Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
So, GamerGate
So, GamerGate
#1
I haven't seen this topic described on these forums, and since it's had a lot of political under- and overtones, I figured that the Politics subsection would be the best place to put it. I also wanted to get it off my chest to an extent. Anyway:

The #GamerGate saga is a rather messy affair. Know Your Meme has more details, and there's still more elsewhere (for example, "A People's History of GamerGate" and this timeline).

The following links are required viewing (and I can't stress this enough):

Here is a series of editorials published on TechRaptor.Net that explains what the controversy is about and why it's so important:
"Good Morning, Orthodoxy! #1"
"Good Morning, Orthodoxy! #2"
"Good Morning, Orthodoxy! #3"
"Good Morning, Orthodoxy! #4"
"Good Morning, Orthodoxy! #5"
"Good Morning, Orthodoxy! #6: Reflections"

As well, please look through the images in the following collection:
http://knowyourmeme.com/search?context= ... we+fight")

But if you still need a TL;DR rundown, then here it is:

Basically, a few months ago an ex-husband of a game developer named Zoe Quinn wrote up a bunch of posts claiming that quinn had been sleeping with several people, including at least one game journalist. Said journalist was one of those who later gave the developer's game a high ranking. The claims smacked of corruption in game journalism.

Now, "games journalism" and "corruption" had pretty much gone hand in hand, and previous incidents saw some outcry but not much in the way of lasting effects. The "Quinnspiracy," as this latest incident came to be called, could've gone the same way had certain people in certain positions not done certain things that in fact ended up happening.

The trouble started in mid to late August when certain large forums (either related or unrelated to gaming) started banning "Quinnspiracy" discussions; for quite a few people this understandably smacked of censorship and possibly even outright coverup. Word began to spread regarding this behavior, the hashtag "#GamerGate" was born, an obvious allusion to the infamous coverup that led to the Watergate scandal that brought down President Richard Nixon.

Then, on August 28, a series of articles appeared on a number of games journalism sites, all of them claiming that "gamers" were pretty much every negative nerd stereotype that you could think of, and that that "demographic" was being "killed" by increasing diversity among people who play games. This riled up a LOT of gamers, many of whom are indeed diverse, as they were pretty much being slimed unfairly by the media. This led to the hashtag "#NotYourShield" in an effort to prove that the media was actually attacking a stereotype that had long been incorrect.

The timing of the articles (which appeared within several hours or so of each other) also felt strange. Digging uncovered a "journalist list" where discussions between games journalists took place, and among their messages was quite a lot of evidence of collusion in regards to the "gamers are dead" stories.

Meanwhile (and this is where the political angle starts rear its ugly head), the saga began to evolve into yet another battle in the culture wars, with large numbers of claims by the anti-GG side that the pro-GG side was still mainly filled with white male bigots (as for the evidence to the contrary offered by NYS, they were dismissed as merely images, with those who posted them being told that they were really white male bigots. See a problem here yet?).

Then you start to add in the rape and death threats that have been thrown out by lunatics on both sides. Interestingly, many on the pro-GG side have actually been policing this kind of stuff more effectively than those on the anti-GG side.

In the meantime, despite all the stuff tossed at GG, it's made some strides. They managed to convince a number of companies to pull their advertisements from Gawker Media, which owns the publications that ran the original batch of "gamers are dead" articles. And yet, the fight doesn't seem to be over, not by a long shot.

On the pro-GG side, you have a very diverse people (of all races, sexes, creeds, political/religious beliefs, etc.), most all of whom are simply wanting some accountability and ethics to be returned to games journalism, unfortunately mixed in with certain elements who really are bigoted people in some ways (although the former group has been putting in laudable efforts to keep the latter group in check for the most part).

On the anti-GG side, you have those who are genuinely concerned about diversity in the games industry, unfortunately lumped in with people who are determined to cram their own political beliefs down people's throats at all costs.

In between, you have those who just want to stay neutral, and try to get both sides to have some kind of civilized dialogue between them. Unfortunately, a lot of stuff has been preventing such dialogue from taking place (typically the levels of vitriol that stuff like Twitter unintentionally support due to their very nature).

So, what are your thoughts on all this?
Reply
 
#2
I voted with my feet long before it became an issue. So I'm not touching it with anything but the longest of sticks. Prefereable one with dog-doo on it for absolute safety.

Especially since it has very much begun to take on all the characteristics of Democrat -v- Republican, or Gun -v- Control, or any other big issue that emergence from the American internet. It's isturbing me how binary everything is, with different forums having what can only be termed as struggle sessions against members who dare to speak against the local party line on #Gamergate - whatever that may be. All that's left after that is the usual self-reinforcing echoboxing.

