• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

#GamerGate thread 2: it's about feminism in games journalism

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lemondish

Member
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.

From what I've gathered, an SJW is a person who, according to Urban Dictionary, engages in “social justice arguments on the internet... in an effort to raise their own personal reputation.” GG is asserting that SJWs don’t actually hold the principles they claim to and, more importantly, that they pretend to in order to look good on message boards.

That’s not a real category of people, though. It functionally serves as a way to dismiss what someone else says without having to produce any evidence or actually face the argument in any logical way. Sound familiar? It should. it's been their modus operandi this entire time.
 
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 Gamergate's. 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.

A false dichotomy is when people argue that there are only two legitimate positions, when in reality there are more. Claiming that I'm just trying to make myself feel superior is an attempt to invalidate my "third" position, as if there were only two valid choices.

I can claim the involvement of the women in the debate is [almost] irrelevant because my comments are largely focused on the nature of the debate itself, and the involvement of the women doesn't have a significant effect on the polarizing nature of the debate.
 

Xscapist

Member
Gaming Is Leaving “Gamers” Behind Joseph Bernstein Buzzfeed Aug 28, 8:29 pm (references Golding's 2 month old article at that point, is about the similarity of early movie audiences)

The End of Gamers Dan Golding Tumblr Aug 28, time unknown (this is dumb because it was him reposting an article he'd written previously)

Hold up...do you have a link to the original article? Because the one that every links to constantly references "the last two weeks" throughout, and goes into detail about the last few weeks being the Quinn stuff and Anita's new vid. If this is a repost of an older article, then at least half of it has been updated/added/rewritten.

As an aside, something to note that not a lot of people seem to realize: the timestamp on Twitter of Golding announcing the article reveals that it was posted 6-8 hours before Leigh Alexander's article, making it officially the first of the day.
 
A false dichotomy is when people argue that there are only two legitimate positions, when in reality there are more. Claiming that I'm just trying to make myself feel superior is an attempt to invalidate my "third" position, as if there were only two valid choices.

I can claim the involvement of the women in the debate is [almost] irrelevant because my comments are largely focused on the nature of the debate itself, and the involvement of the women doesn't have a significant effect on the polarizing nature of the debate.


You still haven't told me what an SJW is.
 

Christine

Member
From what I've gathered, an SJW is a person who, according to Urban Dictionary, engages in “social justice arguments on the internet... in an effort to raise their own personal reputation.” GG is asserting that SJWs don’t actually hold the principles they claim to and, more importantly, that they pretend to in order to look good on message boards.

That’s not a real category of people, though. It functionally serves as a way to dismiss what someone else says without having to produce any evidence or actually face the argument in any logical way. Sound familiar? It should. it's been their modus operandi this entire time.

I don't know if that's a complete description but I'd call it a correct one. You're talking about an accusation of hypocrisy. That was such a major theme of The Zoe Post itself, it wasn't just that she was a bad person but also that she was getting public accolade for speaking against the types of behaviors she herself was inflicting on others. Get into the guts of most defenses against criticism of gg and you will find deflection into accusations of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is one of the biggest and most forbidden internet sins, which has been a factor in all of this crap.
 

MYeager

Member
Hold up...do you have a link to the original article? Because the one that every links to constantly references "the last two weeks" throughout, and goes into detail about the last few weeks being the Quinn stuff and Anita's new vid. If this is a repost of an older article, then at least half of it has been updated/added/rewritten.

As an aside, something to note that not a lot of people seem to realize: the timestamp on Twitter of Golding announcing the article reveals that it was posted 6-8 hours before Leigh Alexander's article, making it officially the first of the day.

My bad I thought he'd written similar article before and was just reposting it. I was wrong. I know similar articles were written prior to Alexanders piece. Still interesting that his was the first, repeatedly sourced, and he continues to argue against GamerGate and still gets 1% of the type of hate.
 

Corpekata

Banned
So that politician, Mackenzie Kelly, plagiarized the ClickHole article based on GamerGate (http://www.dailydot.com/politics/gamergate-mackenzie-kelly-clickhole-plagiarizing/) and then today, she made a video with Romeo Rose (http://youtu.be/lnwnE2ybCs8), which is the person that she doxxed and supposedly was in the process of getting a retraining order against.

This is like the weirdest fucking thing to come out of Gamergate. She is either a master troll or hilariously stupid.

Like, why does she think chatting with the guy she doxxed will clear things up? Especially given it's Romeo Rose, nobody's going to want his endorsement on this.

Seriously, it's kind of blowing my mind.
 
Hold up...do you have a link to the original article? Because the one that every links to constantly references "the last two weeks" throughout, and goes into detail about the last few weeks being the Quinn stuff and Anita's new vid. If this is a repost of an older article, then at least half of it has been updated/added/rewritten.

