#Gamergate, the war on nerds, and the corruption of the left and the free press

[werepossum]

Don't worry, they'll make a small mistake and the same people they pander to will rake them over the coals.

lol Probably. But I don't want that. I don't want them punished for expressing opinions different from mine. I can even acknowledge that they can make valid points, although the limit of my knowledge of their positions and utterances has been 0roo0roo's last wall-o-links here. But virtually no contentious issue is one-sided and I am sure the anti-GamerGate people have legitimate issues as well.

Much as I hate it, I'm slowly educating myself now using <sigh> Youtube videos, mainly because I can listen to then as I work. I listened to the SPJ Airplay video, until bomb threats ended it. Listened to my first TotalBisquit video. Now I'm going to try Sargon - even though I'm pretty sure he's that floating head who runs the Power Rangers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJgC9LEBTuQ

 

[Jodell88]

lol Probably. But I don't want that. I don't want them punished for expressing opinions different from mine. I can even acknowledge that they can make valid points, although the limit of my knowledge of their positions and utterances has been 0roo0roo's last wall-o-links here. But virtually no contentious issue is one-sided and I am sure the anti-GamerGate people have legitimate issues as well.

Much as I hate it, I'm slowly educating myself now using <sigh> Youtube videos, mainly because I can listen to then as I work. I listened to the SPJ Airplay video, until bomb threats ended it. Listened to my first TotalBisquit video. Now I'm going to try Sargon - even though I'm pretty sure he's that floating head who runs the Power Rangers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJgC9LEBTuQ

You're a better person than I if you can educate yourself about it. Admittedly, I'm not American, but this entire situation (social justice, radical feminism, women in the games industry) is seen through a very narrow minded American lense.

I can't say too much more since this a very nuanced topic and I can't be certain if I can put my thoughts to paper eloquently enough.

This past year has opened my eyes in a lot of ways and I can't believe people will openly practice racism and sexism to the extent that I have seen against white heterosexuals (mainly men). :|

 

[werepossum]

You're a better person than I if you can educate yourself about it. Admittedly, I'm not American, but this entire situation (social justice, radical feminism, women in the games industry) is seen through a very narrow minded American lense.

I can't say too much more since this a very nuanced topic and I can't be certain if I can put my thoughts to paper eloquently enough.

This past year has opened my eyes in a lot of ways and I can't believe people will openly practice racism and sexism to the extent that I have seen against white heterosexuals (mainly men). :|

I can understand that to a degree. There is a natural tendency to hate those on top of the system, and as a group, white heterosexuals still dominate most of our society. And as both the largest identifiable group and the most powerful, white heterosexuals are difficult to harm with racism and sexism.

 

[werepossum]

0roo0roo, thanks for that last wall o'links. I listened to that hour-long stream of Dave Rubin and Sargon of Akkad (bloody silly name, that) and it was a very cathartic experience listening to two liberals for an hour and agreeing with every point they made. Can't remember the last time I listened for an hour to anyone and agreed with every point they made. Probably when Neil Boortz was on the air.

Okay, maybe there's a little wisdom on Youtube.

 

[werepossum]

One other point here: The SPJ folks repeatedly refer to gaming journalism as a niche journalism field with the same problems as any other niche field. With more than half of adults playing video games, I do not believe that is legitimate today. Video gaming stories regularly appear in the New York Times, Forbes, Business Week, pretty much every mainstream platform for news and/or cultural commentary.

 

[Jodell88]

One other point here: The SPJ folks repeatedly refer to gaming journalism as a niche journalism field with the same problems as any other niche field. With more than half of adults playing video games, I do not believe that is legitimate today. Video gaming stories regularly appear in the New York Times, Forbes, Business Week, pretty much every mainstream platform for news and/or cultural commentary.

A lot of articles that show up in MSM are actually taken from gaming websites.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The real GG

www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH01RKvKUNs

 

[Jodell88]

I can understand that to a degree. There is a natural tendency to hate those on top of the system, and as a group, white heterosexuals still dominate most of our society. And as both the largest identifiable group and the most powerful, white heterosexuals are difficult to harm with racism and sexism.

