This is like saying that some of the KKK are actually just Wizard enthusiasts whose interests should be respected. If your passion is freedom of speech, aren't there more coherent and less troubling organizations to embrace?
-
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.
WP: "The Internet mobs have won." Zoe Quinn drops legal fight against Eron Gjoni
- Thread starter GillianSeed79
- Start date
This is like saying that some of the KKK are actually just Wizard enthusiasts whose interests should be respected. If your passion is freedom of speech, aren't there more coherent and less troubling organizations to embrace?
stuminus3
Member
Guys, to clarify... nobody actually did the "not all men" thing or actually attempted to claim "men suffer too" in an attempt to derail the conversation and shut down criticism of Gamergate here. You're all arguing a moot point. It happens, but it didn't happen here. Might want to listen to the moderator and at least take it to the OT...
On topic... this article and Zoe's focus has me thinking again last night about the kinds of things that could be done to help root this out at the source. I think education is key. I know my kid's schools have discussion about online behaviour and bullying with the kids but it's very generic and I'm not sure it's getting through to the parents, I'm wondering about talking to my kid's principal about getting involved in some way, if only to get the message about specific things like the horrors of Gamergate to them. Anyone ever done anything like that? Someone else mentioned it already but this isn't about judges and lawmakers being old and out of touch. I know as an absolute certainty that there are other parents out there that have absolutely no idea what any of this means (and don't really care as a result) and I'm pretty sure they're not the minority. I dunno, maybe this is pie in the sky, but I think getting through to these people would make a difference.
On topic... this article and Zoe's focus has me thinking again last night about the kinds of things that could be done to help root this out at the source. I think education is key. I know my kid's schools have discussion about online behaviour and bullying with the kids but it's very generic and I'm not sure it's getting through to the parents, I'm wondering about talking to my kid's principal about getting involved in some way, if only to get the message about specific things like the horrors of Gamergate to them. Anyone ever done anything like that? Someone else mentioned it already but this isn't about judges and lawmakers being old and out of touch. I know as an absolute certainty that there are other parents out there that have absolutely no idea what any of this means (and don't really care as a result) and I'm pretty sure they're not the minority. I dunno, maybe this is pie in the sky, but I think getting through to these people would make a difference.
Metalingus5150
Member
Just wondering, what did Eron Gjoni do to Zoe Quinn?
He wrote the Zoe Post and then continued to egg people on in IRC in the early pre-GG days until he got a gag order that prevented him from being able to say anything about Zoe Quinn at all. Theyve been in a protracted legal battle for the last, idk, 12 months? The prosecution recently stopped persuing the case which is what this thread is about. Depending on who you listen to its either because Zoe asked the prosecution to stop proceedings or the prosecution elected to stop perusing Eron Gjoni because prosecuting him would be a lost cause.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
She must have really shit on that dude's heart, or... she saw how pathetic he was, and this further validates her departure from him.
Either way, it was nobodie's business to begin with. But the Information Age of 'reality show' lifestyles and social network connections seems to have everybody in everyone's business.
GG is just pathetic in general. Insecurity at it's finest ultimately.
The Mos Eisley of the gaming world, only not iconic and cool.
Yeah, GamerGate, a group who holds "Operation _____" every other week to try and get the ad buyers of their target that week to pull out of their ad campaigns so that their target can no longer afford to distribute their own speech is TOTALLY concerned about free speech
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
Free speech is traditionally a concern regarding government induced/sponsored censorship. So essentially, stopping someone from speaking through private means is not attacking free speech.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
yeah but don't you dare say "gamers are dead" or that gaming should be more inclusive or you're attacking their free speech.
It is true that most people have no idea of this. Even though GamerGate has been on the news a few times, even my non-gamer sisters who use the internet are confused about it. I mean, they get the broad strokes like women being harassed on the internet but they don't know about the coordinated and ongoing campaigns. I heard that there was going to be a movie made about this and I think that is the best opportunity to educate this. I hope the movie gets a really good director so it can be like The Social Network. That way, everyone will know about this.
If you want to talk to your kid's principal about it (which is a good idea), then have a clear story ready because this whole thing can be really confusing. The Wikipedia page has settled down and I think is neutral. Actually, a YouTube video is probably the best thing otherwise they might ask you to present. Good luck.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
If they sincerely cared about any sort of civil discourse they absolutely would not want to be associated with a movement specifically started to harass the hell out of women in the name of "ethics in game journalism." And yes, the majority of them are sociopathic manchildren who thankful, rarely go outside so as to not be a danger to the women they constantly threaten online. Seriously try to think about how much stupid shit one needs to read through in other to get to something REMOTELY resembling "civil discourse" but still supporting the idea of maintaining the status quo in the gaming industry, and keep women out of gaming. And now think about how a target of that shit feels reading all these threats against her, her family, her friends, by a bunch of people who absolutely have no empathy for the opposite gender.
I actually read the 'Zoepost' the other day. The full thing. When all this originally kicked off, I skim read part of it, wide eyed, before slowly backing away from it. I've watched GG from afar, not knowing the nuts and bolts of what is still driving this thing.
So, I know this is a potentially explosive question, but did Zoe (or anyone else) comment or refute all the points made in it? Was it the ramblings of a mad man, or was the core of it based on reality?
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Ramblings of a group of madmen is a huge understatement. All you need to know:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=135783202&postcount=5
...Scatter...
Banned
How unprepared are these judges? Don't they do basic research? Have they no Google? Possess they no Bing?
Judges interpret law, it's not their job to research a case, it's their job to take the evidence that is provided and make a judgement on a case based on the laws they're sworn to uphold. They have to be impartial to the evidence presented to them if they're ruling on a case, if they have to ask about a certain subject, it's because they need clarification to do their job. If they ask multiple times, perhaps it's not being explained to them in a manner that can be easily understood in terms of the law. Describing Twitter as "The online messaging platform, Twitter" is a mouthful, but gets the point across in a way that's clear, concise and easily understood.
Did Ms. Quinn even have legal counsel here or was she trying to represent herself? I don't know the case, but the fact that she was explaining anything to judges makes it seem like she didn't have counsel, which is a surefire way for your case to go down in flames. I know, access to a lawyer doesn't come cheap in a civil case, but just having them doing the legwork is more than worth the cost if you're serious about getting your case settled. Just having them speak for you as an attorney is priceless in most cases.
I hate to keep saying it because it's awful, but until someone is actually physically harmed by someone that has made one of these threats, the legal system isn't going to prosecute it. There's too much money to be made locking up drug offenders for life to worry about putting someone on probation for harassment which is probably the worst thing that would have happened to him in this case.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
This is accurate. It is each party's job to zealously present their facts and legal arguments. It is not the judge's job to research the facts. That would bog down an already slow process, if the judge had to invest that much time into each case they preside over. Their dockets are already full... and I am sure that even if they aren't fully aware of specific lingo, asking for clarification is just proper diligence. Even if I understood what someone said, if there is an air of even slight confusion as to what they specifically mean, it is astute to ask for clarification. And sometimes they are actually doing the party a favor because in court you are also creating a record for future use (such as an appellate court). People who assume the judge doesn't know the case material are likely unaware of the judicial process as a whole.
Dick Jones
Gold Member
Disgusting the way Zoe Quinn has and currently is being treated by these scumbags. How robust is legislation in America in relation to punishing online threats and abuse? Does it need strengthening? Probably does considering the outcome in Zoe's situation. In the UK a person sent Stan Collymore (soccer pundit and former player) a plethora of abusive tweets was was recently found guilty, given a restraining order and community service. Anyone with a legal mind know what the consequences are for abusing people online?
GG talking points are so predictable they look like they're read off a script when you've had exposure to them multiple times, and that's because they pretty much are; they outright have resources for how to engage people and supposedly bring people to their side. So yeah pretty much (and once you see through it most of the time it's really easy to bring them off-script and have them slip into a mess of rambling incoherent hatred that reveals their true colours).
Hey_it's_john
Banned
After reading the Zoe post in its entirety I've always been confused about the rallying behind her. Obviously the whole gg movement has been a disgusting ordeal but she doesn't exactly seem like the greatest person either.
Silver Arrows
Banned
Hey look, another Junior Member account suicide. Please, before you get banned for pulling this bullshit, give me the reasons why YOU believe Zoe isn't "the greatest person".
A Link to the Past
Banned
So effectively, your perspective is based on the writings of an angry, jilted ex. How authoritative
The Zoe post is not a great measure of what kind of person she is when it actively includes easily disproved lies about her.
Silver Arrows
Banned
"I don't know all the details, but is Zoe Quinn / Anita Sarkeesian / fucking any woman in gaming ever a secret devil spawn that steals gamer's sperm?"
Hey_it's_john
Banned
I mean the Facebook logs are pretty conclusive that she probably cheated on the dude..... I'm not saying that she deserved any thing that followed but she probably isn't the greatest person. Did the logs get disproven...... If I missed that than I completely apologize.