As an aside, something to note that not a lot of people seem to realize: the timestamp on Twitter of Golding announcing the article reveals that it was posted 6-8 hours before Leigh Alexander's article, making it officially the first of the day.
Literally the only posts on KiA that mention Golding
HaXLSpe.png
So little focus on him, even though he wrote the first article
 

Myggen

Member
So that politician, Mackenzie Kelly, plagiarized the ClickHole article based on GamerGate (http://www.dailydot.com/politics/gamergate-mackenzie-kelly-clickhole-plagiarizing/) and then today, she made a video with Romeo Rose (http://youtu.be/lnwnE2ybCs8), which is the person that she doxxed and supposedly was in the process of getting a retraining order against.

Well, she now claims that the script from that video was written by "a troll". You just can't make this shit up.
 

zeldablue

Member
I'm not sure what you're asking. Matter in what way?

I'm saying that this is easy for one gender to ignore and harder for the other gender to ignore. :S

I usually try to mind my own business when it comes to race and gender. But when Gamergates and Fergusons pop up, I can't exactly turn away.
 
You still haven't told me what an SJW is.

You're fully capable of googling it yourself so I assume there's another reason behind your question but it generally refers to any self fancied Internet activist who thinks whining, complaining or arguing on the Internet is enough to affect serious social change. Their arguments frequently include shallow reasoning, obvious bias or hypocrisy.
 
I'm saying that this is easy for one gender to ignore and harder for the other gender to ignore. :S

I usually try to mind my own business when it comes to race and gender. But when Gamergates and Fergusons pop up, I can't exactly turn away.

And what exactly do you and your female friends think can be done to correct 4chan's evil ways? (pardon my snark, I'm trying to illustrate the absurdity of the situation). Are you aware who these people are? Ignoring them is absolutely the worst thing you can do to them.
 
hmm... classic #GG.

  • Present wild accusation as fact.
  • Evidence/Analysis comes out that it's mostly or completely not true.
  • Backpedal and claim you were only presenting possible evidence
  • repeat

"But we're just asking questions."

It's not even solely a Gamergate thing. It annoys the hell out of me.
 

Orayn

Member
You're fully capable of googling it yourself so I assume there's another reason behind your question but it generally refers to any self fancied Internet activist who thinks whining, complaining or arguing on the Internet is enough to affect serious social change. Their arguments frequently include shallow reasoning, obvious bias or hypocrisy.

It's also used as a pejorative for anyone who actually cares about social justice topics, regardless of the quality of their arguments or whether or not they've actually had a measurable influence.

Care about gay rights? SJW.
Feminist, but not GamerGate's kind of "feminist?" SJW.
Not a raging transphobe? SJW.
Disagree with any GGer on any topic? Blatant SJW, ban this sick filth.
 
It's also used as a pejorative for anyone who actually cares about social justice topics, regardless of the quality of their arguments or whether or not they've actually had a measurable influence.

By some, sure. This doesn't invalidate the legitimate use of the term though.

EDIT: No matter what you call them, it doesn't matter. My original point doesn't change.
 
Can you be anymore condescending? It's pretty gross behavior, frankly. I don't feel comfortable enough to make lists about "classic anti-GGer" behavior here, I would think that sort of thing would be frowned upon in what is supposed to be civil discussion.

Also, your first point is factually incorrect, and I've stated why about three separate times in the last hour.

Have you ever heard the term "sea lion" used online?
 

Orayn

Member
By some, sure. This doesn't invalidate the legitimate use of the term though.

There is no legitimate use of the term, it's a shitty insult used by shitty regressive people.

At worst, you could call some "SJWs" slacktivists if you think they're putting forth dubious efforts and expecting serious change. That has nothing to do with their agenda, however, and doesn't warrant bringing up "social justice" as if it were a bad thing.
 
And what exactly do you and your female friends think can be done to correct 4chan's evil ways? (pardon my snark, I'm trying to illustrate the absurdity of the situation). Are you aware who these people are? Ignoring them is absolutely the worst thing you can do to them.

Anyone who cares about the issue should draw attention to it and show everyone why it's ridiculous behavior and shouldn't be acceptable anywhere, even in the worst corners of the internet. I suppose even then you'd have a few angry misogynists left, but they'll flounder and eventually be gone for good. Even #GamerGate is going that way now, compare their activity now to before the Colbert story. More people fully understanding the situation makes it less likely that those people will be tricked into supporting #GamerGate.
 
There is no legitimate use of the term, it's a shitty insult used by shitty regressive people.

At worst, you could call some "SJWs" slacktivists if you think they're putting forth dubious efforts and expecting serious change. That has nothing to do with their agenda, however, and doesn't warrant bringing up "social justice" as if it were a bad thing.