And what makes it funnier, is that Google has already decided what I think on the issue before I ever told anyone else or became aware of it. If I google Gamergate, I'm getting a very specific slant on the issue on my front page. Twitter's suggesting accounts with a very obvious leaning that agrees with it.... On the one hand, that's utterly fascinating. One the other, just a bit disturbing that Google is now effectively forming people's opinions on issues based on what it thinks they might like to think about it.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
Reply
 
#3
I'm going to have to go with the opinion of Ben Southwood at the Adam Smith Institute: http://www.adamsmith.org/research/think ... will-lose/:
Quote:Because gamers are a late hold-out in the culture war that is raging. Like it has won almost every major political battle since the Glorious Revolution ( slowly, sometimes) the left is going to win this one because it controls the commanding heights of the media, allowing it to bring the mass public on side, and because its adherents follow their faith with a religious zeal.

and
Quote:Gamers are too disparate and disorganised to defeat http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/01/12/a- ... -triggers/ of modern times. ‘Gamergate’, the term itself, is already acquiring a slightly dirty taste in a lot of people’s mouths, as a byword for misogyny, abusing women, or apologising for either. In general, these mental shortcuts (gamergate = misogynist) are typical of the social justice movement, and are an extremely powerful conversation-ending weapon. ‘Wait a second, you support gamergate? So you’re a misogynist?’
"If you
wish to converse with me, define your
terms."

--Voltaire
Reply
 
#4
This is something that I've been meaning to get off of my chest for some time, but let me start this with some context:

I have been battling depression for a number of years now (among other things). Apparently my mom's side of the family has had a history of depression and even suicide--I lost an uncle (my mom's brother) to depression when I was young. The thought of the same fate befalling me scares me greatly.

Thus, for the past few months I've been seeing a psychologist about my issues. The meetings seemed to have helped greatly with my mental health.

Then I find out about the GamerGate controversy and the toxic environment surrounding it. At first, I'd merely hoped that it would blow over eventually.

But then this happened:

Early this year I joined RPG.Net, primarily thanks to Shadowjack's deservedly famous and excellent In Which I Watch Sailor Moon. I'd actually been keeping up with it since I first found out about it in 2010.

Well, anyway, I recently found out that the admins had swallowed the whole "#GG is a hate group" BS hook, line, and sinker, and have been permanently banning even long-standing members for even so much as suggesting that they reach out and at least hear out the pro-#GG side (of course, burning bridges instead of building them has become the standard modus operandi for the anti-#GG side, which distresses me as someone who tries to be a diplomatic person).

Basically, I feel utterly unsafe on RPGN. At the same time, I don't want to see something like Shadowjack's project be destroyed in the crossfire of a major internet war.

I cannot explain this to my parents or psychologist as I've never told them any of this (although just recently I've been attempting to explain to them about GamerGate), and I cannot simply because I can't properly explain the context to them.

Does anyone have any ideas on what to do at this pont? I would especially like to hear advice from those like Bob Schroek, so that I can maintain some mental sanity!

Please, help me!
Reply
 
#5
Just a thought... You could start by telling your therapist the most basic of the basics - you've been reading an online forum for a while because it has some very good content, but the people in charge of the forum have made some decisions that many people don't agree with, and you don't want to see that very good content be damaged because of those decisions. That would leave it up to the therapist to ask the questions that will draw out whatever needs to be drawn out, and you mentioning it should let the therapist know that it's important to you.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
Reply
 
#6
Thats better than my idea of handing your shrink a precis on the situation to digest and try to understand so you can discuss it. Honestly i wouldn't know what else to do. My experience is that they simply tell me to get away from what is upsetting me. Easy to say hard to do when its the people at the only job you've been able to get in about 7 years.
 
Reply
 
#7
Quote:I would especially like to hear advice from those like Bob Schroek, so that I can maintain some mental sanity!
What kind of advice are you seeking? How to give context to those you're trying to explain things to? How to maintain your balance in the middle of the conflict? How to be the diplomat? I'm not sure what you're asking. If you can clarify, I'll be happy to give whatever help I can.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.
Reply
 
#8
What I'm asking is, how can I stay sane and not depressed in such a toxic environment?

Oh, and by the way, some stuff came out recently about a blocklist on Twitter that was made by an anti-#GGer.  It was claimed to be intended for blocking "the worst of the harassers," or something along those lines.  Problem is, it had something like ten thousand names on there, and at least a few never put out any tweets related to GamerGate (including, most notably, Kentucky Fried Chicken.  How's that for "overboard"?)

