Videochat January 2016 + Writer Auditions

[Heliocentrical]

Correct. This will not end until one side or the other succeeds.

Or one of you just drop it and walk away. Honestly what are you guys even fighting for? The ability to say I'm right on the internet? What a truly noble and honorable cause to fight that helps us as a society. As I said this is a pointless pissing match.

[Jcw87]

You can be neutral or uncaring of third wave feminism, but openly siding against it is misogynistic.

 

That's terrible logic. Here, allow me to show you how it's terrible by re-configuring it into something you would certainly disagree with.

 

You can be neutral or uncaring of Gamergate, but openly siding against it is pro-corruption.

 

See? It's completely unrepresentative of the opposition to third wave feminism. Much of that opposition stems from third wave feminists saying things like #killallmen while receiving absolutely no criticism from other third wave feminists, third wave feminists who think that the opinions of straight white men are automatically invalid, and third wave feminists that think that you can only be sexist towards women and not towards men.

 

Granted, these behaviors/opinions don't seem to be part of the stated goals of third wave feminism, but I've yet to hear of any third wave feminists opposing this shit.

 

I find it thoroughly depressing that this whole thing hasn't been resolved. Is it not in either side's interest to stop fighting?

 

Correct. This will not end until one side or the other succeeds.

 

Gamergate, as it is right now, will continue until the very last holdouts either adopt a journalistic ethics policy (and follow it), or die out. The way things are going, it seems Gawker Media would sooner die than have a simple ethics policy.

 

If and when that happens, the original goals of Gamergate will be fulfilled, and many people will just go back to enjoying videogames. Others, however, will continue fighting those who are intellectually dishonest.

[Heliocentrical]

@Jcw87 and @ThePest179 wow, just wow. You guys have taken a whole new level of talking past someone who is neutral in all regards of this topic. I am completely disgusted with how you guys are slighting my arguments. The only things you guys will respond to is direct insults and not criticism because you can't handle addressing my points of criticism. So you just sweep them under the rug to appease your conscious. That is just sad beyond word from both of you.

[Jeb_CC]

And now seeing as this whole debate is suddenly getting rather personal, (like all internet arguments do...), can we please just take it down a notch...? Enough of the rudeness and stabbing. Thank you.

[Jcw87]

@Jcw87 and @ThePest179 wow, just wow. You guys have taken a whole new level of talking past someone who is neutral in all regards of this topic. I am completely disgusted with how you guys are slighting my arguments. The only things you guys will respond to is direct insults and not criticism because you can't handle addressing my points of criticism. So you just sweep them under the rug to appease your conscious. That is just sad beyond word from both of you.

 

Sorry if you feel like I was ignoring you. It was unfortunate timing, I suppose.

 

Faux feminism or not honestly what difference does that make? If that side of GG was trying to defend itself from slander instead of being anti-feminist that still doesn't make that side any less pointless. Why are you trying to defend Gamergate from slander when you could help contribute to the journalist side which would A be infinitely more important and B give Gamergate credibility in the process? Do you honestly think defending Gamergate itself would make the slander stop? Gamergate dug it's own grave by trying to defend itself instead of letting the slander go and continuing with their ethics in games journalism.

 

Other than monitor certain communication channels and digging for info, there isn't much to do. There's already plenty of people monitoring, and discussing what has been found. Not everyone has the skillset for proper digging, either. Since it's really hard to get a message across when a bunch of people are trying to label you as misogynists and harassers, why not point out the flaws with whatever they say? Leaving a factually incorrect narrative unaddressed is the worst thing they could do, as then EVERY voice would be condemning them, and there wouldn't be a reason for those not in the know to question the narrative.

 

It would need more than just a name change. The new group would also need to not get wrapped up in social media or they'll wind up in the same position as Gamergate is now. Also the new group should be a lot more strict in terms of who can join it. Despite what Gamergate supporters saying they watch their ranks Gamergate started as a twitter hashtag so everyone can use it so policing Gamergate is impossible. Gamergate for all intents and purposes is an unorganized mob. Organization and a sharp focus is what the new group will need.

 

The idea of a name change has come up numerous times in Gamergate discussions. As soon as the new group talks about journalistic ethics, sites like Gawker will go "oh look, its Gamergate with a new name, they are still misogynists" and NOTHING will have been accomplished. Worse, not everyone will get the memo about the change and the group will inevitably shrink.