So you're arguing that all cries for "social justice" are legitimate and exempt from criticism, regardless of the reasoning behind them or the type of "Justice" being pursued?
 
That's not what systemic means. Systemic would be a built in mechanism. As in say, the idea of the loud minority is a default feature that is just accepted. A large portion of those that aren't directly affected by this feature ignore it because it's "just the way things are". This causes those that are directly affected by it to become othered because they aren't seen as default features of the community, they have to work around the misogyny.

Sorry for the "me too", but this hits the nail on the head. Other notions such as privilege all come from the asymmetry that exists when such systemic or inbuilt discrimination operates.
 

Christine

Member
There is no legitimate use of the term, it's a shitty insult used by shitty regressive people.

At worst, you could call some "SJWs" slacktivists if you think they're putting forth dubious efforts and expecting serious change. That has nothing to do with their agenda, however, and doesn't warrant bringing up "social justice" as if it were a bad thing.

54

edit: oops
 
I don't know why the block list is considered such a grave sin. If someone's fed up with your movement to the point that they'd consider blocking thousands of people, it's not like you were going to win them over with any additional tweets.
 
No, I'm not saying that. You're pulling that out of thin air.

You said the term SJW has no legitimate use. If the term describes a certain type of person then the only way you're right is if that type of person doesn't exist. Claiming its a "shitty insult only used by "regressives" isn't a valid argument.

It doesn't really matter though. Call them "slacktivists" or whatever you want to call them. My point remains the same. It's idiotic to bicker about terminology when it's irrelevant to the original point being made.

It's crazy the discussion has reached this point. Sometimes I think people just want something to argue about. I think I've had my fill for now. Cheers.
 

Ri'Orius

Member
There is no legitimate use of the term, it's a shitty insult used by shitty regressive people.

At worst, you could call some "SJWs" slacktivists if you think they're putting forth dubious efforts and expecting serious change. That has nothing to do with their agenda, however, and doesn't warrant bringing up "social justice" as if it were a bad thing.

You don't think it's possible for someone's positions to be too far left with respect to social progressivism?

That's basically what SJW means: it's an insult that says "this person takes social progressivism too far." Gun nuts take the 2nd amendment too far, libertopians take individual responsibility and free market capitalism too far, communists take government assistance and wealth redistribution too far, and SJWs take social progressivism too far. All of these are great things in moderation, but if you take it to its extreme, things just become silly.

"Too far" is, of course, subjective, but to say that it's illegitimate to think someone takes it too far just seems ignorant. There's a point at which trigger warnings become excessive. There's a point at which fat acceptance becomes excessive. There's a point at which dislike for sexualized imagery becomes excessive. There's a point at which requiring affirmative consent becomes excessive. There's a point at which accommodating the disabled becomes excessive.
 

Orayn

Member
You said the term SJW has no legitimate use. If the term describes a certain type of person then the only way you're right is if that type of person doesn't exist. Claiming its a "shitty insult only used by "regressives" isn't a valid argument.

It doesn't really matter though. Call them "slacktivists" or whatever you want to call them. My point remains the same. It's idiotic to bicker about terminology when it's irrelevant to the original point being made.

It's crazy the discussion has reached this point. Sometimes I think people just want something to argue about. I think I've had my fill for now. Cheers.

I'm saying that there's no good reason to support a term that's commonly used to pigeonhole a wide variety of people into an easily dismissed group based on the content of their argument rather than their actual argumentation. If you think someone is making a poorly constructed argument, address that instead of calling names.
 

Hoarr

Neo Member
This is like the weirdest fucking thing to come out of Gamergate. She is either a master troll or hilariously stupid.

Like, why does she think chatting with the guy she doxxed will clear things up? Especially given it's Romeo Rose, nobody's going to want his endorsement on this.

Seriously, it's kind of blowing my mind.

As someone who lives in Austin and has seen Kelly involved in some dumb things online over the past year -- I'm gonna go with the latter.

My take - she saw Colbert with Anita and thought, "why can't that be me?". She started her GamerGate position the morning after despite not really knowing anything substantial regarding it. GG guys are super paranoid about her because they're afraid she's a paid infiltrator but I believe she's just seeking attention after her city council bid failed.
 

Firestorm

Member
It's crazy the discussion has reached this point. Sometimes I think people just want something to argue about. I think I've had my fill for now. Cheers.
No, what's crazy is you're so caught up in this bullshit you actually thought that Facebook update you posted was real. That's the level you went to so you could find something to argue against.
 

zeldablue

Member
And what exactly do you and your female friends think can be done to correct 4chan's evil ways? (pardon my snark, I'm trying to illustrate the absurdity of the situation). Are you aware who these people are? Ignoring them is absolutely the worst thing you can do to them.