That still doesn't excuse it IMO. It's just as deplorable.

 

[jackstar7]

That still doesn't excuse it IMO. It's just as deplorable.

The instinct isn't wrong (to loathe those is power when that power is abused regularly), it is just misguided. People focus on the obvious superficial aspects of the powerful and overlook the part where the real thing is the power and wealth, not their race or religion or anything else.

Abuses of power should always draw ire. But people are dumb and want a simple image of a villain to hate, and that becomes white men... and while some white men hold vast power and wealth, it is certainly not all of them.

 

[werepossum]

A lot of articles that show up in MSM are actually taken from gaming websites.

That was one of the things aired out in SPJ's Airplay. The reporter-moderator kept arguing that journalists didn't have time to talk to a bunch of different people and do the required due diligence. The GamerGate was pretty blunt: then just don't do the story. He also pointed out that mainstream journalists had been doing the story but essentially just rewriting what sites like Kotaku had written - perhaps without realizing that these sites WERE the other side, not some disinterested third party.

The instinct isn't wrong (to loathe those is power when that power is abused regularly), it is just misguided. People focus on the obvious superficial aspects of the powerful and overlook the part where the real thing is the power and wealth, not their race or religion or anything else.

Abuses of power should always draw ire. But people are dumb and want a simple image of a villain to hate, and that becomes white men... and while some white men hold vast power and wealth, it is certainly not all of them.

I don't think it requires that power be abused; its existence is sufficient. It can be no more complicated than envy: people don't like other people having more. Of course, it's hard to prove that since power tends to be misused every time people are involved.

 

[jackstar7]

I don't think it requires that power be abused; its existence is sufficient. It can be no more complicated than envy: people don't like other people having more. Of course, it's hard to prove that since power tends to be misused every time people are involved.

Your way slanders the powerless... which seems right in line with punching down.

 

[CitizenKain]

I really hate to see Felicia Day and Wil Wheaton getting on board with this - I like them both. I can understand why though - if one expects to make it from minor player to major star in Hollywood, one had damned well better be politically correct. I suspect that a lot of gaming production is the same way, now that gaming is such a big industry.

One positive here is that I learned that Kotaku is actually Gawker. That's one site I'll never hit again.

Yea, a woman who was harassed by gamergate trash in the past is certainly going to have a lot of good things to say about them.

 

[Jodell88]

Yea, a woman who was harassed by gamergate trash in the past is certainly going to have a lot of good things to say about them.

These are alledgedly (I'll say alledgedly because I have no way of verifying) the examples of harrassment she gave in her book.

1.) Feminists call anything they dislike scary bc they know it triggers white knights #GamerGate
2.) It's a pity she chose the wrong side and became part of the problem. Gamergate isn't about misogyny.
3.) We just want an end to corruption. It just so happens that some of the people corrupt are women and feminists.
4.) Felicia could have supported #gamergate and became a hero. But she took the SJW shill route and paid the price.
5.) your stance in favor of bullying, hate, and nerd shaming is deeply disappointing. you've lost a fan. for life. #gamergate
6.) i know it hurts, but what Felicia Day did was a pr hitpiece. She's part of the media too.
7.) i hope you die

Out of the seven examples she gave, I think the only one that will be labeled as harrassment is the seventh.

The seventh seems to have been made by this account. https://archive.is/lI1x4.

And this is all the account had to say about gamergate. https://archive.is/nOlzs

 

[Aikouka]

Listened to my first TotalBisquit video.

Sounds more like a defamatory name for TotalBiscuit. Keep in mind that he doesn't consider himself a "GG'er" mostly because the group has no well-defined entity. It's almost dangerous and inane to apply a label to yourself that has no proper definition. I mean... that's where the whole "It's about ethics in gaming journalism! " thing came from. The vitriolic people are the one that gain the most attention. An article like "TotalBiscuit Had a Coversation with Kotaku About Journalism Ethics" isn't nearly as enticing to eyeballs as "Gamers Threaten Female Journalist Over Chauvinist Allegations". (Note, TotalBiscuit did actually have a rather lengthy discussion with the editor of Kotaku about gaming journalism.)

However, he has talked a bit about journalistic ethics, which is a topic that matters to him since publishers and such have tried to send him items... along with an item to review. He told a story once about how a publisher tried to send an Alienware laptop with a game on it to review. Now, to a degree, that may sound like a sane thing, because it allows the PR company (they actually set these up) to ensure the game is being played on a similar platform, but once you create a relationship outside of the normal critic-creator scenario, you're just opening yourself up to claims of bias. He actually ended up closing his PO Box simply because publishers and/or PR firms wouldn't stop sending him things. I'm pretty sure he has even discussed whether he should accept free review codes. You can hear him talk a bit about that stuff here.

 

[werepossum]

Your way slanders the powerless... which seems right in line with punching down.

Do you think the rich don't have their envy too? It's a human condition.

One thing I'd like to put behind us is this conceit that if someone is poor they are automatically morally right and if they are rich they are automatically morally wrong.

Yea, a woman who was harassed by gamergate trash in the past is certainly going to have a lot of good things to say about them.

Honestly I don't have the background to have an opinion either way on her supposed harassment. I will say though that freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences, and one consequence to saying things that offend people is those people offending you back. In such situations it very quickly becomes impossible to determine who insulted/harassed/abused/threatened whom first. Luckily it is also pointless as these are all adults who need to put on their big girl panties.

These are alledgedly (I'll say alledgedly because I have no way of verifying) the examples of harrassment she gave in her book.
Out of the seven examples she gave, I think the only one that will be labeled as harrassment is the seventh.

The seventh seems to have been made by this account. https://archive.is/lI1x4.

And this is all the account had to say about gamergate. https://archive.is/nOlzs

I agree that only the seventh is harassment and that looks like a troll, but part of the problem here is that there are only Gamergate heros and SJW shills. (Or if one wishes, only shiny Social Justice Warriors and misogynist racist homophobic cisgender-centric bigots.) Somewhere there has to be room for reasonable people to disagree without the sky falling. We don't have to come to a common understanding, but let's agree that disagreeing does not automatically make us evil people. If we can do that, then we can begin to address the behaviors that do cross the line.

I think the SPJ Airplay event was a major step forward in this. The Gamergate people were very well-behaved and articulate; the press and game developer were reasonable, sharp and not unsympathetic. I was not familiar with any of the participants but was impressed with them all.

 

[CitizenKain]

These are alledgedly (I'll say alledgedly because I have no way of verifying) the examples of harrassment she gave in her book.
Out of the seven examples she gave, I think the only one that will be labeled as harrassment is the seventh.

The seventh seems to have been made by this account. https://archive.is/lI1x4.

And this is all the account had to say about gamergate. https://archive.is/nOlzs

There was the part where she was doxxed almost instantly when she made a comment about gamergate.

 

[Jodell88]

I agree that only the seventh is harassment and that looks like a troll, but part of the problem here is that there are only Gamergate heros and SJW shills. (Or if one wishes, only shiny Social Justice Warriors and misogynist racist homophobic cisgender-centric bigots.) Somewhere there has to be room for reasonable people to disagree without the sky falling. We don't have to come to a common understanding, but let's agree that disagreeing does not automatically make us evil people. If we can do that, then we can begin to address the behaviors that do cross the line.

I think the SPJ Airplay event was a major step forward in this. The Gamergate people were very well-behaved and articulate; the press and game developer were reasonable, sharp and not unsympathetic. I was not familiar with any of the participants but was impressed with them all.

When it comes to certain media sites and "journalists" the scorched earth policy they applied will not be repaired any time soon.

Believe or not, the best conversations on gender in gaming I've seen have come from gamers themselves and not the media, such as the excellent special episode of Dropped Frames from a few months ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nsEs2qbJVU

Even the "Gender in Gaming" panel at Vidcon a few weeks ago was all women. While doing the panel the women said that this panel needed male voices and not only women.

On a whole, the gaming scene is a lot more logical than the media thinks it is.

 

[Jodell88]

There was the part where she was doxxed almost instantly when she made a comment about gamergate.

People have been doxxed on both sides. Hell, a reporter was even doxxed while particpating in the SPJ Airplay event a couple days ago.

 

[Exophase]

There was the part where she was doxxed almost instantly when she made a comment about gamergate.

She made a comment that she was now afraid to cross the street if people wearing gaming t-shirts are on the other side. This is a little broader than just commenting about Gamergate.

She exposed fear and insecurity and some tremendous piece of shit saw an opportunity to inflict damage. When you say something controversial that's visible to millions there is a risk that it will be heard by truly deranged individuals. A small portion of people will lash out in a manner that can't be explained by group identification or as part of a larger cultural influence or narrative. Without knowing more about who exactly commits acts like this we can't say anything about their motivation or affiliation.

 

[werepossum]

Sounds more like a defamatory name for TotalBiscuit. Keep in mind that he doesn't consider himself a "GG'er" mostly because the group has no well-defined entity. It's almost dangerous and inane to apply a label to yourself that has no proper definition. I mean... that's where the whole "It's about ethics in gaming journalism! " thing came from. The vitriolic people are the one that gain the most attention. An article like "TotalBiscuit Had a Coversation with Kotaku About Journalism Ethics" isn't nearly as enticing to eyeballs as "Gamers Threaten Female Journalist Over Chauvinist Allegations". (Note, TotalBiscuit did actually have a rather lengthy discussion with the editor of Kotaku about gaming journalism.)

However, he has talked a bit about journalistic ethics, which is a topic that matters to him since publishers and such have tried to send him items... along with an item to review. He told a story once about how a publisher tried to send an Alienware laptop with a game on it to review. Now, to a degree, that may sound like a sane thing, because it allows the PR company (they actually set these up) to ensure the game is being played on a similar platform, but once you create a relationship outside of the normal critic-creator scenario, you're just opening yourself up to claims of bias. He actually ended up closing his PO Box simply because publishers and/or PR firms wouldn't stop sending him things. I'm pretty sure he has even discussed whether he should accept free review codes. You can hear him talk a bit about that stuff here.

Interesting, thanks. I only made it through an hour or so because I'm through for the night and I'd had maybe six hours of sleep since Thursday night, but one thing I got from this is cementing my opinion that Totilo cannot be trusted. He's a lot more Gawker than gaming press, still bound on insisting that the reporter should have the ability to decide whether the readers "would want to know" about a relationship which allows reporters to omit such information with the implicit understanding that if it is later learned, then its omission was merely an honest misunderstanding. He's also still insisting that the reporter need only disclose such information once. Most readers visiting Kotaku aren't going to research the writer's entire body of work to determine if there is a relationship that affects the story.

When it comes to certain media sites and "journalists" the scorched earth policy they applied will not be repaired any time soon.

Believe or not, the best conversations on gender in gaming I've seen have come from gamers themselves and not the media, such as the excellent special episode of Dropped Frames from a few months ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nsEs2qbJVU

Even the "Gender in Gaming" panel at Vidcon a few weeks ago was all women. While doing the panel the women said that this panel needed male voices and not only women.

On a whole, the gaming scene is a lot more logical than the media thinks it is.

I agree with all that. One huge problem here is that reportedly over half of all adults play video games but mainstream reporters largely don't, still seeing us as bizarre misanthropes living in our moms' basements.

 

[Blue_Max]

One huge problem here is that reportedly over half of all adults play video games but mainstream reporters largely don't, still seeing us as bizarre misanthropes living in our moms' basements.

Yep. And because the media touts it, the SJW's parrot those words - as evidenced dozens of times in this thread alone.

Repetition becomes truth.

 

[MrPickins]

Yep. And because the media touts it, the SJW's parrot those words - as evidenced dozens of times in this thread alone.

Repetition becomes truth.

Your lack of self-awareness is evident again.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Your lack of self-awareness is evident again.

It's a script.

 

[werepossum]

Your lack of self-awareness is evident again.