Silver Arrows
Banned
And yet you are low-key saying that she deserved it by thinking that the Facebook chat logs are legit, when in reality they mean nothing.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Literally has nothing to do with the fact that she's a game dev. Going out of your way to specify "well she isn't the greatest person" is basically agreeing with some of the things that happened, as well as thinking that facebook logs are real.
dangeraaron10
Unconfirmed Member
I've been rather hesitant to dive into the gamer gate thing over the last year or so it was going on, but I found this linked post very informative and gives a clear perspective on things. Makes me sad to see Quinn essentially give up, then.
I hope you don't mind me saving this link somewhere for posterity should the need arise to bring it up.
stuminus3
Member
Youtube is a great idea actually... I wonder if I could do my own presentation, something a bit more parent-to-parent direct. A lot of the stuff I've watched on the subject that's out there already is really good but tends to be a bit more in depth because the audience tends to be people like us who already spend a lot of time around internet culture. Thanks for the suggestion!
Well I mean I think Donald Trump is a huge asshole and a disgusting human being, but that still wouldn't make it right for me to encourage people to threaten to rape and murder him. It's not rocket science.
Why do you care?
No, seriously, ask yourself why do you care about this?
Zoe Quinn and Eron Goji's dirty laundry is not our business. We're not a fucking tabloid. The only reason we're even talking about it right now is that the most pathetic fuckers on the internet (Goji included) tried to convince people to harass Zoe Quinn by changing the discussion on Quinn and Goji's personal life to one about video games... Even though it has nothing to do with video games.
I have no stake in this battle, have not been paying much attention to this really as dealing with issues of ethics in game journalism isn't exactly on the top of my priorities in life right now.
That being said, as an objective bystander, I think it's intellectually dishonest to completely dismiss and ignore anything from an opposing GG viewpoint instead of engaging in civil discourse as you said. What does flinging ad hominem attacks and vague wide-brushed insults really accomplish?
There are definitely issues with some people apart of the movement, without a doubt. Then again, can't it be said that those on the other side aren't completely innocent as well? It's important to stop viewing this whole debacle through biased view-points dismissing anything that even remotely contradicts your narrative immediately and to instead actually look at everything objectively. That's how you get people on your side, not by brushing others off as being a bunch of 'madmen'.
GG is a hate group based on lies. "Ethics in game journalism" is not their focus and never has been; they are just a conservative reactionary movement supported only by advocates of reactionary politics like the writers at Breitbart. They have done jackshit for "ethics in video games journalism" because they don't care, instead focusing all their efforts on harassing any prominent women in the industry. We have known this for over a year. We're ignoring the "opposing GG viewpoint" because they're still relying on the same bullshit talking points from 2014.
I have no desire to listen to someone who still argues GG is actually about "ethics in video games journalism" in 2016. I have no desire to listen to someone who seriously argues Zoe Quinn traded coverage for sexual favors in 2016. I have no desire to listen to another disingenuous fuckwad from Kotaku in Action or 8chan who hides behind sockpuppet accounts in 2016. GG should be over. It should be dead. That it's not is awful.
What sort of laughable comparison is this?
The various movements of feminism have improved and continues to improve the lives of hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Half my country wouldn't even be able to vote without feminism.
GG has accomplished fucking nothing beyond harassment.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Yep. GG has perpetuated actual hate and violence against marginalized group. At this point, anyone who continues to participate in the group deserves to receive a sweeping generalization.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
This is less "objective" than you think
Silver Arrows
Banned
Yep, reached the point in GG threads where people with no knowledge of the tactics gators use to spin arguments in their favor, are telling us to respect them and earnestly believe the lie that they are fighting for ethics in games journalism. Newsflash, that was never the case. All they care about is getting those damn wimminz out of gaming. Any sane person could see that from the get-go.
VibratingDonkey
Member
Ethics in games journalism holds no relevance. Only ever did as a smokescreen.
Discussions surrounding the virtues of keeping from generalizing, giving benefit of doubt, attempting to convince people, were relevant once, back in 2014.
I followed Gamergate arguments for the first couple of months. All of it petty garbage, fabrications and ridiculous conspiracies, wrapped in hateful defamation and harassment. They literally made things up and spread it around with the intent of fucking up people's lives. They did not seek civil discourse, they argued in bad faith using guides/scripts for how to disseminate their bullshit. Absolutely absurd to suggest that Gamergate discourse should be given the time of day.
It should be obvious to everyone that Gamergate is a trash fire at the bottom of a cesspool. If you jump in, you are by default a shitty trash person. Best I'll give those people is that you can always climb out and shower for a couple of months. Maybe you'll eventually get the stink out.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Absolutely, it's one of the few GAF posts I have bookmarked specifically for threads like this.