Isn't it 8chan though? :\

From the sounds of it, people feel very personally offended by discussions dealing with race and gender. They are charged topics that attract people who aren't socially or mentally prepared to have that discussion. That's fine. It's the same with any other charged topic. But from my lens as someone looking in, the anger is disproportionate to what anger should be felt in this situation. When I think of "SJWs" I think of a mild annoyance, not something that should be exterminated.

4chan can do whatever it likes. I'm all for freedom of expression and art. I'm not a huge fan of censorship. I'm also very "pro" critique and rough critical analyses...sometimes even cultural/social analyses. I don't see why the two sides have to do war. I went through school taking in tough criticisms and I feel as though everyone is mature enough to handle criticisms they might not even have thought about or agree with. I think that develops more personal growth and understanding. Honestly, new eyes are crucial for critique. I think if you block out someone's perspective without first taking it in, you prevent that growth from happening.

In terms of what my "friends" are doing...there have been a lot of talks from colleges about improving the tech industry so that they fully understand tolerance, empathy and sociology. Changes in curriculum are likely to happen. There have been long talks with professors and students to help the next generation of game designers be less hostile towards women. We can't stop people from having deep-seated problems with prejudice, but we can always help the next generation. This is how people and places grow, we learn from past mistakes. The first step is to get the apathetic majority to see the problem, which is already happening as we speak.
 
You're fully capable of googling it yourself so I assume there's another reason behind your question but it generally refers to any self fancied Internet activist who thinks whining, complaining or arguing on the Internet is enough to affect serious social change. Their arguments frequently include shallow reasoning, obvious bias or hypocrisy.

I just didn't want to go with what I assumed you meant. anted to make sure I wasn't putting words in your mouth. Seeing as you did mean it in it's common pejorative sense we can move on.

SJW isn't a group. You set them opposite them to 4chan. 4chan is pretty easily defined as people who post there. Even #Gamergate, the amorphous blob that it is, is more definable. At least some people use the hashtag to identify themselves. There is not really a group that self defines as SJW. SJW is a pejorative term that was created by the same circles as those that identify as Gamergaters. It is a word they use to define their perceived enemy. You can go to 8chan or KiA and see how it is used.

How does it make sense to say:

4chan and SJWs both thrive off of attention, positive or negative, and the only way to remove them from the conversation is to ignore them and divert the attention to more constructive avenues of discussion.

You are setting a group against it's own self defined boogeyman. It doesn't make sense. You are creating a group to disparage.

Lets look at your definition:

it generally refers to any self fancied Internet activist who thinks whining, complaining or arguing on the Internet is enough to affect serious social change. Their arguments frequently include shallow reasoning, obvious bias or hypocrisy.

Do you really think that there is a large group of people who think that they can effect social change by whining? This definition is so general, so broad and so contemptible that it can be levied against almost any group one disagrees with. It's a nothing term. An empty vessel that people just fill with bile and lob across the internet at people.

And what exactly do you and your female friends think can be done to correct 4chan's evil ways? (pardon my snark, I'm trying to illustrate the absurdity of the situation). Are you aware who these people are? Ignoring them is absolutely the worst thing you can do to them.

Social change is pretty common. Historically the answer to your question is to constantly create awareness of the issue, humanize the issue, and create constant social pressure. Such things can take decades but they can and do happen.
 

andymcc

Banned
who on the FTC or the DHS is revealing information of ongoing investigation to someone on twitter? lmao that's pathetic
 

L Thammy

Member
I have no idea who Oliver Campbell is, but I can't help noticing that his Twitter avatar is a "faces of Gamergate" image. The one that showcases all pro-GG figures in blue, while all the anti-GG figures are in red (and occasionally with elf ears or a Hitler moustache).
 
he's just some guy on twitter who's super into gamergate i don't know why two separate federal agencies would give him information regarding an ongoing investigation.


edit: but i'm just some guy on neogaf so what do i know
 
he's just some guy on twitter who's super into gamergate i don't know why two separate federal agencies would give him information regarding an ongoing investigation.


edit: but i'm just some guy on neogaf so what do i know

And even then, filing a false police report is taken pretty seriously so.....
 

MYeager

Member
Anyone know if Oliver Campbell is reliable, because :

tMh9z86.png


https://twitter.com/oliverbcampbell/status/529849310024712193

Proponent of the Not Your Shield portion of GamerGate for whatever that's worth.

Either there are both government and Gawker sources that suddenly started giving information that fit conveniently into the conspiracy theories of some of these guys or someone is trolling them really hard. Considering the gullibility level? I'd put money on the latter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom