Be Excellent To Each Other
https://www.beexcellenttoeachother.com/forum/

Gamersgate
https://www.beexcellenttoeachother.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10186		 Page 4 of 12
Author:  Slightly Green [ Thu Oct 23, 2014 14:02 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
Grim... wrote:
This page:
ucp.php?i=zebra&mode=foes


Thanks
Author:  ElephantBanjoGnome [ Thu Oct 23, 2014 14:03 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
I see Gnomes has posted something I fortunately cannot see. Working blind, I'm going to take a guess at: hmmm; https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

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.
Author:  Cras [ Thu Oct 23, 2014 14:03 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
Tack.
Author:  Grim... [ Thu Oct 23, 2014 14:04 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
Cras wrote:
Tack.

Mac.
Author:  ElephantBanjoGnome [ Thu Oct 23, 2014 14:06 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
Cras wrote:
Because any attempt to suggest that rape and death threats are a bad thing is clearly 'white-knighting' and not just being 'not-a-cunt'.

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.
Author:  Grim... [ Thu Oct 23, 2014 14:07 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
Yeah, you might have to explain that a little.
Author:  Cras [ Thu Oct 23, 2014 14:12 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:
Cras wrote:
Because any attempt to suggest that rape and death threats are a bad thing is clearly 'white-knighting' and not just being 'not-a-cunt'.

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..


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.
Author:  ElephantBanjoGnome [ Thu Oct 23, 2014 14:31 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
Cras wrote:
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.
Author:  Doctor Glyndwr [ Thu Oct 23, 2014 14:33 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
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"
Author:  Bamba [ Thu Oct 23, 2014 14:53 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
That reminds me: can someone explain the #notyourshield thing? I've read a few explanation and it just twists my brain somehow.
Author:  myp [ Thu Oct 23, 2014 14:57 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
Bamba wrote:
That reminds me: can someone explain the #notyourshield thing? I've read a few explanation and it just twists my brain somehow.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/09/n ... spotlight/

Quote:
As for #notyourshield, its first reference appears on the /v/ video games board on 4chan as a suggestion for responding to "social justice warriors" who claimed the #GamerGate campaign was misogynistic. "Something like #NotYourShield and demand the SJWs stop using you as a shield to deflect genuine criticism," an anonymous user wrote on September 2
Author:  Bamba [ Thu Oct 23, 2014 15:04 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
American Nervoso wrote:
Bamba wrote:
That reminds me: can someone explain the #notyourshield thing? I've read a few explanation and it just twists my brain somehow.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/09/n ... spotlight/

Quote:
As for #notyourshield, its first reference appears on the /v/ video games board on 4chan as a suggestion for responding to "social justice warriors" who claimed the #GamerGate campaign was misogynistic. "Something like #NotYourShield and demand the SJWs stop using you as a shield to deflect genuine criticism," an anonymous user wrote on September 2


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!
Author:  Curiosity [ Thu Oct 23, 2014 15:10 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
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!"
Author:  myp [ Thu Oct 23, 2014 15:12 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
Bamba wrote:
American Nervoso wrote:
Bamba wrote:
That reminds me: can someone explain the #notyourshield thing? I've read a few explanation and it just twists my brain somehow.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/09/n ... spotlight/

Quote:
As for #notyourshield, its first reference appears on the /v/ video games board on 4chan as a suggestion for responding to "social justice warriors" who claimed the #GamerGate campaign was misogynistic. "Something like #NotYourShield and demand the SJWs stop using you as a shield to deflect genuine criticism," an anonymous user wrote on September 2


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!

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.
Author:  Cras [ Thu Oct 23, 2014 15:16 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:
Cras wrote:
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.


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.
Author:  Bamba [ Thu Oct 23, 2014 15:17 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
American Nervoso wrote:
Bamba wrote:
American Nervoso wrote:
Bamba wrote:
That reminds me: can someone explain the #notyourshield thing? I've read a few explanation and it just twists my brain somehow.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/09/n ... spotlight/

Quote:
As for #notyourshield, its first reference appears on the /v/ video games board on 4chan as a suggestion for responding to "social justice warriors" who claimed the #GamerGate campaign was misogynistic. "Something like #NotYourShield and demand the SJWs stop using you as a shield to deflect genuine criticism," an anonymous user wrote on September 2


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!

That's because it's inherently nonsensical.


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? 8)
Author:  Cras [ Thu Oct 23, 2014 15:19 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
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.
Author:  zaphod79 [ Thu Oct 23, 2014 16:59 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
http://abload.de/img/imagevls58.jpg
Author:  myp [ Thu Oct 23, 2014 17:14 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
Well, John Scalzi might just be my new hero.