 

Or one of you just drop it and walk away. Honestly what are you guys even fighting for? The ability to say I'm right on the internet? What a truly noble and honorable cause to fight that helps us as a society. As I said this is a pointless pissing match.

 

Someone needs to be the counter-balance to the ridiculous notion that Gamergate is a misogynist group. Besides, I think we were finally getting somewhere. His hatred of Gamergate seems to stem from the idea that anything that opposes his particular brand of feminism must be misogynistic.

 

Honestly though, I would rather not be arguing with ThePest179. I would rather be working on one of my programming projects.

 

And now seeing as this whole debate is suddenly getting rather personal, (like all internet arguments do...), can we please just take it down a notch...? Enough of the rudeness and stabbing. Thank you.

 

I apologize if you thought I was rude. I suppose his baseless accusations against me made me get a little carried away. I will make a better effort to avoid that.

[ThePest179]

Correct. This will not end until one side or the other succeeds.

Or one of you just drop it and walk away.

 

I meant in reference to GamerGate as a whole, not this conversation.

 

You can be neutral or uncaring of third wave feminism, but openly siding against it is misogynistic.

 

That's terrible logic. Here, allow me to show you how it's terrible by re-configuring it into something you would certainly disagree with.

 

You can be neutral or uncaring of Gamergate, but openly siding against it is pro-corruption.

 

See? It's completely unrepresentative of the opposition to third wave feminism. Much of that opposition stems from third wave feminists saying things like #killallmen while receiving absolutely no criticism from other third wave feminists, third wave feminists who think that the opinions of straight white men are automatically invalid, and third wave feminists that think that you can only be sexist towards women and not towards men.

 

I've yet to see any kind of evidence for this. But, whatever. Your mind's been made up.

 

Honestly though, I would rather not be arguing with ThePest179. I would rather be working on one of my programming projects.

 

And if I'm being entirely honest here, you're better off doing that than wasting your time here.

[Heliocentrical]

Sorry if you feel like I was ignoring you. It was unfortunate timing, I suppose.

I meant in reference to GamerGate as a whole, not this conversation.

My apologies to you both, I was a little too quick to judge what was going on.

[Descriptor]

Not supportive of third wave feminism.

Well, how does that necessarily make her misogynist? What aspects of third wave feminism do you consider vital to not being a misogynist, and why do you think she doesn't support them?

 

Actually, let me change this. It's her accusation that third wave feminism is miasdrist or hateful towards men that makes me classify her as misogynist. You can be neutral or uncaring of third wave feminism, but openly siding against it is misogynistic.

Again, how so?

Why does disagreeing with third-wave feminism necessarily indicate that you hate women?

What aspects of third-wave feminism do you consider so important that disagreement with the movement as whole is worthy of disdain?

You're arguing that being against the methods or ideologies of third-wave feminism is an automatic admission of misogyny, but why is this necessarily the case?

 

I find it thoroughly depressing that this whole thing hasn't been resolved. Is it not in either side's interest to stop fighting?

 

I guess both sides need to have the final word.

Yeah, basically. Honestly, I don't expect it to ever be resolved, but instead will just be a slow, drawn out burn. I mean, heck, the whole thing has been pretty quite for months now, with only petty jabs occasionally being exchanged between the two parties. The fact is, it's leading nowhere because it's next to impossible to carry on a legitimate conversation without becoming horrifically sidetracked by accusations of misogyny or whatever the hell. Again, just look at this thread.

That said, the whole thing wasn't a total failure. At the very least, I'd say it opened up a lot of people's eyes (including my own) to how crappy journalism has gotten, both within and without videogaming. Just making folks a lot more wary of the news they read, as well as how bias can affect it, certainly helps at least somewhat.

[Heliocentrical]

Other than monitor certain communication channels and digging for info, there isn't much to do.