I think not. Look at Entertainment Weekly's story headlined: ‘Hugo Award nominations fall victim to misogynistic, racist voting campaign,’” John Merline of Investor’s Business Daily notes in an article sardonically titled, “Another Great Moment in Mainstream Journalism:” Later Entertainment Weekly changed the headline to: “Correction: Hugo Awards voting campaign sparks controversy.” So why the need to correct itself so radically? Because Entertainment Weekly interviewed not the people nominally involved with the voting campaign, but based its story on interviewing the gaming press. Specifically:

The Hugo Awards have fallen victim to a campaign in which misogynist groups lobbied to nominate only white males for the science fiction book awards. These groups, Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies (both of which are affiliated with last year’s GamerGate scandal), urged sci-fi fans to become members of the Hugo Awards’ voting body, World Science Fiction Convention, in order to cast votes against female writers and writers of color. Membership only costs $40, and allows members to vote for the 2016 nominations as well as the 2015 nominations, which were just released.

Sad Puppies broadcast their selection on Feb. 1, writing: “If you agree with our slate below—and we suspect you might—this is YOUR chance to make sure YOUR voice is heard.” Brad Torgerson, who runs Sad Puppies along with Larry Correia, complains that the Hugo Awards have lately skewed toward “literary” works, as opposed to “entertainment.”

Torgerson also writes that he disagrees with Hugos being awarded for affirmative action-like purposes, as many women and writers of color went home with awards in 2014: ”Likewise, we’ve seen the Hugo voting skew ideological, as Worldcon and fandom alike have tended to use the Hugos as an affirmative action award: giving Hugos because a writer or artist is (insert underrepresented minority or victim group here) or because a given work features (insert underrepresented minority or victim group here) characters.”

The other lobbying group, Rabid Puppies, is run by Theodore Beale (who goes by the name Vox Day). As The Telegraph reports, “Members of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America have called for Beale’s exclusion from the group after he has written against women’s suffrage and posted racist views towards black writer NK Jemisin.”

Fortunately, some sane voters allowed well-deserving writers to pull through. Ann Leckie’s Ancillary Sword and Listen was nominated for Dramatic Presentation, and Annie Bellet’s Goodnight Stars was nominated, despite having a non-white, female protagonist.
Plenty of members of the science fiction community have voiced their disgust with both sects of “Puppies.” Writer Philip Sandifer wrote on his blog Sunday, “The Hugo Awards have just been successfully hijacked by neofascists.” Sandifer’s post, which is worth reading in full, addresses what this disaster means for the sci-fi world:

To be frank, it means that traditional sci-fi/fantasy fandom does not have any legitimacy right now. Period. A community that can be this effectively controlled by someone who thinks black people are subhuman and who has called for acid attacks on feminists is not one whose awards have any sort of cultural validity. That sort of thing doesn’t happen to functional communities. And the fact that it has just happened to the oldest and most venerable award in the sci-fi/fantasy community makes it unambiguously clear that traditional sci-fi/fantasy fandom is not fit for purpose.

Ms. Biedenharn's hateful rant was not only vitriolic, but profoundly and utterly wrong. Entertainment Weekly was unable to polish the turd and therefore had to walk it back. It's worth pointing out again that not only did Ms. Biedenharn neglect to do any actual journalism or fact-checking, the only sources quoted are like-minded bloggers and writers.

 

[jackstar7]

Do you think the rich don't have their envy too? It's a human condition.

One thing I'd like to put behind us is this conceit that if someone is poor they are automatically morally right and if they are rich they are automatically morally wrong.

So take that out of it, as I was trying to do. I think envy is not an actual motivator, but a symptom of a greater insecurity, so in that sense, you're correct that it cares not for rich or poor.

I am certainly not saying there is any morality inherent to one's wealth or class. But you said yourself that power is always abused, so doesn't that imply that the powerful are inherently morally inferior due to their ability to abuse on a greater scale? I'm not even saying I agree with your position that all power is abused, but if that is your position, then the morality stance seems to follow directly... or does scale not matter, but morality is relative to the individual... because there's a term for that I'm having trouble putting my finger on...