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2014/10/23/h ... oycott-me/
Author:  Bamba [ Thu Oct 23, 2014 17:19 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
Heh, and that linked to this.
Author:  myp [ Thu Oct 23, 2014 17:42 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
You've broken this thread, Bamba.
Author:  myp [ Thu Oct 23, 2014 18:05 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... CMP=twt_gu
Author:  Pod [ Thu Oct 23, 2014 18:32 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
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).
Author:  Pundabaya [ Thu Oct 23, 2014 18:34 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
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.
Author:  DBSnappa [ Thu Oct 23, 2014 19:42 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
Cras wrote:
I'm sure every member of the Nazi party wasn't a horrific racist murderer, that doesn't make it unreasonable to tar them all with the same brush. All gamergaters may not be carrying out the horrific attacks on women and the gaming press, but by associating themselves with the movement they are tacitly condoning it, and that's just as bad.

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.
Author:  DBSnappa [ Thu Oct 23, 2014 19:42 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
Cras wrote:
I'm sure every member of the Nazi party wasn't a horrific racist murderer, that doesn't make it unreasonable to tar them all with the same brush. All gamergaters may not be carrying out the horrific attacks on women and the gaming press, but by associating themselves with the movement they are tacitly condoning it, and that's just as bad.

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.
Author:  DBSnappa [ Thu Oct 23, 2014 19:44 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
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…?
Author:  MaliA [ Thu Oct 23, 2014 20:34 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
Bamba wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
I see Gnomes has posted something I fortunately cannot see.


There's a slight flaw in the super-ignore feature that I'm too weak to not exploit sometimes. I am my own worst enemy. :(


Always the fucking bridesmaid, me.
Author:  Doctor Glyndwr [ Fri Oct 24, 2014 8:51 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
Nailed it.
Author:  myp [ Fri Oct 24, 2014 9:52 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
.
Author:  Cras [ Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:32 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
.
Author:  myp [ Fri Oct 24, 2014 11:00 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
:DD
Author:  Doctor Glyndwr [ Fri Oct 24, 2014 11:16 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
.
Author:  myp [ Fri Oct 24, 2014 11:19 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
Amazing.
Author:  lasermink [ Fri Oct 24, 2014 11:28 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
American Nervoso wrote:
Amazing.

Indeed. Veteran posters who still don't know how to attach an image without adding text.
Author:  myp [ Fri Oct 24, 2014 11:34 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
lasermink wrote:
American Nervoso wrote:
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.
Author:  Cras [ Fri Oct 24, 2014 11:36 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
:this:
Author:  lasermink [ Fri Oct 24, 2014 11:43 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
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).
Author:  myp [ Fri Oct 24, 2014 12:33 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
Here's EBG on his favourite MRA site.
Author:  ElephantBanjoGnome [ Fri Oct 24, 2014 12:38 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
American Nervoso wrote:
Here's EBG on his favourite MRA site.

Fuck off, you idiotic twat.
Author:  Doctor Glyndwr [ Fri Oct 24, 2014 12:50 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
Image

Image

Image

Image
Author:  myp [ Fri Oct 24, 2014 12:56 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
Attachment:
B0tajdSCcAA3_qZ.jpg large.jpg
Author:  ElephantBanjoGnome [ Fri Oct 24, 2014 13:09 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
I will leave this thread with an image of my own, entitled 'The academic definition of circlejerk':

Attachment:
the-academic-definition-of-circlejerk.jpg


You're both terribly brave boys, it brings a tear to my eye. :smug:
Author:  Doctor Glyndwr [ Fri Oct 24, 2014 13:51 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
Image

Image
Author:  myp [ Fri Oct 24, 2014 13:59 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
Goddamn you. You beat me to it with the Jaws one.
Author:  Curiosity [ Fri Oct 24, 2014 14:01 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
American Nervoso wrote:
Goddamn you. You beat me to it with the Jaws one.


Me too.
Author:  Cras [ Fri Oct 24, 2014 14:21 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
.
Author:  Doctor Glyndwr [ Fri Oct 24, 2014 15:12 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
So now this is happening: http://itsaboutethicsingamesjournalism.tumblr.com/
Author:  Curiosity [ Fri Oct 24, 2014 16:38 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
Here's a pro-GG one for balance
Author:  MrPSB [ Fri Oct 24, 2014 17:01 ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamersgate
Attachment:
the-academic-definition-of-ethics.jpg
Page 4 of 12 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/