That's exactly my point, trying to monitor everything that goes on in a twitter hashtag is impossible. It was inevitable that you would have people that were associated with the Gamergate hashtag(Whether genuine or not) that were involved in some form of harassment. I will say that this issue is not specific to the Gamergate hashtag. It's endemic to all hashtags and was specifically highlighted by Anti-Gamergate to assist them in their narrative against Gamergate. But it wouldn't have been as easy for Anti-Gamergate to declare Gamergate as nothing but harassment if Gamergate was a specific well-defined group. If Gamergate was a specific group instead of a Twitter hashtag with strict membership requirements then it would be a lot less prone to harassment happening within Gamergate and as result have a lot more integrity at it's core. As it stands Gamergate is too open with who can use/be apart of it and so it's prone to harassment happening within itself and serves Anti-Gamergate in it's narrative. I don't trust Gamergate because of this

The idea of a name change has come up numerous times in Gamergate discussions. As soon as the new group talks about journalistic ethics, sites like Gawker will go "oh look, its Gamergate with a new name, they are still misogynists" and NOTHING will have been accomplished. Worse, not everyone will get the memo about the change and the group will inevitably shrink.

I stated everything I thought the new group would need to do to become stronger and wiser than it's predecessor Gamergate. Not just a simple name change.

Someone needs to be the counter-balance to the ridiculous notion that Gamergate is a misogynist group. Besides, I think we were finally getting somewhere. His hatred of Gamergate seems to stem from the idea that anything that opposes his particular brand of feminism must be misogynistic.

I completely disagree. There is no better defense than sheer confidence in your cause and nothing else. It makes you untouchable no matter how damned your cause is by the media and by the public at large. Now if you don't have complete confidence in your cause then you've already lost. Using pure explanation as your defense will only make your opposition even more aggressive. By responding to your opposition it shows them that you can be poked and prodded. It shows them that they have leverage over you and it shows them that you are in fact vulnerable to their attacks because you are responding to them.

[Binky The Rabbit]

Just making folks a lot more wary of the news they read, as well as how bias can affect it, certainly helps at least somewhat.

I'd wager that this would be the best thing GamerGate could do. Forgive me for sounding like a wannabe revolutionary, but the less people accept the spoonfeeding of the media and the more they research and form their own independent opinions, the less control the media will have over them, and the more they'll be forced to provide a better service if we are to put any further trust in them.

By responding to your opposition it shows them that you can be poked and prodded. It shows them that they have leverage over you and it shows them that you are in fact vulnerable to their attacks because you are responding to them.

I generally agree, though I'd say the flipside is by not responding, it can look like you're not listening, which is not desirable in some situations. I guess it depends on what it is that's being thrown at you.

[Heliocentrical]

I generally agree, though I'd say the flipside is by not responding, it can look like you're not listening, which is not desirable in some situations. I guess it depends on what it is that's being thrown at you.

How is that a downside? It makes you look like aren't receptive and there for your opposition isn't given anything to work off of. If Gamergate just refused to speak to Anti-Gamergate they would have been condemned all the same. But one key point is that it would've weakened Anti-Gamergate's narrative against Gamergate.

[BTGBullseye]

I generally agree, though I'd say the flipside is by not responding, it can look like you're not listening, which is not desirable in some situations. I guess it depends on what it is that's being thrown at you.

How is that a downside? It makes you look like aren't receptive and there for your opposition isn't given anything to work off of. If Gamergate just refused to speak to Anti-Gamergate they would have been condemned all the same. But one key point is that it would've weakened Anti-Gamergate's narrative against Gamergate.

And that would've caused them to be completely ignored by everyone as well. Not responding in modern culture is either an admission of guilt, or stupidity. (despite logic saying otherwise)

[Ross Scott]

To be fair, the Kane and Lynch controversy also didn't have the huge backlash of being simultaneously censored across the internet (which happened even on 4chan, fricken 4chan of all places!) and mass condemnation by news media all throwing video-gamers under the bus. I'd argue that it was the mass censorship that caused this to become the firestorm it was (something known as the Streisand Effect, in which attempts to censor something tend to cause it to spread faster, especially on the internet), as a ton of gamers got super paranoid about what was going on. I'd guarantee that if web communities and the media didn't react the way they did, the initial controversy would have blown over before the end of that month. As for why the whole thing sparked interest in the first place, it's mostly just because sex scandals tend to spread pretty quickly, especially when an element of corruption is at play. Just look at how ridiculous the Clinton controversy was back in the 90s.