The veracity of it is no one's goddamn business but the people involved. It's a thing that exists solely to give ammunition to harassers, which Eron knew about, and which he used to ruin someone's life. That's all there ever is, was, or will be to Gamergate. It's domestic violence by proxy, uniting once-scattered hate mobs with a singular purpose. Everything else is built around that core. You can't destroy her, so you go after her friends, her support networks, the people she works with, the industry she works in, her ideological allies, bystanders, whatever.
Ethics were always a smoke screen. Feminism or cultural marxism or the common-core conspiracy was also a smoke screen. Gamergate is about nothing else but retaliation from an abusive guy.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
Sorry USA but your amendments are kinda dumb at times.
The people who take part in this stuff have already decided that they don't want to have a discussion. They just want a target to direct their (faux) outrage at.
Doctor_Thomas
Member
I think the problem is that, in the Stan Collymore instance, it was one person. There's other cases where one person is using social media to target a person or group.
Gjoni, even in the UK, is innocent, because the cases that have been prosecuted are sustained over a long period of time and by one person. Gjoni's attacks aren't sustained over a long term, they seem to be completely sporadic (correct me if I'm wrong). That's where all his supporters come into play and if every single supporter sends one abusive Tweet or message, that's not enough to classify any of them as "sustained" abuse.
And this is why it's so tricky to police internet harassment. You can claim complete deniability and lack of responsibility for what other people do, despite the fact you may be the sole reason for people doing what they're doing. While to the person being harassed it will be an ongoing thing, from each individual? Could be a single message or two. That's what's scary about it.
Obviously threats of violence are another matter and they should be dealt with the same as any other threat of violence, but that's not going to be the majority of the abuse and if you try to legislate it, you're not legislating for one state.... or country.... you're potentially trying to legislate for everywhere and it's not happening.
Internet harassment is tricky because there's no way to, effectively, do anything about it outside of social networks imposing their own preventative measures, but that's down to them to deal with inside their own limitations. The whole thing is a legal nightmare.
If you're referring to the "sleeps around for coverage" lie, that one got orchestrated by GG. (I've seen now that he added a reference to that in a PS of sorts.)
Fantastapotamus
Wrong about commas, wrong about everything
See, here is the thing. If I see myself as part of some "movement" I do have to take some responsibility for said movements actions or at the very, very least accept them as part of it. If I'm part of some anonymous movement, this doesn't suddenly mean I can just say "Oh those bad things? Those don't represent us. Only the good things do."
"I'm a Gamergater but I'm not part of the misogynistic, women-hating, rape-threat spewing, right-wing, zionistic-conspiracy-fabricating and downright embarassing parts of them" just doesn't sound good, no matter how you spin it.
And the "fringe element" excuse really doesn't work because it's not my fucking job to determine whether somebody is part of your movement or not. That's your part. You want to have a completely anonymous movement? Deal with the consequences.
"I'm a Gamergater but I'm not part of the misogynistic, women-hating, rape-threat spewing, right-wing, zionistic-conspiracy-fabricating and downright embarassing parts of them" just doesn't sound good, no matter how you spin it.
And the "fringe element" excuse really doesn't work because it's not my fucking job to determine whether somebody is part of your movement or not. That's your part. You want to have a completely anonymous movement? Deal with the consequences.
Weltall Zero
Member
Wow, so bookmarked, thanks! This should be the default reply to the hundreds of dishonest (and handful of honest) "I haven't been following this GG thing, but this Anita Sarkeesian person..." posts. In fact:
No, you know what? Stop right there. You don't get to admit you are completely misinformed about a topic then try to lecture everyone involved. Fuck that condescending shit. Either educate yourself, or walk away. You don't get to ask for moderation in a holocaust denialists vs sane people debate, you don't get to do it in a terrorism apologists vs sane people debate, and you don't fucking get to do it here.
Read this, all of this, contrast its sources if you want, then come here to say whatever you want. Until then I'm fucking sick of the noise of ignorants like you and LPride who can't get arsed to research a bit before declaring themselves champions of moderation and rationality by using textbook fallacies.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
This is really disrespectful. He wasn't telling you his opinion on facts or taking a side. You're just lashing out at the wrong person imo.
I see why this happens. It is an often heated controversy. But I think he isn't posting anything that should get him attacked like this.
Silver Arrows
Banned
Considering it is a common trope in GG threads to tone police and go the "why not intelligent discourse" route, it is tiring. VERY tiring. Especially when it comes from people who have no fucking idea the damage or pain GG has caused, and want to neatly put everything in a black and white context.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think that is a valid excuse for mistreating people who have nothing to do with the damage or pain.
Similar threads
- Locked