F for ethics in game journalism.

 

[LiegeWaffle]

So, can someone summarize the Pakman/Chu interview?

From what I hear he was going over the questions to Arthur Chu which did not even relate to the matter of #gamergate, just because gamergaters handed him the list of "hard" questions? Is that considered ethical journalism these days?

 

[Dr_LucienSanchez]

"historical revisionism, nothing more"

-man actively trying to revise history of: accusations against zoe quinn; the origins of the GG hashtag; the "gamer identity is over" articles; anita sarkeesian's video schedule and death threats against her; the number of woman attacked; his own involvement in the hashtag; and now how the movement reacted to shadows of mordor

I know I've probably used the adjective too much at this point, but it really just is so gross. 'Alleged' death threats is also just inexcusable.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Is it just me, or is this finally starting to die down?

Not seeing nearly as much of it as I did.

It's going away, but if they go on the Daily Show, it's dead, no questions asked.

Spoiler

And they know it.

 

[Corpekata]

So, can someone summarize the Pakman/Chu interview?

From what I hear he was going over the questions to Arthur Chu which did not even relate to the matter of #gamergate, just because gamergaters handed him the list of "hard" questions? Is that considered ethical journalism these days?

There were barely any questions at all. It's mainly them differing on how Pakman handled trying to get Quinn on the show and offering a platform to GG. Questions later were basically about his advocating doxxing for RAT forum users (hackers/blackmailers) and about creating #tweetlikenotyourshield. Chu was upset that the discussion and questions seemed overly personal in nature and not about Gamergate in general, like he thought he was being invited to discuss. An overwhelming about the interview is about Pakman himself.

 

[VibratingDonkey]

Found in the Arthur Chu Pakman video comments. Two things:

1) Is TB everywhere now?
2) Where do we start lining up to worship our savior of video games?

I checked the hashtag after he'd revealed that brand deal, around Oct. 2nd, and all the Mordor tweets I saw were about attacking some article Polygon had written about the "Kiss your wife" tutorial or whatever it was. Mr. Bain might care, I don't know who else in Gamergate did or does.

September 29th is the date TB originally posted the thing I believe. Searching "#Gamergate mordor" shows gaters in general weren't aware until after Jim Sterling posted his thing on the 7th. There are some amount of gaters who cared. I'd guess somewhere between 50 and 100. If you want to (I don't) you could properly count the gater tweets that are negative towards the brand deal. Don't know if it would then be possible to check that against the number of #gamergate tweets of the day(s) to get a ratio.

Found this thing TB wrote about Mordor stuff.

 

[axisofweevils]

New Escapist Video by MovieBob. "Why Gaming Needs To Get Over Jack Thompson". Very informative.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/vid...e/9865-Gaming-Needs-To-Get-Over-Jack-Thompson

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

I find it amusing TB is pro-GamerGate but thought #PS4NoDrm was noise from the entitled peanut gallery

If nothing else it should call into question his ability to know a winner when he sees one

 

[Ty4on]

Heh.

 

[Corpekata]

Pakman seems to have wisely changed the title of the video. Still don't buy his innocent act whenever he does things like this, but a small step.

 

[andymcc]

COD is out.

Yes, the title that is about true creative expression and an unwillingness the flinch when presenting challenging narratives to players.

 

[CLEEK]

It's a line from the play, Frost/Nixon.

Actually, it's a quote by Nixon himself, said during his famous Front interviews that the play dramatises.

Frost: The wave of dissent, occasionally violent, which followed in the wake of the Cambodian incursion, prompted President Nixon to demand better intelligence about the people who were opposing him. To this end, the Deputy White House Counsel, Tom Huston, arranged a series of meetings with representatives of the CIA, the FBI, and other police and intelligence agencies.

These meetings produced a plan, the Huston Plan, which advocated the systematic use of wiretappings, burglaries, or so-called black bag jobs, mail openings and infiltration against antiwar groups and others. Some of these activities, as Huston emphasized to Nixon, were clearly illegal. Nevertheless, the president approved the plan. Five days later, after opposition from J. Edgar Hoover, the plan was withdrawn, but the president's approval was later to be listed in the Articles of Impeachment as an alleged abuse of presidential power.

So what in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain situations, and the Huston Plan or that part of it was one of them, where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.

Nixon: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Actually, it's a quote by Nixon himself, said during his famous Front interviews that the play dramatises.

Well holy shit.

 

[Cyrano]

Heh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKCmyiljKo0

 

[CLEEK]

Well holy shit.

It's come full circle.

WaterGamerGate.

 

[Novan Leon]

who are these "most men"

The default position that the majority of men are ignorant of GamerGate is a safe assumption since the reverse is so obviously not true. Only those like you or I who closely follow gaming are likely to have any idea what GamerGate is. Ask your dad, brother, cousin or anyone else who isn't an avid gamer and they won't have a clue. Add to that number many men like myself who've remained largely silent on the topic for the aforementioned reasons and there you have your "most men" number.

It's a comment on the fact that your post goes out of it's way to create two distinct groups (Gamergate vs SJW's) which allows you to create a false equivalence while simultaneously setting yourself above both groups. My post has nothing to do with dichotomy's false or otherwise.

But hey, maybe this is just a case of me completely misunderstanding your post. Before we move on, I would appreciate it if you went ahead and defined what you think an "SJW" is for for me.

The false dichotomy comes from claiming that a third position is "placing myself above the others" in the first place. My whole point was that there are many "third options" but anyone who picks one is automatically attacked and accused of aligning with one side or another (or apparently trying to be "above others" like you're doing now). It's a no-win situation and certainly not conducive to rational discussion.

Whether or not any of the women being attacked are actually involved in the debate is almost irrelevant, they still represent a side that people align themselves with, legitimately or not.

 

[MYeager]

"historical revisionism, nothing more"

-man actively trying to revise history of: accusations against zoe quinn; the origins of the GG hashtag; the "gamer identity is over" articles; anita sarkeesian's video schedule and death threats against her; the number of woman attacked; his own involvement in the hashtag; and now how the movement reacted to shadows of mordor

He IS history, nothing more.

 

[Son of Cervantes]

There were barely any questions at all. It's mainly them differing on how Pakman handled trying to get Quinn on the show and offering a platform to GG. Questions later were basically about his advocating doxxing for RAT forum users (hackers/blackmailers) and about creating #tweetlikenotyourshield. Chu was upset that the discussion and questions seemed overly personal in nature and not about Gamergate in general, like he thought he was being invited to discuss. An overwhelming about the interview is about Pakman himself.

The Pakman interviews have all been awful since the first Brianna Wu one. The Wu one was pretty good until she got defensive at the end and accused him of doing a hit piece. That seems to have hurt Pakman's feelings or something and he's been whining in interviews and on Twitter about how 'fair' he is and how he feels attacked. The Chu interview was his lowest point so far...like half the interview is Pakman asking Chu over and over again "aren't I being fair to you???" Pathetic of Pakman. -_-

 

[BlastProcessing]

The default position that the majority of men are ignorant of GamerGate is a safe assumption since the reverse is so obviously not true. Only those like you or I who closely follow gaming are likely to have any idea what GamerGate is. Ask your dad, brother, cousin or anyone else who isn't an avid gamer and they won't have a clue. Add to that number many men like myself who've remained largely silent on the topic for the aforementioned reasons and there you have your "most men" number.



The false dichotomy comes from claiming that a third position is "placing myself above the others" in the first place. My whole point was that there are many "third options" but anyone who picks one is automatically attacked and accused of aligning with one side or another (or apparently trying to be "above others" like you're doing now). It's a no-win situation and certainly not conducive to rational discussion.

Whether or not any of the women being attacked are actually involved in the debate is almost irrelevant, they still represent a side that people align themselves with, legitimately or not.

Ok, I was confused because a dichotomy is explicitly about two things. I am having a hard time seeing any dichotomies here. But that isn't really important. The core of my issue is that you have asserted that there is a group called SJWs and drew an equivalence between their actions and 4Chans. You still have not told me what a SJW is.

I would also argue that you don't get to just say that "Whether or not any of the women being attacked are actually involved in the debate is almost irrelevant" and make that point of discussion disappear with a rhetorical handwave.

 

[zeldablue]

The default position that the majority of men are ignorant of GamerGate is a safe assumption since the reverse is so obviously not true. Only those like you or I who closely follow gaming are likely to have any idea what GamerGate is. Ask your dad, brother, cousin or anyone else who isn't an avid gamer and they won't have a clue. Add to that number many men like myself who've remained largely silent on the topic for the aforementioned reasons and there you have your "most men" number.



The false dichotomy comes from claiming that a third position is "placing myself above the others" in the first place. My whole point was that there are many "third options" but anyone who picks one is automatically attacked and accused of aligning with one side or another (or apparently trying to be "above others" like you're doing now). It's a no-win situation and certainly not conducive to rational discussion.

Whether or not any of the women being attacked are actually involved in the debate is almost irrelevant, they still represent a side that people align themselves with, legitimately or not.

What about most women? A lot of my friends, co-workers and professors are pretty aware and appalled by what has been going on. Does that not matter?

Does the SJW label include all of those women as well?