 

Meanwhile, I'd argue that the anti-feminism thing came up because it was basically thrust upon them, since that was the mass accusation made against gamers, and thus they began to see that movement as the enemy. By and large, I'd say most of the mainstream members of GG aren't against feminism's core principles, just the authoritarian rhetoric that has become common in the movement as of late. From my own observations, I recall that most GGers consider themselves "equality of opportunity egalitarians" more than anything, or at least that seemed to be the common consensus on the larger pro-GG communities I've seen. Just saying "anti-feminist" is a bit of a misnomer, since it implies just flat out "anti-women", which I wouldn't consider the case, personally. After all, some old-school feminists have even come out in support of GG (the most known of which is the somewhat controversial Christina Hoff Summers) because they dislike the tactics of a lot of modern feminist movements as well. That said, I would agree that this standpoint has bogged down the movement as a whole, but it's been difficult to steer the group in a different direction, since the anti-GG side never lets up with the accusations, which make pro-GG folks inevitably feel like they have to fight back in response. Funnily enough, the most recent season of South Park addresses this problem directly, and made a lot of good points while doing so.

Well that is a good point about the censorship across major sites, I forgot about that. Stuff like that only gives more credence to the collusion accusations also. I still try to get away from the feminism side whenever I can though, since 1. I figure both sides have some good points on that and 2. It just draws attention away from exposing collusion and changes the nature of the debate. Regardless of what's being said or the intent, that debate itself functions as a diversion tactic.

 

Ross, these are questions for February 2016's video-chat.

Just a reminder, people can still post these. I actually got confused earlier and answered one in the thread, noot realizing it was for the videochat, but I'll try and tally them for the video.

[Binky The Rabbit]

Regardless of what's being said or the intent, that debate itself functions as a diversion tactic.

From what I've read on this thread so far, I've pretty much come to that conclusion too. Journalistic ethics investigation and Feminism are linked only by circumstance. If anything they should be working together, if for example people uncover evidence of discrimination. Sadly, as Descriptor mentioned, this link can now be used as a shield to deflect any future accusations.

 

Just a reminder, people can still post these. I actually got confused earlier and answered one in the thread, not realizing it was for the videochat, but I'll try and tally them for the video.

I suggest a mod comes by and moves the GG discussion into the Serious Topic board, clearing out this thread to make it easier to follow posts for the next stream. Otherwise it might be an idea to start the thread for the next videochat now. This thread has been hijacked somewhat in that regard.

[ThePest179]

Again, how so?

Why does disagreeing with third-wave feminism necessarily indicate that you hate women?

What aspects of third-wave feminism do you consider so important that disagreement with the movement as whole is worthy of disdain?

You're arguing that being against the methods or ideologies of third-wave feminism is an automatic admission of misogyny, but why is this necessarily the case?

 

Third wave feminism's goals are (in the West anyway) to expose and rectify still lingering discrimination/sexist attitudes against women and to steadily erode traditional ideas about gender roles and such. Going against third wave feminism is an indicator that you are in denial or are supportive of existing sexism and traditional gender roles (for the most part).

 

To be fair, the Kane and Lynch controversy also didn't have the huge backlash of being simultaneously censored across the internet (which happened even on 4chan, fricken 4chan of all places!) and mass condemnation by news media all throwing video-gamers under the bus.

 

The reason things were censored on 4chan of all places was (I think, it's the most probable reason) some form of damage control after Zoe Quinn and Phil Fish got doxxed.

 

Meanwhile, I'd argue that the anti-feminism thing came up because it was basically thrust upon them, since that was the mass accusation made against gamers, and thus they began to see that movement as the enemy.

 

Since GamerGate began with false accusations of a female game developer sleeping with someone to get a good review of her game, I'd say that it's totally understandable if some people thought that GamerGate was misogynist.

 

By and large, I'd say most of the mainstream members of GG aren't against feminism's core principles, just the authoritarian rhetoric that has become common in the movement as of late. From my own observations, I recall that most GGers consider themselves "equality of opportunity egalitarians" more than anything, or at least that seemed to be the common consensus on the larger pro-GG communities I've seen.

 

"Egalitarian" is little more than a code word they use to make themselves appear more palatable to the mainstream. They can call themselves egalitarian all they want, but it doesn't mean jack when the doxxing attacks and misogynistic insults speak for themselves.