Since this has a major element of censorship, do you think that the Electronic Frontier Foundation (which, as I understand, has done a lot of work in regards to fighting Internet censorship) ought to get involved?
Reply
 
#9
EFF is more about corporate/government censorship. I don't really think they would get involved in a flame war, regardless of how epic it gets. (And boy, does it sound epic. That "10,000 names" bit sounds more like "Imma punish everyone I don't like" piggybacking on the real issue, though.)

As to the toxic environment, my solution has always been along the lines of removing myself from the environment if it becomes obvious that my attempts to calm things down don't work, especially if doing so causes (or is likely to cause) someone to decide I'm on their enemies list. And unless gamergate has infected every thread, it should be easy enough to stay away from it while reading the stuff you want to. (If it has infected every thread, the cause may be lost -- time to walk away entirely.)

Let me repeat this -- to prevent exposure to the poison, don't be where the poison is. Regardless of how strongly you feel about the issue, and how impotent staying away makes you feel.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.
Reply
 
#10
Getting on the list involves being someone who has used the #gamergate tag on twittter, being followed by someone who has used that tag, or being a follower of someone who uses that tag. It's a tumbr idea.

I posted This a few months back and got blocked by a bunch of people. It's basically a long ramble about why I wanted nothing to do with it. I still don't. I don't want to be associated with any of the lunacy.

Actually got banned from rpg.net not too long ago for making a joke about having voted in a cook county election..... and for coining the phrase 'codscum'.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
Reply
 
#11
.... Okay, I think we need George Takei about now. If anyone can get the anti-#GG people to cool their jets, it'll be him.
Reply
 
#12
Leaving aside any "whose side has more toxic people on it" concerns (a difficult thing to measure in any case), there's a few things put forth by pro-GG people that have pretty much unsold me on them.

Tennie Wrote:Basically, a few months ago an ex-husband of a game developer named Zoe Quinn wrote up a bunch of posts claiming that quinn had been sleeping with several people, including at least one game journalist. Said journalist was one of those who later gave the developer's game a high ranking. The claims smacked of corruption in game journalism.

Starting at the beginning, kind of. The continued presentation of the events with Quinn as being particularly important just don't hold together for me. Even taking it all at face value it'd be the journalistic corruption equivalent of jaywalking. When it's a free game that said journalist never did any particular writing about?

Quote:Then, on August 28, a series of articles appeared on a number of games journalism sites, all of them claiming that "gamers" were pretty much every negative nerd stereotype that you could think of, and that that "demographic" was being "killed" by increasing diversity among people who play games. This riled up a LOT of gamers, many of whom are indeed diverse, as they were pretty much being slimed unfairly by the media. This led to the hashtag "#NotYourShield" in an effort to prove that the media was actually attacking a stereotype that had long been incorrect.

I thought NYS actually came quite a bit later. ... In internet time anyway. At least where I was, those articles came, got discussed, I mentioned how crap I thought most of them were, then the discussion petered out and dropped off well before NYS came up.

Still think those articles were crap. If you're really opposed to people defining "gamer" as excluding non-straight white males, having a headline that goes "Yes Tsunami, I agree with you" to people pushing that definition seems pretty damn silly.

Quote:Interestingly, many on the pro-GG side have actually been policing this kind of stuff more effectively than those on the anti-GG side.

I'm gonna need some convincing that anyone in any internet conflict ever has been effective at policing that kind of stuff.

Quote:In the meantime, despite all the stuff tossed at GG, it's made some strides. They managed to convince a number of companies to pull their advertisements from Gawker Media, which owns the publications that ran the original batch of "gamers are dead" articles. And yet, the fight doesn't seem to be over, not by a long shot.

Okay, here's the big one. This is a massive loss for anyone who cares about journalistic ethics. Journalists being afraid to write anything their advertisers might not like has to be some kind of platonic ideal of corruption.

Somewhere around here though I've got a screenshot of someone identifying as pro-GG saying without a hint of sarcasm what amounted to "an ethical journalist is one who stays bought". I really can't get behind that.

Bob Schroeck Wrote:And unless gamergate has infected every thread, it should be easy enough to stay away from it while reading the stuff you want to.

Yeah, it should be pretty easy to avoid by just not going into the GG specific thread*. Even in VGO I haven't seen it come up very often anyplace else (and when it has, people have been redirected there). I don't think I've even seen it come up in Other Media.

*At one point there was a second thread in Tancency, but it seems to have been abandoned. Was kind of redundant anyway.

RPG.net has over twice the population (going by active members) of the town I live in. There's plenty of room to avoid things.

-Morgan.
Reply
 
#13
Just as a head's up, I've edited the OP to contain several links that I've since discovered that I felt had to be posted.  Please be sure to read through them!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)