Be Excellent To Each Other

Thanks

What a transparent nonsense, Gaywood. I have made many posts in this thread and you never speculated on what I might have said without being to see it before, and yet this time you psychically assume it's directed at you? Coincidental indeed.

I wouldn't mind so much if most of these posts weren't the self-righteous, self-congratulatory reinforcement of a belief in the comfortable environment where nobody is actually disagreeing with you. Do you think you're furthering the cause by bravely battling against these trolls in a place where they don't exist, and making it clear to others who already agree with you in principle about just how right you are? You're not promoting debate, or discussion, you're just smarming into an echo-chamber.

Gaywood's tactic [ed] still hasn't changed, and rather than have the wherewithal to come up with anything new, he just link-quotes others along with a snarky one-liner and thinks he's done a really effective job of making his point. It's.... sad. But since he definitely hasn't read this he's safe from my criticism.

Tack.

Mac.

Come on Craster, you're smarter than that. You know that the tone and method of what you say makes a difference, and to criticise that is not the implicit support of 'rape and death threats'. That's the kind of simplistic reductionism used to stifle any form of discussion around the subject.

I'd hope this was obvious despite the emboldened /s that I very deliberately put there.

Yeah, you might have to explain that a little.

The problem is that you actually haven't done much paying attention to what's being going on, and that's very much clear in what you're posting. It's not reductionism. It's what's happening. GG has no online campaign that isn't harrassment. Every single move they make is either threats and hounding of a female reporter/games industry person/personality or it's a harrassment campaign aimed at intimidating media outlets and getting advertisers to pull their funding.
You keep talking about GG as if it's a movement with a few bad eggs. It really isn't! From the very start the whole thing was malicious and had no goals compatible with being a decent human being.

For the 7th time, I'm not trying to allege in-depth knowledge of who has said what to whom here. I haven't said anything about the specific accusations. To repeat myself tediously, I am tackling less of this subject and more of the general tendency to vilify the entirety of a movement based on the actions of individuals. Absolute guilt by association with no acknowledgement that it's rarely so simple.

I'll say again, this is not confined to this single issue. Note that I am not specifically talking about GamerGate. I've said it before, but let me just repeat that again for clarity - I am talking about a general point. Am I making this clear? Could I just take a moment to reiterate that I'm talking about the nature of opposing views rather than the specific nature of this particular dispute? Perhaps I need to say it in a different way again to make that understood.

To me it's as stupid as saying 'All UKIP supporters are racists'. They're clearly not, and that's a stupid opinion to hold if you truly believe it. It's merely a political force that you disagree with and it's expedient to take the highly-publicised actions of a few to negate the entire movement for your own political ends.

Now regardless of whether you believe that their core message, or the majority of their supporters are proponents of basic racism, you must concede that there are many within it that vociferously do not believe that and uphold different views. Those people exist.

Now, you might believe that GamerGate is full of hateful misogynists, and the volume of evidence might support that - at least as far as you're concerned (I have no opinion). But there inarguably exist those that don't uphold that, but you're insisting there's no other possible interpretation for anyone who might have something to say about the legitimacy of games journalism under that banner, misguided or otherwise.

It would seem fairly minor concession to accept that those people exist and are not participating in women-hating harassment, but the comments in here don't seem able to do that. I don't support UKIP, but I can say what I've said and know that it's true, and that it's not black and white. The same is true here except it's clearly not BECAUSE THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY EVIL. These kinds of absolutes are just intellectually simplistic. You'd all seem more credible if you merely qualified with the appropriate, reasonable caveats.

Instead it's link quoting and self-back-slapping 'hurr hurr look it's clearly misogyny' drivel.

The Onion: A Summary Of The Gamergate Movement That We Will Immediately Change If Any Of Its Members Find Any Details Objectionable

Gater: "#GamerGate #notyourshield It's telling when @TheOnion writes a better article than the mainstream media"

Gater: "Satire website making fun of the people thinking #GamerGate is sexist? You got it. Thank you @ClickHole"

That reminds me: can someone explain the #notyourshield thing? I've read a few explanation and it just twists my brain somehow.

The part I'm still not clear on is who exactly is it alleging is being used as a shield? And against what? So, yeah, I'm still not clear on any of it!

It's a weird choice of name fr something that was the equivalent of saying, "I CAN'T BE RACIST! I HAVE A BLACK FRIEND!"

That's because it's inherently nonsensical. The important thing that it was a red herring created by GG'rs in order to discredit people who were calling them misogynistic.

Right, and that is my entire point. You're saying 'this isn't about these guys, it's about saying something bad about X amount of people because of a few individuals'. And what I'm saying back is that your point is a total irrelevancy in this conversation. Nobody here is painting an entire movement because of the actions of a few individuals. Because it's not a few individuals - it's the vast majority. And the entire movement is entirely based on malicious action rooted in falsehood and mysogeny.

So if your argument is "I want to talk about this general principle", there's no point being in this thread, because that principle that you've decided to champion really doesn't apply here, as a small amount of background reading would show.

Thank God for that; I was beginning to worry I'd gone mad.

I did actually read a few articles since my last post and there's a genuine core of the entire concept that just seems bonkers even if you look at it from the GG side. It's a tag that female gamers should use to say to anti-GG people that they don't want to be used as an excuse by the anti-GG side to tell the GG side to stop being horrible about women. Have I really read all that right?

That's exactly right. It was some bizarre idea with a rough parallel to the meat packing industry trying to start a campaign by chickens against vegetarians.

Well, John Scalzi might just be my new hero.

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2014/10/23/h ... oycott-me/

Heh, and that linked to this.

You've broken this thread, Bamba.

I think gamersgate supports are shits, but really, has she actually been "doxxed"? The address-exposing comment claims it took 5 minutes with google? Surely anyone could do this? Isn't doxxing actually stealing information (physically or digitally) and exposing it?

(Of course, I realise that the "5 minutes with google" thing could be a lie -- they should post the exact search queries for us to corroborate).

Even the 'journalistic standards' thing is bullshit. "Gamers" seem to have no understanding that a review is always subjective, and take actual criticism of games as a personal insult.

Unfortunately, it's a known psychological issue that the individuals involved in horrible group attacks, be it gang rape, gang violence, or gang trolling don't feel as culpable as they would doing it alone as they feel the blame is shared by the group and consequently their sense of guilt is diminished by the number of people involved. With the internet, that "group" becomes massive.

Unfortunately, it's a known psychological issue that the individuals involved in horrible group attacks, be it gang rape, gang violence, or gang trolling don't feel as culpable as they would doing it alone as they feel the blame is shared by the group and consequently their sense of guilt is diminished by the number of people involved. With the internet, that "group" becomes massive.

No idea why that double posted — I got the usual, "People have replied to this thread" notice, which showed my own post. Are you tinkering Grim…?

Always the fucking bridesmaid, me.

Nailed it.

.

.

.

Amazing.

Indeed. Veteran posters who still don't know how to attach an image without adding text.

You can't place them inline from the mobile skin.

Oh. That's odd. Not even by manually typing the tags? (I realize this would be a faff, so not meant as a criticism of posters).

Here's EBG on his favourite MRA site.

Fuck off, you idiotic twat.

I will leave this thread with an image of my own, entitled 'The academic definition of circlejerk':



You're both terribly brave boys, it brings a tear to my eye.

Goddamn you. You beat me to it with the Jaws one.

Me too.

.

So now this is happening: http://itsaboutethicsingamesjournalism.tumblr.com/

Here's a pro-GG one for balance