[Heliocentrical]

And that would've caused them to be completely ignored by everyone as well. Not responding in modern culture is either an admission of guilt, or stupidity. (despite logic saying otherwise)

So that would mean Gamergate would be much smaller. As you need people to start it in the first place. Some people already consider Gamergate to guilty and/or stupid so how would not responding make things worse? I still think not giving Anti-Gamergate their narrative would have been a huge advantage for Gamergate.

[BTGBullseye]

And that would've caused them to be completely ignored by everyone as well. Not responding in modern culture is either an admission of guilt, or stupidity. (despite logic saying otherwise)

So that would mean Gamergate would be much smaller. As you need people to start it in the first place. Some people already consider Gamergate to guilty and/or stupid so how would not responding make things worse? I still think not giving Anti-Gamergate their narrative would have been a huge advantage for Gamergate.

But not responding doesn't remove the anti-GG propaganda, it merely leaves it without any opposing viewpoints.

[Heliocentrical]

But not responding doesn't remove the anti-GG propaganda, it merely leaves it without any opposing viewpoints.

But it would weaken Anti-GG's narrative as a whole. From the outside it would look like Anti-GG yelling at a brick wall and They're making stuff up about the brick wall with which they are yelling at. People from the outside probably wouldn't be as inclined to support Anti-GG because they would appear to be shouting into the void and receiving nothing for it. Anti-GG would then slowly disintegrate overtime.

[Presence]

But not responding doesn't remove the anti-GG propaganda, it merely leaves it without any opposing viewpoints.

 

That may be technically correct, but there are probably very good reasons why "No comment" or some flavor of such is so universal a response in ugly situations. Commenting makes you interesting, which keeps the debate going. It reveals you as caring about the subject, which automatically labels you as a soft target.

 

There's a video on youtube called "Dont Talk to Police" which has a good viewpoint on the matter of keeping your mouth shut, and you can easily substitute "Social Justice Warriors" for police and the advice will stay surprisingly consistent for extremely similar reasons. In short: there's some conversations you can get in where you're guilty until proven guilty, and yes, there's a very important difference between the two.

[Jcw87]

Third wave feminism's goals are (in the West anyway) to expose and rectify still lingering discrimination/sexist attitudes against women and to steadily erode traditional ideas about gender roles and such. Going against third wave feminism is an indicator that you are in denial or are supportive of existing sexism and traditional gender roles (for the most part).

 

I'm all for that, however, when the topic comes up for what problems actually remain, it's usually things like "there aren't enough women in x field". The fact is, gender has a very real biological effect on what interests a person will have. Women tend to be interested in jobs that involve social interaction, and men tend to be interested in jobs that involve mechanical things. IIRC this causes a 90 - 10 split in many fields. Here's an informative documentary on the topic.

 

p5LRdW8xw70

 

In addition, the talking heads of third wave feminism include people like Anita Sarkeesian, who makes blatantly mis-informative videos about videogames, so I'm not really inclined to believe that there really is something worth talking about here (in first world countries). If she really wanted to talk about women in videogames, why not talk about the Dead or Alive series? That would be far better topic than making shit up about GTA V just because it's popular.

 

The reason things were censored on 4chan of all places was (I think, it's the most probable reason) some form of damage control after Zoe Quinn and Phil Fish got doxxed.

 

This is the 'cover' for the censorship. Doxxing is bad, but threads that had nothing to do with doxxing were deleted. People just wanted to talk about the problems with games journalism, and games journalists thought they could silence them.

 

Since GamerGate began with false accusations of a female game developer sleeping with someone to get a good review of her game, I'd say that it's totally understandable if some people thought that GamerGate was misogynist.

 

You keep saying the accusations are false. I've been ignoring these comments, because Zoe Quinn is largely irrelevant, but the time has come for you to say why. And no links to RationalWiki.

 

"Egalitarian" is little more than a code word they use to make themselves appear more palatable to the mainstream. They can call themselves egalitarian all they want, but it doesn't mean jack when the doxxing attacks and misogynistic insults speak for themselves.

 

"Egalitarian" is how they differentiate themselves from the anti-men crowd. Gamergate has never condoned doxxing, so you are gonna have to elaborate on that.